Warning: session_start(): open(/tmp/sess_0f7cc551aa10379e84c11b7a2d830a44, 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> ÿ kbjbj 4hhk$ lf#0yyyyyTTT"""""""$$8'6 #TTTTT #yy #vvvTyy"vT"vv:9!,!y6%e! "6#0f#o!Rn'n'!n'!TTvTTTTT # #vTTTf#TTTTn'TTTTTTTTT : NICO CLOETE AND TEMBILE KULATI MANAGERIALISM WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE? Published in Amaral,A.; Meek,L.V.; Larsen, I.M. (eds) The higher education managerial revolution?, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 229-251 INTRODUCTION This chapter draws on research and case studies from South Africa to demonstrate the complexities of the ways in which institutions, and particularly institutional management, respond to an increasingly perplexing set of demands from their own staff, government, society and global developments. The chapter begins with a discussion of the evolution of the governance debate in South Africa and the emergence of new governance models with the demise of the apartheid era. The next section details contemporary changes in institutional governance and leadership, followed by an analysis of various pressures that may be pushing South African higher education governance and management towards 'managerialism', within a policy framework of cooperative governance. The concluding section argues that managerialism can be found either everywhere or nowhere, depending on one's perspective. Indeed, while there are global characteristics to the managerial movement in higher education, a complete picture of what is happening with governance and management in specific countries cannot be understood without reference to the complexity of local governance relationships. THE CONTOURS OF THE GOVERNANCE DEBATE In examining the evolution of the governance debate in higher education in South Africa, it is important to recognise that the struggles for the transformation of higher education governance predate the promulgation of the new higher education legislative framework by a number of years (White Paper, Department of Education 1997). The debate on leadership and management in higher education institutions was subsumed under the broader struggles for governance transformation, with very little, if any, engagement with questions and issues relating to the management and role of leadership in institutional change. The genesis of the debate on governance transformation in South African higher education can be traced to the education struggles of the 1980s that were led by the organisations affiliated to the National Education Co-ordinating Committee (NECC), and in particular the student formations belonging to the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM). Much of the emphasis of these struggles was centred on the demand for the democratisation of institutional governance structures, in particular the councils, and the establishment of alternative structures of institutional governance, namely the broad transformation forums. The launch of the NECC in March 1986 signalled a strategic shift from the earlier phase of the education struggles, which was focused on making the apartheid state structures ungovernable, to one whose objective was to develop 'People's Education for People's Power', the slogan around which the NECC waged its struggle for democratic participation. The political strategy of People's Education, which began as an attempt to shift the balance of educational power such that a "people's [educational] authority is established alongside the existing [apartheid] state authority", went through several stages of development (Obery interview with Ihron Rensburg cited in Levin 1991). Although these stages arose in the context of the struggle for the control of township schools, they were also reflected in the demands of student organisations at higher education institutions, especially in the black universities. The first stage, whose objective was to shift the balance of educational power in schools from the state to the community, centred around the need to develop alternative structures and programmes within the schools. The shift in strategy in the second stage focused on the need to gain control of governance structures in schools and higher education institutions, as a key element in the 'dual power' strategy to gaining state power. Mohamed and Cloete (1996) have, not unlike Levin (1991), attempted to periodise the education struggles relating to the transformation of higher education governance into three phases. The first phase focused on the demand for the establishment of alternative democratic governance structures, namely the broad transformation forums, that would challenge the authority of what were considered to be illegitimate and unrepresentative governance structures, in particular the councils and senates. Change was to be achieved through changing the composition of council and senate to ensure that marginalised groups and constituencies were represented in institutional decision making. The second phase had as its focus the legitimation of the institutional management structures. This was to be achieved through the replacement of the discredited appointees of the apartheid state in university administrations with progressive institutional leaders, appointed democratically. The third phase centred on the demand for the processes of governance and decision making to be more participatory and accountable. At some institutions, mainly historically disadvantaged universities and some English-medium institutions, this process started well before 1994; in others the process continued long after the principles and framework for democratic institutional governance had been embodied in the legislation. The focus of the governance debate was on issues relating to structural reform and, to a lesser extent, on the substantive challenge of participatory decision making. There was hardly any discussion of how higher education institutions once transformed at the level of representation in governance structures - ought to be organised and managed, and what role institutional managers could play in the unfolding transformation processes. In terms of the relationship between institutions and the government, South Africa has a peculiarly mixed history. While the apartheid period is commonly perceived to be repressive, with little or no autonomy, the apartheid state in regulating higher education produced contradictory effects. In certain areas, some universities acquired a remarkable degree of autonomy and freedom whilst in other areas racist legislation and the use of state security apparatuses turned some of the universities into ideological and physical battlefields (Moja, Muller and Cloete 1996). Initially the governance model for black institutions was clearly a state control model, that is, control by legislation backed up by central government administrative and executive powers with respect to the composition of management, administrative and academic structures, access, student affairs and funding as well as the appointment of all senior members of staff. In contrast, the Van Wyk De Vries Commission (1974) recommended strong institutional autonomy for the historically white institutions, which during the 1980s achieved an unprecedented degree of autonomy. The South African Post Secondary Education funding model contained elements of a weak state supervision model. Weak supervision was gradually supplemented with irregular state interference, targeting particularly the black institutions and individual students and staff. A New Governance Model Influenced by the history of the problematic relationship between the government and higher education institutions, and taking into account international debates of the early 1990s, the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) (1996), appointed by President Mandela in 1994, proposed a model of cooperative governance. Cooperative governance as conceptualised in the NCHE is framed within the notion of the new state. The cooperative governance approach made a clear choice between three models of government/higher education interaction. The first model, namely state control, is premised on effective and systematic state administration of higher education executed by a professional and competent civil service - the 'Continental model' characteristic of Western Europe in the twentieth century. State supervision, which constitutes the second model, is founded on less centrist forms of control. The locus of power shifts from 'centralised control' to 'steering' in which governments provide the broad regulatory framework, and, through the use of instruments such as planning and funding, institutions are 'steered' to produce the outputs governments' desire. Steering is seen as an interactive process between government and institutions and it is the current preferred model in many countries, albeit with widely divergent mechanisms and levels of steering. The third model, state interference, is based on control in higher education that is neither systematic (model one) or 'regulation through steering' (model two) but which is based on arbitrary forms of intervention. This model operates in many developing countries, Africa in particular (Kraak 2001). Cooperative governance was located within a state supervision model, with academic freedom guaranteed by the constitution; autonomy was to be exercised within a framework of government leadership through funding and planning. The government accepted the framework of the NCHE and the 1997 White Paper (Section 3.6) states that: Recognising the need to transcend the adversarial relations between state and civil society arising from the apartheid era, the Ministry of Education adopts a model of cooperative governance for higher education in South Africa based on the principle of autonomous institutions working co-operatively with a proactive government and in a range of partnerships. The White Paper (Section 3.6) further states that: The transformation of the structures, values and culture of governance is a necessity, not an option, for South African higher education. Higher education institutions are vital participants in the massive changes which our society is undergoing, and in the intellectual, economic and cultural challenges of the new world order. For the first time in their history, our higher education institutions have the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but they will not do so until their system of governance reflects and strengthens the values and practices of our new democracy. The transformation of governance was to be achieved through a system of cooperative governance that is based on a number of assumptions, namely, that: no single actor can effect change; there are complementary and competing interests; new structures are established to promote cooperative behaviour among institutional stakeholders; and the responsibilities of different partners are clarified. The new legislation stipulates the main governance structures to be the council, the senate, and the institutional forum. The council is the supreme governing body in public higher education institutions, and is responsible for ensuring good governance within an institution. As the White Paper (Section 3.6) puts it: "Councils are the highest decision-making bodies of public institutions. They are responsible for the good order and governance of institutions and for their mission, financial policy, performance, quality and reputation". The senate is the highest decisionmaking body in relation to the "academic and research functions of the public higher education institution and must perform such other functions as may be delegated or assigned to it by the Council" (Higher Education Act 1997, Section 28 (1)). 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 an arena for issues that pertain to the broad transformation agenda of the institution to be openly debated and discussed. They have also been established to advise councils on a number of issues, including the mediation of conflicts among campus stakeholders, and in making an input into the process of appointing senior executive management of the institution. During the consultative phase that the Department of Education embarked upon prior to the promulgation of the legislation, there was general agreement with the concept and principles of cooperative governance. However, as the implementation process began to unfold, it became clear that 'agreement in principle' does not translate into 'unity in practice'. Firstly, it seems that there are two competing - although not uncomplementary - notions about democracy in South African higher education. The first position posits that the key transformation issue is about the participation of previously excluded groups in the restructured governance structures - thus the main democratisation task is to get more blacks and women into existing decision-making structures. The second position argues for the transformation of the governance processes themselves - in other words, putting more blacks and women into the institutional council is not enough; the role and functions of the council itself must change. The key changes have to do with democratic participation, transparency and accountability. Democratising governance was not the only transformation task. The White Paper proposed the introduction of a single coordinated system with major demands for improvements with regards to equity and efficiency. At the same time that the education White Paper was being written and consulted about, the new government introduced a new macro-economic policy framework called Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) (Department of Finance 1996). This policy closely followed the so-called Washington consensus that expects countries who want to join the global economy to apply macro-economic discipline, reduce the balance of payments and curb government spending - a strong overall focus on efficiency, accountability and good governance as a means to attract foreign investment and stimulate growth. The new legislative framework, which coupled market competition with the emergence of new public management, put enormous pressure on institutions to devise new ways of managing what were becoming more diverse and very complex institutions. Within the space of five years, higher education institutions were confronted with many challenges, including the need to: dramatically improve access and success for the previously excluded; diversify their income streams while doing more, and different, things with increasingly less reliance on the fiscus (most institutions receive less than 50% of their income from direct state subsidy); reconfigure institutional missions and the ways in which they traditionally produced, packaged and disseminated their primary product - knowledge in order to meet the challenges of a diversifying student population, as well as an increasingly technologically oriented, and globalising, economy; forge new kinds of relationships with other knowledge producers within and outside higher education, especially in industry and the private sector; and bring about transformation in a democratic, consultative manner (Kulati2000). The emphasis on institutional effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness within the new economic and legislative framework positioned the role of leadership, the vice-chancellor and the administration centre stage in institutional change. How this would square with more participative, consultative decision making is the main part of the story that follows. CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP A recent major study on South African higher education governance (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002), which was commissioned by the Council on Higher Education, has developed a typology of institutional governance, which is based on a combination of three criteria that the study claims is required for good governance practice. These criteria are: the degree of representivity in governance structures; the extent of delegation of authority and responsibilities; and the ability of institutions to implement governance and management decisions. From a survey of 12 higher education institutions, the study identified four categories of governance, as manifested in institutional practice (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002: 23). These are: Contested institutions: In this category there is limited representivity in governance and poorly developed systems of delegation. These tend to be institutions in crisis, or institutions that are vulnerable to crisis if their present leadership loses legitimacy. They are a particular consequence of South Africa's history, in that issues inherited from the apartheid years are still dominant (25% of the sample fell into this category). Management-focused institutions: Universities and technikons in this group share a focus on management issues, either because they have made the explicit decision to adopt models from the corporate sector, or because systems of internal organisation that were better suited to previous years now present substantial obstacles to institutional adaptation. These institutions have inwardly focused systems of governance with well-developed capacity for administration and the delegation of authority. They are at risk from factional interests pursuing sectoral issues that are not in the interests of the institution as a whole (33% of the sample). Democratic institutions: These institutions combine broad representivity with shallow systems of delegation. They are the classic defenders of academic participation in governance. However, their poorly developed formal systems of delegation make them vulnerable to institutional gridlock if consensus cannot be reached on key issues (33% of institutions). Democratic, well-managed institutions: Institutions in this category have achieved an impressive record in governance through combining the strengths of participatory governance with the advantages of well-developed, formal systems of delegation of authority and responsibility (9% of institutions). The governance framework developed in this study suffers from a number of weaknesses, however. The first is that the matrix of governance arrangements does not incorporate the criterion of implementation capacity as one of its variables, although this is highlighted as one of the key constituent criteria of effective governance. Another weakness is that there is a conflation of causal relationships between the criteria that have been outlined and their effect on governance/ behaviour. For example, it is assumed that the more limited the representivity in governance structures, the more prone to crisis an institution will be. Of course, the converse is also true, in that with more stakeholders represented on governance structures, there is also the likelihood - especially in the context of a relatively young democracy - that tensions between stakeholders might have a deleterious effect on governance effectiveness. The main strength of the report is that it adds further insight to the 'styles of leadership' developed by Kulati and Moja (2002) and elaborates the governance indicators developed by Cloete, Bunting and Bunting (2002). Another important contribution is a different approach in understanding the two dimensions of representivity (and the extent to which governance becomes self-referential) and delegation as two axes of a matrix that plots an interaction between functional/effective and dysfunctional/unstable governance. The study referred to earlier by Kulati and Moja (2002) identifies three leadership approaches to institutional governance that emerged during the post-1994 period. Two of the approaches discussed in the chapter, namely managerial and transformative leadership will be discussed below, while the third, crisis management, is more of an institutional condition than an emerging leadership style. Managerial Leadership The strategic objective of this approach is to reconfigure the institution to become more competitive and market oriented through the vigorous adaptation of corporate management principles and techniques to the higher education setting. Thus the change agenda within these institutions is driven by a strong, decisive centre (usually located in the office of the vice-chancellor) that is buttressed by sophisticated management-support systems and structures, and which is staffed by a highly competent middle management layer. The leadership style is characterised by a rapid-response management ethos. Where others talk in terms of threats and survival in the face of globalisation and fierce competition from the emerging private higher education sector, the buzz here is about exploiting niches and developing partnerships. Stumpf (2001) describes the way in which many of these institutions have become less reliant on government subsidy funding by devising various strategies to generate private income. These institutions have become increasingly entrepreneurial in their orientation, as reflected in the way in which many of them (especially the historically white research institutions) have established specific structures to package and patent their intellectual property. Another approach to increasing income has been to move into flexible modes of educational delivery. Apart from introducing modularised postgraduate programmes on a large scale, these institutions also entered the field of distance education for undergraduate programmes. This they did in partnership with private providers and thus saved themselves massive set-up and logistical costs. Some of these institutions have also established spin-off companies in which staff members who had a direct interest in the development of a particular piece of intellectual property, would have a shareholding along with the institution and private sector shareholders. Others have established structures to advance institutional/private sector cooperation in a variety of ways and adjusted their internal allocation mechanisms to reward performance in the field of partnerships with the private sector and in the generation of their own income. In response to the increasing importance of strategic management, many institutions invested in management training for their senior administrators and established offices of institutional research. Apart from taking care of the formal information requirements of government, these units have usually been responsible for other forms of quantitative (and sometimes even qualitative) planning support to management. In many cases sophisticated systems of performance management were established, based on institutional management information systems. Institutions in which these offices function well are, in general, well poised to respond quickly to new challenges and new opportunities, thereby creating for themselves a competitive edge in the face of increasing competition for students from overseas' institutions entering the South African market and the declining pool of available students (Stumpf 2001). Two sub-categories can be delineated within the broader classification of managerial approaches to institutional change, namely strategic managerialism and unwavering entrepreneurialism. These sub-categories are derived from the distinction that has been made between the 'soft' and 'hard' approaches to managerialism. 