Uniqueness of the HEI module context

employee in that both feature forms of communication, control, motivation, direction, and power differentials. However, the instructor-student relationship in module interactions feature unique characteristics that distinguish this relationship from that of the typical supervisor-employee. In addition, the leader-follower dynamics in module/classroom interactions are different to that in other instructor-student relationships, e.g., supervision of theses or mentoring relationships (explained in more detail later on). The unique features of the leader-follower dynamics in the

HEI module context is that of distance or nonimmediacy, followers as ‘customers’, and a temporary group dynamics.

Distance/nonimmediacy. Leadership dynamics depend upon how ‘close’ or ‘distant’ a

leader and follower are from each other (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Education and

communication researchers refer to closeness between an instructor and student in a HEI module as ‘immediacy’. Immediacy is defined as “verbal and nonverbal communication expressed by teachers that reduces both physical and psychological distance between teachers and students” (Neuliep, 1997, p. 431). In addition to physical and psychological or social distance,

organizational behaviour researchers add that distance includes a third factor called perceived interaction frequency (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). In the corporate context, physical,

psychological/social, and interaction frequency distance between leader and follower can vary considerably depending on the organization and professional context (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). However, in the HEI module context, these three distance factors between instructor- leader and student-follower may be similar across HEIs.

Physical distance refers to the location of the leader in relation to followers. In the HEI module context, instructors may be located either physically close or distant to students.

Instructors who are physically close to students may walk around the classroom, use appropriate touch, call students by name, gesture during class, etc. (Neuliep, 1997). Conversely, a physically distant instructor may lecture behind a podium without soliciting feedback from students. The extent to which an instructor is physically close or distant to students is likely to depend on class size.

Towards the end of the twentieth century, class sizes have increased considerably because of increasing access to higher education around the world (Allais, 2014; Hornsby &

Osman, 2014). This phenomenon is often referred to as ‘massification’ in higher education. With such rapid increases in student enrolment, and the resulting increases in student to staff ratios, it is not uncommon to see first year undergraduate classes with over six hundred students (Allais, 2014). In such large classes, instructors may be limited by the extent to which they can be physically close to students, e.g., difficulties in recalling names in large classes or the need to stand on a platform or stage to ensure visibility in large classes. There is evidence which

suggests that larger classes are more distant than smaller ones (e.g., Kendall & Schussler, 2012).

Social or psychological distance is defined as “perceived differences in status, rank, authority, social standing, and power” (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002, p. 682). In the instructor- student relationship, students are likely to respect instructors because of the instructors’ experience, knowledge, and/or confidence in the subject (Kendall & Schussler, 2012).

Differences in knowledge level between instructor and student are likely to exist, particularly at the undergraduate level. These knowledge differences may limit interactions between instructors and students, and thus contribute to social distance in the relationship (Kendall & Schussler, 2012). Additionally, limited interactions means that students are not likely to become personally acquainted with instructors, thus further increasing social distance (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

Perceived frequency of interaction refers to “the perceived degree to which leaders interact with their followers” (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002, p. 686). With the massification in higher education, increasing student to staff ratios may limit the frequency of interactions instructors can have with students in the HEI module context. Student to staff ratios in a module is akin to a supervisor’s span of control in an organization. Span of control refers to the number of subordinates for which a supervisor is responsible. As a leader’s span of control increases, the frequency of interactions with their followers may decrease (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

Antonakis and Atwater (2002) explain that “when leaders supervise a greater number of

followers … it theoretically becomes increasingly difficult for the leader to spend more time with his/her followers”. Hence, the logistics of large-group teaching limits the extent to which

instructors can spend time with their students, e.g., spending time to provide feedback and guidance. With infrequent interactions, the instructor would be perceived as being distant.

The coexistence of physical distance, social or psychological distance, and frequency of interactions determine overall distance in leader-follower relations. Based on these three factors, Antonakis and Atwater (2002) propose eight typologies of which two are likely to be relevant to higher education teaching. First, ‘manor house leadership’ entails low physical distance, high social distance, and low frequency of interactions (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Similar to CEOs or top-level managers, manor house instructor-leaders do not, and cannot, share intimate

relationships with their student-followers even though these instructor-leaders may be perceived as physically close (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Second, ‘distal leadership’ entails high

physical distance, high social distance, and low frequency of interactions (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Distal instructor-leaders remain distant with followers and contact is infrequent (e.g., once or twice a week) and staged (e.g., rehearsed lectures) (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Both

typologies are reflective of an overall distant relationship between instructor and student in HEI module interactions.

