Warning: session_start(): open(/tmp/sess_d3e2a16f2e777d1d3574964142cfe4b7, O_RDWR) failed: Read-only file system (30) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 802

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 802

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 802

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 675

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 676

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 677

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 678

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php on line 679

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/filestore/classes/fileupload_class_inc.php on line 329

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/filestore/classes/fileupload_class_inc.php on line 334
ࡱ>  bjbj =hh+++++????3?+*******$,F/f*+u#u#u#*++f+)))u#++*)u#*)))0Ǭ?c'){*|+0+)/c'Z/)/+)J),t**(+u#u#u#u#/ :  GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION: GRAPPLING WITH INSTABILITY TEMBILE KULATI Published in Tertiary Education and Management 6:177-192, 2000 ABSTRACT This paper explores the emerging approaches to the governance and management of institutional change at South African higher education institutions. The discussion firstly locates these approaches within the broader context of the new governance framework that is contained in the new higher education legislation, and in particular the emerging forms of institutional governance that this has spawned. The paper then describes and discusses the challenges facing institutional leaders in shaping higher education organisational change in the light of the transformation challenges that arise from the implementation of the new legislation. INTRODUCTION South African higher education institutions,1 not unlike their counterparts in other publicly funded systems internationally, are facing major transformation challenges as they gear themselves for playing a pivotal role in the new millennium. The South African higher education system entered a new era with the coming into power of a democratically elected government in 1994. In February 1995, soon after the election of the new government, former President Nelson Mandela set up the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) to advise the new democratic government with regard to: 2 a) what constitutes Higher Education b) the national goals of the (new) system of Higher Education c) the institutional types required for the system, their particular functions and missions, their respective inter-relationships and their relationship with the state d) the structures required to govern and administer Higher Education e) funding mechanisms for institutions and students in Higher Education The NCHE reported its findings to President Mandela in August 1996, and many of the recommendations formed the basis for the emerging legislative framework, which culminated in the adoption, by the newly elected parliament, of the White Paper on Higher Education Transformation and the Higher Education Act, No. 101, 1997 (henceforth referred to as the White Paper and the HE Act, respectively). These two pieces of legislation together form the pillars of the transformation agenda for higher education institutions in South Africa. CHALLENGES FACING HIGHER EDUCATION The key transformation challenge facing higher education institutions in South Africa is to redress the inequities that were brought about by the apartheid system of racial discrimination, and to simultaneously respond and address the development needs of an emerging society within the context of a globalising, and technologically oriented, world economy. Institutions in South Africa are not at leisure to respond to these two challenges when it best suits them, but are enjoined, in terms of government legislation, to address these simultaneously. The legislation therefore seeks to provide a framework that will facilitate fundamental change in higher education, both at the systemic and institutional levels. It is intended to be the template, and yardstick, against which higher education transformation will be monitored and assessed. The White Paper further posits the following challenges as being central to the transformation of the higher education system and its institutions: a) Increasing participation: that successful policy must overcome an historically determined pattern of fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency, by increasing access to higher education for disadvantaged groups, and developing new curricula and flexible models of learning and teaching. b) Responding to societal interests and needs: that, in order to meet the challenges of a globalising and technologically-oriented economy and to simultaneously address the needs of a developing society the higher education system and its institutions must be restructured to deliver the requisite research and knowledge, as well as produce high-level human resource capacity. c) Promoting co-operation and partnerships in governance: that the relationship between higher education, the state and civil society and among institutions themselves must be reconceptualised. More importantly, the governance arrangements and practices within institutions must reflect and strengthen the values and principles of South Africas fledgling democracy and create an environment and culture that affirms diversity, protects individuals from racial discrimination and sexual harassment, promotes reconciliation and the respect for human life. (1.12, 1997: 10) In response to these challenges, most higher education institutions have undertaken major and ambitious transformation initiatives which, although ostensibly guided by a national policy framework, have taken different, if not unintended, directions. Not unexpectedly, there are already growing tensions and contestations between the different stakeholders within institutions: between management and students, between Councils and institutional Forums, 3 etc. with regard to the trajectory of institutional transformation processes and the roles that different roleplayers and structures are meant to play within these processes. This paper forms part of a broader research project that is assessing the first four years of higher education transformation in South Africa. It is also draws on interviews that were conducted with Vice-Chancellors from 11 of the 36 institutions that make up the South African higher education system. THE NEW GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK The White Paper on higher education provides for a governance framework based on the principle of co-operative governance. Co-operative governance departs from the premise that no single stakeholder, be it management, academic staff or students, can take sole responsibility for determining an institutions transformation agenda. Thus good governance, the White Paper argues, must be based on the recognition of the existence of different institutional interests, and the inevitability of contestation among them. The legislation further states that in order for co-operative governance to work, higher education institutions must create structures and facilitate processes that enable differences to be negotiated in participative and transparent ways. In terms of the new legislation, the main governance structures in higher education institutions are the council, the Senate and the Institutional Forum. The Council is the supreme governing body in public higher education institutions. Councils are responsible for ensuring the good governance of an institution, and are required to establish the mission of the institution, ensure that it is in a sound financial footing, and that the executive management carries out its functions responsibly and effectively. The Senate is the highest decision-making body with regard to the academic matters of the institution, and is accountable to Council. Institutional Forums are new structures that have been set up to broaden participation in institutional governance. Forums are meant to act as shock absorbers to the transformation process by providing the arena for issues pertaining to the broad transformation agenda of the institution to be debated and discussed. They function as advisory bodies to Councils, and consist of campus stakeholders who advise Councils on a number of issues, including the negotiation of the agenda for institutional transformation, the mediation of conflicts among campus stakeholders, and overseeing the process of appointing senior managers of the institution. Much of the thrust of government legislation has been on the structures and practices that will enable institutions to negotiate and navigate, in democratic and transparent ways, the various transformation challenges facing them. The White Paper has been unequivocal that a critical first step towards the transformation of higher education institutions is the restructuring of institutional governance structures. In this respect, most institutions within the public higher education system have indeed restructured their Councils by broadening the membership of these structures to previously unrepresented groups. A typical council will consist of the following constituencies and representatives: " The Senior Executive Management " Senate representatives " Convocation " Student representatives " Academic representatives " Representatives of non-academic workers " Organised Labour " Organised Business/private sector " Local authority " Appointees of the Minister of Education " Civil society groupings (e.g. religious, womens or youth organisations) A growing concern of government has been the unwieldiness of governance deliberations at some institutions, arising from the sheer size of their governance structures, especially Councils. This is attested by the following extract from a recent speech made by the Minister of Education, Prof Kader Asmal: One is mindful of the period immediately after our attainment of liberation, and how the noble goal of maximum inclusivity led to some of our Councils consisting of forty or so members. With conditions and circumstances having changed over the past few years, one has to ask whether the time has not come for us to ask if the mean and lean principle of corporate stewardship may not in fact be the most appropriate model that our institutions need to emulate. Although some institutions are still in the process of restructuring their governance structures, there seems to be general agreement among the key stakeholders that, by-and-large, the political or structural dimension of the transformation process has been accomplished, or is near to being accomplished.5 As each public higher education institution is governed on the basis of its own statute that has to be promulgated in Parliament, most institutions have now also revised their statutes and submitted these to Parliament for ratification. With regard to the second objective of co-operative governance: that of ensuring that institutions facilitate and promote the involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making, the evidence has been uneven. In many institutions, the new governance structures have played a leading role in many key institutional processes and decisions, most notably the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and other senior managers of the institution. Notwithstanding the changes at the level of the representation of stakeholders on governing bodies, it is doubtful whether there have been radical and fundamental changes with regard to how these structures function, in particular with regard to the participation of previously disadvantaged groups in governance deliberations. Although more empirical research is needed in this area, it is already apparent that a number of stakeholder representatives do not have a clear idea of their role within governance structures, and have consequently not been able to play an active role in the deliberations of Councils. Indeed, student and worker representatives who sit on Councils at a number of institutions have expressed dissatisfaction with their level of participation. They complain that they have not been afforded sufficient resources to be able to meaningfully participate in institutional governance. It seems that, in many