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, governed by their own norms and traditions. This is in contrast 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: 12). The leadership challenge for strategic managerialists is to get the institution to think and act more strategically, and to convince the academics that 'being managed', and working in an institution that is run on sound management principles, does not constitute a threat to the traditional values of the academy, such as academic freedom. According to the strategic managerialists, being a first-rate academic with a good understanding of business principles ought not to be a contradiction in terms. As one South African vice-chancellor put it: "The vice-chancellor has to be an academic with a business sense. It also depends on what type of institution you're aspiring to be: for a research/comprehensive university, you must have a strong research background; if you don't have it you can't run senate. And if you can't run senate, you're dead".1 For strategic managerialists, globalisation and the market are not viewed as threats, but as opportunities to be exploited in order to make the institution more competitive internationally. Consequently, the managerialists have been more successful in exploiting the fairly loose legislative framework to the advantage of their institutions, having established strong relationships with international funders, developed partnerships with the private sector and parastatal research agencies, recruited top academics from abroad, and built strong links with universities in Africa. Further along the continuum of the corporatisation of higher education institutions are the unwavering entrepreneurs. For this group the higher education institution is seen as being a business, as opposed to being run like a business. Institutions are thus in the business of providing their clients - the students with goods and services that are sold at a competitive price. The institutions have, or try to develop, strong links with industry, and generally lack a collegial tradition. The institutions falling under this category are mostly from the polytechnic sector (technikons), although a few universities can also be found within this category. For them, the transformation project is about developing useful products for the market, in other words producing employable graduates. The challenge is to gear-up the institution so that it is responsive to rapidly changing customer needs and expectations. The approach is characterised by an unquestioning application of private sector management procedures and techniques. The executive management, whose central concern is to ensure that the institution is run efficiently, believes in leading from the front, being in the driving seat of institutional change (Kulati interviews). The 'unwavering entrepreneurs' regard the government's regulatory framework as an inconvenience; it is seen as failing to appreciate the demands and challenges facing modern higher education institutions. Government is viewed as not being generally supportive of institutional leadership, and although policies such as cooperative governance are regarded as necessary, they are seen as a nuisance. Transformative Leadership Transformative leadership is not a homogeneous category; nor does it imply one single notion of transformation. Rather, it is regarded as transformative in the South African context because it combines elements of leadership, which are broadly recognised as being successful, with features of cooperative governance. An indepth case study (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002) of two institutions (University of Port Elizabeth and Peninsula Technikon) revealed the following as some of the key elements of cooperative transformative processes followed by the leadership in those institutions: Critical self-reflection: A process often initiated by the vice-chancellor, where a wide range of members of staff engaged in critical self-reflection on the transformation process. This included more than one attempt to rethink the mission of the institution. In some cases members of the executive leadership wrote regularly about the successes and weaknesses of the processes. Negotiated transformation: A process where agreement - on issues such as the new mission of the institution - was reached through a protracted negotiations process involving various internal and external stakeholders. Active forums: A feature of some institutions where the institutional forum had an active agency role, meaning that they met regularly, discussed issues such as gender discrimination or affirmative action and made recommendations to the institutional leadership or the council. Role differentiation: The development of an understanding and acceptance of distinctions between governance functions and roles. Considering the lack of clarity in the policy about the role of leadership, a key task was to reach agreement about who has authority over what. This included the acceptance that neither the council nor the institutional forum should try to manage the institution, and that leadership must implement decisions which had been agreed upon in these structures. Expanded leadership core: The establishment of an expanded management group which in some cases included the president of the student representative council, and the development of a common vision for the institution and a shared discourse of the change process. Trust: An essential component of the change process which enabled the different constituencies to allow management to implement decisions and to lead. Directive leadership with consultation: An approach that helped manage the tension between leading and consulting. The manner and sequence of consultation varied according to leadership style and institutional culture. Constructive/critical relationship between the chairperson of council and the vice-chancellor: Central to holding the transformation process together was a supportive and critical working relationship between the chair of council and the vice-chancellor, based on a clearly understood complementarity of functions and skills. It must be stressed that putting these processes in place in the two institutions did not depend on a specific leadership style. At one institution the leader can be described as a philosopher who steered from behind rather than leading from the front: "Nothing gets done without consultation" (Kirsten, University of Port Elizabeth, interview). At the other institution a charismatic engineer led from the front, but still within the framework of the elements described above: "I had to shake the institution out of its complacency at being 'the best technikon' and therefore not needing to change much; in other words, to get staff to realise it is not 'business as usual' ... to get [the] institution to realise that the value framework that it (once) cherished cannot be sustained" (Figaji, Peninsula Technikon, interview). In both institutions, the central characteristic of transformative leadership was the management of the tension between leading and consulting (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). The features and processes mentioned above are illustrative of managerial and political responses to transformation pressures. It is within this context that two related, but distinct, approaches to transformative leadership can be described. The first approach, referred to as reformed collegialism, starts from the premise that at the centre of the transformation project of the institution lies the intellectual agenda of higher education, which is non-negotiable. Thus part of the transformation agenda is to reclaim and reassert the centrality of the intellectual traditions of higher education institutions. The starting point of the institutional change strategy is to be sensitive to, and work within, the confines and limits of the prevailing institutional culture, rather than going to war against it (Birnbaum 1992). This can be achieved through remoulding the institution so that it is better able to respond and adapt to the new demands that it faces, while holding on to the central tenets of the academic tradition of the university, namely the pursuit of truth, disinterested enquiry etc. In other words, the leadership challenge is about facilitating academic excellence by supporting, managing, nurturing and inspiring one's academic colleagues. Collegialists would concur with Ramsden (1998: 13) that "deep at the heart of effective leadership is an understanding of how academics work". 'Reformed' refers to the fact that even the most devoted collegialists are not oblivious to the pressures of democracy and global trends on academia. By responding to these pressures, however, tensions develop between collegiality and management strategies for change. While acknowledging the importance of the new, participatory governance principles, the second approach, referred to as transformative managerialism, is characteristic of leaders who put more emphasis on 'driving' transformation from the centre. The challenge for the transformative managerialists is to transform the culture of the institution from an authoritarian to a more democratic one, whilst ensuring that the institution is managed more efficiently, in line with policy principles or market pressures. In order to push the transformation agenda through the institution, decision making is centralised, decentralised and re-centralised. This is done by expanding the 'top' leadership group to include executive deans and certain professionals, such as finance or human resource directors. Key strategic decisions are taken by this group, and the deans become the implementers at the faculty level. Traditionally, the deans are supposed to represent and defend faculty interests. Whilst the executive dean and their faculty may have an autonomous budget and control over the appointment of new colleagues, the budget parameters and employment equity targets are set centrally. When taking the faculty decisions back to top management where the decisions could be overturned, the dean is placed in a very complex relationship within management, of which they are part, and faculty, which they are supposed to represent. This is even further complicated by the fact that in many cases the self-image of the dean is that of a faculty member, and not that of a manager. This role confusion can be described as a position of 'in-betweenity', meaning that the dean is always located, and often trapped, between the faculty and management, between the faculty and students, and between the institution and the external communities. In a number of institutions, particularly those with strong academic cultures, a few deans have fallen foul of this role schizophrenia which Du Toit argues is currently a greater threat to academic freedom than the state. For example, he states that "it is not clear how an executive deanship could be compatible with a 'collegial' approach to the conduct of faculty governance in any serious sense" (2001: 5). In summary, while transformative leadership grapples with the new demands for participation and responses to the market, major tensions are emerging, accentuated by the academic culture of the institution and the urgency for change. In some instances the institutions may lean more towards collegial styles of management; in others towards a centralised approach to management. The above shows that, while there are certain commonalties regarding governance and leadership at the institutional level, there are also major differences in the ways that institutions respond to these. PRESSURES TOWARDS MANAGERIALISM In a wide-ranging overview of institutional adaptation to demands for managerial reform, Gumport and Sporn (1999) attribute the expanding role of administration to three interdependent dynamics: resource dependency that is primarily motivated by organisational survival; institutional isomorphism that is motivated by legitimacy concerns; and professional authority that is motivated by a struggle for professional identity. Two more recent, and very informative, reviews of change that contribute to a managerial approach are by Amaral and Magalhaes (2002) and Maassen (2002). Primarily, management is responsible for maintaining the organisation's exchange relationship, whether it be a bridge or a buffer, it must transverse an increasingly complex environment that is not only government and business, but also an escalating range of 'stakeholders' (Neave 2002). It must meet compliance with environmental demands and cultivate alternative resources to reduce existing dependencies. Management becomes more important because they are mainly responsible for the development of strategies that increase existing sources of income, tap into new income sources and help to reduce existing dependency relationships. A key resource is legitimacy, and it is increasingly important that institutions be seen to be responding, in a business-like manner, to demands for reform. Symbolic activity is as important as real activities in order to sustain existing resources and to gain access to new sources. Presenting a more unified and business-like front, an expanded management core is much better positioned to represent the institution than the often fractious collegiality. The literature on the sociology of the professions explains how a dynamic is put into place that will promote a tendency amongst professional, or pre-professional, groups, to gain greater authority and improved benefits, both financially and in terms of control over their domain of work. Gumport and Sporn (1999) describe the effects of this as a shift in the authority structure within higher education organisations that entails an expanding domain for the administrators and the leadership and a narrowing authority domain for the academic faculty. The above mentioned factors come into play very forcibly when, as has been the case in South Africa in the post-1994 period, institutions are faced with a sudden increase in demands for reform from the government and society, and an unleashing of market forces by both the government and a burgeoning local and global private higher education sector (Cloete and Maassen 2002). As is indicated by Gumport and Sporn (1999) there are many factors that put pressures on higher education to become more business-like and, by implication, more managerial, but we want to explore two specific factors in the South African context. The first is that, despite a formal policy of cooperative, participative governance, some of the reforms of the national government have, intentionally and unintentionally, promoted managerialism rather than greater democratisation. Secondly, through a process of mimetic and normative isomorphism, institutional management's notions of 'successful' institutions have been exchanged, mimicked and adopted through professional networks who are, on the one hand, responding to resource and legitimacy demands, and on the other hand to promoting their position. 4.1. Effects of Government Reforms 4.1.1. Shifts Towards a More Centralised Reform Process The new Minister of Education, appointed after the second democratic election in 1999, declared that implementation, and not more policy, was a priority. Implementation requires very specific policy, which was not available, since most of the post-1994 policies were symbolic, attempting to bring about new frameworks and greater unity (Cloete and Maassen 2002). Making policy trade-offs between different interests could not be made in the same consultative manner as developing symbolic policy, and the ministry did not have much experience in negotiating trade-offs. The new phase of more centralised decision making and less 'broad consultation' was not peculiar to education; it had started with the Minister of Finance declaring in 1997 that the new macro-economic policy was not up for consultation or negotiation. A series of institutional crises and a lack of confidence in higher education leadership - a critical component of governance - led to numerous amendments to the 1997 Higher Education Act. Examples of this gradual transition from a steering to an increasingly centralised approach to the management of the higher education reform process are to be found in the following amendments: Higher Education Amendment Act 55 of 1999 - allows the Minister to appoint administrators to a higher education institution where there is financial or other maladministration of a serious nature. Higher Education Amendment Act 54 of 2000 - allows the Minister to determine the scope and range of operations of an institution, and determines that an institution may not, without the approval of council and under certain circumstances without the concurrence of the Minister, enter into a loan or overdraft agreement or develop infrastructure. Higher Education Amendment Act 23 of 2001 - includes a provision for the indefinite appointment of the administrator and the repeal of private acts (Olivier 2001). Concurrent with the legislative changes, the method of 'steering' also altered. Initially, planning and funding were regarded as an interactive approach to determine goals and targets (Department of Education 1998). However, the ministry shifted to a view that in order to implement the transformation programme an increasing use of the executive powers vested in him by the Higher Education Act would be required. A key example is the proposed new funding model which, in the words of one of the authors: "will be a top-down one. It will come into operation only when the government has determined what total of public funds should be spent in a given year on universities and technikons and what the key policy goals should be for that year" (Bunting 2001: 4). This model is not an interactive steering approach, but is much closer to the centralised state control approach rejected in the White Paper as a model for governance. The latest reform policy is a decision that the number of higher education institutions will be reduced from 36 to 23 institutions through a process of mergers - some of these mergers will be voluntary since the affected institutions have agreed to merge, others will be 'involuntary'. In a memo to the president about mergers (Department of Education 2002), the ministry lists equity, efficiency and development as the key principles that are driving the need for change. Democracy, a key principle in all previous government policy documents, is not mentioned. Also the process of bringing about the mergers is perceived to be a leadership and management-driven one, since the interim councils, which will be appointed by the