Followers as ‘customers’. As mentioned in chapter one, HEIs are facing changing

socioeconomic conditions which have led to their shift towards a service quality mentality in order to attract students. A primary component of delivering high quality service to students is university teaching (J. Douglas et al., 2006). The teaching quality provided by instructors is viewed as a service being offered to students. From this perspective, students are regarded as

‘customers’ of the university and its employed instructors (Babbar, 1995; Guttenplan, 2014). At the same time, students can also be regarded as followers of instructor-leaders in the module context.

The view that an instructor-leader’s students are simultaneously customers and followers is unique in leadership research. Typically, leadership researchers examine the relationship between a supervisor/manager and an employee. From this corporate perspective, (1) the employee (follower) ‘serves’ the supervisor (leader), (2) employees receive payment for their efforts/service, and (3) employee evaluations of supervision quality are infrequently utilized (Bernardin, 1986). Contrastingly, in the HEI module context, (1) the instructor (leader) ‘serves’ the student-customers (followers) vis-à-vis teaching, (2) students pay for the instructor’s

efforts/service, i.e., teaching, and (3) students’ commonly evaluate the teaching quality for each module, with these evaluations being the primary determinant of instructors’ teaching quality.

The unique customer perspective in instructor-student relationships has implications for accountability and entitlement. With respect to accountability in the corporate context,

employees are accountable to their supervisor because employees’ performance impacts on the department or division’s success. In comparison, in the HEI module context, students are primarily accountable to themselves because students’ performance directly affects their own success. With regards to entitlement in the corporate context, employees may feel that they deserve to receive fair remuneration for their efforts (refer to equity and expectancy theories in organizational behaviour research). However, in the module context, students may feel that they deserve to receive value for their tuition payments. Perceived value refers to “the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product [or service] based on perceptions of what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). In the higher education context, students

may believe that they are entitled to receive high quality teaching in return for giving tuition payments (for further reading on academic entitlement and student consumerism see Delucchi & Korgen, 2002; Singleton-Jackson, Jackson, & Reinhardt, 2010). Overall, in the HEI module context, leader-follower dynamics with respect to accountability and entitlement are

fundamentally different to that in the corporate context because of the unique ‘follower as customer’ perspective in HEIs.

Temporary group dynamics. Much of leadership research has focused on the relationship

between supervisor and employee in permanent work groups, with few exceptions (e.g., Lamude, Scudder, & Simmons, 2000). Permanent groups are formed for an indefinite time period to achieve an ongoing objective (Barker, 1992). In these groups, individuals are usually more tolerant of each other and more committed to the group than in temporary groups because of the ‘permanent’ duration of the group (Barker, 1992). In comparison to permanent groups,

temporary groups feature leader-follower dynamics that are different to those in permanent groups.

Temporary groups are created to accomplish a time-limited task, e.g., task forces or ad hoc groups (Barker, 1992). In these groups, individuals with diverse skills are usually brought together to accomplish a task. HEI module groups, comprising of instructor and students, are similar to temporary groups because the former is designed to achieve set learning goals over a limited time-period. However, HEI module groups are different to temporary corporate groups because students are neither interdependent nor working towards completing a common task. Still, the similarities between HEI module groups and temporary corporate groups, highlight some common elements unique to leadership research. In temporary groups, individuals may behave differently and expect different things than in permanent groups. Barker (1992) explains

that individuals in temporary groups may take more risks and be more vocal in order to meet set deadlines, e.g., students may ‘cram’ a few days before an exam or speak out against other group members in attempting to complete a group project. In addition, group members’ psychological investment in a temporary group is likely to be less than in permanent groups because temporary group members are acutely aware of the group’s pending termination (Barker, 1992).

In all, the HEI module context features characteristics which are unique to leadership research. I outlined these unique features with respect to distance, the ‘customer’ mentality, and temporary groups. These three attributes of the module context has implications for leadership theories when examined in this context. In the upcoming sections, I elaborate on each of the leadership theories that has been investigated in module context. In so doing, I also highlight how the uniqueness of the module context can impact upon the applicability of transformational and destructive leadership in this context.

2.1.3 Timeline of instructor leadership studies. The fourth wave of instructor-