institutions, the newly found opportunity of engaging in democratic governance has been a frustrating one for these hitherto marginalised groups, as many have become overwhelmed by the enormity of the responsibilities that these new roles come with. This seems to corroborate Kooimans (1993, p. 44) insight that self-organising systems of (institutional) governance require a pool of high-level skills, experience and resources in order for them to function optimally. Another area of contestation with regard to institutional governance has been on the role of the different governance structures in institutional change. In many institutions, students have challenged the role of Councils as the primary governance body and have sought to establish Institutional Forums as alternative structures of governance authority. In these institutions, students have been pushing for Forums not to merely serve an advisory function, but to become alternative policymaking structures. This has been particularly the case in institutions where Councils have tended not to assert their role in institutional governance. In many institutions, Forums have struggled to define the role- they ought to play in deepening institutional transformation, and have found it difficult to transcend the hitherto adversarial nature of campus governance dynamics. As a result, a number of higher education institutions have been experiencing periodic crises which, although ostensibly precipitated by specific incidents around student fees, alleged financial mismanagement, or labour disputes, can be attributed to an institutions inability to manage the new governance dynamics effectively. Indeed, in four cases the institutions concerned had ceased to function effectively to the extent that the then Minister of Education had to intervene by appointing Assessors. Judging from the reports that the assessors submitted to the Minister, a common theme that is emerging is of institutions whose Councils have not carried out their mandate effectively, and whose relationship with Vice- Chancellors has all but broken down. It is clear from these reports that in a number of institutions Councils have ceded their responsibility for governing to powerful interest groups, or, in the case of one institution, to the Vice-Chancellor. The literature on higher education governance (Bargh et al. 1996; Meek & Wood 1997), although not addressing the South African situation directly, has attributed some of the major challenges facing governing bodies to the dilemma that councillors confront: namely that of their role as trustee or delegate. According to Meek and Wood (1997, p. 37) members of a governing body can either be seen as trustees, that is, a group tasked with advocating and safeguarding the interests of the institution, or as delegates who are representing the interests of the constituency that (s)elected them. In South Africa this dilemma is far from being resolved. Indeed, some of the differences between Institutional Forums and Councils, and between Councils and management, can be traced to this dilemma. Although the legislation does specify the role and responsibility of Councils, and clearly states that representatives must discharge their duties in the best interest of the institution concerned,6 the Councils themselves have not yet developed a level of maturity such that lay members are able to distinguish between these roles. It is instructive that in the three cases where the Minister of Education has had to appoint assessors to intervene in institutions that were deemed to be in crises, the common thread running throughout the assessor reports is of a lack of understanding of the roles of Councils and institutional management. A common finding within these reports is of Councils that have either not properly fulfilled their governance mandate of providing support to management, or that have been too involved in the operational aspects of institutional governance and management. Finally, there is also an emerging shift within the current debates on what constitutes the most effective lever for facilitating institutional transformation. The dominant view has been articulated in the report of the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) as well as in government legislation. This perspective sees institutional transformation as being contingent on the reconfiguration of legal and structural arrangements, primarily through widening the representation of stakeholders on governing bodies, or creating new ones (e.g. Institutional Forums) in order to inject a new (participatory) dynamic in institutional governance. It had also been expected that the moral authority enjoyed by the new democratic government, buttressed by a healthy dose of stakeholder goodwill, would be sufficient preconditions for propelling institutional change. More recently however, reservations have been expressed about the exclusive reliance on structures (albeit democratically elected and accountable ones) and stakeholder goodwill as the engine of institutional transformation. There has been an emerging view that has proposed that what differentiates the institutions in a state of crisis, from those that are characterized by (relative) stability is the role that leadership has played in institutional- transformation. Indeed, it has also been argued that the lack of leadership has rendered many of the transformation initiatives at higher education institutions rudderless. In a hard-hitting article published in a daily newspaper,7 the former Minister of Education even went so far as to argue that: some of our vice-chancellors are still using historical disadvantage as an unconvincing cover for the mess they have caused in their tertiary education institutions. We will now turn to some of the challenges facing leadership with regard to higher education institutional transformation. LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE The concept of leadership is a fairly novel one in the context of South African higher education. As one of the Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of a major university has pointed out, most institutions in South Africa have had a culture and tradition of administration, rather than management. During the period of apartheid higher education, the nature of governmental regulation of higher education institutions was a complex mixture of weak state supervision in the case of historically white institutions, to more authoritarian state control for historically black institutions (NCHE 1996, p. 42). Consequently many institutions, barring a few notable exceptions, were largely managed via administrative fiat, with the role of institutional managers limited to day-to-day administrative operations, rather than providing strategic leadership to their organisations. The new legislative framework, as well as the broader challenges of globalisation, has put enormous pressure on institutions to devise new ways of managing what have become more diverse and very complex institutions. Within the space of five years, the leaders of higher education institutions have been confronted with the following challenges: " to do more, and different, things, with increasingly less reliance on the public purse " to cater for a diverse, and differently prepared, student population " to reconfigure their institutional missions, and the traditional way in which institutions have produced, packaged and disseminated their primary product  knowledge  in order to meet the challenges of a diverse student population, as well as an increasingly technologically oriented, and globalising, economy " to forge new kinds of relationships with other knowledge producers within and outside higher education, especially in industry and the private sector " to develop new modes of governance and leadership so that institutions are able to navigate these challenges in ways that are both innovative and productive; Before we discuss how institutional leaders have dealt with these challenges, it is useful for us to get an idea of the profile of those in leadership positions in South African universities and technikons. The table below provides a brief profile of Vice-Chancellors in the South African higher education system. What stands out from the above table is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Vice-Chancellors (26 out of 36, or 72.2%) have less than five years experience in their job. As evidence of the volatile nature of higher education institutions, a number of these Vice-Chancellors were in acting positions, after the previous VCs had been suspended. The table also shows that although there has been a radical change with regard to the racial composition of institutional leaders at South African higher education institutions, the gender profile has hardly improved. This stands in stark contrast with the gender profile of students in the higher education system as a whole, where women are now in the majority. TABLE I Profile of vice-chancellors at South African institutions InstitutionalNoGenderPopulation groupDuration in officeTypeMale FemaleBlackWhiteLess than five yearsFive years or moreUniversities211831110156Technikons15141 96114Total3632420162610 This term encompasses the African, Indian and Coloured population groups. Source: South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association (SAUVCA), Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP), 1999. One of the ironies of the current higher education dispensation is that whilst government has played a leading role in articulating its role with regard to steering of the higher education transformation agenda in South Africa, it has been silent about how it sees the role of leadership in institutional transformation. Thus, while the Ministry has been at pains in expressing its desire not to micro-manage institutions, it has not been able to clarify what role it sees those in leadership playing in the transformation agenda of institutions. The overwhelming emphasis within the legislation on the role and functions of governance bodies in institutional transformation, and the concomitant silence on the role of leadership in institutional change, has created the impression that government is relying primarily on legal and structural mechanisms as the drivers of change. The rise of managerialism The South African higher education system, like most publicly funded systems internationally, has been experiencing a decline in financial support from the government. Indeed, over the years institutions have increasingly had to exclude students who have not been able to pay for their tuition. This has led to an annual standoff on many campuses between students and institutional management, which has often resulted in the boycott of classes by students. Although the government has established a National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), it is generally acknowledged that more needs to be done to address the plight of most black students, the majority of whom need financial assistance. All of the Vice-Chancellors interviewed have placed the issue of financial stability as the most important challenge facing higher education. Most Vice-Chancellors spend much of their time fundraising, and in one case a Vice-Chancellor is alleged to have spent the equivalent of only three months of an entire academic year at his institution. To many Vice-Chancellors therefore, the challenge facing their institutions has shifted away from achieving the national goals of equity, democracy and relevance, to one of staying solvent. It is thus no surprise that the language of the bottom-line, of running a tight ship, is now in vogue. Although all institutions are faced with the challenges of fiscal constraints, it would however be misleading to create the impression that institutions are feeling the financial squeeze similarly, or that they are responding to these challenges in broadly similar ways. It is common cause that the history, and thus the current landscape, of higher education has been profoundly influenced by South African politics. The legacy of apartheid continues to play a significant role in shaping institutional responses to institutional change. For example, the distinction that Trow has made between the hard and soft approaches to managerialism