Minister, will have no representation from students or staff. It is not only the Minister who has acquired new powers and shifted to a more 'top-down' model, but also the Council on Higher Education (CHE) has adopted a more centralised approach. Writing about the proposals formulated by the CHE Task Team on 'Size and Shape', Kraak (2001) argues that the proposals represent a shift in the conception of the role of the state from that founded on a model of 'state supervision' to that of 'state interference'. The solutions to the dysfunction and endemic crisis in the higher education system sought by the CHE are found in the articulation of a 'state interference' model - a bureaucratic, weak and arbitrary form of intervention based on prescriptive fiat and rigid rules and procedures. The affinities between this form of state intervention and the proposals of the CHE are self-evident. They represent a view of the state as unable to attain the sophistication required for 'steering', and, as a consequence, necessitating a reversal to a conception of the state as bureaucratic and prescriptive (Kraak 2001: 30). Trying to justify this shift, Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002), in a commissioned study for the CHE, argue that "the concept of co-operative governance, as defined in the earlier 1990s, is now in danger of becoming a hindrance that confuses policy and inhibits the development of good practice" and should be replaced by a notion of 'conditional autonomy' (p. 108). The report argues that the National Plan for Higher Education (Department of Education 2001) marks the path of change to a "system of conditional autonomy in which substantive autonomy (academic freedom) continues to be guaranteed while the state exercises increasing control over procedures of funding and academic accreditation" (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002: 19). The argument is flawed because the decision that 10 mergers and four incorporations must happen, whether the institutions agree or not, violates the first condition of conditional autonomy set out in the report, namely "the right of individual institutions to determine their primary goals". The apartheid regime also had a model of conditional autonomy, the difference being that under apartheid the conditions were very clear, while under the new Minister the conditions are unspecified and keep shifting, which makes the propagation of such a model potentially very dangerous (Moja, Cloete and Olivier forthcoming). The effects of increasing centralised reform and less consultation at the national level create a climate that promotes top-down decision making, both from the national government and from institutional leadership. Responding to the extraordinary amount of new legislation and policies requires an enormous managerial/administrative capacity, which on the one hand distracts academics from teaching and research, and on the other demands a more sophisticated and expanded administrative capacity. The merger process in particular, aiming to achieve efficiency gains that will necessitate the reduction of staff and programmes, will require strong management. It could thus be concluded that a combination of a strong equity and efficiency agenda will, intentionally and unintentionally, provide a drive for more leadership and management authority. The Changing Role of the Senate An alarming development in the past five years has been the growing marginalisation of the senate in institutional governance. Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002) in their study on governance in South African higher education, argue that senates are not carrying out their function of being the premier governance structure in relation to academic governance, noting that many senates are "reactive (and sidelined) bodies" (p. 25). The study, however, does not provide an explanation of this declining role of the senate in institutional governance, merely attributing poor attendance as one possible factor. We would like to submit that there are possibly three factors that have given rise to the marginalisation of the senate. The evidence to support these claims is anecdotal, as it arises from informal interactions the authors had with senior academics from a few institutions. The first is that in the face of more assertive councils - a function of the incorporation of hitherto excluded stakeholders and increasing vigilance of council in relation to their fiduciary responsibilities - and executive management (a process that has been accentuated by the emergence of executive deanship as a critical layer in institutional management), senates have not taken an active role in the strategic decisions of the institution. A second reason is that many senior professors and academics at the research universities have been under pressure - in the light of the declining government subsidy - to raise more private income through contract research (see Table 1 below). Consequently, many professors have come to regard their involvement in institutional (governance) issues as of secondary importance, with the result that attendance of senate meetings has declined markedly. The declining interest in getting involved in institutional matters can also be attributed to the emergence of moonlighting in academia. Increasingly, many senior academics are working as consultants to government and the private sector to supplement their declining salaries.  Two recent incidents highlight a third possible reason for the marginalisation of the senate. As was indicated in the previous section regarding a new governance model, the 1997 Higher Education Act draws a clear distinction between the role of councils and senates. Councils, as the highest decision-making bodies of public institutions, are given responsibility for the mission, financial policy and overall institutional performance. The senate on the other hand is the highest decisionmaking body in relation to academic and research functions. This attempts to draw too 'hard' a distinction between functions that are not so clearly demarcatable in governance terms. Reed, Meek and Jones (2002) describe this as the differentiation of functions (separating academic and financial decision-making arenas) and, conversely, the blurring or de-differentiation of separate and autonomous institutional spheres. At both the Universities of Natal and Witwatersrand, conflict has developed around the relationship between the council, the vice-chancellor and the senate. During 2002, the University of Natal Senate passed an unprecedented resolution accusing the Council of "acting arbitrarily and illegitimately in proceeding with the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor by ignoring the required support from Senate" (University of Natal Senate Resolution 5/6/2002). In announcing her resignation, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Witwatersrand, stated that: "there will be searching questions asked about the powers assumed by the Wits Council and its chairperson and the sidelining of the people who appointed me; the Senate, students and staff associations and the 100,000 strong convocation" (Norma Reid, Business Day, November 2002). In both the above cases, discussions with academics reveal a concern, in some cases outrage, that the council is expanding its jurisdiction over financial matters to the appointment, or dismissal, of the vice-chancellor without adequately involving the senate, not to mention other stakeholders. The effect of the increasingly marginal role that the senate is playing at certain institutions is that there is an absence of a countervailing voice to the centralisation of decision-making powers. Many of the important decisions concerning the strategic direction of the institution are bypassing what is meant to be a key governance structure in higher education institutions, with many senates now being pre-occupied with narrow academic matters - becoming, in the words of a senior professor, the 'cheerleaders of the curriculum'. 4.1.2. Institutional Isomorphism Despite the much vaunted independence of thought of higher education staff, there is much evidence towards isomorphism. Mimetic isomorphism is the result of institutions mimicking the behaviour of each other in order to minimise risk in highly competitive environments. When institutions are highly dependent upon a narrow range of resource providers, such as an education ministry or a very homogeneous population, they will tend to have similar programmes, structures and operating norms. Coercive isomorphism is the result of pressures from the environment, principally government policies, that force institutions to become more similar, thus reducing diversity in a higher education system. Governments might act in this way in order to promote efficiency, on the assumption that too much diversity is inefficient (Meek et al. 1996). An example of mimetic isomorphism is the issue of the outsourcing of support service functions. A study by Van der Walt et al. (2002: 20) shows that "outsourcing has been strongly favoured by public sector university managements: every single public sector in South Africa has introduced outsourcing over the last decade". Outsourcing cuts across categories such as historically advantaged or disadvantaged institutions and a managerial or a transformative leadership style - although one institution (Peninsula Technikon) followed a very different approach (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). The study showed that that for the 16 (out of 21) institutions that responded to the survey, 80% chose to adopt outsourcing in order to reduce costs. Slightly less than half (40%) of these institutions hoped that outsourcing would also improve the efficiency of support services. A substantial number of universities also considered their decision to adopt outsourcing to be part of a broader vision of improving the competitiveness of their institutions: for eight institutions (53%), the support services were outsourced on the grounds that they were 'non-core' functions within the university. Three of the institutions regarded the decision to outsource as in line with government policy. The reduction of costs may be attributed to the general financial squeeze on the public sector universities arising from declining government subsidies, and falling revenue from student enrolments. In open-ended questions, respondents spoke of the need to make their institutions 'leaner', to 'do more with less', to 'reduce overheads', and to restructure due to 'financial considerations' and a lack of 'sufficient resources'. Van der Walt reports that the paradigm of university marketisation has had an impact on university strategy, respondents citing the need to focus upon 'core' activities as a rationale for support service outsourcing. Whilst the historically advantaged institutions more often cited increased competitiveness as a reason, the historically under-resourced disadvantaged institutions responded more to the new context in order to survive financially - thus more a case of survivalism than marketisation. As Van der Walt's survey suggests, there were different reasons for responding to financial austerity and institutions had different goals that they were trying to achieve. That so many picked on the workers as a source of savings clearly has to do with power; another group pushed to the limit during this period were students whose fees were substantially increased over the period (Bunting 2002). Outsourcing is both a feature of new public management and of the globalisation of labour practices associated with global trends described by Carnoy (2001). According to Carnoy, businesses are trying to transform themselves by looking to increase productivity and reduce labour costs. A key to this is flexibility, meaning that work, and workers, can be constantly adapted and changed to produce new products for new markets. Flexibility means conditions of employment, more shortterm staff and self-programmable skills, meaning the ability not only to learn on the job, but also to redefine the job. Another major aspect is networking, by which Carnoy (2001: 25) means: A new logic of the firm, where changing hierarchies and organisational forms are based on interactive connections between different layers and positions within the firm, between firms, and within the market. New information technologies allow for greater flexibility and networking; and globalisation emphasises interdependence, interaction, and constant adaptation to an ever changing environment. This environment affects workers in firms, creating a culture of individual networking across companies. Individual networking is a way both to learn about working conditions, projects, and innovations in other firms and to make strategic job moves in a flexible labour market. What is rather remarkable is that a common solution was imported by higher education leadership. This is arguably the only time that all institutions tried to implement a similar reform; it was not a government policy, but an international 'best' practice they mimicked.This raises the important point that global practices are often enthusiastically imported as best or 'universal' practice solutions for problems by people within the nation state, and not surreptitiously imposed by Washington as many conspiracy theorists often proclaim. Some institutions, albeit a minority, have, through a policy of absorbing outsourced workers and defending the packages of those who join outsourcing enterprises, maintained a sense of institutional ownership. The negotiated employment policy seems to have resulted in an institution such as Peninsula Technikon being one of the few institutions in South Africa that has managed to retain a sense of campus community (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). Not only have the conditions of work of lower skilled employees changed dramatically, the differential between a service worker and a vice-chancellor increased from 20:1 in 1986 to 25:1 in 2000 (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). Service workers whose jobs were outsourced, and who the contracting companies subsequently hired, had their packages halved (on average). This means that in the post-apartheid era the differential between the vice-chancellor and certain service workers could be as high as 50:1, in contrast with 20:1 under the apartheid government. Whilst the managerial 'class' did disproportionately well in the new South Africa, the fate of the service workers was less fortunate. There is increasing evidence that there has not only been a widening gap between workers and management, but also between management and academics (see Table 2). The gap between senior managers, with 'market-related' packages, and senior teaching and research staff seems to have widened significantly over the past few years (from a ratio of about 2:1 during the late 1980s to a ratio of 4.5:1 in the late 1990s (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). Table 2. Salary ratios: Regulation and deregulation  *The SAPSE funding formula uses senior lecturer level as the basis for salary comparisons Source: SAPSE Return for 2000, University of Cape Town At one of South Africa's leading institutions, which is not unrepresentative of the South African system, there are now seven salary bands, with more than 30 directors, deans, managers and deputy vice-chancellors above the professorial level. Unlike the situation in the US and other countries, there are no academic super-professors who earn packages equivalent to those of executive deans or deputy vice-chancellors. Some institutions have introduced the category of senior professors who are offered substantially larger packages than those of their colleagues, but they are still not comparable with the salary packages of top managers (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). The management at higher education institutions claims that market-related packages are necessary in order to attract and keep senior executives. These packages, in other words, are a consequence of the intense competition for highly qualified executives, particularly those who are black and/or female. But, unlike executives in the private sector environment, senior executives in higher education are rarely tied to performance clauses in their contracts. There are two points worth making here. One is that these packages relate to competition at the high end of the labour market but have little to do with the other ways in which institutions have to make themselves market-competitive. Generally speaking, it is the academic staff, particularly the senior academic staff, who attract students, research grants and consultancy contracts. This is the group that is operating in the market, but who are not rewarded in a market-related manner even though it would not be difficult to build a market reward into the packages of entrepreneurial academics (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). The second point is that the remuneration packages of senior executives are not necessarily an effect of, or directly connected to, more managerial approaches to higher education administration. In fact, some of the highest paid vice-chancellors in the country do not appear to be pursuing entrepreneurial or managerial style leadership approaches at all. MANAGERIALISM EVERYWHERE? It could be argued that the pressures for an expanding role for management and administration in the post-1994 period are not that dissimilar to what Gumport and Sporn (1999) described: institutional adaptation influenced by resource dependency that is primarily motivated by organisational survival; institutional isomorphism that is motivated by legitimacy concerns; and professional authority that is motivated by a struggle for professional identity. The effects of all three factors are evident in the South African context. At one level, the South African higher education governance landscape is thus reassuringly 'global', but the above picture of governance at council, leadership, senate and worker levels reveals a very complex governance set of interrelationships that can be understood in different ways. One approach could be to start from an assumption that managerialism, like chicken man, is everywhere and then to look for evidence of the ascendancy of globalising managerialism. Another approach, and the one followed here, is to first describe new developments within a particular higher education context and then to look for trends and issues. As we have shown, the pressures towards managerialism come from intentional and unintentional effects of government reform policies, from what is regarded as global best practices, from a management cadre promoting their own interests and from academics relinquishing power in pursuit of other interests. Within a policy framework of cooperative governance accepted by government and institutions, both government and higher education institutions are behaving in ways that undermine the policy. Certain government policies, intended and unintended, promote aspects of managerialism. According to the Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002) study, at least 33% of the institutions are 'management focused'. However, what is quite remarkable in higher education is that more than 40% can be classified as 'democratic' or 'democratically well managed'. It could be argued that considering that since 1998 the Minister has consistently increased his powers, institutions may have taken the policy of cooperative governance somewhat more seriously than government itself. What seems quite self-evident from the range of responses is that within one country, with a national policy framework, a large range of governance arrangements has developed. To label this 'a historic march to managerialism' is to obscure, and miss, some very interesting responses emerging amongst different groups of institutions. The different governance and leadership styles may contain many elements of what is being described as managerialism; however, institutions with a more collegial history seem to be developing a range of 'democratic', managerial, practices. What a label of managerialism will obscure is the interesting new forms of consultation and participaion that are emerging under conditions of demands for greater efficiency and accountability. In many of the debates about managerialism, the traditional collegial model is implicitly or explicitly held to as an alternative. In South Africa this model was thoroughly discredited during the initial phases of the demands for greater democratisation. Firstly, it was assumed to be too exclusive, and regarded as inimical to the transformation agenda of higher education. Secondly, the majority of the 'colleagues' were white men aligned, directly or indirectly, to the apartheid regime. It is also very difficult to make a case for an unreformed collegial model when the external and internal environments are changing so drastically. However, as was demonstrated with the case about outsourcing, a simplistic mimetic isomorphism is hardly a palatable alternative. In conclusion, the task ahead seems not to be to counter managerialism with a knee-jerk return to collegiality, but to start identifying lessons from some of the very innovative strategies and structures that are developing in different countries and amongst different institutional cultures in response to the new changing world, that is, in the words of Manuel Castells (2001: 6), not calm waters with an occasional wave, but more like the 'bubbly world of sparkling water'. NOTES 1 Tembile Kulati conducted a number of interviews with vice-chancellors during the course of 2000 as part of a broader project on governance. 