146
Table 5.9: MEANS Table for extent of job challenges
Item
n obs
mean
Minimum
maximum
std dev
Accreditation
programmes
23
2.6087
1.0000
5.0000
1.1962
Gender equity
23
2.6522
1.0000
5.0000
1.4016
Racial justice
23
2.6087
1.0000
5.0000
1.3731
Family/career balance
23
2.0870
1.0000
5.0000
1.1246
Cultural diversity
23
2.1739
1.0000
4.0000
1.1140
Diverse student population needs
23
1.7273
1.0000
4.0000
0.9351
Program quality assessment
23
2.0870
1.0000
4.0000
0.9960
Maintaining program quality
23
1.7826
1.0000
4.0000
0.9514
Accountability 23
2.0909
1.0000
5.0000
1.1509
Quality assurance
23
2.1304
1.0000
4.0000
1.0137
Quality assurance measures
23
2.0476
1.0000
4.0000
1.0235
Strengthening curriculum
23
1.3636
1.0000
3.0000
0.6580
Financial constraints
23
2.2273
1.0000
5.0000
1.1519
Teaching effectiveness
23
2.0870
1.0000
4.0000
0.9493
Staff problems
23
2.1739
1.0000
4.0000
1.1541
Dept. data management
23
2.3636
1.0000
4.0000
1.0486
Unsatisfactory staff Performance 23
2.0909 1.0000 4.0000 1.0193
Team spirit
23
2.0435
1.0000
4.0000
0.9283
Building
networks
23
2.0435
1.0000
4.0000
0.9283
Creativity & initiative
23
1.8261
1.0000
4.0000
0.9367
Office admin
23
2.6087
1.0000
5.0000
1.1962
Personnel management
23
2.3478
1.0000
5.0000
1.1912
147
Table 5.10: Table for ordered combined job challenges frequencies
Item
frequency
Cumulative
frequency
Strengthening curriculum
20 20
Creativity & initiative
19 39
Diverse student population needs
19 58
Maintaining programme quality
19 77
Building networks
17 94
Cultural diversity
17 111
Family/career balance
17 128
Program quality assessment
17 145
Team spirit
17 162
Accountability
16 178
Quality assurance
16 194
Quality assurance measures
16 210
Staff problems
16 226
Teaching effectiveness
16 242
Unsatisfactory staff performance
16 258
Personnel management
15 273
Financial constraints
14 287
Departmental data management
13 300
Accreditation programs
12 312
Gender equity
12 324
Racial justice
12 336
Office administration
11 347
By studying the frequency distribution of responses concerning job challenges (Table
5.8), it appears that ‘strengthening the curriculum’ presents the greatest challenge for the
participants (16 ‘strongly agree’ responses). Other challenges are ‘catering for diverse
student population needs’ and ‘maintaining programme quality’ (11 ‘strongly agree’
responses each). However, the general impression is that participants do not feel ‘very
strongly’ about the importance of certain challenges. For instance, they do not agree that
148
‘gender equity’ and ‘racial justice’ pose serious challenges to them in their position. The
MEANS analysis (Table 5.9) confirms the observation that in general, participants do not
seem to strongly agree on the relevance of the stated challenges. They do, however, find
the following to be challenges: ‘diverse student population needs’(mean= 1.7273);
‘strengthening the curriculum’(mean= 1.3636); ‘maintaining programme quality’ (mean,
1.7826) and ‘creativity and initiative’ (mean= 1.8261). A similar trend is observed in
Table 5.10 where the rank ordered combined frequencies point to the
greatest challenges
being ‘strengthening the curriculum’, ‘creativity and initiative’, ‘catering for diverse
student population needs’ and ‘ maintaining programme quality’.
Contrary to findings, in these studies, that the tasks of ‘dealing with unsatisfactory staff
performance’(Smith 2002), and ‘with difficult colleagues/department staff members
(Ramsden 1998), are the most challenging tasks, participants in the present study did not
perceive this task as a difficult challenge. This is evidenced by the relatively low extent
of agreement given to the statement of challenge ‘dealing with difficult staff members’
(16 ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’, 5 ‘strongly disagree’ and 2 ‘undecided’).
A possible explanation for this difference may be attributed to women’s style of
leadership and management which is generally regarded as collaborative, participative
and nurturing. With this style of leadership a woman is probably
likely to handle difficult
members of staff or those not performing according to expectation more effectively.
However, there is no empirical evidence yet to support the relationship between
leadership style and staff performance/behaviour.
5.2.4.4 Strategies useful for addressing job challenges
Different institutions and departments and disciplines may present the HoD with a host
of challenges which may be addressed in a variety of ways, depending on their nature.
Whatever strategies are utilised (Seagren et al 1994:88), the chair must reflect on why
they might be effective in a particular context.
149
On the questionnaire, participants had to indicate the extent to which they agreed that the
strategies listed on the questionnaire would be useful to them in their current position
when addressing the job challenges listed in the previous section. The results are shown
in Tables 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13. In Table 5.12 a mean value close to one implies a specific
strategy is perceived to be applicable and a mean value close
to five implies a specific
strategy is perceived to be less applicable.
Table 5.11: Frequency Table for strategies to address job challenges
Strategy
Extent of agreement on usefulness
Frequency
strongly
agree
agree undecided
disagree
strongly
disagree
Total
Professional development workshops
7
10
4
1
1
23
Encouraging female participation
7
8
7
1
0
23
Deliberately seeking out members of other
racial groups for development and promotion
8 11
3
1 0 23
Personal/professional balance
9
10
4
0
0
23
Transparency/fairness 17
6
0
0
0
23
Evaluating teaching and assessment
techniques
7 10
5
0 0 22
Staff retention/nurturing
20
3
0
0
0
23
Leadership performance evaluation
5
12
4
1
0
22
Establishing support networks
12
7
3
1
0
23
Raising
external funding
12
3
5
2
0
22
Specifying roles and responsibilities for
HoD’s
10 8
3
2 0 23
Leadership and management training and
workshops
7 7
7
1 1 23
Flexible student admission procedures
1
5
7
8
0
21
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