in higher education finds resonance in the South African context. According to Trow (1994, p. 11), the soft managerialists, although applying management techniques in order to run their institutions more efficiently and effectively, still see higher education institutions as distinct from businesses, and governed by their own norms and traditions. This is similar to a view expressed by Middlehurst and Elton (1992, p. 253) that higher education institutions can be business-like (in the way they run a number of their operations) without having to become businesses. This is contrasted to the hard approach to managerialism, where institutional management has resolved to reshape and redirect the activities of [their institutions] through funding formulas and other mechanisms of accountability imposed from outside the academic community, management mechanisms created, and largely shaped, for application to large commercial enterprises. (Trow 1994, p. 12) As it has been mentioned, within the South African context these approaches are colored by the apartheid legacy in interesting ways. Earlier it was mentioned that the regulation of higher education institutions by government ranged from weak supervision to state control. Similarly, the way institutions were governed and managed largely mirrored their role and relationship vis a vis the apartheid state. The historically Afrikaans universities, which were set up to cater for, and serve, the needs of the apartheid state, were characterised by highly centralised and autocratic management practices. Many of the English speaking universities who were largely opposed to the policy of apartheid had strong collegial traditions, in which university management was characterised by more participative decision-making processes. These histories have thus shaped the approaches to managerialism within these institutions. Most of the Vice-Chancellors that were interviewed have acknowledged that the extent to which they have succeeded in introducing managerial or entrepreneurial practices within their institutions has been influenced by this past. Within the Afrikaans institutions therefore, management has had more room to introduce the hard approach to managerialism, albeit cloaked in the language of transformation. It has been said that they have been able to push changes in a rapidly short period of time largely because these institutions have had a culture of top-down management that is characteristic of highly administered institutions. Another possible explanation may be that these institutions leadership have found it relatively easier to initiate changes as these institutions were eager to change in order to make amends for their past role in buttressing apartheid.8 In contrast, the executive management in English speaking universities have, with a few exceptions, found it more difficult to usher in radical changes from the centre irrespective of whether these are driven by political or economic rationales. The tradition of collegiality, and the relative power that academics have wielded in influencing institutional decision making, has made it difficult for the management in these institutions to introduce radical changes. At any rate, these institutions did not anticipate that they themselves would be the focus of transformation struggles, since they had played a central role in opposing apartheid. The position that these institutions have suddenly found themselves in has been a bitter pill to swallow: where they had expected to have been applauded for their role in opposing apartheid, they now find themselves being derided by government and some internal stakeholders for not having moved fast enough to effect institutional transformation. Leadership and institutional change Whose responsibility is it to drive institutional transformation? This question is, in many ways, at the centre of many of the contestations that have plagued South African higher education institutions. Is providing leadership the sole prerogative and responsibility of Vice-Chancellors and the executive management in institutions? Or is it a role that ought to be shared in the spirit of co-operative governance between the executive management and the supreme governing body, namely the Council? As it has been mentioned already, there is hardly a reference within the higher education legislation with regard to how the government conceptualizes the role of leadership in institutional transformation. The major challenge facing higher education institutions, it seems, is the need to balance the (political) imperative of ensuring that institutions are governed in democratic, transparent and accountable ways, whilst providing room for executive management to exercise leadership. Surprisingly, most of the Vice-Chancellors that were interviewed do not seem to regard this as a contradiction, or even a major obstacle, but as a tension that has to be delicately balanced. Another area of contestation has been the role that institutional leaders are meant to play in initiating change. In some institutions, the role of Vice-Chancellors has been narrowly interpreted, seeing them as no more than handmaidens of institutional stakeholders, especially in institutions with powerful interest groups. In other institutions, Vice-Chancellors have managed to carve for themselves a central role in the institutional change process. In these institutions, senior management see the legislative framework as having provided sufficient clarity with regard to the agenda for institutional transformation, and see the role of Councils as being to ensure that management carry out this mandate, within clearly defined time-frames and financial parameters. The problem of capacity One of the main findings of a research report9 that was commissioned by a consortium of higher education bodies, is that South African higher education institutions are facing a management and leadership capacity problem of crisis proportions. The previous table on the profile of Vice-Chancellors also bears testimony to this finding. The problem of management capacity is however not unique to South Africa. It is widely acknowledged that higher education institutional leaders many of whom have secured their jobs primarily because of their academic standing and reputation do not posses the requisite skills for running as complex an organization as a university. For over and above the function of providing academic leadership, institutional leaders also have to play the (political) role of representing the institution in external forums, maintaining good relations with funders, and also making sure that the institution is run effectively and efficiently. In South Africa, higher education institutional leaders face the added challenge of having to address a myriad of demands from both government and stakeholders. These relate to the need to: " develop three-year rolling plans that will prioritise and target the institution s transformation programme, " increase access to historically disadvantaged students, " implement the Employment Equity Act, which seeks to promote affirmative action in employment practices, " improve the quality of the academic programmes, " diversify the institution s source of funding  and improve institutional efficiencies  in the light of the declining proportion of state funding to the public higher education sector, " develop partnerships with other institutions and with industry, " compete with the fast developing private higher education sector for fee-paying students and " manage institutional change in a democratic and accountable manner. This is a daunting list by any standard, and becomes an almost impossible task if the expectation is that institutions should address these demands simultaneously, as the legislative framework has suggested. CONCLUSION The South African governments agenda for the transformation of higher education institutions seems to have placed much of its emphasis on the structural and the representational aspects of governance restructuring. Obviously this is an important aspect and the most visible one of any transformation agenda. Indeed, in the same way that the broader political struggle was about giving a voice, through the vote, to the previously marginalized majority, so the rallying call of students during the height of opposition to apartheid education was: Peoples Education for Peoples Power. In a way, the governments strategy of targeting the democratization of governance structures as the first hurdle of institutional transformation cannot be faulted. It has, however, been shown that the emphasis on structural and legal reform as the pillar of the transformation agenda is not sufficient. As the legislative framework has paid very little attention to issues relating to the processes of institutional governance and management, many institutions are grappling with how to translate the broad governance framework that is spelt out in the legislation into concrete strategies for institutional change. It has also been shown that many of the contestations on institutional governance revolve around the role of leadership (or the lack thereof) in institutional change. The solution, however, may not lie in the government introducing more legislation in order to address this shortcoming, but in higher education institutions coming to grips with what Wagners (cited in Meek & Wood 1997) has referred to as the first order question. It is apt to quote him in full: So the issues which are at the forefront of the governance debate are, I believe, second order questions. How many governors, what constituencies they come from, the transparency and integrity of the conduct of their business are all important questions to which, as far as I am concerned, there are self-evident answers if the first-order questions, which are not being addressed, are considered first. These are: what sort of organisations are, or should, universities become, and what is their relationship with their sources of funding? The debate on governance in universities remains muddled because it has not addressed the fundamental question which must be answered before all others who are the owners? (quoted in Meek & Wood 1997, p. 43) In similar vein, Birnbaum (1988, p. 2) has also argued that what is important about higher education institutions is not the decisions or choices institutional managers have to make, but the understanding they are able to reach with other stakeholders about what kind of organization their institution is, and the nature of the reality within them. NOTES 1. Throughout this paper, higher education institutions will be used to refer to universities and technikons (polytechnics) within the South African public higher education sector. 2. NCHE Proclamation, Government Gazette No. 16243, 1995. 3. These are advisory bodies, consisting of campus stakeholders, which have been set up in terms on the Higher Education Act to provide advice to institutional Councils. 4. White Paper, 3.3, p. 35. 5. This observation has been made on the basis of interviews that were undertaken with different campus stakeholders on various campuses. 6. Higher Education Act No. 101, 1997, 27, (7) (b), p. 24. 7. Business Day, 12 March 1999. 8. This view has been expressed by more than one Vice-Chancellor from a historically Afrikaans institution. 9. A Draft Framework for Creating Management Capacity and a Culture of Leadership in Higher Education Institutions, Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET), May 1997. REFERENCES Baldrige, V.J. & Deal, T. (eds) (1983). The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation. Baldrige, V.J. (1983). Organizational Characteristics of Colleges and Universities. In V.J.Baldrige & T. Deal (eds), The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation, 3859. Bargh, C., Scott, P. & Smith, D. (1996). Governing Universities: Changing the culture? Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Becher, T. & Kogan, M. (1992), Process and Structure in Higher Education. London:Routledge. Bensimon, E.M., Neuman, A. & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The L Word in Higher Education, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington D.C: George Washington University. Bessant, B. (1988). Corporate Management and the Institutions of Higher Education,Australian Universities Review 32(2), 1013. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work. The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1989). The Cybernetic Institution: Toward an Integration of Governance Theories, Higher Education 18, 239253. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross- National Perspective. Berkeley: UCLA Press. Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:Organizational Pathways ofTransformation. Oxford: Pergamon. Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. & McLaughlin, E. (eds) (1994). Managing Social Policy. London:Sage. Dearlove, J. (1995). Collegiality, Managerialism and Leadership in English Universities, Tertiary Education and Management 1(2), 161169. Department of Education (1997). Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education (1997). The Higher Education Act (No. 101). Pretoria: Department of Education. Hearn, C.J. (1996). Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An Organizational Perspective, Innovative Higher Education (Winter) 21(2), 141153. Julius, D.J., Baldridge, J.V. & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A Memo from Machiavelli, The Journal of Higher Education (March/April) 70(2), 113133. Kooimans, J. (ed.) (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions.London: Sage. Lockwood, G. (1985). Universities as Organisations. In G. Lockwood & J. Davies (eds), Universities: The Management Challenge. Berkshire: NFER-Nelson. Maassen, P.A.M. (1994). The Rise and Impact of the Evaluative State: The Issue of Quality in European Higher Education. Paper presented at CUP Conference The Future Role of Universities in the South African Tertiary Education System. Martin, P.Y. & Turner, B.A. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organizational Research,Journal of Applied Behavioral Studies 22(2), 141157. Meek, V. Lynn & Wood, F. (1997). Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Middl34bcdpq ۶Ǥs_K7&hcohDJ75>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcohtP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcohtP6>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hDJ7hDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ#hDJ7hDJ76CJOJQJ^JaJhDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ#hDJ7hDJ75CJOJQJ^JaJ h^.=5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7hDJ75>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJpqL M Z [ IJ` 7$8$H$gdDJ7 7$8$H$gdtP  n o   v w $ % M Z 1 2 w x   I J ^_GJ htPhcECJOJQJ^JaJhcoCJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ?cdAB_`bc35ab45ŷrrrrrarr htPh50CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ#h%h5fT>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJh50CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJheCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ#`abcgh  DFG ! !## 7$8$H$gdtP<=ab89?@fhk78ij|}^_ۿۿۨۚی{ۨۚ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ,htPhtP56CJOJQJ\]^JaJh50CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ0   BCDMN !GH_`ﴣugYYgggheCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ,htPhtP56CJOJQJ\]^JaJ,htPh-56CJOJQJ\]^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ"-.KLOP)*EGst  JKZcZ[htPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ2_`*+lm   K L t u ! !N!O!t!v!!!!!"'"o"p""""""" # #ɸ} htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ#h-hSU5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ1 #N#O######)$*$t$u$$$$$%%N%O%%%%%%%&&&e&f&&&&&&&&&?'@'t'u'''''( ((())$)&)))))++hLXCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSUCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ<#&&))*4*P***+4+|+++E,F,E/F/33$6%69<==A 7$8$H$gd- 7$8$H$gdtP+E,F,,,,,,,--d-e-v-w---'.(.~.....3/4/D/F/T/V///////////00$0дЦЦЕЇyЇЇkЇЦЦЇh> kCJOJQJ^JaJhLXCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJh'CJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ hLXh-CJOJQJ^JaJ*$0%0L0M0]0n0o0}0~000000001111K1L1k1l1m111111111C2D2Q2R2p2q2222222233333O3P3m3n33333 htPhCJOJQJ^JaJh> kCJOJQJ^JaJhLXCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhLXCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ:3B4C4M4N44444525f5g555555566#6%6^6_666666771727i7j7x7}77777 8 888W8X88888888+9,9S9X9b9w9x999999::!:P:Q:Ŵ htPhgCJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJGQ:::::1;2;Z;[;{;|;;;<<<P<Q<g<h<<<<<<<&='=F=g=r=s========F>G>>>>>!?"?j?k?????@@@@V@W@@@@@@@)A*ApAqABBLBMBBBBBBBh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJNB'C(CbCdClCmCDD5D7D8DkDlDmDDDDDEE`EaEoEpEEEEE8F9FlFmFnFFFFFEGFGGG"H#HcHdHHHHHEIFIIIIIIIJJ`JaJJJJJ﷦ htPh CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh CJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJAAC6D7DmFnFGMM N NlQSSBTTTFWHWxXzX]]]]$^%^&^gd') 7$8$H$gdtPJJJ5KCKKKKKKKLLkLlLLLLLMMgMhMMMMMMMMMN N N NRNSNNNNN1O2OOOOO P PŴz#h%h5_ >*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%h5_ 5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ0 PVPWPqPrPPPPPPPQ&Q'Q)Q.Q/QjQlQQQQQQQlRnRS SSSSST TTTTdUfUUUnVpVVᮝﮌ~~~hk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ,VWWWBWDWFWHWWWXXZXvXxXzX Y YYYYY*Z+ZsZtZZZ[[[[][^[[[[[=\>\\\\\\]]*]+]b]c]]]]±±ޠޒބh')CJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhk2CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhgCJOJQJ^JaJ4]]]]]]]]#^$^%^&^?^O^Q^c^e^f^r^x^y^~^^^^^^^^^^^^^______[_Ͻϫwih ,CJOJQJ^JaJh[bCJOJQJ^JaJhO(hc,5hO(h')5h')h')5h')CJOJQJ^JaJ#h')h[b5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h ,hk25CJOJQJ^JaJ#h ,htP5CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ(&^4^7^>^?^P^Q^d^e^ $Ifgdc,e^f^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(f^k^l^r^y^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^___ $Ifgdc,__kd|$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(_ _ _ _ _ ____ $Ifgdc,__kd[$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(____HcIcccdcjjppnsos}x~xxyyzz~~T 7$8$H$gdtP[_\________` `i`j```a aFaGaaaaa+b,b{b|bbb ccGcHcIcccdcccccccccᷦz)h%hG6>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPhGCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJh ,CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ+cd d4d5dQdYdcddd{d|dddddddd eeIeJeWeXeeeeeeeeffff]f^f_fgfffff0g1gwgxgggh h2h3huhvh|h}hhhдУУЕЕдh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJh ,CJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJh`CJOJQJ^JaJ:hhiicidiiiiiCjDjjjjjjj#k$kekfkkkkkkk:l;lBlClllllmm9m;mBmdmemmmmmmmmmnnhninnnnnnno o,o-o htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh sCJOJQJ^JaJh sCJOJQJ^JaJh CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ@-o*CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh sCJOJQJ^JaJ&7~t~~~~~~~ 29w]^6?w Mc݂ᅬxd&htPhpY'6CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ')4s~ŃƃANބ#1wx|υЅ.0RZ>@rtvfhˆ$&(~@BбhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ4TVXZtvˆ&(&( hёґ 7$8$H$gdtPB$&(2>yƌ܌ ^_6Hᴣ}o^oo^ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ#h%hY>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSsCJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJhYCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ$ʎˎ׎WeHI֐א#$cdБёґ #bcABᮝ~ hSshtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSsCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ0@A}~ a 7$8$H$gdtPUV demnזؖefͿsas#hO(htP5CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJhO(CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ hSshSsCJOJQJ^JaJ hSshtPCJOJQJ^JaJ hSsh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ&LMYZDE ?@Aor|}~ %8~{hDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPh{g6CJOJQJ]^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ.ʛ˛̛TU12֞מVWԟ՟RS^_ 7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtPɛʛ˛̛)*-.45?@SbFGPQʼʼʺʩʼʛʛʛʛʩʩʩʛʛʼh |ECJOJQJ^JaJ h*h |ECJOJQJ^JaJUh*CJOJQJ^JaJ h*h*CJOJQJ^JaJ h*5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7h*5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ$_ա֡34STHIԤդ56̥ͥ@Az{ 7$8$H$gd*ehurst, R. & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and Management in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education 17(3), 251264. Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Miller, D. (1995). The Management of Change in Universities: Universities, State and Economy in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage. National Commission on Higher Education (1996). A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria. Neave, G. (1988). On the Cultivation of Quality, Efficiency and Enterprise: An Overview of Recent Trends in Higher Education in Western Europe, 19861988, European Journal of Education 23(1/2), 723. Neave, G. & van Vught F. (eds) (1991). Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Plowman, T. (1998). The Story of Closely and Loosely Coupled Organizations, Journal of Higher Education Policy 20(1), 1318. Pollitt, C. (1987). The Politics of Performance Assessment: Lessons For Higher Education? Studies in Higher Education 12(1), 8798. Reed, M.I. (1992). The Sociology of Organizations: Themes, Perspectives and Prospects. Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Sizer, J., Spee, A. & Bormans, R. (1992). The Role of Performance Indicators in Higher Education, Higher Education 24(2), 133155. Spee, A. & Bormans, R. (1992). Performance Indicators in Government-Institutional Relations: The Conceptual Framework, Higher Education Management 4(2), 131138. Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England, Higher Educational Policy 7(2), 1118. Walford, G. (1987). Restructuring Universities: Politics and Power in the Management of Change. London: Croom Helm. Weick, K. (1983). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. In V. Baldridge & T. Deal (eds), The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation, 1537. {[\ghjkgh   7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtP 7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtP;0P:pcE/ =!"#$% Dp$$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO(^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List jj [b Table Grid7:V0PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]   #+$03Q:BJ PV][_ch-onsy7~BTVWYZ[\]_`abcefghvwxyz{|}`#A&^e^f^^^^^^^____T_{UX^dijklmnopqrstu~8@0(  B S  ?N Hl  H+  H=  Hf H$ H.$H H H H H$ H H Hd H H$2 H H u H H, H4 H H<  HA !HA "HT #HT $H$%H$$&Hd|'H|(H4$)Ht$*H +H ,Ht -H .H /H$ 0He 1HDe 2He 3H 4H, 5Hl 6HW 7HW 8H X 9Ht :H ;H H ?H$ @H6 AHT6 BH6 CH6 DH7 EHT7 FH7 GH7 HH8 IHT8 JH8 KH8 LH9 MHT9 NH9 OH9 PH: QHT: RH: SH: TH; UHT; VH; R R ZZGG!8!8DDRRKuKuww((ʍďďHH_ÐÐ&&ww00ݒݒ**{{,,3CCGG؝؝      !"#$%&'()*+,.-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLM^ ^ ffSS-8-8DDRRWuWuww00ɍԍԍŎŎяяPPdɐɐ,,~88!!8866AIINNޝޝ  !"#$%&'()*+,.-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLM9N*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace88*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity8:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateBM*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region92*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=0*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=.*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType 7 1219993DayMonthYearNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNM:N8N8N8N2N00.N8N8NN8NN8N8N0.N8N8NMNN8NMNMNMN8N8N8NN8NMN8N8bc""j#o#p#u#F%F%A-M---. .2256NNQQ{T|T]X^XYYcbfbiblbwcxcmenerswwxxxx | |Ѐр̊ԊU]ċNj27%׍ލ3W_ǎ͎ՎݎS[ӏُːӐ&14<W`ipՓݓ-͔ԔřʙϙҙKSښ˛՛؛ݛ\`gnx;DPSbc""F%F%k:l:;;l<m<NNNONOOO#PQQQ{T|T]X^XYY\\wcxcmenerswwxx | |Ѐрbc""F%F%NNQQ{T|T]X^XYYwcxcmenerswwxx | |Ѐр('h`5_ - spY'O(') ,c,50 7DJ7^.=? k`k2aG*%Y'7Lg SsGecocE,S@@  !"HIJKLxyz{x@x(x*xX@xRxTxVxXx@xxxx@x @UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialA BCambria Math"1h"Ǧ"Ǧ:Q :Q !24d2HX ?tP2!xxTEMBILE KULATI AdministratoruwcOh+'0x  4 @ LX`hpTEMBILE KULATIAdministratorNormaluwc2Microsoft Office Word@F#@֧@֧:՜.+,0 hp|  UWC Q TEMBILE KULATI Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F0gǬData 1Table/WordDocument=SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjyÿ  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/cshe/templates/page/download_page_tpl.php on line 23

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/cshe/templates/page/download_page_tpl.php on line 24

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/cshe/templates/page/download_page_tpl.php on line 25