2 A report by the South African University Vice-Chancellors Association lists over 30 change initiatives from various government departments that currently demand higher education management time and financial resources (SAUVCA 2002). 3 During the 1960s the BBC world radio service had a famous comic figure called chicken man. Some days chicken man was 'everywhere, everywhere' and some days chicken man was 'nowhere,nowhere'. REFERENCES Amaral, A. and A. Magalhaes. "The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 1-21. Bawa, A. and J. Mouton. "Research." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 296-339. Birnbaum, R. How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1992. Bunting, I. "The Relationship Between State and Public Higher Education Institutions." CHET Paper, 2001 (unpublished). Bunting, I. "Funding." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 115-146. Carnoy, M. "The Role of the State in the New Global Economy." In Muller, J., N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds). Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells. Cape Town:Maskew Miller Longman, 2001, 22-34. Castells, M. "The New Global Economy." In Muller, J., N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds). Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 2001,2-21. Cloete, N., L. Bunting and I. Bunting. Transformation Indicators Applied to Two South African Higher Education Institutions. Pretoria: CHET Publications, 2002. Cloete, N. and P. Maassen. "The Limits of Policy." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 447-490. Department of Education. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. General Notice 1196 of 1997. Pretoria, 1997. Department of Education. National and Institutional Planning Framework for the Higher Education System. Pretoria, 1998. Department of Education. National Plan for Higher Education. Pretoria, 2001. Department of Education. Memorandum to the President of Clarification on Transformation and Mergers in Higher Education. Pretoria, 2002. Department of Finance. Growth, Employment and Redistribution: A Macroeconomic Strategy. Pretoria, 1996. Du Toit, A. "Revisiting Academic Freedom in Post-apartheid South Africa: Current Issues and Challenges." CHET Commissioned Paper, 2001. http://www,chet.org,za/papers.asp. Gibbon, T. and J. Kabaki. "Staff." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 186-229. Gumport, P. and B. Sporn. "Institutional Adaptation: Demands for Management Reform and University Administration." In Stuart, J. and W. Tierney (eds). Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. xiv. New York: Agathon Press, 1999, 103-145. Hall, M., A. Symes and T. Luescher. Governance in South African Higher Education. Council on Higher Education. Pretoria, 2002. Higher Education Act 1997, Section 28 (1). Government Gazette, vol. 390, December 1997. Kraak, A. "Policy Ambiguity and Slippage: Higher Education Under the New State, 1994-2001." CHET Commissioned Paper, 2001. http://www.chet.org.za/papers.asp. Kulati, T. "Governance, Leadership and Institutional Change in South African Higher Education: Grappling with Instability." Tertiary Education and Management 6.3 (2000): 177-192. Kulati, T. and T. Moja. "Leadership." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 230-291. Levin, R. "People's Education and the Struggle for Democracy in South Africa." In Unterhalter, E., H. Wolpe, T. Botha, S Badat, T. Dlamini and B. Khotseng (eds). Apartheid Education and Popular Struggles. London: Zed, 1991. Maassen, P. "Organisational Strategies and Governance Structures in Dutch Universities." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 23-41. Meek, V.L., Leo Goedegebuure, Osmo Kivinen and Risto Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Mohamed, N. and N. Cloete. "Transformation Forums as Revolutionary Councils, Midwives to Democracy or Forums for Reconstruction and Innovation." Research Report, 1996 (unpublished). Moja, T., N. Cloete and N. Olivier. "Is Moving from Co-Operative Governance to Conditional Autonomy a Contribution to Effective Governance?" Kagisano. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education, forthcoming. Moja, T., J. Muller and N. Cloete. "Towards New Forms of Regulation in Higher Education: The Case of South Africa." Higher Education 32 (1996): 129-155. National Commission on Higher Education. A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria: Department of Education, 1996. Neave, G. On Stakeholders, Chesire Cats and Seers: Changing Visions of the University. The CHEPS Inaugurals. Enschede: University of Twente, 2002. Olivier, N. The Relationship Between the State and Higher Education Institutions with Reference to Higher Education Policy Documentation and the Legislative Framework. CHET Paper, 2001, http ://www.chet.org. za/papers.asp. Ramsden, P. Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London: Routledge, 1998. Reed, ML, V.L. Meek and G.A. Jones. "Introduction." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, xv-xxxi. Reid, Norma. Business Day. November 2002. SAUVCA (South African University Vice-Chancellors Association). A New Vision. 2002. Stumpf, R. Higher Education Funding in the Period 1994-2001. CHET Paper, 2001, http://www.chet.org.za/papers.asp. Trow, M. "Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England." Higher Education Policy 7.2(1994): 11-18. Van der Walt, L., C. Bolsman, B. Johnson and L. Martin. "Globalisation and the Outsourced University in South Africa." Final Report for CHET. University of Witwatersrand. 2002, http://www.chet.org.za/publications/outsourced.pdf. Van Wyk De Vries Commission. Main Report of the Inquiry Into Universities. Pretoria: Government Printer, 1974.  CD[\]ijN O ? @ / 0 ~  örre[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[hMYOJQJ^JhMYhuvOJQJ^JhMYhMYOJQJ^Jh93h93OJQJ^Jh936CJ]aJh93CJaJh93OJQJ^Jh$h93CJ^JaJh935>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^JhLZhMY5>*OJQJ^JhLZhuv5>*OJQJ^JhLZhLZ5>*OJQJ^J# \] )*d7$8$H$^gdLZ & Fd7$8$H$gdLZd7$8$H$^gdMY & Fd7$8$H$gdMYd7$8$H$gduvd7$8$H$gdLZ   f g L M ^_hiIJjk  \]=ѿth2.huvOJQJ^Jh2.OJQJ^JhLZOJQJ^JhLZhuvOJQJ^JhLZhLZOJQJ^JhLZhuv5>*OJQJ^J"hLZhMY5>*CJOJQJaJhMYCJOJQJaJhuvCJOJQJaJhMYOJQJ^JhMYhuvOJQJ^J-=>KLmn  \]()*wx#$uv qr  abOPBCpqrXY{|0h*****'+(+q+r+++ ,ȻhUlhuv6OJQJ]^JhUlhUlOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhUlhuvOJQJ^JhUlhUl6OJQJ]^J!hUlhuv5>*OJQJ]^Jhk-hUlOJQJ^JhUlOJQJ^J8 , ,,,V,W,q,r,s,,,&-'-p-q------...k.l...//l/m///00W0X0Y0000ȷ}p}f}h]jOJQJ^JhKMhKMOJQJ^JhKMhuvOJQJ^J hKMhKMCJOJQJ^JaJhuvCJOJQJ^JaJhKMCJOJQJ^JaJ hKMhuvCJOJQJ^JaJhUlhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhKMOJQJ^JhUlhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^J(..X0Y0001I11111!5X7Y799;;>>>7@8@@KAvBCaCd7$8$H$gduv000111>2?222225363333334444444!5i5j555 66\6]66677W7X7Y77777I8J88888=9>9o9p9999ϸhrhrOJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jhrh]jOJQJ^JhrhuvOJQJ^Jh]jOJQJ^Jh]jhuvOJQJ^JhKMhuvOJQJ^JhKMh]jOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^J8999;:<:E:F:::::4;5;;;;;;;;?<@<<<<<,=-=x=y===>>[>\>g>h>>>>??`?a?????6@7@8@@@AAAAAAAA1B2BBBCC`CŻŻŻŻ߮ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻhjhjOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^Jh<h<OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh<OJQJ^Jh<huvOJQJ^JD`CaCbCCCDD[D\DDDDDDDDENEOEEEEE;F*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^Jhzhuv5>*OJQJ^Jhs(hs(OJQJ^Jhs(OJQJ^Jhs(huvOJQJ^JhjhjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^J(aCbCDDDEG GGGGGII%L&LMNNQ[R\RRhTd7$8$H$^gdz & Fd7$8$H$gdzd7$8$H$gduvGGGG/H0HwHxHHHIIdIeIIIIIIIII.J/JvJwJJJKK\K]KKKKK$L%L&L(L?LALuLvLLL M MUMVMMMMùùùùùïùùùùùùùùïhe huv6OJQJ]^Jhe huvOJQJ^Jhzhe OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhe OJQJ^JhzhuvOJQJ^Jhzhuv6OJQJ]^J!he huv56OJQJ]^Jhe huv5OJQJ^J4MMMMNNgNhNNNNNNOOWOXOOOOOMPNPPPPPPPCQDQQQ6R7RZR[R\RRRRRISJSSSSS+T,TgThTiTTTUUSUTU㮡ϔϔhy7hy7OJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^Jhy7OJQJ^Jh^WOJQJ^Jhe he OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhe OJQJ^Jhe huvOJQJ^Jhe huv6OJQJ]^J:hTiTUU V V/YHYIY\c\ ^^^}aHbIb ffkk*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$hy7huv56>*OJQJ]^Jhy7hy75>*OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhy7OJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^J/[\\\\3]4]]]]]q^r^^^^^^M_N_____H`I`````.a/aaa"b#bGbHbIbbbbbbbc-c.cxcycccddjdkdddd߻ȫ󡔡h`:huvOJQJ^Jh`:OJQJ^Jhy7huv6OJQJ]^Jhy7hIOJQJ^JhIOJQJ^Jhy7hG)XOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhG)XOJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^J:ddeeZe[eeeeeee f ff`fafffggOgPgagcggg h h\h]hhhhiSiTibidiiijjQjRjjjjjNkOkkkkkkkkllBlCllȻȻȻȻȻȻȻȻ߮ȻȻhjhuv6OJQJ]^JhjhjOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^Jh`:h`:OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh`:huvOJQJ^Jh`:OJQJ^J>llllllCmDmmmmmnnnn/o0o~oooo%p&pZp[pwpxpppppp%q&qtquqqqrrr.r/r0r~rrrr߻{{hfUOJQJ^J$hh56>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$hhuv56>*OJQJ]^JhjhOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhjhjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^J0prr/r0r~ttuvwyyz|{Y|}} 8d7$8$H$^8gd & Fd7$8$H$gdd7$8$H$gduvr#s$s7s8swsxsssttitjt}t~ttttttuueufuuuuuuuuvGvHvvvvv&w'wswtwwww x>x?xxxxxܵܩhYeOJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYehuvOJQJ^JhfUCJOJQJaJhfUhuv6OJQJ]^JhfUhfUOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhfUhuvOJQJ^JhfUOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^J3x!y"yoypyyy!z"zazbzzzzzzz*{+{4{5{u{v{~{{{{ | |[||||||D}E}}}}}}}}G~H~~~~~890134߁hYeh1OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh16OJQJ]^Jh1OJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYeOJQJ^JhYehuvOJQJ^JC߁34ւׂ01߃89vw;<89Іцab!hi ^_ ¸›¸h huv6OJQJ]^Jh h OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYehuvOJQJ^Jh1OJQJ^J< !>GH-./012RSd7$8$H$^gd v & Fd7$8$H$gd vd7$8$H$gduv !mnhi45[\HIFGH45ڏۏ,-xyː̐45בؑ+,`a,-12Qһūh vhuv5>*OJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh h;lFOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh;lFOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh hDEOJQJ^J@QRSHIDEݕޕ./}~Ζϖ !highefָ}}}}h,OJQJ^Jh,huvOJQJ^JhO4hO4OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhO4huvOJQJ^JhO4OJQJ^Jh5OJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh vh v5>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^J1ܙޙ./>?ҚӚ$%rsVWMN͝ΝopžacTUŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ߮$hIhuv56>*OJQJ]^Jh~aChIOJQJ^Jh~aCOJQJ^Jh~aChuvOJQJ^Jh,h,OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh,huvOJQJ^Jh,OJQJ^J6͠ԣ =>X,-CDvgEF%&d7$8$H$gduvVW\]DE45ԣ<=>ۤܤ./ JK]^ɦʦfg,-wxммЯhfdhfdOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhfdhuvOJQJ^JhfdOJQJ^JhY{8OJQJ^Jh~aChuvOJQJ^J$hIhY{856>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J<ب٨$%vwéĩef+,-wxάϬ"#stdeBCD23װذ*+{|ұӱ!"Ͳβ ܾܾh8OOJQJ^JhTOJQJ^JhfdOJQJ^JhfdhuvOJQJ^JhfdhfdOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JF abY[DEF./ַ׷"#mnQR23EF%߱$hwhuv56>*OJQJ]^Jh8OhCwOJQJ^JhwOJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^Jh8Oh8OOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh8OOJQJ^Jh8OhuvOJQJ^J;%&ijef ;<_`JKLM78UVWBC]^34$%/00jhTphTpOJQJU^JmHnHtH uh8OhCwOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^Jh8OhuvOJQJ^J!hCwhCw56OJQJ]^J>&VW/12#EFghfgd7$8$H$gduv02&'vw!"lm_` ^`STnoQR+-qh?'OJQJ^Jh> huv6OJQJ]^Jh> h> OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh> OJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^JhTpOJQJ^JDqrDEFfghTUAB12QRGHTҿ߅߅h> hïbOJQJ^JhbOJQJ^J$h?'h?'56>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$h?'huv56>*OJQJ]^Jh> h?'OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^Jh?'OJQJ^J2TUPiHI ^_MNefgWXLM[]UV?@45'(wܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻhUHjOJQJ^JhI,hI,OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhI,huvOJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^JhI,OJQJ^JJwx'(<=:;TV67cdEF89_`Z[龱ߤhhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhEOJQJ^JhI,hUHjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhI,huvOJQJ^JhUHjOJQJ^J@<:8t%&d7$8$H$gduv[MN9:)*vw34ʼyoooooooobXXXh~OJQJ^JhhwOJQJ^JhwOJQJ^J!hwhy56OJQJ]^Jhw56OJQJ]^J*j+hyhy56OJQJU]^Jhy56OJQJ]^Jhuv56OJQJ]^J!hwhuv56OJQJ]^Jhwh5OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J"$%xy#$yz$%&uvklGHFGUV#$µߎhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhT -OJQJ^Jh~h5>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^Jh~huv5>*OJQJ^Jhh~OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh~OJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J4Dgh5\]/^_<=C.d7$8$H$gduvd7$8$H$^gd & Fd7$8$H$gd$qr46$%fghPQDE89Z[BC45()[\]JK?@]^_YZhhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^JS;<=CEst}+;<z klz%& ƺuuuh6OJQJ]^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^Jhhuv5OJQJ\^JhCJOJQJaJhuvCJOJQJaJhuvCJ OJQJaJ huvCJOJQJaJhhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J..}' b -   b  )ud7$8$H$gduv  ^ b c } ~    3 ` a        + , T      / 0 O       ( ) 4 ` a {       '(B wx7uvHrsh6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhOJQJ^JPG[strs*+<Ypq!UVpZ[rs)*[\k|[deh6OJQJ]^JhOJQJ^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^JPt+x-kd7$8$H$gdd7$8$H$gduv@QRvw&'v&+,8j{|z{G[\jkhhNHOJQJ^Jh6OJQJ]^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^J/21h:pNH. A!"#$% +Dd+ ""j  FA?Picture 1b*6h-@9^*Dxn*6h-@9^PNG  IHDR;sRGB*lIDATx^ے*EOsO`B@lc~"- ]Y @X @%! @ؘRfa: @Hr e6C ! @ؘRfa: @Hr e6C or>9N( \R s< >;fmpH[x QqiU2>P/bGVn27OSJSL0.+r:oo|KmdLzkeTɠЪ9r!=lᱎ{`Ży.bУJکcqj^mϢHÖLG:q2Z/nR-3^T뒶=#,AG䕛n~77h *et4'$lC{:˾^!=2r?6>K:wę͛$/AxیjMI!xwe]3syob+v2q;_gRLyh8douOpf r'xeOS$H qdN0otes3Ⲿ]es%O2z~n}Jr'tvرlMZܔerҧU/TnO1A@ױIxfJk$sUOe^+KM-oܢW[aJ.~ErNi-jw+O!]ZW`a Y%܊W*jKVHYj)0StLيwb3bɖ/14cP:%.c; ^JOT ʤ wLrP>e0r0^ ]I[d~%XӄBAWBb{c|,˪,3R&fVZCqϗ_;}ח#qʽ/fT%eOuw(&zJU{EYnVZv̎Dt%^qݽSEf4=K&;< eBƒjYXNwhfX{UU=Ġ")Y.u 2q5c-ΌYN-Z۪q-LNٌ R;~k:)sV]ctVxMB`멏kwQFHJFٺZ-v7S[;B$'Ȳd5m74ƙmL)Ư^oʜ S2yHH|ɫ V![@;([ۘ/j~QoT âN\f]]ޤ_ǼimVP~ ҵ] HjHZ޲ZVST?-gHM:R Pzg[YefF ^"eji3ZAԵ`u:/nX )q$ӱr4Җd]^]/`%COrLf4WV5y(Ppb)ԥMr<.}8@~o)3V[\ ePcC[}Zk,0@w2fHUmkoϱu3u[# ɨXńlT% ,I/:4ʤ̧߭~t!W ;}^y[Wl%ɔ= ^N^m:"5KL^ݤ XK2%[tq JKzTKdu׎c˩J"?2hdX = kyɕ|T"ZM v!P' /u 骝2ici5aeTDw|d\H2|-Y꒔2%ٯ$<񦖡Wku}}4D& :7Z4|e2 S2IBa P`1 Zd}gnC;~e25fo0U \k.O5~u]> JO[W|H-RźTTTw d:F M/G >GUHKH "<'^PO[C5pq!~j rU\qy 6LŸ8?gMq /=_x{#wS} !sF dNG )w_GCOlK`671 T, @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@Rh%xS_”Iީ"*ݧ;y,f@t %sefuC3&txػa4w S @&ʚa)yeVN밒4އw5pǙi룲kE2Eh:337K۹))L @x;@ e^`܃ 7ߗ{'?噀S0AVn絎w墡T l7B&UuK9nlRhh5<65^t;62m4gct)Xp,v] ТtqOJlЎ2{Akw0Ċ]gn9)㣕Ok<*i)_KjǮ"i4Q|M|=dfix}Acx+BxSZ3BY^1Q[anșݵ*lg͸6_2IQorTI%E> ԆX mu",[jhBfX*i.Sgi"wܖ1_؁d4!2!(C)ݷ;ʬ۽^Oǎ) #FC2>٣6o׾[oȈ׾f:~LF;9^?c/s` hFTӻH>muuy镐'Xk/[:ߒ2Vt~%Nmwx^;BPb2Jz>Ŋ2F3#(/V` m )E0%9n<8?H^ ^fUZƿR5@$<>Iq):,}O)` $):{yTCTxRuyG;O`T4"yDFF`%nin-U#}y_L O֪<,PmaVHӮY}!s@x0sRbNbDw2G-aactL{KPf/A|!@_6:AcRG@_HW @wS,|I#$Y&obG^K ~̥ ?¨MUKŇ"ef>ʑLa2pڕc lˁØ) PNy1D|ǎ?;CLp 0Q淔ÌNHÏ[=ũ1DI0h \Jge.d %˓ @7.d%= ~6м$n#o䯾dd`usȀa)5B PL`" lF` S0!PZ'[LٺL>i)D@JL fA !Lm &מr',uf@}bKL,o7Xdw0i-.19/47[PO6"Hwғ]mKn0-/`ǍB_~Jq###[BFe^>yY|e[A[%FDHεD+IpfG1rjMCIi񡋾zytM7oazfn2S+yU:KMV4%p@jO]/ `EJtZ+-GǷ#!-ae]FJ%kt4C\]: Dd,IDZF?v5MfPP(h[.k#Cpu _t̯ˁs}5JsVM#/_ݤ)c?@e&^< *G燒="$iYX+e n=x[FTV8(H:3 }w$r&j,(0=(]:xݾr$Smiqw|C)Pː3NF"%YJVكgm|5<45+ڬۖͿv7Xnul|^/·[p/ZV> _V^̥eS1.Xƴԭ"EfH [U uC-2\>Q!9ͧNcUaKsU3INޯuft"q XܞO 8PɜTE}2ɩnQe)CJG].~m;㬾VMY e/O'M`_GL﹈{҅L-%2E+!/}׻g 2L ?C 8gW7fBGFhnt S/2_F͈QZ.ln'Qh)Kg:4u%̕3]`UkӅ˗ WD>B|%RaڴUGݸБ̻Q.nY Lz;:͇\T,2r]{8/3iW}0%U^w"M@Hoq2]ȝzˤwC]օCgμ!J 6LH )k21]P~jT8١C(?v(Nyuq$1 p] 2{Ajyoa,gW W\)z"iP=ތ;y21~;N:7CD? qF׮X2ݼ+~% f? aAGq6@3mmْ`|}20 \5VK}cܫiǒȫ2wvz5bSr|@ KĞ-2'SJÔAv!-{p &YAYD`ʱt[d$BR H]c]} g(1@OqW-%F PdFўL0n3 # ,#2b}ȷcr@ؕ2F!@T4 @`cKNe/eᑮ YAl|/;IJ?bhav 1ظcw^\C`Ϲi1wk3˓ ~5}YgdG^Ig6J|AK&-2X/_NoiS;EʆY܂IFDC\ g:/">Ş +Y3bHJNz~;FQKv/dX]Xe^Qp@(v]ŰB),%ɏx_!eŹu۳Cפ4C( g|.[>ǻHMU@g<`>'-/v2*\=y:dQIBsOD^~L28J4e(oÊ>#\$e1 Lۙd\.̺.=.3jv`)e8k-y*ӥφEDs}o-l<:g>>QRmE3+硕yr -В/f^OέlTٽYl/2ŪJs Bu@?:%]"e ~[WG՗&2:fɫF7As3C!29ԴL `){ 5Bv^h@Mh9=ɔoG߱LZp*C&X Ne6 ES.4 pR% n]y_Od8M%Z!!p5Gfw׼g{ ̽_2;@ p*aОg2WTݘpjEAU.&TW|mcGZG:aLn%'ݷY݀am_ɷ*F/ ^@0iC. Oetd\)pWLDǹg p29׼-% B~md3(UR~/t,i BhiskI神|Tmc>}="ugfVיMN@\H ?HaWtp0U')Sn__4o?480 \2V:m_pt~uœiKL!P=67)dɇ\UF[]=cA%(j"jUǻfi@1 h GZd5g_RչX>4C3Η2JBh78E=/mNVjըfsw$]L'Tyt+%ɥGmˣvi_!jۤ`@'ctA/8ߌ1mSL}!$Q6|yۤL9Vw[RFXbT/C  7 b,IpkdnxR]!KBľه(xk噪]Xg|~tf"oa|BRFj|^ Z{)x2FOnv O~xsl'YaL%֜nabL)#kҗۙs\za$d]}+4jֽ5aWAsGl “j TNk;1Ɖ7L\nݬrCKv$-bIdWBLZS|NV_Y-2C'TELD ǶQ Rfam1:!@؝gev Bq2&7&wI#G2 JMY}ϴ){73S / 0 eZK+ 7(ӹ@ =!ϿK>NmPfʘrJ/zX}/@,Tu:ib$sA0MxYt8s;ꛤzdXh @ n0G_@n&9L@H3 @27!@8C)s}!@R0= @g eУ/ @7@ @ z @fH !pT;]HCXth 4 8r*#O(/R_8@IGjjj$Ül6NI fZNUiYU%] )vO>/uҷ7;|TΌiŁ9l0b11*5ĻV, L DQL*y,pm|>8.e.7:f,E%T>;_FO coFhkճ3[K_ NĮCϨ 4Z@vHyR(dO=@K@x7R\jCJ:+g?}F%vsʌfKG08:fE@  Kk}(C{h-Cb9U(\Cg1Ď{&+2mt>f @eLnħN&]=LҚzuLlzOQ e=rJ $6:D @8m^F=R ܭh,;Z:1R%tfh =a%ްAÜTU$ hS~n6| p)#S{(ނX^]c#t\US^ivf逸Cl]A(ɓ9fղm @/#pJʼ@ il9C H @%n H @%n t>QIENDB`i'Dd * ;;0  # A"&*CpA7&+x@=&*CpA7ϩiFt&x=,˒V[@Z 0A0D@ Et3hwydffx{DSmv?}aX|?wO__㯿ߦwo_W_[>^?w?/ן{$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H |dxw;;p ÿd(xw;\Q0={3^F/YkԤ7竽Y{yD=KyԚKs9'ܻG~'$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$SkyM>[ռg.G'f92s H5;ziЉ=ZW+:>wStY~V=b:kq_S}j3gm^t)׵I@ޥ)wTY;{1~_Xwdgh_Χ<9X힬'z^( ~%p{bԜ~'xzy8yhx*At擯ץʡyDjYW9S#^Z8KwI=MhE{g6ys}oG{|LzXẂZ\uxToyrGzy/"O'mзzMO{<5sYbK@'p=}y-VHo=A{1,>LJκ%Zem`Lx;RyQ:c˓w/=V-"$.yG[JO nOރwY:}hԱNOMjYsW]yΘ9S{CwȉV^t#H`&{4gU[_zG|ĭgLOΩAA#nՕgʗW'sojU|eN5"ZKu. #uxToyrGzym|P}Gުs$=^{gwln#;zʻҏ# No9,[wߗW#lxgN|S%ʻү;ULG>g?u+>b=4tgL<:Oמds. NwdxI}9?܏d"'F|3kQj23{V @SK}|r H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@${[\e\z\LH@@nﬞu/%+9KPqo{n/{Okr+琀$L|']g]s4$p9ޯX6ի}waCcZzyEjrީe\3l}mls H8{it2`;@c1}{xAAgu =ޣ{83#v{bjuYk5ެǗ9hx2f.q. HtxV =G33lbY *Z:>":X7J@x&{|ݣ3ٽ$pFxl% PI?@މd9hh+M_ϡɳ4>[ާ)t2;}==ʓ: 4'<9"HqU+Nc/?դvM=5Si+UɃzuY \rwWޕ~g\83[ާ[jij'z/}I=:MtqU}W\0[qQ:{:}9o_SfuAэ83m#s- }vd:^wjt땿' "5Yg+ROqK3"mi"3iκϖ?s{*2X8;KʻOg$ptKYxk9:kb+2XWI_Wλhox)Ҩ|VSzZ")vGGcMz_3J ݻһϵ$08;-f^wauvkNXS3myW\~˛w<äe3}ֹ[1&_(39#)# {v:\}"@"95zSUͪWשM=igԐ%җxrST6?iԎƹ~RO=JU }UtH p7RcN={{k"\|_΢OE_\_>%T)|5B{sLI[Kgϊ OUtH }S|> <@Wm~[~sO{߉B>&ϤӜȱ>ss8;g}މ"G]굾/ ". H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@<{{=bUϟK.AO5{={/t^H<_֮8^kSK; x'd?M`'yш9zZg]g]׼ƞ6=*7h驜C8U̓I^<Ƶ$O)߱BQEEcsu>{uz")ʯ42?i{&g">r+Ud&v% 8|q;T]C`hS@c]1g.{d-s|ԱصT3i>oO|y D-K@g#pgG?ң׺w)kקs{,'mK""|e4Kno/#51x$jVһ!G39C;WtH@]:o#uzޟ֝ 7Q4!vk}&{RW8폶!_q[yrYvMSUs- W˜$ޡdYzkne<};#ͳRCq:/Z>ٟI@w}zY[I@="WuHػC _S[rT| tI;K$p~~^[w>%  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@D(c,nyq Xxsx6>SD+#hDGiO/9ML޼S/c$'.~v?xw;87|/I?~͸noG۫fP\8&{xv-|rs>O>\_;x[{ź|{aMOԚ*ȼ>z]G3k#' H@$ $cNc`W! H@$yVWw7$  H@+~6?qvu$  H({o5#z^U{<=Rٛ917nMMZZO{]w;i1J@$ obymي[^ruSju^_1G_ש3'8ie$|NTs H@$p,3Vg\3Ooyek9V=sɠiL:5G[ŕ7Szi9&O|YwҦgι$  H@I;s#Nue]5ZO}gVݢU}S}c=E< -6OK@$ "0A]з:y&mꁯjyzzt}]MGs+`emz{oG>ُyRs. H@^uyguޟc/OW|xn H@K~% H@ L/&'sG ܗ^$  H@ {P+غ~O3J@O`1iO(mӽRz]k+|3ixW\^@}OSW4&}}+ʇ&ߤe M_)?*2:=D~<ͼV\4դ|j9'15Udt-++=5䈥vk H@y|g=c\]rz^g_>o2fݤg=^4֫)_^tbr͜X59~3E>+_eN@[y&$  My4<'-׳gI13i1yxTSz suhYF~U><Ԭ[Ւ7ޗorgt"j{n|}zݏN雴S;ixߖoWK@y]:Lzj٣j3{Lox2T枓V~tjW+k%wFOc&_FѦ9tbϳ&\_a#u( H@ w4|^]=Vď:{٫_7O_GH.#r6{Xw_'۪\8Hx4:b|]c]1:Z_~TSQ_:$  HVya=}ϓKϺzYCЎx>+Ve4_dzU<5h{gzr#y6#gH~3}cMj=zy NF H@8;O#ץO}VԻ3N kj8'u^F.#)xZTwT sCqu} $3 պt<W~<{1zMG5bq6ɹ$  <GNFmzI5xjzuc^1z#zv=J=wKK׫>3ךTGnsڅ|3'Ϛ._j̩_SԻt\5J@}M}{y{}Ǽk;iX姚܇z|S/h[~ʇC>ֿ'[Ϣاs;%p&yw<ϙw_kƟ#gC솎}Q>rRjGy\K@ݫG'Uُ>g^{T{._$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@?!_ D&ށ_@pu{\эr<o]>K??w;x?i}ײKAms;M`eG<{WYSZCGľ_L'W9o=cGX>s L G|>DNF H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  J|}}?5O?4j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J NHNormal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List PK![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\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] k =0$ ,09`CGMTU[dlrx߁ Q %0qTw[$ k*.aChTp &.k8@0(  B S  ?[/2+,/0()`a'(wx''uv  r s       s t     r s   * +       p q    UVZ[rs)*[\deQRvw&'+,{|z{[\m[/2+,/0()`a'(wx''uv  r s       s t     r s   * +       p q    UVZ[rs)*[\deQRvw&'+,{|z{[\jmSar>=@eh ^`hH.80^8`0o(..80^8`0o(...^`o(.... ^`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... p^p`o(........ p^p`o(.........^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.>=Sa                  >=zbifU juvDE$e ?'s(I,T -k-2.93Y{8`:<~aC;lFNH8OG)XMYLZhaYejUHj]j ~wTpO4IrIkm@h k@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @CalibriA BCambria Math"1hƆQƦ5S))!02QHX $Puv2!xxuwcuwc  Oh+'0`   ( 4@HPXuwcNormaluwc53Microsoft Office Word@[/@il@T%)՜.