A comparative study on turnaround leadership in higher education and the successful implementation of the UN’s sustainable development goals

Abstract

Purpose Given the increased emphasis on embedding the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) in the curriculum, research, engagement activities and operations of higher education institutions, this comparative study aims to replicate an earlier international study of Turnaround Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education (TLSHE) in the unique context of Malaysia and Japan. This paper also presents a case for closer focus on developing Education for Sustainability (EfS) leaders in institutions of higher learning. Design/methodology/approach This study is a quantitative comparative research. The authors collected data for EfS-related variables from lecturers affiliated with Malaysian and Japanese public and private universities. Building on the data and results from the TLSHE study, this study made a series of within- and between-sample descriptive comparisons from different angles and levels. To generalize the findings, this study used gender and experience outside higher education as control variables and compared the academics from the Malaysian and the Japanese institutions through the path modeling framework. Findings The comparisons showed that except for two domains, namely, contextual factors influencing EfS leadership and the EfS leadership development approaches, the means of all other domains based on the data collected from the Malaysian sample were the highest, followed by means from the international TLSHE sample, and finally the means from the Japanese sample. This study also observed that transparency, engagement with EfS initiatives at different levels, passion for teaching and learning, and creative and lateral thinking were among the top indicators. The inferential tests revealed significant differences between the academics from Japan and Malaysia as well. Practical implications The findings of the analyses can be used to ensure that the selection and development of EfS leaders (in this case, lecturers who may be formal or informal EfS leaders), not just at the central but at the local level in the distinctive context of Japan and Malaysia, focus on what counts and the good ideas embodied in the 17 UN SDGs are actually put into practice. This study has also highlighted the policy implications with respect to the gender and the previous work experience of lecturers outside higher education sector in more detail. Originality/value This study compares the perceptions of two samples of academics from Asian countries with the perceptions of the international TLSHE sampled EfS leaders in terms of EfS leadership-related issues and therefore, increases the awareness of academic community in this regard. It also highlights the role of lecturers (e.g. professors) as intellectual academic leaders in achieving SDGs. Moreover, this study shows that lecturers’ gender and previous work experience outside higher education should be considered when developing and implementing policies on EfS leadership.

A conditional time-varying multivariate latent growth curve model for the relationships between academics’ servant leadership behavior, affective commitment, and job performance during the Covid-19 pandemic

“…More specifically, different aspects of performance in academic settings have been addressed, such as research performance and knowledge performance (e.g., Ponnuswamy and Manohar ( 2016 )). In addition, in a recent comparative study in the context of Malaysian and Japanese higher education systems, Ghasemy et al ( 2022c ) focused on different sustainability-related issues, such as Education for Sustainability (EfS) effective in-role performance with five dimensions that include personal and interpersonal outcomes, learning and teaching outcomes, recognition and reputation, financial performance, and effective implementation. It is noteworthy that, due to the introduction of the New Public Management practices, university governance has applied performance management, as a means for output control, more sophisticatedly (Bleiklie and Lange 2010 ).…”

The structural modelling of significant organisational and individual factors for promoting sustainable campus in Saudi Arabia

“…Thus, the nature of leadership should not be underestimated in university environments (Ramsden, 1998;Breakwell, 2006;Ghasemy et al, 2023), as accomplishing goals requires leadership figures to inspire confidence and manage uncertainty in their organisations (Jarzabkowski, 2003;van Niekerk and Jansen van Rensburg, 2022), support stakeholders at various levels (Shattock, 2010;Marshall, 2019) and consult academic staff in the process (Ramsden, 1998;Jarzabkowski, 2003). As Allen (2003) stated, the organisational complexity and bureaucracy of HEIs requires leadership capabilities to bring about change with respect to sustainability initiatives.…”

Interweaving students’ key sustainability competencies with sustainability development knowledge (SDK)

“…In fact, it's plausible to assert that any research aimed at enhancing the learning experience of students, to some extent, relies on the principles derived from learning theory (Hoy et al 2013). Investigations on university programs and assessment that link to sustainability, are on the rise especially on how it could be integrated into future professional initiatives and efforts (Junghanns and Beery, 2020;Ghasemy et al, 2023) and considering how program outcomes in HEIs align with the actual learning processes (Redman et al, 2021). In this connection, Lozano et al (2015) found that integrating sustainable development (SD) into the programs and curricula will also create meaningful SD learning outcomes.…”