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/classes/core/engine_class_inc.php:802) in /srv/www/htdocs/cshe/modules/cshe/templates/page/download_page_tpl.php on line 26
ࡱ>  bjbj =hh+++++????3?+*******$,F/f*+u#u#u#*++f+)))u#++*)u#*)))0Ǭ?c'){*|+0+)/c'Z/)/+)J),t**(+u#u#u#u#/ :  GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION: GRAPPLING WITH INSTABILITY TEMBILE KULATI Published in Tertiary Education and Management 6:177-192, 2000 ABSTRACT This paper explores the emerging approaches to the governance and management of institutional change at South African higher education institutions. The discussion firstly locates these approaches within the broader context of the new governance framework that is contained in the new higher education legislation, and in particular the emerging forms of institutional governance that this has spawned. The paper then describes and discusses the challenges facing institutional leaders in shaping higher education organisational change in the light of the transformation challenges that arise from the implementation of the new legislation. INTRODUCTION South African higher education institutions,1 not unlike their counterparts in other publicly funded systems internationally, are facing major transformation challenges as they gear themselves for playing a pivotal role in the new millennium. The South African higher education system entered a new era with the coming into power of a democratically elected government in 1994. In February 1995, soon after the election of the new government, former President Nelson Mandela set up the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) to advise the new democratic government with regard to: 2 a) what constitutes Higher Education b) the national goals of the (new) system of Higher Education c) the institutional types required for the system, their particular functions and missions, their respective inter-relationships and their relationship with the state d) the structures required to govern and administer Higher Education e) funding mechanisms for institutions and students in Higher Education The NCHE reported its findings to President Mandela in August 1996, and many of the recommendations formed the basis for the emerging legislative framework, which culminated in the adoption, by the newly elected parliament, of the White Paper on Higher Education Transformation and the Higher Education Act, No. 101, 1997 (henceforth referred to as the White Paper and the HE Act, respectively). These two pieces of legislation together form the pillars of the transformation agenda for higher education institutions in South Africa. CHALLENGES FACING HIGHER EDUCATION The key transformation challenge facing higher education institutions in South Africa is to redress the inequities that were brought about by the apartheid system of racial discrimination, and to simultaneously respond and address the development needs of an emerging society within the context of a globalising, and technologically oriented, world economy. Institutions in South Africa are not at leisure to respond to these two challenges when it best suits them, but are enjoined, in terms of government legislation, to address these simultaneously. The legislation therefore seeks to provide a framework that will facilitate fundamental change in higher education, both at the systemic and institutional levels. It is intended to be the template, and yardstick, against which higher education transformation will be monitored and assessed. The White Paper further posits the following challenges as being central to the transformation of the higher education system and its institutions: a) Increasing participation: that successful policy must overcome an historically determined pattern of fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency, by increasing access to higher education for disadvantaged groups, and developing new curricula and flexible models of learning and teaching. b) Responding to societal interests and needs: that, in order to meet the challenges of a globalising and technologically-oriented economy and to simultaneously address the needs of a developing society the higher education system and its institutions must be restructured to deliver the requisite research and knowledge, as well as produce high-level human resource capacity. c) Promoting co-operation and partnerships in governance: that the relationship between higher education, the state and civil society and among institutions themselves must be reconceptualised. More importantly, the governance arrangements and practices within institutions must reflect and strengthen the values and principles of South Africas fledgling democracy and create an environment and culture that affirms diversity, protects individuals from racial discrimination and sexual harassment, promotes reconciliation and the respect for human life. (1.12, 1997: 10) In response to these challenges, most higher education institutions have undertaken major and ambitious transformation initiatives which, although ostensibly guided by a national policy framework, have taken different, if not unintended, directions. Not unexpectedly, there are already growing tensions and contestations between the different stakeholders within institutions: between management and students, between Councils and institutional Forums, 3 etc. with regard to the trajectory of institutional transformation processes and the roles that different roleplayers and structures are meant to play within these processes. This paper forms part of a broader research project that is assessing the first four years of higher education transformation in South Africa. It is also draws on interviews that were conducted with Vice-Chancellors from 11 of the 36 institutions that make up the South African higher education system. THE NEW GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK The White Paper on higher education provides for a governance framework based on the principle of co-operative governance. Co-operative governance departs from the premise that no single stakeholder, be it management, academic staff or students, can take sole responsibility for determining an institutions transformation agenda. Thus good governance, the White Paper argues, must be based on the recognition of the existence of different institutional interests, and the inevitability of contestation among them. The legislation further states that in order for co-operative governance to work, higher education institutions must create structures and facilitate processes that enable differences to be negotiated in participative and transparent ways. In terms of the new legislation, the main governance structures in higher education institutions are the council, the Senate and the Institutional Forum. The Council is the supreme governing body in public higher education institutions. Councils are responsible for ensuring the good governance of an institution, and are required to establish the mission of the institution, ensure that it is in a sound financial footing, and that the executive management carries out its functions responsibly and effectively. The Senate is the highest decision-making body with regard to the academic matters of the institution, and is accountable to Council. Institutional Forums are new structures that have been set up to broaden participation in institutional governance. Forums are meant to act as shock absorbers to the transformation process by providing the arena for issues pertaining to the broad transformation agenda of the institution to be debated and discussed. They function as advisory bodies to Councils, and consist of campus stakeholders who advise Councils on a number of issues, including the negotiation of the agenda for institutional transformation, the mediation of conflicts among campus stakeholders, and overseeing the process of appointing senior managers of the institution. Much of the thrust of government legislation has been on the structures and practices that will enable institutions to negotiate and navigate, in democratic and transparent ways, the various transformation challenges facing them. The White Paper has been unequivocal that a critical first step towards the transformation of higher education institutions is the restructuring of institutional governance structures. In this respect, most institutions within the public higher education system have indeed restructured their Councils by broadening the membership of these structures to previously unrepresented groups. A typical council will consist of the following constituencies and representatives: " The Senior Executive Management " Senate representatives " Convocation " Student representatives " Academic representatives " Representatives of non-academic workers " Organised Labour " Organised Business/private sector " Local authority " Appointees of the Minister of Education " Civil society groupings (e.g. religious, womens or youth organisations) A growing concern of government has been the unwieldiness of governance deliberations at some institutions, arising from the sheer size of their governance structures, especially Councils. This is attested by the following extract from a recent speech made by the Minister of Education, Prof Kader Asmal: One is mindful of the period immediately after our attainment of liberation, and how the noble goal of maximum inclusivity led to some of our Councils consisting of forty or so members. With conditions and circumstances having changed over the past few years, one has to ask whether the time has not come for us to ask if the mean and lean principle of corporate stewardship may not in fact be the most appropriate model that our institutions need to emulate. Although some institutions are still in the process of restructuring their governance structures, there seems to be general agreement among the key stakeholders that, by-and-large, the political or structural dimension of the transformation process has been accomplished, or is near to being accomplished.5 As each public higher education institution is governed on the basis of its own statute that has to be promulgated in Parliament, most institutions have now also revised their statutes and submitted these to Parliament for ratification. With regard to the second objective of co-operative governance: that of ensuring that institutions facilitate and promote the involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making, the evidence has been uneven. In many institutions, the new governance structures have played a leading role in many key institutional processes and decisions, most notably the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and other senior managers of the institution. Notwithstanding the changes at the level of the representation of stakeholders on governing bodies, it is doubtful whether there have been radical and fundamental changes with regard to how these structures function, in particular with regard to the participation of previously disadvantaged groups in governance deliberations. Although more empirical research is needed in this area, it is already apparent that a number of stakeholder representatives do not have a clear idea of their role within governance structures, and have consequently not been able to play an active role in the deliberations of Councils. Indeed, student and worker representatives who sit on Councils at a number of institutions have expressed dissatisfaction with their level of participation. They complain that they have not been afforded sufficient resources to be able to meaningfully participate in institutional governance. It seems that, in many institutions, the newly found opportunity of engaging in democratic governance has been a frustrating one for these hitherto marginalised groups, as many have become overwhelmed by the enormity of the responsibilities that these new roles come with. This seems to corroborate Kooimans (1993, p. 44) insight that self-organising systems of (institutional) governance require a pool of high-level skills, experience and resources in order for them to function optimally. Another area of contestation with regard to institutional governance has been on the role of the different governance structures in institutional change. In many institutions, students have challenged the role of