+,0 hp|     Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     Root Entry Fl;%Data S1Table'WordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  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> ÿ kbjbj 4hhk$ lf#0yyyyyTTT"""""""$$8'6 #TTTTT #yy #vvvTyy"vT"vv:9!,!y6%e! "6#0f#o!Rn'n'!n'!TTvTTTTT # #vTTTf#TTTTn'TTTTTTTTT : NICO CLOETE AND TEMBILE KULATI MANAGERIALISM WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE? Published in Amaral,A.; Meek,L.V.; Larsen, I.M. (eds) The higher education managerial revolution?, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 229-251 INTRODUCTION This chapter draws on research and case studies from South Africa to demonstrate the complexities of the ways in which institutions, and particularly institutional management, respond to an increasingly perplexing set of demands from their own staff, government, society and global developments. The chapter begins with a discussion of the evolution of the governance debate in South Africa and the emergence of new governance models with the demise of the apartheid era. The next section details contemporary changes in institutional governance and leadership, followed by an analysis of various pressures that may be pushing South African higher education governance and management towards 'managerialism', within a policy framework of cooperative governance. The concluding section argues that managerialism can be found either everywhere or nowhere, depending on one's perspective. Indeed, while there are global characteristics to the managerial movement in higher education, a complete picture of what is happening with governance and management in specific countries cannot be understood without reference to the complexity of local governance relationships. THE CONTOURS OF THE GOVERNANCE DEBATE In examining the evolution of the governance debate in higher education in South Africa, it is important to recognise that the struggles for the transformation of higher education governance predate the promulgation of the new higher education legislative framework by a number of years (White Paper, Department of Education 1997). The debate on leadership and management in higher education institutions was subsumed under the broader struggles for governance transformation, with very little, if any, engagement with questions and issues relating to the management and role of leadership in institutional change. The genesis of the debate on governance transformation in South African higher education can be traced to the education struggles of the 1980s that were led by the organisations affiliated to the National Education Co-ordinating Committee (NECC), and in particular the student formations belonging to the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM). Much of the emphasis of these struggles was centred on the demand for the democratisation of institutional governance structures, in particular the councils, and the establishment of alternative structures of institutional governance, namely the broad transformation forums. The launch of the NECC in March 1986 signalled a strategic shift from the earlier phase of the education struggles, which was focused on making the apartheid state structures ungovernable, to one whose objective was to develop 'People's Education for People's Power', the slogan around which the NECC waged its struggle for democratic participation. The political strategy of People's Education, which began as an attempt to shift the balance of educational power such that a "people's [educational] authority is established alongside the existing [apartheid] state authority", went through several stages of development (Obery interview with Ihron Rensburg cited in Levin 1991). Although these stages arose in the context of the struggle for the control of township schools, they were also reflected in the demands of student organisations at higher education institutions, especially in the black universities. The first stage, whose objective was to shift the balance of educational power in schools from the state to the community, centred around the need to develop alternative structures and programmes within the schools. The shift in strategy in the second stage focused on the need to gain control of governance structures in schools and higher education institutions, as a key element in the 'dual power' strategy to gaining state power. Mohamed and Cloete (1996) have, not unlike Levin (1991), attempted to periodise the education struggles relating to the transformation of higher education governance into three phases. The first phase focused on the demand for the establishment of alternative democratic governance structures, namely the broad transformation forums, that would challenge the authority of what were considered to be illegitimate and unrepresentative governance structures, in particular the councils and senates. Change was to be achieved through changing the composition of council and senate to ensure that marginalised groups and constituencies were represented in institutional decision making. The second phase had as its focus the legitimation of the institutional management structures. This was to be achieved through the replacement of the discredited appointees of the apartheid state in university administrations with progressive institutional leaders, appointed democratically. The third phase centred on the demand for the processes of governance and decision making to be more participatory and accountable. At some institutions, mainly historically disadvantaged universities and some English-medium institutions, this process started well before 1994; in others the process continued long after the principles and framework for democratic institutional governance had been embodied in the legislation. The focus of the governance debate was on issues relating to structural reform and, to a lesser extent, on the substantive challenge of participatory decision making. There was hardly any discussion of how higher education institutions once transformed at the level of representation in governance structures - ought to be organised and managed, and what role institutional managers could play in the unfolding transformation processes. In terms of the relationship between institutions and the government, South Africa has a peculiarly mixed history. While the apartheid period is commonly perceived to be repressive, with little or no autonomy, the apartheid state in regulating higher education produced contradictory effects. In certain areas, some universities acquired a remarkable degree of autonomy and freedom whilst in other areas racist legislation and the use of state security apparatuses turned some of the universities into ideological and physical battlefields (Moja, Muller and Cloete 1996). Initially the governance model for black institutions was clearly a state control model, that is, control by legislation backed up by central government administrative and executive powers with respect to the composition of management, administrative and academic structures, access, student affairs and funding as well as the appointment of all senior members of staff. In contrast, the Van Wyk De Vries Commission (1974) recommended strong institutional autonomy for the historically white institutions, which during the 1980s achieved an unprecedented degree of autonomy. The South African Post Secondary Education funding model contained elements of a weak state supervision model. Weak supervision was gradually supplemented with irregular state interference, targeting particularly the black institutions and individual students and staff. A New Governance Model Influenced by the history of the problematic relationship between the government and higher education institutions, and taking into account international debates of the early 1990s, the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) (1996), appointed by President Mandela in 1994, proposed a model of cooperative governance. Cooperative governance as conceptualised in the NCHE is framed within the notion of the new state. The cooperative governance approach made a clear choice between three models of government/higher education interaction. The first model, namely state control, is premised on effective and systematic state administration of higher education executed by a professional and competent civil service - the 'Continental model' characteristic of Western Europe in the twentieth century. State supervision, which constitutes the second model, is founded on less centrist forms of control. The locus of power shifts from 'centralised control' to 'steering' in which governments provide the broad regulatory framework, and, through the use of instruments such as planning and funding, institutions are 'steered' to produce the outputs governments' desire. Steering is seen as an interactive process between government and institutions and it is the current preferred model in many countries, albeit with widely divergent mechanisms and levels of steering. The third model, state interference, is based on control in higher education that is neither systematic (model one) or 'regulation through steering' (model two) but which is based on arbitrary forms of intervention. This model operates in many developing countries, Africa in particular (Kraak 2001). Cooperative governance was located within a state supervision model, with academic freedom guaranteed by the constitution; autonomy was to be exercised within a framework of government leadership through funding and planning. The government accepted the framework of the NCHE and the 1997 White Paper (Section 3.6) states that: Recognising the need to transcend the adversarial relations between state and civil society arising from the apartheid era, the Ministry of Education adopts a model of cooperative governance for higher education in South Africa based on the principle of autonomous institutions working co-operatively with a proactive government and in a range of partnerships. The White Paper (Section 3.6) further states that: The transformation of the structures, values and culture of governance is a necessity, not an option, for South African higher education. Higher education institutions are vital participants in the massive changes which our society is undergoing, and in the intellectual, economic and cultural challenges of the new world order. For the first time in their history, our higher education institutions have the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but they will not do so until their system of governance reflects and strengthens the values and practices of our new democracy. The transformation of governance was to be achieved through a system of cooperative governance that is based on a number of assumptions, namely, that: no single actor can effect change; there are complementary and competing interests; new structures are established to promote cooperative behaviour among institutional stakeholders; and the responsibilities of different partners are clarified. The new legislation stipulates the main governance structures to be the council, the senate, and the institutional forum. The council is the supreme governing body in public higher education institutions, and is responsible for ensuring good governance within an institution. As the White Paper (Section 3.6) puts it: "Councils are the highest decision-making bodies of public institutions. They are responsible for the good order and governance of institutions and for their mission, financial policy, performance, quality and reputation". The senate is the highest decisionmaking body in relation to the "academic and research functions of the public higher education institution and must perform such other functions as may be delegated or assigned to it by the Council" (Higher Education Act 1997, Section 28 (1)). 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 an arena for issues that pertain to the broad transformation agenda of the institution to be openly debated and discussed. They have also been established to advise councils on a number of issues, including the mediation of conflicts among campus stakeholders, and in making an input into the process of appointing senior executive management of the institution. During the consultative phase that the Department of Education embarked upon prior to the promulgation of the legislation, there was general agreement with the concept and principles of cooperative governance. However, as the implementation process began to unfold, it became clear that 'agreement in principle' does not translate into 'unity in practice'. Firstly, it seems that there are two competing - although not uncomplementary - notions about democracy in South African higher education. The first position posits that the key transformation issue is about the participation of previously excluded groups in the restructured governance structures - thus the main democratisation task is to get more blacks and women into existing decision-making structures. The second position argues for the transformation of the governance processes themselves - in other words, putting more blacks and women into the institutional council is not enough; the role and functions of the council itself must change. The key changes have to do with democratic participation, transparency and accountability. Democratising governance was not the only transformation task. The White Paper proposed the introduction of a single coordinated system with major demands for improvements with regards to equity and efficiency. At the same time that the education White Paper was being written and consulted about, the new government introduced a new macro-economic policy framework called Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) (Department of Finance 1996). This policy closely followed the so-called Washington consensus that expects countries who want to join the global economy to apply macro-economic discipline, reduce the balance of payments and curb government spending - a strong overall focus on efficiency, accountability and good governance as a means to attract foreign investment and stimulate growth. The new legislative framework, which coupled market competition with the emergence of new public management, put enormous pressure on institutions to devise new ways of managing what were becoming more diverse and very complex institutions. Within the space of five years, higher education institutions were confronted with many challenges, including the need to: dramatically improve access and success for the previously excluded; diversify their income streams while doing more, and different, things with increasingly less reliance on the fiscus (most institutions receive less than 50% of their income from direct state subsidy); reconfigure institutional missions and the ways in which they traditionally produced, packaged and disseminated their primary product - knowledge in order to meet the challenges of a diversifying student population, as well as an increasingly technologically oriented, and globalising, economy; forge new kinds of relationships with other knowledge producers within and outside higher education, especially in industry and the private sector; and bring about transformation in a democratic, consultative manner (Kulati2000). The emphasis on institutional effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness within the new economic and legislative framework positioned the role of leadership, the vice-chancellor and the administration centre stage in institutional change. How this would square with more participative, consultative decision making is the main part of the story that follows. CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP A recent major study on South African higher education governance (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002), which was commissioned by the Council on Higher Education, has developed a typology of institutional governance, which is based on a combination of three criteria that the study claims is required for good governance practice. These criteria are: the degree of representivity in governance structures; the extent of delegation of authority and responsibilities; and the ability of institutions to implement governance and management decisions. From a survey of 12 higher education institutions, the study identified four categories of governance, as manifested in institutional practice (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002: 23). These are: Contested institutions: In this category there is limited representivity in governance and poorly developed systems of delegation. These tend to be institutions in crisis, or institutions that are vulnerable to crisis if their present leadership loses legitimacy. They are a particular consequence of South Africa's history, in that issues inherited from the apartheid years are still dominant (25% of the sample fell into this category). Management-focused institutions: Universities and technikons in this group share a focus on management issues, either because they have made the explicit decision to adopt models from the corporate sector, or because systems of internal organisation that were better suited to previous years now present substantial obstacles to institutional adaptation. These institutions have inwardly focused systems of governance with well-developed capacity for administration and the delegation of authority. They are at risk from factional interests pursuing sectoral issues that are not in the interests of the institution as a whole (33% of the sample). Democratic institutions: These institutions combine broad representivity with shallow systems of delegation. They are the classic defenders of academic participation in governance. However, their poorly developed formal systems of delegation make them vulnerable to institutional gridlock if consensus cannot be reached on key issues (33% of institutions). Democratic, well-managed institutions: Institutions in this category have achieved an impressive record in governance through combining the strengths of participatory governance with the advantages of well-developed, formal systems of delegation of authority and responsibility (9% of institutions). The governance framework developed in this study suffers from a number of weaknesses, however. The first is that the matrix of governance arrangements does not incorporate the criterion of implementation capacity as one of its variables, although this is highlighted as one of the key constituent criteria of effective governance. Another weakness is that there is a conflation of causal relationships between the criteria that have been outlined and their effect on governance/ behaviour. For example, it is assumed that the more limited the representivity in governance structures, the more prone to crisis an institution will be. Of course, the converse is also true, in that with more stakeholders represented on governance structures, there is also the likelihood - especially in the context of a relatively young democracy - that tensions between stakeholders might have a deleterious effect on governance effectiveness. The main strength of the report is that it adds further insight to the 'styles of leadership' developed by Kulati and Moja (2002) and elaborates the governance indicators developed by Cloete, Bunting and Bunting (2002). Another important contribution is a different approach in understanding the two dimensions of representivity (and the extent to which governance becomes self-referential) and delegation as two axes of a matrix that plots an interaction between functional/effective and dysfunctional/unstable governance. The study referred to earlier by Kulati and Moja (2002) identifies three leadership approaches to institutional governance that emerged during the post-1994 period. Two of the approaches discussed in the chapter, namely managerial and transformative leadership will be discussed below, while the third, crisis management, is more of an institutional condition than an emerging leadership style. Managerial Leadership The strategic objective of this approach is to reconfigure the institution to become more competitive and market oriented through the vigorous adaptation of corporate management principles and techniques to the higher education setting. Thus the change agenda within these institutions is driven by a strong, decisive centre (usually located in the office of the vice-chancellor) that is buttressed by sophisticated management-support systems and structures, and which is staffed by a highly competent middle management layer. The leadership style is characterised by a rapid-response management ethos. Where others talk in terms of threats and survival in the face of globalisation and fierce competition from the emerging private higher education sector, the buzz here is about exploiting niches and developing partnerships. Stumpf (2001) describes the way in which many of these institutions have become less reliant on government subsidy funding by devising various strategies to generate private income. These institutions have become increasingly entrepreneurial in their orientation, as reflected in the way in which many of them (especially the historically white research institutions) have established specific structures to package and patent their intellectual property. Another approach to increasing income has been to move into flexible modes of educational delivery. Apart from introducing modularised postgraduate programmes on a large scale, these institutions also entered the field of distance education for undergraduate programmes. This they did in partnership with private providers and thus saved themselves massive set-up and logistical costs. Some of these institutions have also established spin-off companies in which staff members who had a direct interest in the development of a particular piece of intellectual property, would have a shareholding along with the institution and private sector shareholders. Others have established structures to advance institutional/private sector cooperation in a variety of ways and adjusted their internal allocation mechanisms to reward performance in the field of partnerships with the private sector and in the generation of their own income. In response to the increasing importance of strategic management, many institutions invested in management training for their senior administrators and established offices of institutional research. Apart from taking care of the formal information requirements of government, these units have usually been responsible for other forms of quantitative (and sometimes even qualitative) planning support to management. In many cases sophisticated systems of performance management were established, based on institutional management information systems. Institutions in which these offices function well are, in general, well poised to respond quickly to new challenges and new opportunities, thereby creating for themselves a competitive edge in the face of increasing competition for students from overseas' institutions entering the South African market and the declining pool of available students (Stumpf 2001). Two sub-categories can be delineated within the broader classification of managerial approaches to institutional change, namely strategic managerialism and unwavering entrepreneurialism. These sub-categories are derived from the distinction that has been made between the 'soft' and 'hard' approaches to managerialism. 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, governed by their own norms and traditions. This is in contrast 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: 12). The leadership challenge for strategic managerialists is to get the institution to think and act more strategically, and to convince the academics that 'being managed', and working in an institution that is run on sound management principles, does not constitute a threat to the traditional values of the academy, such as academic freedom. According to the strategic managerialists, being a first-rate academic with a good understanding of business principles ought not to be a contradiction in terms. As one South African vice-chancellor put it: "The vice-chancellor has to be an academic with a business sense. It also depends on what type of institution you're aspiring to be: for a research/comprehensive university, you must have a strong research background; if you don't have it you can't run senate. And if you can't run senate, you're dead".1 For strategic managerialists, globalisation and the market are not viewed as threats, but as opportunities to be exploited in order to make the institution more competitive internationally. Consequently, the managerialists have been more successful in exploiting the fairly loose legislative framework to the advantage of their institutions, having established strong relationships with international funders, developed partnerships with the private sector and parastatal research agencies, recruited top academics from abroad, and built strong links with universities in Africa. Further along the continuum of the corporatisation of higher education institutions are the unwavering entrepreneurs. For this group the higher education institution is seen as being a business, as opposed to being run like a business. Institutions are thus in the business of providing their clients - the students with goods and services that are sold at a competitive price. The institutions have, or try to develop, strong links with industry, and generally lack a collegial tradition. The institutions falling under this category are mostly from the polytechnic sector (technikons), although a few universities can also be found within this category. For them, the transformation project is about developing useful products for the market, in other words producing employable graduates. The challenge is to gear-up the institution so that it is responsive to rapidly changing customer needs and expectations. The approach is characterised by an unquestioning application of private sector management procedures and techniques. The executive management, whose central concern is to ensure that the institution is run efficiently, believes in leading from the front, being in the driving seat of institutional change (Kulati interviews). The 'unwavering entrepreneurs' regard the government's regulatory framework as an inconvenience; it is seen as failing to appreciate the demands and challenges facing modern higher education institutions. Government is viewed as not being generally supportive of institutional leadership, and although policies such as cooperative governance are regarded as necessary, they are seen as a nuisance. Transformative Leadership Transformative leadership is not a homogeneous category; nor does it imply one single notion of transformation. Rather, it is regarded as transformative in the South African context because it combines elements of leadership, which are broadly recognised as being successful, with features of cooperative governance. An indepth case study (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002) of two institutions (University of Port Elizabeth and Peninsula Technikon) revealed the following as some of the key elements of cooperative transformative processes followed by the leadership in those institutions: Critical self-reflection: A process often initiated by the vice-chancellor, where a wide range of members of staff engaged in critical self-reflection on the transformation process. This included more than one attempt to rethink the mission of the institution. In some cases members of the executive leadership wrote regularly about the successes and weaknesses of the processes. Negotiated transformation: A process where agreement - on issues such as the new mission of the institution - was reached through a protracted negotiations process involving various internal and external stakeholders. Active forums: A feature of some institutions where the institutional forum had an active agency role, meaning that they met regularly, discussed issues such as gender discrimination or affirmative action and made recommendations to the institutional leadership or the council. Role differentiation: The development of an understanding and acceptance of distinctions between governance functions and roles. Considering the lack of clarity in the policy about the role of leadership, a key task was to reach agreement about who has authority over what. This included the acceptance that neither the council nor the institutional forum should try to manage the institution, and that leadership must implement decisions which had been agreed upon in these structures. Expanded leadership core: The establishment of an expanded management group which in some cases included the president of the student representative council, and the development of a common vision for the institution and a shared discourse of the change process. Trust: An essential component of the change process which enabled the different constituencies to allow management to implement decisions and to lead. Directive leadership with consultation: An approach that helped manage the tension between leading and consulting. The manner and sequence of consultation varied according to leadership style and institutional culture. Constructive/critical relationship between the chairperson of council and the vice-chancellor: Central to holding the transformation process together was a supportive and critical working relationship between the chair of council and the vice-chancellor, based on a clearly understood complementarity of functions and skills. It must be stressed that putting these processes in place in the two institutions did not depend on a specific leadership style. At one institution the leader can be described as a philosopher who steered from behind rather than leading from the front: "Nothing gets done without consultation" (Kirsten, University of Port Elizabeth, interview). At the other institution a charismatic engineer led from the front, but still within the framework of the elements described above: "I had to shake the institution out of its complacency at being 'the best technikon' and therefore not needing to change much; in other words, to get staff to realise it is not 'business as usual' ... to get [the] institution to realise that the value framework that it (once) cherished cannot be sustained" (Figaji, Peninsula Technikon, interview). In both institutions, the central characteristic of transformative leadership was the management of the tension between leading and consulting (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). The features and processes mentioned above are illustrative of managerial and political responses to transformation pressures. It is within this context that two related, but distinct, approaches to transformative leadership can be described. The first approach, referred to as reformed collegialism, starts from the premise that at the centre of the transformation project of the institution lies the intellectual agenda of higher education, which is non-negotiable. Thus part of the transformation agenda is to reclaim and reassert the centrality of the intellectual traditions of higher education institutions. The starting point of the institutional change strategy is to be sensitive to, and work within, the confines and limits of the prevailing institutional culture, rather than going to war against it (Birnbaum 1992). This can be achieved through remoulding the institution so that it is better able to respond and adapt to the new demands that it faces, while holding on to the central tenets of the academic tradition of the university, namely the pursuit of truth, disinterested enquiry etc. In other words, the leadership challenge is about facilitating academic excellence by supporting, managing, nurturing and inspiring one's academic colleagues. Collegialists would concur with Ramsden (1998: 13) that "deep at the heart of effective leadership is an understanding of how academics work". 'Reformed' refers to the fact that even the most devoted collegialists are not oblivious to the pressures of democracy and global trends on academia. By responding to these pressures, however, tensions develop between collegiality and management strategies for change. While acknowledging the importance of the new, participatory governance principles, the second approach, referred to as transformative managerialism, is characteristic of leaders who put more emphasis on 'driving' transformation from the centre. The challenge for the transformative managerialists is to transform the culture of the institution from an authoritarian to a more democratic one, whilst ensuring that the institution is managed more efficiently, in line with policy principles or market pressures. In order to push the transformation agenda through the institution, decision making is centralised, decentralised and re-centralised. This is done by expanding the 'top' leadership group to include executive deans and certain professionals, such as finance or human resource directors. Key strategic decisions are taken by this group, and the deans become the implementers at the faculty level. Traditionally, the deans are supposed to represent and defend faculty interests. Whilst the executive dean and their faculty may have an autonomous budget and control over the appointment of new colleagues, the budget parameters and employment equity targets are set centrally. When taking the faculty decisions back to top management where the decisions could be overturned, the dean is placed in a very complex relationship within management, of which they are part, and faculty, which they are supposed to represent. This is even further complicated by the fact that in many cases the self-image of the dean is that of a faculty member, and not that of a manager. This role confusion can be described as a position of 'in-betweenity', meaning that the dean is always located, and often trapped, between the faculty and management, between the faculty and students, and between the institution and the external communities. In a number of institutions, particularly those with strong academic cultures, a few deans have fallen foul of this role schizophrenia which Du Toit argues is currently a greater threat to academic freedom than the state. For example, he states that "it is not clear how an executive deanship could be compatible with a 'collegial' approach to the conduct of faculty governance in any serious sense" (2001: 5). In summary, while transformative leadership grapples with the new demands for participation and responses to the market, major tensions are emerging, accentuated by the academic culture of the institution and the urgency for change. In some instances the institutions may lean more towards collegial styles of management; in others towards a centralised approach to management. The above shows that, while there are certain commonalties regarding governance and leadership at the institutional level, there are also major differences in the ways that institutions respond to these. PRESSURES TOWARDS MANAGERIALISM In a wide-ranging overview of institutional adaptation to demands for managerial reform, Gumport and Sporn (1999) attribute the expanding role of administration to three interdependent dynamics: resource dependency that is primarily motivated by organisational survival; institutional isomorphism that is motivated by legitimacy concerns; and professional authority that is motivated by a struggle for professional identity. Two more recent, and very informative, reviews of change that contribute to a managerial approach are by Amaral and Magalhaes (2002) and Maassen (2002). Primarily, management is responsible for maintaining the organisation's exchange relationship, whether it be a bridge or a buffer, it must transverse an increasingly complex environment that is not only government and business, but also an escalating range of 'stakeholders' (Neave 2002). It must meet compliance with environmental demands and cultivate alternative resources to reduce existing dependencies. Management becomes more important because they are mainly responsible for the development of strategies that increase existing sources of income, tap into new income sources and help to reduce existing dependency relationships. A key resource is legitimacy, and it is increasingly important that institutions be seen to be responding, in a business-like manner, to demands for reform. Symbolic activity is as important as real activities in order to sustain existing resources and to gain access to new sources. Presenting a more unified and business-like front, an expanded management core is much better positioned to represent the institution than the often fractious collegiality. The literature on the sociology of the professions explains how a dynamic is put into place that will promote a tendency amongst professional, or pre-professional, groups, to gain greater authority and improved benefits, both financially and in terms of control over their domain of work. Gumport and Sporn (1999) describe the effects of this as a shift in the authority structure within higher education organisations that entails an expanding domain for the administrators and the leadership and a narrowing authority domain for the academic faculty. The above mentioned factors come into play very forcibly when, as has been the case in South Africa in the post-1994 period, institutions are faced with a sudden increase in demands for reform from the government and society, and an unleashing of market forces by both the government and a burgeoning local and global private higher education sector (Cloete and Maassen 2002). As is indicated by Gumport and Sporn (1999) there are many factors that put pressures on higher education to become more business-like and, by implication, more managerial, but we want to explore two specific factors in the South African context. The first is that, despite a formal policy of cooperative, participative governance, some of the reforms of the national government have, intentionally and unintentionally, promoted managerialism rather than greater democratisation. Secondly, through a process of mimetic and normative isomorphism, institutional management's notions of 'successful' institutions have been exchanged, mimicked and adopted through professional networks who are, on the one hand, responding to resource and legitimacy demands, and on the other hand to promoting their position. 4.1. Effects of Government Reforms 4.1.1. Shifts Towards a More Centralised Reform Process The new Minister of Education, appointed after the second democratic election in 1999, declared that implementation, and not more policy, was a priority. Implementation requires very specific policy, which was not available, since most of the post-1994 policies were symbolic, attempting to bring about new frameworks and greater unity (Cloete and Maassen 2002). Making policy trade-offs between different interests could not be made in the same consultative manner as developing symbolic policy, and the ministry did not have much experience in negotiating trade-offs. The new phase of more centralised decision making and less 'broad consultation' was not peculiar to education; it had started with the Minister of Finance declaring in 1997 that the new macro-economic policy was not up for consultation or negotiation. A series of institutional crises and a lack of confidence in higher education leadership - a critical component of governance - led to numerous amendments to the 1997 Higher Education Act. Examples of this gradual transition from a steering to an increasingly centralised approach to the management of the higher education reform process are to be found in the following amendments: Higher Education Amendment Act 55 of 1999 - allows the Minister to appoint administrators to a higher education institution where there is financial or other maladministration of a serious nature. Higher Education Amendment Act 54 of 2000 - allows the Minister to determine the scope and range of operations of an institution, and determines that an institution may not, without the approval of council and under certain circumstances without the concurrence of the Minister, enter into a loan or overdraft agreement or develop infrastructure. Higher Education Amendment Act 23 of 2001 - includes a provision for the indefinite appointment of the administrator and the repeal of private acts (Olivier 2001). Concurrent with the legislative changes, the method of 'steering' also altered. Initially, planning and funding were regarded as an interactive approach to determine goals and targets (Department of Education 1998). However, the ministry shifted to a view that in order to implement the transformation programme an increasing use of the executive powers vested in him by the Higher Education Act would be required. A key example is the proposed new funding model which, in the words of one of the authors: "will be a top-down one. It will come into operation only when the government has determined what total of public funds should be spent in a given year on universities and technikons and what the key policy goals should be for that year" (Bunting 2001: 4). This model is not an interactive steering approach, but is much closer to the centralised state control approach rejected in the White Paper as a model for governance. The latest reform policy is a decision that the number of higher education institutions will be reduced from 36 to 23 institutions through a process of mergers - some of these mergers will be voluntary since the affected institutions have agreed to merge, others will be 'involuntary'. In a memo to the president about mergers (Department of Education 2002), the ministry lists equity, efficiency and development as the key principles that are driving the need for change. Democracy, a key principle in all previous government policy documents, is not mentioned. Also the process of bringing about the mergers is perceived to be a leadership and management-driven one, since the interim councils, which will be appointed by the Minister, will have no representation