Councils as the primary governance body and have sought to establish Institutional Forums as alternative structures of governance authority. In these institutions, students have been pushing for Forums not to merely serve an advisory function, but to become alternative policymaking structures. This has been particularly the case in institutions where Councils have tended not to assert their role in institutional governance. In many institutions, Forums have struggled to define the role- they ought to play in deepening institutional transformation, and have found it difficult to transcend the hitherto adversarial nature of campus governance dynamics. As a result, a number of higher education institutions have been experiencing periodic crises which, although ostensibly precipitated by specific incidents around student fees, alleged financial mismanagement, or labour disputes, can be attributed to an institutions inability to manage the new governance dynamics effectively. Indeed, in four cases the institutions concerned had ceased to function effectively to the extent that the then Minister of Education had to intervene by appointing Assessors. Judging from the reports that the assessors submitted to the Minister, a common theme that is emerging is of institutions whose Councils have not carried out their mandate effectively, and whose relationship with Vice- Chancellors has all but broken down. It is clear from these reports that in a number of institutions Councils have ceded their responsibility for governing to powerful interest groups, or, in the case of one institution, to the Vice-Chancellor. The literature on higher education governance (Bargh et al. 1996; Meek & Wood 1997), although not addressing the South African situation directly, has attributed some of the major challenges facing governing bodies to the dilemma that councillors confront: namely that of their role as trustee or delegate. According to Meek and Wood (1997, p. 37) members of a governing body can either be seen as trustees, that is, a group tasked with advocating and safeguarding the interests of the institution, or as delegates who are representing the interests of the constituency that (s)elected them. In South Africa this dilemma is far from being resolved. Indeed, some of the differences between Institutional Forums and Councils, and between Councils and management, can be traced to this dilemma. Although the legislation does specify the role and responsibility of Councils, and clearly states that representatives must discharge their duties in the best interest of the institution concerned,6 the Councils themselves have not yet developed a level of maturity such that lay members are able to distinguish between these roles. It is instructive that in the three cases where the Minister of Education has had to appoint assessors to intervene in institutions that were deemed to be in crises, the common thread running throughout the assessor reports is of a lack of understanding of the roles of Councils and institutional management. A common finding within these reports is of Councils that have either not properly fulfilled their governance mandate of providing support to management, or that have been too involved in the operational aspects of institutional governance and management. Finally, there is also an emerging shift within the current debates on what constitutes the most effective lever for facilitating institutional transformation. The dominant view has been articulated in the report of the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) as well as in government legislation. This perspective sees institutional transformation as being contingent on the reconfiguration of legal and structural arrangements, primarily through widening the representation of stakeholders on governing bodies, or creating new ones (e.g. Institutional Forums) in order to inject a new (participatory) dynamic in institutional governance. It had also been expected that the moral authority enjoyed by the new democratic government, buttressed by a healthy dose of stakeholder goodwill, would be sufficient preconditions for propelling institutional change. More recently however, reservations have been expressed about the exclusive reliance on structures (albeit democratically elected and accountable ones) and stakeholder goodwill as the engine of institutional transformation. There has been an emerging view that has proposed that what differentiates the institutions in a state of crisis, from those that are characterized by (relative) stability is the role that leadership has played in institutional- transformation. Indeed, it has also been argued that the lack of leadership has rendered many of the transformation initiatives at higher education institutions rudderless. In a hard-hitting article published in a daily newspaper,7 the former Minister of Education even went so far as to argue that: some of our vice-chancellors are still using historical disadvantage as an unconvincing cover for the mess they have caused in their tertiary education institutions. We will now turn to some of the challenges facing leadership with regard to higher education institutional transformation. LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE The concept of leadership is a fairly novel one in the context of South African higher education. As one of the Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of a major university has pointed out, most institutions in South Africa have had a culture and tradition of administration, rather than management. During the period of apartheid higher education, the nature of governmental regulation of higher education institutions was a complex mixture of weak state supervision in the case of historically white institutions, to more authoritarian state control for historically black institutions (NCHE 1996, p. 42). Consequently many institutions, barring a few notable exceptions, were largely managed via administrative fiat, with the role of institutional managers limited to day-to-day administrative operations, rather than providing strategic leadership to their organisations. The new legislative framework, as well as the broader challenges of globalisation, has put enormous pressure on institutions to devise new ways of managing what have become more diverse and very complex institutions. Within the space of five years, the leaders of higher education institutions have been confronted with the following challenges: " to do more, and different, things, with increasingly less reliance on the public purse " to cater for a diverse, and differently prepared, student population " to reconfigure their institutional missions, and the traditional way in which institutions have produced, packaged and disseminated their primary product  knowledge  in order to meet the challenges of a diverse student population, as well as an increasingly technologically oriented, and globalising, economy " to forge new kinds of relationships with other knowledge producers within and outside higher education, especially in industry and the private sector " to develop new modes of governance and leadership so that institutions are able to navigate these challenges in ways that are both innovative and productive; Before we discuss how institutional leaders have dealt with these challenges, it is useful for us to get an idea of the profile of those in leadership positions in South African universities and technikons. The table below provides a brief profile of Vice-Chancellors in the South African higher education system. What stands out from the above table is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Vice-Chancellors (26 out of 36, or 72.2%) have less than five years experience in their job. As evidence of the volatile nature of higher education institutions, a number of these Vice-Chancellors were in acting positions, after the previous VCs had been suspended. The table also shows that although there has been a radical change with regard to the racial composition of institutional leaders at South African higher education institutions, the gender profile has hardly improved. This stands in stark contrast with the gender profile of students in the higher education system as a whole, where women are now in the majority. TABLE I Profile of vice-chancellors at South African institutions InstitutionalNoGenderPopulation groupDuration in officeTypeMale FemaleBlackWhiteLess than five yearsFive years or moreUniversities211831110156Technikons15141 96114Total3632420162610 This term encompasses the African, Indian and Coloured population groups. Source: South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association (SAUVCA), Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP), 1999. One of the ironies of the current higher education dispensation is that whilst government has played a leading role in articulating its role with regard to steering of the higher education transformation agenda in South Africa, it has been silent about how it sees the role of leadership in institutional transformation. Thus, while the Ministry has been at pains in expressing its desire not to micro-manage institutions, it has not been able to clarify what role it sees those in leadership playing in the transformation agenda of institutions. The overwhelming emphasis within the legislation on the role and functions of governance bodies in institutional transformation, and the concomitant silence on the role of leadership in institutional change, has created the impression that government is relying primarily on legal and structural mechanisms as the drivers of change. The rise of managerialism The South African higher education system, like most publicly funded systems internationally, has been experiencing a decline in financial support from the government. Indeed, over the years institutions have increasingly had to exclude students who have not been able to pay for their tuition. This has led to an annual standoff on many campuses between students and institutional management, which has often resulted in the boycott of classes by students. Although the government has established a National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), it is generally acknowledged that more needs to be done to address the plight of most black students, the majority of whom need financial assistance. All of the Vice-Chancellors interviewed have placed the issue of financial stability as the most important challenge facing higher education. Most Vice-Chancellors spend much of their time fundraising, and in one case a Vice-Chancellor is alleged to have spent the equivalent of only three months of an entire academic year at his institution. To many Vice-Chancellors therefore, the challenge facing their institutions has shifted away from achieving the national goals of equity, democracy and relevance, to one of staying solvent. It is thus no surprise that the language of the bottom-line, of running a tight ship, is now in vogue. Although all institutions are faced with the challenges of fiscal constraints, it would however be misleading to create the impression that institutions are feeling the financial squeeze similarly, or that they are responding to these challenges in broadly similar ways. It is common cause that the history, and thus the current landscape, of higher education has been profoundly influenced by South African politics. The legacy of apartheid continues to play a significant role in shaping institutional responses to institutional change. For example, the distinction that Trow has made between the hard and soft approaches to managerialism in higher education finds resonance in the South African context. According to Trow (1994, p. 11), the soft managerialists, although applying management techniques in order to run their institutions more efficiently and effectively, still see higher education institutions as distinct from businesses, and governed by their own norms and traditions. This is similar to a view expressed by Middlehurst and Elton (1992, p. 253) that higher education institutions can be business-like (in the way they run a number of their operations) without having to become businesses. This is contrasted to the hard approach to managerialism, where institutional management has resolved to