from students or staff. It is not only the Minister who has acquired new powers and shifted to a more 'top-down' model, but also the Council on Higher Education (CHE) has adopted a more centralised approach. Writing about the proposals formulated by the CHE Task Team on 'Size and Shape', Kraak (2001) argues that the proposals represent a shift in the conception of the role of the state from that founded on a model of 'state supervision' to that of 'state interference'. The solutions to the dysfunction and endemic crisis in the higher education system sought by the CHE are found in the articulation of a 'state interference' model - a bureaucratic, weak and arbitrary form of intervention based on prescriptive fiat and rigid rules and procedures. The affinities between this form of state intervention and the proposals of the CHE are self-evident. They represent a view of the state as unable to attain the sophistication required for 'steering', and, as a consequence, necessitating a reversal to a conception of the state as bureaucratic and prescriptive (Kraak 2001: 30). Trying to justify this shift, Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002), in a commissioned study for the CHE, argue that "the concept of co-operative governance, as defined in the earlier 1990s, is now in danger of becoming a hindrance that confuses policy and inhibits the development of good practice" and should be replaced by a notion of 'conditional autonomy' (p. 108). The report argues that the National Plan for Higher Education (Department of Education 2001) marks the path of change to a "system of conditional autonomy in which substantive autonomy (academic freedom) continues to be guaranteed while the state exercises increasing control over procedures of funding and academic accreditation" (Hall, Symes and Luescher 2002: 19). The argument is flawed because the decision that 10 mergers and four incorporations must happen, whether the institutions agree or not, violates the first condition of conditional autonomy set out in the report, namely "the right of individual institutions to determine their primary goals". The apartheid regime also had a model of conditional autonomy, the difference being that under apartheid the conditions were very clear, while under the new Minister the conditions are unspecified and keep shifting, which makes the propagation of such a model potentially very dangerous (Moja, Cloete and Olivier forthcoming). The effects of increasing centralised reform and less consultation at the national level create a climate that promotes top-down decision making, both from the national government and from institutional leadership. Responding to the extraordinary amount of new legislation and policies requires an enormous managerial/administrative capacity, which on the one hand distracts academics from teaching and research, and on the other demands a more sophisticated and expanded administrative capacity. The merger process in particular, aiming to achieve efficiency gains that will necessitate the reduction of staff and programmes, will require strong management. It could thus be concluded that a combination of a strong equity and efficiency agenda will, intentionally and unintentionally, provide a drive for more leadership and management authority. The Changing Role of the Senate An alarming development in the past five years has been the growing marginalisation of the senate in institutional governance. Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002) in their study on governance in South African higher education, argue that senates are not carrying out their function of being the premier governance structure in relation to academic governance, noting that many senates are "reactive (and sidelined) bodies" (p. 25). The study, however, does not provide an explanation of this declining role of the senate in institutional governance, merely attributing poor attendance as one possible factor. We would like to submit that there are possibly three factors that have given rise to the marginalisation of the senate. The evidence to support these claims is anecdotal, as it arises from informal interactions the authors had with senior academics from a few institutions. The first is that in the face of more assertive councils - a function of the incorporation of hitherto excluded stakeholders and increasing vigilance of council in relation to their fiduciary responsibilities - and executive management (a process that has been accentuated by the emergence of executive deanship as a critical layer in institutional management), senates have not taken an active role in the strategic decisions of the institution. A second reason is that many senior professors and academics at the research universities have been under pressure - in the light of the declining government subsidy - to raise more private income through contract research (see Table 1 below). Consequently, many professors have come to regard their involvement in institutional (governance) issues as of secondary importance, with the result that attendance of senate meetings has declined markedly. The declining interest in getting involved in institutional matters can also be attributed to the emergence of moonlighting in academia. Increasingly, many senior academics are working as consultants to government and the private sector to supplement their declining salaries.  Two recent incidents highlight a third possible reason for the marginalisation of the senate. As was indicated in the previous section regarding a new governance model, the 1997 Higher Education Act draws a clear distinction between the role of councils and senates. Councils, as the highest decision-making bodies of public institutions, are given responsibility for the mission, financial policy and overall institutional performance. The senate on the other hand is the highest decisionmaking body in relation to academic and research functions. This attempts to draw too 'hard' a distinction between functions that are not so clearly demarcatable in governance terms. Reed, Meek and Jones (2002) describe this as the differentiation of functions (separating academic and financial decision-making arenas) and, conversely, the blurring or de-differentiation of separate and autonomous institutional spheres. At both the Universities of Natal and Witwatersrand, conflict has developed around the relationship between the council, the vice-chancellor and the senate. During 2002, the University of Natal Senate passed an unprecedented resolution accusing the Council of "acting arbitrarily and illegitimately in proceeding with the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor by ignoring the required support from Senate" (University of Natal Senate Resolution 5/6/2002). In announcing her resignation, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Witwatersrand, stated that: "there will be searching questions asked about the powers assumed by the Wits Council and its chairperson and the sidelining of the people who appointed me; the Senate, students and staff associations and the 100,000 strong convocation" (Norma Reid, Business Day, November 2002). In both the above cases, discussions with academics reveal a concern, in some cases outrage, that the council is expanding its jurisdiction over financial matters to the appointment, or dismissal, of the vice-chancellor without adequately involving the senate, not to mention other stakeholders. The effect of the increasingly marginal role that the senate is playing at certain institutions is that there is an absence of a countervailing voice to the centralisation of decision-making powers. Many of the important decisions concerning the strategic direction of the institution are bypassing what is meant to be a key governance structure in higher education institutions, with many senates now being pre-occupied with narrow academic matters - becoming, in the words of a senior professor, the 'cheerleaders of the curriculum'. 4.1.2. Institutional Isomorphism Despite the much vaunted independence of thought of higher education staff, there is much evidence towards isomorphism. Mimetic isomorphism is the result of institutions mimicking the behaviour of each other in order to minimise risk in highly competitive environments. When institutions are highly dependent upon a narrow range of resource providers, such as an education ministry or a very homogeneous population, they will tend to have similar programmes, structures and operating norms. Coercive isomorphism is the result of pressures from the environment, principally government policies, that force institutions to become more similar, thus reducing diversity in a higher education system. Governments might act in this way in order to promote efficiency, on the assumption that too much diversity is inefficient (Meek et al. 1996). An example of mimetic isomorphism is the issue of the outsourcing of support service functions. A study by Van der Walt et al. (2002: 20) shows that "outsourcing has been strongly favoured by public sector university managements: every single public sector in South Africa has introduced outsourcing over the last decade". Outsourcing cuts across categories such as historically advantaged or disadvantaged institutions and a managerial or a transformative leadership style - although one institution (Peninsula Technikon) followed a very different approach (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). The study showed that that for the 16 (out of 21) institutions that responded to the survey, 80% chose to adopt outsourcing in order to reduce costs. Slightly less than half (40%) of these institutions hoped that outsourcing would also improve the efficiency of support services. A substantial number of universities also considered their decision to adopt outsourcing to be part of a broader vision of improving the competitiveness of their institutions: for eight institutions (53%), the support services were outsourced on the grounds that they were 'non-core' functions within the university. Three of the institutions regarded the decision to outsource as in line with government policy. The reduction of costs may be attributed to the general financial squeeze on the public sector universities arising from declining government subsidies, and falling revenue from student enrolments. In open-ended questions, respondents spoke of the need to make their institutions 'leaner', to 'do more with less', to 'reduce overheads', and to restructure due to 'financial considerations' and a lack of 'sufficient resources'. Van der Walt reports that the paradigm of university marketisation has had an impact on university strategy, respondents citing the need to focus upon 'core' activities as a rationale for support service outsourcing. Whilst the historically advantaged institutions more often cited increased competitiveness as a reason, the historically under-resourced disadvantaged institutions responded more to the new context in order to survive financially - thus more a case of survivalism than marketisation. As Van der Walt's survey suggests, there were different reasons for responding to financial austerity and institutions had different goals that they were trying to achieve. That so many picked on the workers as a source of savings clearly has to do with power; another group pushed to the limit during this period were students whose fees were substantially increased over the period (Bunting 2002). Outsourcing is both a feature of new public management and of the globalisation of labour practices associated with global trends described by Carnoy (2001). According to Carnoy, businesses are trying to transform themselves by looking to increase productivity and reduce labour costs. A key to this is flexibility, meaning that work, and workers, can be constantly adapted and changed to produce new products for new markets. Flexibility means conditions of employment, more shortterm staff and self-programmable skills, meaning the ability not only to learn on the job, but also to redefine the job. Another major aspect is networking, by which Carnoy (2001: 25) means: A new logic of the firm, where changing hierarchies and organisational forms are based on interactive connections between different layers and positions within the firm, between firms, and within the market. New information technologies allow for greater flexibility and networking; and globalisation emphasises interdependence, interaction, and constant adaptation to an ever changing environment. This environment affects workers in firms, creating a culture of individual networking across companies. Individual networking is a way both to learn about working conditions, projects, and innovations in other firms and to make strategic job moves in a flexible labour market. What is rather remarkable is that a common solution was imported by higher education leadership. This is arguably the only time that all institutions tried to implement a similar reform; it was not a government policy, but an international 'best' practice they mimicked.This raises the important point that global practices are often enthusiastically imported as best or 'universal' practice solutions for problems by people within the nation state, and not surreptitiously imposed by Washington as many conspiracy theorists often proclaim. Some institutions, albeit a minority, have, through a policy of absorbing outsourced workers and defending the packages of those who join outsourcing enterprises, maintained a sense of institutional ownership. The negotiated employment policy seems to have resulted in an institution such as Peninsula Technikon being one of the few institutions in South Africa that has managed to retain a sense of campus community (Cloete, Bunting and Bunting 2002). Not only have the conditions of work of lower skilled employees changed dramatically, the differential between a service worker and a vice-chancellor increased from 20:1 in 1986 to 25:1 in 2000 (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). Service workers whose jobs were outsourced, and who the contracting companies subsequently hired, had their packages halved (on average). This means that in the post-apartheid era the differential between the vice-chancellor and certain service workers could be as high as 50:1, in contrast with 20:1 under the apartheid government. Whilst the managerial 'class' did disproportionately well in the new South Africa, the fate of the service workers was less fortunate. There is increasing evidence that there has not only been a widening gap between workers and management, but also between management and academics (see Table 2). The gap between senior managers, with 'market-related' packages, and senior teaching and research staff seems to have widened significantly over the past few years (from a ratio of about 2:1 during the late 1980s to a ratio of 4.5:1 in the late 1990s (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). Table 2. Salary ratios: Regulation and deregulation  *The SAPSE funding formula uses senior lecturer level as the basis for salary comparisons Source: SAPSE Return for 2000, University of Cape Town At one of South Africa's leading institutions, which is not unrepresentative of the South African system, there are now seven salary bands, with more than 30 directors, deans, managers and deputy vice-chancellors above the professorial level. Unlike the situation in the US and other countries, there are no academic super-professors who earn packages equivalent to those of executive deans or deputy vice-chancellors. Some institutions have introduced the category of senior professors who are offered substantially larger packages than those of their colleagues, but they are still not comparable with the salary packages of top managers (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). The management at higher education institutions claims that market-related packages are necessary in order to attract and keep senior executives. These packages, in other words, are a consequence of the intense competition for highly qualified executives, particularly those who are black and/or female. But, unlike executives in the private sector environment, senior executives in higher education are rarely tied to performance clauses in their contracts. There are two points worth making here. One is that these packages relate to competition at the high end of the labour market but have little to do with the other ways in which institutions have to make themselves market-competitive. Generally speaking, it is the academic staff, particularly the senior academic staff, who attract students, research grants and consultancy contracts. This is the group that is operating in the market, but who are not rewarded in a market-related manner even though it would not be difficult to build a market reward into the packages of entrepreneurial academics (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002). The second point is that the remuneration packages of senior executives are not necessarily an effect of, or directly connected to, more managerial approaches to higher education administration. In fact, some of the highest paid vice-chancellors in the country do not appear to be pursuing entrepreneurial or managerial style leadership approaches at all. MANAGERIALISM EVERYWHERE? It could be argued that the pressures for an expanding role for management and administration in the post-1994 period are not that dissimilar to what Gumport and Sporn (1999) described: institutional adaptation influenced by resource dependency that is primarily motivated by organisational survival; institutional isomorphism that is motivated by legitimacy concerns; and professional authority that is motivated by a struggle for professional identity. The effects of all three factors are evident in the South African context. At one level, the South African higher education governance landscape is thus reassuringly 'global', but the above picture of governance at council, leadership, senate and worker levels reveals a very complex governance set of interrelationships that can be understood in different ways. One approach could be to start from an assumption that managerialism, like chicken man, is everywhere and then to look for evidence of the ascendancy of globalising managerialism. Another approach, and the one followed here, is to first describe new developments within a particular higher education context and then to look for trends and issues. As we have shown, the pressures towards managerialism come from intentional and unintentional effects of government reform policies, from what is regarded as global best practices, from a management cadre promoting their own interests and from academics relinquishing power in pursuit of other interests. Within a policy framework of cooperative governance accepted by government and institutions, both government and higher education institutions are behaving in ways that undermine the policy. Certain government policies, intended and unintended, promote aspects of managerialism. According to the Hall, Symes and Luescher (2002) study, at least 33% of the institutions are 'management focused'. However, what is quite remarkable in higher education is that more than 40% can be classified as 'democratic' or 'democratically well managed'. It could be argued that considering that since 1998 the Minister has consistently increased his powers, institutions may have taken the policy of cooperative governance somewhat more seriously than government itself. What seems quite self-evident from the range of responses is that within one country, with a national policy framework, a large range of governance arrangements has developed. To label this 'a historic march to managerialism' is to obscure, and miss, some very interesting responses emerging amongst different groups of institutions. The different governance and leadership styles may contain many elements of what is being described as managerialism; however, institutions with a more collegial history seem to be developing a range of 'democratic', managerial, practices. What a label of managerialism will obscure is the interesting new forms of consultation and participaion that are emerging under conditions of demands for greater efficiency and accountability. In many of the debates about managerialism, the traditional collegial model is implicitly or explicitly held to as an alternative. In South Africa this model was thoroughly discredited during the initial phases of the demands for greater democratisation. Firstly, it was assumed to be too exclusive, and regarded as inimical to the transformation agenda of higher education. Secondly, the majority of the 'colleagues' were white men aligned, directly or indirectly, to the apartheid regime. It is also very difficult to make a case for an unreformed collegial model when the external and internal environments are changing so drastically. However, as was demonstrated with the case about outsourcing, a simplistic mimetic isomorphism is hardly a palatable alternative. In conclusion, the task ahead seems not to be to counter managerialism with a knee-jerk return to collegiality, but to start identifying lessons from some of the very innovative strategies and structures that are developing in different countries and amongst different institutional cultures in response to the new changing world, that is, in the words of Manuel Castells (2001: 6), not calm waters with an occasional wave, but more like the 'bubbly world of sparkling water'. NOTES 1 Tembile Kulati conducted a number of interviews with vice-chancellors during the course of 2000 as part of a broader project on governance. 2 A report by the South African University Vice-Chancellors Association lists over 30 change initiatives from various government departments that currently demand higher education management time and financial resources (SAUVCA 2002). 3 During the 1960s the BBC world radio service had a famous comic figure called chicken man. Some days chicken man was 'everywhere, everywhere' and some days chicken man was 'nowhere,nowhere'. REFERENCES Amaral, A. and A. Magalhaes. "The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 1-21. Bawa, A. and J. Mouton. "Research." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 296-339. Birnbaum, R. How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1992. Bunting, I. "The Relationship Between State and Public Higher Education Institutions." CHET Paper, 2001 (unpublished). Bunting, I. "Funding." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 115-146. Carnoy, M. "The Role of the State in the New Global Economy." In Muller, J., N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds). Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells. Cape Town:Maskew Miller Longman, 2001, 22-34. Castells, M. "The New Global Economy." In Muller, J., N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds). Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 2001,2-21. Cloete, N., L. Bunting and I. Bunting. Transformation Indicators Applied to Two South African Higher Education Institutions. Pretoria: CHET Publications, 2002. Cloete, N. and P. Maassen. "The Limits of Policy." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 447-490. Department of Education. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. General Notice 1196 of 1997. Pretoria, 1997. Department of Education. National and Institutional Planning Framework for the Higher Education System. Pretoria, 1998. Department of Education. National Plan for Higher Education. Pretoria, 2001. Department of Education. Memorandum to the President of Clarification on Transformation and Mergers in Higher Education. Pretoria, 2002. Department of Finance. Growth, Employment and Redistribution: A Macroeconomic Strategy. Pretoria, 1996. Du Toit, A. "Revisiting Academic Freedom in Post-apartheid South Africa: Current Issues and Challenges." CHET Commissioned Paper, 2001. http://www,chet.org,za/papers.asp. Gibbon, T. and J. Kabaki. "Staff." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 186-229. Gumport, P. and B. Sporn. "Institutional Adaptation: Demands for Management Reform and University Administration." In Stuart, J. and W. Tierney (eds). Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. xiv. New York: Agathon Press, 1999, 103-145. Hall, M., A. Symes and T. Luescher. Governance in South African Higher Education. Council on Higher Education. Pretoria, 2002. Higher Education Act 1997, Section 28 (1). Government Gazette, vol. 390, December 1997. Kraak, A. "Policy Ambiguity and Slippage: Higher Education Under the New State, 1994-2001." CHET Commissioned Paper, 2001. http://www.chet.org.za/papers.asp. Kulati, T. "Governance, Leadership and Institutional Change in South African Higher Education: Grappling with Instability." Tertiary Education and Management 6.3 (2000): 177-192. Kulati, T. and T. Moja. "Leadership." In Cloete, N., R. Fehnel, P. Maassen, T. Moja, H. Perold and T. Gibbon (eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, 2002, 230-291. Levin, R. "People's Education and the Struggle for Democracy in South Africa." In Unterhalter, E., H. Wolpe, T. Botha, S Badat, T. Dlamini and B. Khotseng (eds). Apartheid Education and Popular Struggles. London: Zed, 1991. Maassen, P. "Organisational Strategies and Governance Structures in Dutch Universities." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 23-41. Meek, V.L., Leo Goedegebuure, Osmo Kivinen and Risto Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Mohamed, N. and N. Cloete. "Transformation Forums as Revolutionary Councils, Midwives to Democracy or Forums for Reconstruction and Innovation." Research Report, 1996 (unpublished). Moja, T., N. Cloete and N. Olivier. "Is Moving from Co-Operative Governance to Conditional Autonomy a Contribution to Effective Governance?" Kagisano. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education, forthcoming. Moja, T., J. Muller and N. Cloete. "Towards New Forms of Regulation in Higher Education: The Case of South Africa." Higher Education 32 (1996): 129-155. National Commission on Higher Education. A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria: Department of Education, 1996. Neave, G. On Stakeholders, Chesire Cats and Seers: Changing Visions of the University. The CHEPS Inaugurals. Enschede: University of Twente, 2002. Olivier, N. The Relationship Between the State and Higher Education Institutions with Reference to Higher Education Policy Documentation and the Legislative Framework. CHET Paper, 2001, http ://www.chet.org. za/papers.asp. Ramsden, P. Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London: Routledge, 1998. Reed, ML, V.L. Meek and G.A. Jones. "Introduction." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, xv-xxxi. Reid, Norma. Business Day. November 2002. SAUVCA (South African University Vice-Chancellors Association). A New Vision. 2002. Stumpf, R. Higher Education Funding in the Period 1994-2001. CHET Paper, 2001, http://www.chet.org.za/papers.asp. Trow, M. "Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England." Higher Education Policy 7.2(1994): 11-18. Van der Walt, L., C. Bolsman, B. Johnson and L. Martin. "Globalisation and the Outsourced University in South Africa." Final Report for CHET. University of Witwatersrand. 2002, http://www.chet.org.za/publications/outsourced.pdf. Van Wyk De Vries Commission. Main Report of the Inquiry Into Universities. Pretoria: Government Printer, 1974.  CD[\]ijN O ? @ / 0 ~  örre[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[hMYOJQJ^JhMYhuvOJQJ^JhMYhMYOJQJ^Jh93h93OJQJ^Jh936CJ]aJh93CJaJh93OJQJ^Jh$h93CJ^JaJh935>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^JhLZhMY5>*OJQJ^JhLZhuv5>*OJQJ^JhLZhLZ5>*OJQJ^J# \] )*d7$8$H$^gdLZ & Fd7$8$H$gdLZd7$8$H$^gdMY & Fd7$8$H$gdMYd7$8$H$gduvd7$8$H$gdLZ   f g L M ^_hiIJjk  \]=ѿth2.huvOJQJ^Jh2.OJQJ^JhLZOJQJ^JhLZhuvOJQJ^JhLZhLZOJQJ^JhLZhuv5>*OJQJ^J"hLZhMY5>*CJOJQJaJhMYCJOJQJaJhuvCJOJQJaJhMYOJQJ^JhMYhuvOJQJ^J-=>KLmn  \]()*wx#$uv qr  abOPBCpqrXY{|0h*****'+(+q+r+++ ,ȻhUlhuv6OJQJ]^JhUlhUlOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhUlhuvOJQJ^JhUlhUl6OJQJ]^J!hUlhuv5>*OJQJ]^Jhk-hUlOJQJ^JhUlOJQJ^J8 , ,,,V,W,q,r,s,,,&-'-p-q------...k.l...//l/m///00W0X0Y0000ȷ}p}f}h]jOJQJ^JhKMhKMOJQJ^JhKMhuvOJQJ^J hKMhKMCJOJQJ^JaJhuvCJOJQJ^JaJhKMCJOJQJ^JaJ hKMhuvCJOJQJ^JaJhUlhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhKMOJQJ^JhUlhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^J(..X0Y0001I11111!5X7Y799;;>>>7@8@@KAvBCaCd7$8$H$gduv000111>2?222225363333334444444!5i5j555 66\6]66677W7X7Y77777I8J88888=9>9o9p9999ϸhrhrOJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jhrh]jOJQJ^JhrhuvOJQJ^Jh]jOJQJ^Jh]jhuvOJQJ^JhKMhuvOJQJ^JhKMh]jOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^J8999;:<:E:F:::::4;5;;;;;;;;?<@<<<<<,=-=x=y===>>[>\>g>h>>>>??`?a?????6@7@8@@@AAAAAAAA1B2BBBCC`CŻŻŻŻ߮ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻhjhjOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^Jh<h<OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh<OJQJ^Jh<huvOJQJ^JD`CaCbCCCDD[D\DDDDDDDDENEOEEEEE;F*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^Jhzhuv5>*OJQJ^Jhs(hs(OJQJ^Jhs(OJQJ^Jhs(huvOJQJ^JhjhjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^J(aCbCDDDEG GGGGGII%L&LMNNQ[R\RRhTd7$8$H$^gdz & Fd7$8$H$gdzd7$8$H$gduvGGGG/H0HwHxHHHIIdIeIIIIIIIII.J/JvJwJJJKK\K]KKKKK$L%L&L(L?LALuLvLLL M MUMVMMMMùùùùùïùùùùùùùùïhe huv6OJQJ]^Jhe huvOJQJ^Jhzhe OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhe OJQJ^JhzhuvOJQJ^Jhzhuv6OJQJ]^J!he huv56OJQJ]^Jhe huv5OJQJ^J4MMMMNNgNhNNNNNNOOWOXOOOOOMPNPPPPPPPCQDQQQ6R7RZR[R\RRRRRISJSSSSS+T,TgThTiTTTUUSUTU㮡ϔϔhy7hy7OJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^Jhy7OJQJ^Jh^WOJQJ^Jhe he OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhe OJQJ^Jhe huvOJQJ^Jhe huv6OJQJ]^J:hTiTUU V V/YHYIY\c\ ^^^}aHbIb ffkk*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$hy7huv56>*OJQJ]^Jhy7hy75>*OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jhy7OJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^J/[\\\\3]4]]]]]q^r^^^^^^M_N_____H`I`````.a/aaa"b#bGbHbIbbbbbbbc-c.cxcycccddjdkdddd߻ȫ󡔡h`:huvOJQJ^Jh`:OJQJ^Jhy7huv6OJQJ]^Jhy7hIOJQJ^JhIOJQJ^Jhy7hG)XOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhG)XOJQJ^Jhy7huvOJQJ^J:ddeeZe[eeeeeee f ff`fafffggOgPgagcggg h h\h]hhhhiSiTibidiiijjQjRjjjjjNkOkkkkkkkkllBlCllȻȻȻȻȻȻȻȻ߮ȻȻhjhuv6OJQJ]^JhjhjOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^Jh`:h`:OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh`:huvOJQJ^Jh`:OJQJ^J>llllllCmDmmmmmnnnn/o0o~oooo%p&pZp[pwpxpppppp%q&qtquqqqrrr.r/r0r~rrrr߻{{hfUOJQJ^J$hh56>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$hhuv56>*OJQJ]^JhjhOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhjhjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^JhjOJQJ^J0prr/r0r~ttuvwyyz|{Y|}} 8d7$8$H$^8gd & Fd7$8$H$gdd7$8$H$gduvr#s$s7s8swsxsssttitjt}t~ttttttuueufuuuuuuuuvGvHvvvvv&w'wswtwwww x>x?xxxxxܵܩhYeOJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYehuvOJQJ^JhfUCJOJQJaJhfUhuv6OJQJ]^JhfUhfUOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhfUhuvOJQJ^JhfUOJQJ^JhjhuvOJQJ^J3x!y"yoypyyy!z"zazbzzzzzzz*{+{4{5{u{v{~{{{{ | |[||||||D}E}}}}}}}}G~H~~~~~890134߁hYeh1OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh16OJQJ]^Jh1OJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYeOJQJ^JhYehuvOJQJ^JC߁34ւׂ01߃89vw;<89Іцab!hi ^_ ¸›¸h huv6OJQJ]^Jh h OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhYehuv6OJQJ]^JhYehuvOJQJ^Jh1OJQJ^J< !>GH-./012RSd7$8$H$^gd v & Fd7$8$H$gd vd7$8$H$gduv !mnhi45[\HIFGH45ڏۏ,-xyː̐45בؑ+,`a,-12Qһūh vhuv5>*OJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh h;lFOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh;lFOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh hDEOJQJ^J@QRSHIDEݕޕ./}~Ζϖ !highefָ}}}}h,OJQJ^Jh,huvOJQJ^JhO4hO4OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhO4huvOJQJ^JhO4OJQJ^Jh5OJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh huvOJQJ^Jh vh v5>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^J1ܙޙ./>?ҚӚ$%rsVWMN͝ΝopžacTUŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ߮$hIhuv56>*OJQJ]^Jh~aChIOJQJ^Jh~aCOJQJ^Jh~aChuvOJQJ^Jh,h,OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh,huvOJQJ^Jh,OJQJ^J6͠ԣ =>X,-CDvgEF%&d7$8$H$gduvVW\]DE45ԣ<=>ۤܤ./ JK]^ɦʦfg,-wxммЯhfdhfdOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhfdhuvOJQJ^JhfdOJQJ^JhY{8OJQJ^Jh~aChuvOJQJ^J$hIhY{856>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J<ب٨$%vwéĩef+,-wxάϬ"#stdeBCD23װذ*+{|ұӱ!"Ͳβ ܾܾh8OOJQJ^JhTOJQJ^JhfdOJQJ^JhfdhuvOJQJ^JhfdhfdOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JF abY[DEF./ַ׷"#mnQR23EF%߱$hwhuv56>*OJQJ]^Jh8OhCwOJQJ^JhwOJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^Jh8Oh8OOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh8OOJQJ^Jh8OhuvOJQJ^J;%&ijef ;<_`JKLM78UVWBC]^34$%/00jhTphTpOJQJU^JmHnHtH uh8OhCwOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^Jh8OhuvOJQJ^J!hCwhCw56OJQJ]^J>&VW/12#EFghfgd7$8$H$gduv02&'vw!"lm_` ^`STnoQR+-qh?'OJQJ^Jh> huv6OJQJ]^Jh> h> OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh> OJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^JhTpOJQJ^JDqrDEFfghTUAB12QRGHTҿ߅߅h> hïbOJQJ^JhbOJQJ^J$h?'h?'56>*OJQJ]^Jhuv56>*OJQJ]^J$h?'huv56>*OJQJ]^Jh> h?'OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^Jh?'OJQJ^J2TUPiHI ^_MNefgWXLM[]UV?@45'(wܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻܻhUHjOJQJ^JhI,hI,OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhI,huvOJQJ^Jh> huvOJQJ^JhI,OJQJ^JJwx'(<=:;TV67cdEF89_`Z[龱ߤhhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhEOJQJ^JhI,hUHjOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhI,huvOJQJ^JhUHjOJQJ^J@<:8t%&d7$8$H$gduv[MN9:)*vw34ʼyoooooooobXXXh~OJQJ^JhhwOJQJ^JhwOJQJ^J!hwhy56OJQJ]^Jhw56OJQJ]^J*j+hyhy56OJQJU]^Jhy56OJQJ]^Jhuv56OJQJ]^J!hwhuv56OJQJ]^Jhwh5OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J"$%xy#$yz$%&uvklGHFGUV#$µߎhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhT -OJQJ^Jh~h5>*OJQJ^Jhuv5>*OJQJ^Jh~huv5>*OJQJ^Jhh~OJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^Jh~OJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J4Dgh5\]/^_<=C.d7$8$H$gduvd7$8$H$^gd & Fd7$8$H$gd$qr46$%fghPQDE89Z[BC45()[\]JK?@]^_YZhhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^JS;<=CEst}+;<z klz%& ƺuuuh6OJQJ]^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^Jhhuv5OJQJ\^JhCJOJQJaJhuvCJOJQJaJhuvCJ OJQJaJ huvCJOJQJaJhhOJQJ^JhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhhuvOJQJ^J..}' b -   b  )ud7$8$H$gduv  ^ b c } ~    3 ` a        + , T      / 0 O       ( ) 4 ` a {       '(B wx7uvHrsh6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhOJQJ^JPG[strs*+<Ypq!UVpZ[rs)*[\k|[deh6OJQJ]^JhOJQJ^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^JPt+x-kd7$8$H$gdd7$8$H$gduv@QRvw&'v&+,8j{|z{G[\jkhhNHOJQJ^Jh6OJQJ]^Jhhuv6OJQJ]^JhhuvOJQJ^JhOJQJ^J/21h:pNH. A!"#$% +Dd+ ""j  FA?Picture 1b*6h-@9^*Dxn*6h-@9^PNG  IHDR;sRGB*lIDATx^ے*EOsO`B@lc~"- ]Y @X @%! @ؘRfa: @Hr e6C ! @ؘRfa: @Hr e6C or>9N( \R s< >;fmpH[x QqiU2>P/bGVn27OSJSL0.+r:oo|KmdLzkeTɠЪ9r!=lᱎ{`Ży.bУJکcqj^mϢHÖLG:q2Z/nR-3^T뒶=#,AG䕛n~77h *et4'$lC{:˾^!=2r?6>K:wę͛$/AxیjMI!xwe]3syob+v2q;_gRLyh8douOpf r'xeOS$H qdN0otes3Ⲿ]es%O2z~n}Jr'tvرlMZܔerҧU/TnO1A@ױIxfJk$sUOe^+KM-oܢW[aJ.~ErNi-jw+O!]ZW`a Y%܊W*jKVHYj)0StLيwb3bɖ/14cP:%.c; ^JOT ʤ wLrP>e0r0^ ]I[d~%XӄBAWBb{c|,˪,3R&fVZCqϗ_;}ח#qʽ/fT%eOuw(&zJU{EYnVZv̎Dt%^qݽSEf4=K&;< eBƒjYXNwhfX{UU=Ġ")Y.u 2q5c-ΌYN-Z۪q-LNٌ R;~k:)sV]ctVxMB`멏kwQFHJFٺZ-v7S[;B$'Ȳd5m74ƙmL)Ư^oʜ S2yHH|ɫ V![@;([ۘ/j~QoT âN\f]]ޤ_ǼimVP~ ҵ] HjHZ޲ZVST?-gHM:R Pzg[YefF ^"eji3ZAԵ`u:/nX )q$ӱr4Җd]^]/`%COrLf4WV5y(Ppb)ԥMr<.}8@~o)3V[\ ePcC[}Zk,0@w2fHUmkoϱu3u[# ɨXńlT% ,I/:4ʤ̧߭~t!W ;}^y[Wl%ɔ= ^N^m:"5KL^ݤ XK2%[tq JKzTKdu׎c˩J"?2hdX = kyɕ|T"ZM v!P' /u 骝2ici5aeTDw|d\H2|-Y꒔2%ٯ$<񦖡Wku}}4D& :7Z4|e2 S2IBa P`1 Zd}gnC;~e25fo0U \k.O5~u]> JO[W|H-RźTTTw d:F M/G >GUHKH "<'^PO[C5pq!~j rU\qy 6LŸ8?gMq /=_x{#wS} !sF dNG )w_GCOlK`671 T, @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@R @`cH  e@6&8x@Rh%xS_”Iީ"*ݧ;y,f@t %sefuC3&txػa4w S @&ʚa)yeVN밒4އw5pǙi룲kE2Eh:337K۹))L @x;@ e^`܃ 7ߗ{'?噀S0AVn絎w墡T l7B&UuK9nlRhh5<65^t;62m4gct)Xp,v] ТtqOJlЎ2{Akw0Ċ]gn9)㣕Ok<*i)_KjǮ"i4Q|M|=dfix}Acx+BxSZ3BY^1Q[anșݵ*lg͸6_2IQorTI%E> ԆX mu",[jhBfX*i.Sgi"wܖ1_؁d4!2!(C)ݷ;ʬ۽^Oǎ) #FC2>٣6o׾[oȈ׾f:~LF;9^?c/s` hFTӻH>muuy镐'Xk/[:ߒ2Vt~%Nmwx^;BPb2Jz>Ŋ2F3#(/V` m )E0%9n<8?H^ ^fUZƿR5@$<>Iq):,}O)` $):{yTCTxRuyG;O`T4"yDFF`%nin-U#}y_L O֪<,PmaVHӮY}!s@x0sRbNbDw2G-aactL{KPf/A|!@_6:AcRG@_HW @wS,|I#$Y&obG^K ~̥ ?¨MUKŇ"ef>ʑLa2pڕc lˁØ) PNy1D|ǎ?;CLp 0Q淔ÌNHÏ[=ũ1DI0h \Jge.d %˓ @7.d%= ~6м$n#o䯾dd`usȀa)5B PL`" lF` S0!PZ'[LٺL>i)D@JL fA !Lm &מr',uf@}bKL,o7Xdw0i-.19/47[PO6"Hwғ]mKn0-/`ǍB_~Jq###[BFe^>yY|e[A[%FDHεD+IpfG1rjMCIi񡋾zytM7oazfn2S+yU:KMV4%p@jO]/ `EJtZ+-GǷ#!-ae]FJ%kt4C\]: Dd,IDZF?v5MfPP(h[.k#Cpu _t̯ˁs}5JsVM#/_ݤ)c?@e&^< *G燒="$iYX+e n=x[FTV8(H:3 }w$r&j,(0=(]:xݾr$Smiqw|C)Pː3NF"%YJVكgm|5<45+ڬۖͿv7Xnul|^/·[p/ZV> _V^̥eS1.Xƴԭ"EfH [U uC-2\>Q!9ͧNcUaKsU3INޯuft"q XܞO 8PɜTE}2ɩnQe)CJG].~m;㬾VMY e/O'M`_GL﹈{҅L-%2E+!/}׻g 2L ?C 8gW7fBGFhnt S/2_F͈QZ.ln'Qh)Kg:4u%̕3]`UkӅ˗ WD>B|%RaڴUGݸБ̻Q.nY Lz;:͇\T,2r]{8/3iW}0%U^w"M@Hoq2]ȝzˤwC]օCgμ!J 6LH )k21]P~jT8١C(?v(Nyuq$1 p] 2{Ajyoa,gW W\)z"iP=ތ;y21~;N:7CD? qF׮X2ݼ+~% f? aAGq6@3mmْ`|}20 \5VK}cܫiǒȫ2wvz5bSr|@ KĞ-2'SJÔAv!-{p &YAYD`ʱt[d$BR H]c]} g(1@OqW-%F PdFўL0n3 # ,#2b}ȷcr@ؕ2F!@T4 @`cKNe/eᑮ YAl|/;IJ?bhav 1ظcw^\C`Ϲi1wk3˓ ~5}YgdG^Ig6J|AK&-2X/_NoiS;EʆY܂IFDC\ g:/">Ş +Y3bHJNz~;FQKv/dX]Xe^Qp@(v]ŰB),%ɏx_!eŹu۳Cפ4C( g|.[>ǻHMU@g<`>'-/v2*\=y:dQIBsOD^~L28J4e(oÊ>#\$e1 Lۙd\.̺.=.3jv`)e8k-y*ӥφEDs}o-l<:g>>QRmE3+硕yr -В/f^OέlTٽYl/2ŪJs Bu@?:%]"e ~[WG՗&2:fɫF7As3C!29ԴL `){ 5Bv^h@Mh9=ɔoG߱LZp*C&X Ne6 ES.4 pR% n]y_Od8M%Z!!p5Gfw׼g{ ̽_2;@ p*aОg2WTݘpjEAU.&TW|mcGZG:aLn%'ݷY݀am_ɷ*F/ ^@0iC. Oetd\)pWLDǹg p29׼-% B~md3(UR~/t,i BhiskI神|Tmc>}="ugfVיMN@\H ?HaWtp0U')Sn__4o?480 \2V:m_pt~uœiKL!P=67)dɇ\UF[]=cA%(j"jUǻfi@1 h GZd5g_RչX>4C3Η2JBh78E=/mNVjըfsw$]L'Tyt+%ɥGmˣvi_!jۤ`@'ctA/8ߌ1mSL}!$Q6|yۤL9Vw[RFXbT/C  7 b,IpkdnxR]!KBľه(xk噪]Xg|~tf"oa|BRFj|^ Z{)x2FOnv O~xsl'YaL%֜nabL)#kҗۙs\za$d]}+4jֽ5aWAsGl “j TNk;1Ɖ7L\nݬrCKv$-bIdWBLZS|NV_Y-2C'TELD ǶQ Rfam1:!@؝gev Bq2&7&wI#G2 JMY}ϴ){73S / 0 eZK+ 7(ӹ@ =!ϿK>NmPfʘrJ/zX}/@,Tu:ib$sA0MxYt8s;ꛤzdXh @ n0G_@n&9L@H3 @27!@8C)s}!@R0= @g eУ/ @7@ @ z @fH !pT;]HCXth 4 8r*#O(/R_8@IGjjj$Ül6NI fZNUiYU%] )vO>/uҷ7;|TΌiŁ9l0b11*5ĻV, L DQL*y,pm|>8.e.7:f,E%T>;_FO coFhkճ3[K_ NĮCϨ 4Z@vHyR(dO=@K@x7R\jCJ:+g?}F%vsʌfKG08:fE@  Kk}(C{h-Cb9U(\Cg1Ď{&+2mt>f @eLnħN&]=LҚzuLlzOQ e=rJ $6:D @8m^F=R ܭh,;Z:1R%tfh =a%ްAÜTU$ hS~n6| p)#S{(ނX^]c#t\US^ivf逸Cl]A(ɓ9fղm @/#pJʼ@ il9C H @%n H @%n t>QIENDB`i'Dd * ;;0  # A"&*CpA7&+x@=&*CpA7ϩiFt&x=,˒V[@Z 0A0D@ Et3hwydffx{DSmv?}aX|?wO__㯿ߦwo_W_[>^?w?/ן{$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H |dxw;;p ÿd(xw;\Q0={3^F/YkԤ7竽Y{yD=KyԚKs9'ܻG~'$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$SkyM>[ռg.G'f92s H5;ziЉ=ZW+:>wStY~V=b:kq_S}j3gm^t)׵I@ޥ)wTY;{1~_Xwdgh_Χ<9X힬'z^( ~%p{bԜ~'xzy8yhx*At擯ץʡyDjYW9S#^Z8KwI=MhE{g6ys}oG{|LzXẂZ\uxToyrGzy/"O'mзzMO{<5sYbK@'p=}y-VHo=A{1,>LJκ%Zem`Lx;RyQ:c˓w/=V-"$.yG[JO nOރwY:}hԱNOMjYsW]yΘ9S{CwȉV^t#H`&{4gU[_zG|ĭgLOΩAA#nՕgʗW'sojU|eN5"ZKu. #uxToyrGzym|P}Gުs$=^{gwln#;zʻҏ# No9,[wߗW#lxgN|S%ʻү;ULG>g?u+>b=4tgL<:Oמds. NwdxI}9?܏d"'F|3kQj23{V @SK}|r H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@${[\e\z\LH@@nﬞu/%+9KPqo{n/{Okr+琀$L|']g]s4$p9ޯX6ի}waCcZzyEjrީe\3l}mls H8{it2`;@c1}{xAAgu =ޣ{83#v{bjuYk5ެǗ9hx2f.q. HtxV =G33lbY *Z:>":X7J@x&{|ݣ3ٽ$pFxl% PI?@މd9hh+M_ϡɳ4>[ާ)t2;}==ʓ: 4'<9"HqU+Nc/?դvM=5Si+UɃzuY \rwWޕ~g\83[ާ[jij'z/}I=:MtqU}W\0[qQ:{:}9o_SfuAэ83m#s- }vd:^wjt땿' "5Yg+ROqK3"mi"3iκϖ?s{*2X8;KʻOg$ptKYxk9:kb+2XWI_Wλhox)Ҩ|VSzZ")vGGcMz_3J ݻһϵ$08;-f^wauvkNXS3myW\~˛w<äe3}ֹ[1&_(39#)# {v:\}"@"95zSUͪWשM=igԐ%җxrST6?iԎƹ~RO=JU }UtH p7RcN={{k"\|_΢OE_\_>%T)|5B{sLI[Kgϊ OUtH }S|> <@Wm~[~sO{߉B>&ϤӜȱ>ss8;g}މ"G]굾/ ". H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@<{{=bUϟK.AO5{={/t^H<_֮8^kSK; x'd?M`'yш9zZg]g]׼ƞ6=*7h驜C8U̓I^<Ƶ$O)߱BQEEcsu>{uz")ʯ42?i{&g">r+Ud&v% 8|q;T]C`hS@c]1g.{d-s|ԱصT3i>oO|y D-K@g#pgG?ң׺w)kקs{,'mK""|e4Kno/#51x$jVһ!G39C;WtH@]:o#uzޟ֝ 7Q4!vk}&{RW8폶!_q[yrYvMSUs- W˜$ޡdYzkne<};#ͳRCq:/Z>ٟI@w}zY[I@="WuHػC _S[rT| tI;K$p~~^[w>%  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@D(c,nyq Xxsx6>SD+#hDGiO/9ML޼S/c$'.~v?xw;87|/I?~͸noG۫fP\8&{xv-|rs>O>\_;x[{ź|{aMOԚ*ȼ>z]G3k#' H@$ $cNc`W! H@$yVWw7$  H@+~6?qvu$  H({o5#z^U{<=Rٛ917nMMZZO{]w;i1J@$ obymي[^ruSju^_1G_ש3'8ie$|NTs H@$p,3Vg\3Ooyek9V=sɠiL:5G[ŕ7Szi9&O|YwҦgι$  H@I;s#Nue]5ZO}gVݢU}S}c=E< -6OK@$ "0A]з:y&mꁯjyzzt}]MGs+`emz{oG>ُyRs. H@^uyguޟc/OW|xn H@K~% H@ L/&'sG ܗ^$  H@ {P+غ~O3J@O`1iO(mӽRz]k+|3ixW\^@}OSW4&}}+ʇ&ߤe M_)?*2:=D~<ͼV\4դ|j9'15Udt-++=5䈥vk H@y|g=c\]rz^g_>o2fݤg=^4֫)_^tbr͜X59~3E>+_eN@[y&$  My4<'-׳gI13i1yxTSz suhYF~U><Ԭ[Ւ7ޗorgt"j{n|}zݏN雴S;ixߖoWK@y]:Lzj٣j3{Lox2T枓V~tjW+k%wFOc&_FѦ9tbϳ&\_a#u( H@ w4|^]=Vď:{٫_7O_GH.#r6{Xw_'۪\8Hx4:b|]c]1:Z_~TSQ_:$  HVya=}ϓKϺzYCЎx>+Ve4_dzU<5h{gzr#y6#gH~3}cMj=zy NF H@8;O#ץO}VԻ3N kj8'u^F.#)xZTwT sCqu} $3 պt<W~<{1zMG5bq6ɹ$  <GNFmzI5xjzuc^1z#zv=J=wKK׫>3ךTGnsڅ|3'Ϛ._j̩_SԻt\5J@}M}{y{}Ǽk;iX姚܇z|S/h[~ʇC>ֿ'[Ϣاs;%p&yw<ϙw_kƟ#gC솎}Q>rRjGy\K@ݫG'Uُ>g^{T{._$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@?!_ D&ށ_@pu{\эr<o]>K??w;x?i}ײKAms;M`eG<{WYSZCGľ_L'W9o=cGX>s L G|>DNF H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  H@$  J|}}?5O?4j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J NHNormal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List PK![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\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] k =0$ ,09`CGMTU[dlrx߁ Q %0qTw[$ k*.aChTp &.k8@0(  B S  ?[/2+,/0()`a'(wx''uv  r s       s t     r s   * +       p q    UVZ[rs)*[\deQRvw&'+,{|z{[\m[/2+,/0()`a'(wx''uv  r s       s t     r s   * +       p q    UVZ[rs)*[\deQRvw&'+,{|z{[\jmSar>=@eh ^`hH.80^8`0o(..80^8`0o(...^`o(.... ^`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... p^p`o(........ p^p`o(.........^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.>=Sa                  >=zbifU juvDE$e ?'s(I,T -k-2.93Y{8`:<~aC;lFNH8OG)XMYLZhaYejUHj]j ~wTpO4IrIkm@h k@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @CalibriA BCambria Math"1hƆQƦ5S))!02QHX $Puv2!xxuwcuwc  Oh+'0`   ( 4@HPXuwcNormaluwc53Microsoft Office Word@[/@il@T%)՜.+,0 hp|     Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     Root Entry Fl;%Data S1Table'WordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q
Warning: Unknown(): open(/tmp/sess_0f7cc551aa10379e84c11b7a2d830a44, 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