reshape and redirect the activities of [their institutions] through funding formulas and other mechanisms of accountability imposed from outside the academic community, management mechanisms created, and largely shaped, for application to large commercial enterprises. (Trow 1994, p. 12) As it has been mentioned, within the South African context these approaches are colored by the apartheid legacy in interesting ways. Earlier it was mentioned that the regulation of higher education institutions by government ranged from weak supervision to state control. Similarly, the way institutions were governed and managed largely mirrored their role and relationship vis a vis the apartheid state. The historically Afrikaans universities, which were set up to cater for, and serve, the needs of the apartheid state, were characterised by highly centralised and autocratic management practices. Many of the English speaking universities who were largely opposed to the policy of apartheid had strong collegial traditions, in which university management was characterised by more participative decision-making processes. These histories have thus shaped the approaches to managerialism within these institutions. Most of the Vice-Chancellors that were interviewed have acknowledged that the extent to which they have succeeded in introducing managerial or entrepreneurial practices within their institutions has been influenced by this past. Within the Afrikaans institutions therefore, management has had more room to introduce the hard approach to managerialism, albeit cloaked in the language of transformation. It has been said that they have been able to push changes in a rapidly short period of time largely because these institutions have had a culture of top-down management that is characteristic of highly administered institutions. Another possible explanation may be that these institutions leadership have found it relatively easier to initiate changes as these institutions were eager to change in order to make amends for their past role in buttressing apartheid.8 In contrast, the executive management in English speaking universities have, with a few exceptions, found it more difficult to usher in radical changes from the centre irrespective of whether these are driven by political or economic rationales. The tradition of collegiality, and the relative power that academics have wielded in influencing institutional decision making, has made it difficult for the management in these institutions to introduce radical changes. At any rate, these institutions did not anticipate that they themselves would be the focus of transformation struggles, since they had played a central role in opposing apartheid. The position that these institutions have suddenly found themselves in has been a bitter pill to swallow: where they had expected to have been applauded for their role in opposing apartheid, they now find themselves being derided by government and some internal stakeholders for not having moved fast enough to effect institutional transformation. Leadership and institutional change Whose responsibility is it to drive institutional transformation? This question is, in many ways, at the centre of many of the contestations that have plagued South African higher education institutions. Is providing leadership the sole prerogative and responsibility of Vice-Chancellors and the executive management in institutions? Or is it a role that ought to be shared in the spirit of co-operative governance between the executive management and the supreme governing body, namely the Council? As it has been mentioned already, there is hardly a reference within the higher education legislation with regard to how the government conceptualizes the role of leadership in institutional transformation. The major challenge facing higher education institutions, it seems, is the need to balance the (political) imperative of ensuring that institutions are governed in democratic, transparent and accountable ways, whilst providing room for executive management to exercise leadership. Surprisingly, most of the Vice-Chancellors that were interviewed do not seem to regard this as a contradiction, or even a major obstacle, but as a tension that has to be delicately balanced. Another area of contestation has been the role that institutional leaders are meant to play in initiating change. In some institutions, the role of Vice-Chancellors has been narrowly interpreted, seeing them as no more than handmaidens of institutional stakeholders, especially in institutions with powerful interest groups. In other institutions, Vice-Chancellors have managed to carve for themselves a central role in the institutional change process. In these institutions, senior management see the legislative framework as having provided sufficient clarity with regard to the agenda for institutional transformation, and see the role of Councils as being to ensure that management carry out this mandate, within clearly defined time-frames and financial parameters. The problem of capacity One of the main findings of a research report9 that was commissioned by a consortium of higher education bodies, is that South African higher education institutions are facing a management and leadership capacity problem of crisis proportions. The previous table on the profile of Vice-Chancellors also bears testimony to this finding. The problem of management capacity is however not unique to South Africa. It is widely acknowledged that higher education institutional leaders many of whom have secured their jobs primarily because of their academic standing and reputation do not posses the requisite skills for running as complex an organization as a university. For over and above the function of providing academic leadership, institutional leaders also have to play the (political) role of representing the institution in external forums, maintaining good relations with funders, and also making sure that the institution is run effectively and efficiently. In South Africa, higher education institutional leaders face the added challenge of having to address a myriad of demands from both government and stakeholders. These relate to the need to: " develop three-year rolling plans that will prioritise and target the institution s transformation programme, " increase access to historically disadvantaged students, " implement the Employment Equity Act, which seeks to promote affirmative action in employment practices, " improve the quality of the academic programmes, " diversify the institution s source of funding  and improve institutional efficiencies  in the light of the declining proportion of state funding to the public higher education sector, " develop partnerships with other institutions and with industry, " compete with the fast developing private higher education sector for fee-paying students and " manage institutional change in a democratic and accountable manner. This is a daunting list by any standard, and becomes an almost impossible task if the expectation is that institutions should address these demands simultaneously, as the legislative framework has suggested. CONCLUSION The South African governments agenda for the transformation of higher education institutions seems to have placed much of its emphasis on the structural and the representational aspects of governance restructuring. Obviously this is an important aspect and the most visible one of any transformation agenda. Indeed, in the same way that the broader political struggle was about giving a voice, through the vote, to the previously marginalized majority, so the rallying call of students during the height of opposition to apartheid education was: Peoples Education for Peoples Power. In a way, the governments strategy of targeting the democratization of governance structures as the first hurdle of institutional transformation cannot be faulted. It has, however, been shown that the emphasis on structural and legal reform as the pillar of the transformation agenda is not sufficient. As the legislative framework has paid very little attention to issues relating to the processes of institutional governance and management, many institutions are grappling with how to translate the broad governance framework that is spelt out in the legislation into concrete strategies for institutional change. It has also been shown that many of the contestations on institutional governance revolve around the role of leadership (or the lack thereof) in institutional change. The solution, however, may not lie in the government introducing more legislation in order to address this shortcoming, but in higher education institutions coming to grips with what Wagners (cited in Meek & Wood 1997) has referred to as the first order question. It is apt to quote him in full: So the issues which are at the forefront of the governance debate are, I believe, second order questions. How many governors, what constituencies they come from, the transparency and integrity of the conduct of their business are all important questions to which, as far as I am concerned, there are self-evident answers if the first-order questions, which are not being addressed, are considered first. These are: what sort of organisations are, or should, universities become, and what is their relationship with their sources of funding? The debate on governance in universities remains muddled because it has not addressed the fundamental question which must be answered before all others who are the owners? (quoted in Meek & Wood 1997, p. 43) In similar vein, Birnbaum (1988, p. 2) has also argued that what is important about higher education institutions is not the decisions or choices institutional managers have to make, but the understanding they are able to reach with other stakeholders about what kind of organization their institution is, and the nature of the reality within them. NOTES 1. Throughout this paper, higher education institutions will be used to refer to universities and technikons (polytechnics) within the South African public higher education sector. 2. NCHE Proclamation, Government Gazette No. 16243, 1995. 3. These are advisory bodies, consisting of campus stakeholders, which have been set up in terms on the Higher Education Act to provide advice to institutional Councils. 4. White Paper, 3.3, p. 35. 5. This observation has been made on the basis of interviews that were undertaken with different campus stakeholders on various campuses. 6. Higher Education Act No. 101, 1997, 27, (7) (b), p. 24. 7. Business Day, 12 March 1999. 8. This view has been expressed by more than one Vice-Chancellor from a historically Afrikaans institution. 9. A Draft Framework for Creating Management Capacity and a Culture of Leadership in Higher Education Institutions, Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET), May 1997. REFERENCES Baldrige, V.J. & Deal, T. (eds) (1983). The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation. Baldrige, V.J. (1983). Organizational Characteristics of Colleges and Universities. In V.J.Baldrige & T. Deal (eds), The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation, 3859. Bargh, C., Scott, P. & Smith, D. (1996). Governing Universities: Changing the culture? Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Becher, T. & Kogan, M. (1992), Process and Structure in Higher Education. London:Routledge. Bensimon, E.M., Neuman, A. & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The L Word in Higher Education, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington D.C: George Washington University. Bessant, B. (1988). Corporate Management and the Institutions of Higher Education,Australian Universities Review 32(2), 1013. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work. The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1989). The Cybernetic Institution: Toward an Integration of Governance Theories, Higher Education 18, 239253. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross- National Perspective. Berkeley: UCLA Press. Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:Organizational Pathways ofTransformation. Oxford: Pergamon. Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. & McLaughlin, E. (eds) (1994). Managing Social Policy. London:Sage. Dearlove, J. (1995). Collegiality, Managerialism and Leadership in English Universities, Tertiary Education and Management 1(2), 161169. Department of Education (1997). Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education (1997). The Higher Education Act (No. 101). Pretoria: Department of Education. Hearn, C.J. (1996). Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An Organizational Perspective, Innovative Higher Education (Winter) 21(2), 141153. Julius, D.J., Baldridge, J.V. & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A Memo from Machiavelli, The Journal of Higher Education (March/April) 70(2), 113133. Kooimans, J. (ed.) (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions.London: Sage. Lockwood, G. (1985). Universities as Organisations. In G. Lockwood & J. Davies (eds), Universities: The Management Challenge. Berkshire: NFER-Nelson. Maassen, P.A.M. (1994). The Rise and Impact of the Evaluative State: The Issue of Quality in European Higher Education. Paper presented at CUP Conference The Future Role of Universities in the South African Tertiary Education System. Martin, P.Y. & Turner, B.A. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organizational Research,Journal of Applied Behavioral Studies 22(2), 141157. Meek, V. Lynn & Wood, F. (1997). Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Middl34bcdpq ۶Ǥs_K7&hcohDJ75>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcohtP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hcohtP6>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hDJ7hDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ#hDJ7hDJ76CJOJQJ^JaJhDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ#hDJ7hDJ75CJOJQJ^JaJ h^.=5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7hDJ75>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJpqL M Z [ IJ` 7$8$H$gdDJ7 7$8$H$gdtP  n o   v w $ % M Z 1 2 w x   I J ^_GJ htPhcECJOJQJ^JaJhcoCJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ?cdAB_`bc35ab45ŷrrrrrarr htPh50CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ#h%h5fT>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJh50CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJheCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ#`abcgh  DFG ! !## 7$8$H$gdtP<=ab89?@fhk78ij|}^_ۿۿۨۚی{ۨۚ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ,htPhtP56CJOJQJ\]^JaJh50CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ0   BCDMN !GH_`ﴣugYYgggheCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ,htPhtP56CJOJQJ\]^JaJ,htPh-56CJOJQJ\]^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ"-.KLOP)*EGst  JKZcZ[htPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJh5fTCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ2_`*+lm   K L t u ! !N!O!t!v!!!!!"'"o"p""""""" # #ɸ} htPh-CJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ#h-hSU5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ1 #N#O######)$*$t$u$$$$$%%N%O%%%%%%%&&&e&f&&&&&&&&&?'@'t'u'''''( ((())$)&)))))++hLXCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSUCJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ<#&&))*4*P***+4+|+++E,F,E/F/33$6%69<==A 7$8$H$gd- 7$8$H$gdtP+E,F,,,,,,,--d-e-v-w---'.(.~.....3/4/D/F/T/V///////////00$0дЦЦЕЇyЇЇkЇЦЦЇh> kCJOJQJ^JaJhLXCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJh'CJOJQJ^JaJhSUCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh-CJOJQJ^JaJ hLXh-CJOJQJ^JaJ*$0%0L0M0]0n0o0}0~000000001111K1L1k1l1m111111111C2D2Q2R2p2q2222222233333O3P3m3n33333 htPhCJOJQJ^JaJh> kCJOJQJ^JaJhLXCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhLXCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ:3B4C4M4N44444525f5g555555566#6%6^6_666666771727i7j7x7}77777 8 888W8X88888888+9,9S9X9b9w9x999999::!:P:Q:Ŵ htPhgCJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhcECJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJGQ:::::1;2;Z;[;{;|;;;<<<P<Q<g<h<<<<<<<&='=F=g=r=s========F>G>>>>>!?"?j?k?????@@@@V@W@@@@@@@)A*ApAqABBLBMBBBBBBBh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJNB'C(CbCdClCmCDD5D7D8DkDlDmDDDDDEE`EaEoEpEEEEE8F9FlFmFnFFFFFEGFGGG"H#HcHdHHHHHEIFIIIIIIIJJ`JaJJJJJ﷦ htPh CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh CJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJAAC6D7DmFnFGMM N NlQSSBTTTFWHWxXzX]]]]$^%^&^gd') 7$8$H$gdtPJJJ5KCKKKKKKKLLkLlLLLLLMMgMhMMMMMMMMMN N N NRNSNNNNN1O2OOOOO P PŴz#h%h5_ >*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%h5_ 5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhgCJOJQJ^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ0 PVPWPqPrPPPPPPPQ&Q'Q)Q.Q/QjQlQQQQQQQlRnRS SSSSST TTTTdUfUUUnVpVVᮝﮌ~~~hk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJh5_ CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ,VWWWBWDWFWHWWWXXZXvXxXzX Y YYYYY*Z+ZsZtZZZ[[[[][^[[[[[=\>\\\\\\]]*]+]b]c]]]]±±ޠޒބh')CJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhk2CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhgCJOJQJ^JaJ4]]]]]]]]#^$^%^&^?^O^Q^c^e^f^r^x^y^~^^^^^^^^^^^^^______[_Ͻϫwih ,CJOJQJ^JaJh[bCJOJQJ^JaJhO(hc,5hO(h')5h')h')5h')CJOJQJ^JaJ#h')h[b5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h ,hk25CJOJQJ^JaJ#h ,htP5CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhk2CJOJQJ^JaJ(&^4^7^>^?^P^Q^d^e^ $Ifgdc,e^f^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(f^k^l^r^y^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^^^^ $Ifgdc,^^kd$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(^^^^^^___ $Ifgdc,__kd|$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(_ _ _ _ _ ____ $Ifgdc,__kd[$$Iflִa r,"SSSSSSSS t06    44 laytO(____HcIcccdcjjppnsos}x~xxyyzz~~T 7$8$H$gdtP[_\________` `i`j```a aFaGaaaaa+b,b{b|bbb ccGcHcIcccdcccccccccᷦz)h%hG6>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPhGCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJh ,CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ+cd d4d5dQdYdcddd{d|dddddddd eeIeJeWeXeeeeeeeeffff]f^f_fgfffff0g1gwgxgggh h2h3huhvh|h}hhhдУУЕЕдh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh`CJOJQJ^JaJh ,CJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJh`CJOJQJ^JaJ:hhiicidiiiiiCjDjjjjjjj#k$kekfkkkkkkk:l;lBlClllllmm9m;mBmdmemmmmmmmmmnnhninnnnnnno o,o-o htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh sCJOJQJ^JaJh sCJOJQJ^JaJh CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ@-o*CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh sCJOJQJ^JaJ&7~t~~~~~~~ 29w]^6?w Mc݂ᅬxd&htPhpY'6CJOJQJ]^JaJ,h%htP56>*CJOJQJ]^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ')4s~ŃƃANބ#1wx|υЅ.0RZ>@rtvfhˆ$&(~@BбhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJh1z`CJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ4TVXZtvˆ&(&( hёґ 7$8$H$gdtPB$&(2>yƌ܌ ^_6Hᴣ}o^oo^ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ#h%hY>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h%htP5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSsCJOJQJ^JaJhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJhYCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhpY'CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ$ʎˎ׎WeHI֐א#$cdБёґ #bcABᮝ~ hSshtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhSsCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ0@A}~ a 7$8$H$gdtPUV demnזؖefͿsas#hO(htP5CJOJQJ^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJhO(CJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJhSsCJOJQJ^JaJ hSshSsCJOJQJ^JaJ hSshtPCJOJQJ^JaJ hSsh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ&LMYZDE ?@Aor|}~ %8~{hDJ7CJOJQJ^JaJ&htPh{g6CJOJQJ]^JaJ&htPhtP6CJOJQJ]^JaJ htPh,SCJOJQJ^JaJ htPh{gCJOJQJ^JaJhtPCJOJQJ^JaJh{gCJOJQJ^JaJ htPhtPCJOJQJ^JaJ.ʛ˛̛TU12֞מVWԟ՟RS^_ 7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtPɛʛ˛̛)*-.45?@SbFGPQʼʼʺʩʼʛʛʛʛʩʩʩʛʛʼh |ECJOJQJ^JaJ h*h |ECJOJQJ^JaJUh*CJOJQJ^JaJ h*h*CJOJQJ^JaJ h*5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hDJ7h*5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ$_ա֡34STHIԤդ56̥ͥ@Az{ 7$8$H$gd*ehurst, R. & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and Management in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education 17(3), 251264. Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Miller, D. (1995). The Management of Change in Universities: Universities, State and Economy in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Buckingham: SRHE/OU. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage. National Commission on Higher Education (1996). A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria. Neave, G. (1988). On the Cultivation of Quality, Efficiency and Enterprise: An Overview of Recent Trends in Higher Education in Western Europe, 19861988, European Journal of Education 23(1/2), 723. Neave, G. & van Vught F. (eds) (1991). Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Plowman, T. (1998). The Story of Closely and Loosely Coupled Organizations, Journal of Higher Education Policy 20(1), 1318. Pollitt, C. (1987). The Politics of Performance Assessment: Lessons For Higher Education? Studies in Higher Education 12(1), 8798. Reed, M.I. (1992). The Sociology of Organizations: Themes, Perspectives and Prospects. Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Sizer, J., Spee, A. & Bormans, R. (1992). The Role of Performance Indicators in Higher Education, Higher Education 24(2), 133155. Spee, A. & Bormans, R. (1992). Performance Indicators in Government-Institutional Relations: The Conceptual Framework, Higher Education Management 4(2), 131138. Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England, Higher Educational Policy 7(2), 1118. Walford, G. (1987). Restructuring Universities: Politics and Power in the Management of Change. London: Croom Helm. Weick, K. (1983). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. In V. Baldridge & T. Deal (eds), The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education. Berkeley: McCutchon Publishing Corporation, 1537. {[\ghjkgh   7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtP 7$8$H$gd* 7$8$H$gdtP;0P:pcE/ =!"#$% Dp$$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO($$If!vh55J555955~5#v#vJ#v#v#v9#v#v~#v:V l t065SytO(^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List jj [b Table Grid7:V0PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]   #+$03Q:BJ PV][_ch-onsy7~BTVWYZ[\]_`abcefghvwxyz{|}`#A&^e^f^^^^^^^____T_{UX^dijklmnopqrstu~8@0(  B S  ?N Hl  H+  H=  Hf H$ H.$H H H H H$ H H Hd H H$2 H H u H H, H4 H H<  HA !HA "HT #HT $H$%H$$&Hd|'H|(H4$)Ht$*H +H ,Ht -H .H /H$ 0He 1HDe 2He 3H 4H, 5Hl 6HW 7HW 8H X 9Ht :H ;H H ?H$ @H6 AHT6 BH6 CH6 DH7 EHT7 FH7 GH7 HH8 IHT8 JH8 KH8 LH9 MHT9 NH9 OH9 PH: QHT: RH: SH: TH; UHT; VH; R R ZZGG!8!8DDRRKuKuww((ʍďďHH_ÐÐ&&ww00ݒݒ**{{,,3CCGG؝؝      !"#$%&'()*+,.-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLM^ ^ ffSS-8-8DDRRWuWuww00ɍԍԍŎŎяяPPdɐɐ,,~88!!8866AIINNޝޝ  !"#$%&'()*+,.-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLM9N*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace88*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity8:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateBM*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region92*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=0*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=.*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType 7 1219993DayMonthYearNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNMNM:N8N8N8N2N00.N8N8NN8NN8N8N0.N8N8NMNN8NMNMNMN8N8N8NN8NMN8N8bc""j#o#p#u#F%F%A-M---. .2256NNQQ{T|T]X^XYYcbfbiblbwcxcmenerswwxxxx | |Ѐр̊ԊU]ċNj27%׍ލ3W_ǎ͎ՎݎS[ӏُːӐ&14<W`ipՓݓ-͔ԔřʙϙҙKSښ˛՛؛ݛ\`gnx;DPSbc""F%F%k:l:;;l<m<NNNONOOO#PQQQ{T|T]X^XYY\\wcxcmenerswwxx | |Ѐрbc""F%F%NNQQ{T|T]X^XYYwcxcmenerswwxx | |Ѐр('h`5_ - spY'O(') ,c,50 7DJ7^.=? k`k2aG*%Y'7Lg SsGecocE,S@@  !"HIJKLxyz{x@x(x*xX@xRxTxVxXx@xxxx@x @UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialA BCambria Math"1h"Ǧ"Ǧ:Q :Q !24d2HX ?tP2!xxTEMBILE KULATI AdministratoruwcOh+'0x  4 @ LX`hpTEMBILE KULATIAdministratorNormaluwc2Microsoft Office Word@F#@֧@֧:՜.+,0 hp|  UWC Q TEMBILE KULATI Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F0gǬData 1Table/WordDocument=SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjyÿ  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q
Warning: Unknown(): open(/tmp/sess_d3e2a16f2e777d1d3574964142cfe4b7, O_RDWR) failed: Read-only file system (30) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown(): Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/tmp) in Unknown on line 0