Page 1 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/JSMaP
e-ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 01 Issue 06
July 2015
Available online: http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/ P a g e | 212
How do managerial competency and self-efficacy affect
performance of university leaders?
Abdul Wahab ; Rosli Mahmood ; Shukri Bin Bakar
School of Business Management, College of Business,
Universiti Utara Malaysia, kedah, Malaysia
abdulwahab1984@hotmail.com; rosli@uum.edu.my ; shukribakar@uum.edu.my
Abstract
This study investigates the connections
between managerial competency, self
efficacy and performance of university
leaders. The study adopted a quantitative
approach through survey instruments
design and the population of the study was
the leaders of public sector universities of
Punjab, Pakistan. Data collection was
made through questionnaires, and the
constructs used were adapted from prior
research and already tested for reliability.
The proposed structural equation model
was assessed with Partial Least Squares
(PLS) techniques. Results indicated
support for the theoretical model that was
considered. The findings suggest that
managerial competency and self efficacy is
associated with performance.
Keywords: managerial competency, self
efficacy, performance, university leaders
Introduction
In the higher education system, tertiary
institutions perform a vital job in
educating the high-level professionals,
specialists, researchers and scientists,
required by the country and in creating
latest information and know-how in favour
of national innovation systems (World
Bank, 2002). Within this situation, an ever
more vital concern of many governments
is to make certain that their universities are
actually working at the most advanced
stage of scientific and intellectual
development. World class University is a
requirement of today. The present higher
learning system of Pakistan could be
explained as ‘non market framed’.
Education Policy (1998-2010) claims,
“The entire thrust of Pakistani regulatory
interventions and government policies not
gearing universities to market
requirements and market principles”.
There have appeared fresh challenges
raised by internationalization,
liberalization and internationalization of
universities. These have carried with them
various requirements, approaches and
dimensions to the leaders of universities
(Akhtar & Kalsoom, 2012).
Leadership is one of the key factors
affecting university’s performance (File &
Shibeshi, 2011). While there are several
research studies associated with the issue
of leadership in institutions of higher
education, to date research studies have
not sufficiently studied specific predictors
of leadership effectiveness in such
institutions (Al-Shuaiby, 2009). There is a
huge body of research related to leadership
and job performance of middle managers
in business; however, similar studies of
leadership behaviour and academic
performance in (HEIs) are missing
(Almayali & Bin Ahmad, 2012).
Page 2 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/JSMaP
e-ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 01 Issue 06
July 2015
Available online: http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/ P a g e | 213
After considerable analysis of the
research, the scholars were concerned in
finding out the degree to which leadership
capabilities of university leaders can be
anticipated by a blend of constructs
including their leadership styles,
competencies as well as roles to be an
important aspect in leadership efficacy
(Daugherty & Finch, 1997; Rosser et al.,
2003; Eagly et al., 2003; Billing &
Alvesson, 1994; Thorp et al., 1998; Eagly
et al., 1992; Moss & Jensrud, 1995).
However, there is a paucity of research
linked with leadership styles, and
professional and personal characteristics of
university leaders as predictors of their
leadership effectiveness.
In view of the transformation that has
happened in higher education, university
leaders must perform not only in their
scholastic capability but also as managers.
Brown (2001) suggests that effective
leaders have to build both managerial and
leadership traits and behavior. Yang
(2003) considers that it is essential to
counterbalance the new demands on the
position of university leaders with an
extent of managerial competence. As per
Aziz et al (2005), efficacy in management
competencies will eventually lead to
effective and successful task achievement.
Current studies on university leadership
propose that in the case of apex research
institutes, the top performing universities
have leaders who unite good managerial
competence and a thriving research
profession (Goodall, 2006). As per Iversen
(2000) “it is rational to conclude that there
are some managerial competencies that are
causally linked to effective and/or superior
performance in a job”.
In current years, research on managerial
competency and competency modeling has
secured more and more interest and
attention (Qiao & Wang, 2009). But here
is so far little empirical support that
competencies are positively linked to
human performance (Spreitzer et al., 1997;
Russell, 2001; Goldstein et al., 2001).
Studies also say that the debate of
competencies in the entrepreneurial
research is in its initial phases
(Brinckmann, 2008). Particularly
competency literature in higher education
is scarce and somewhat underdeveloped
(Martinez, 2008).
The challenges experiencing the
Pakistani universities at the beginning of
the twenty first century have straight
inferences for its leaders. There have
appeared new challenges raised by
internationalization, globalization, and
liberalization of universities. These have
brought with them various requirements,
approaches and dimensions to the
university leaders (Akhtar & Kalsoom,
2012). So in order to meet all these
challenges a strong sense of efficacy is
compulsory to thrive and sustain in front
of all organizational challenges. Bandura
(2001) supports the significance of self- efficacy in leadership situation by saying,
“When faced with obstacles or
setbacks...those with a strong belief in
their capabilities will redouble their efforts
to master the challenge”. Superior levels of
self-efficacy offer the inner guidance and
thrust to form the agency required to
pursue challenging opportunities and tasks
effectively (Shamir et al., 1993; Mischel
and Shoda, 1998; Lord and Brown, 2004;
Page 3 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/JSMaP
e-ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 01 Issue 06
July 2015
Available online: http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/ P a g e | 214
Cropanzano et al., 1993; Carver and
Scheier, 1998).
Aside from this there is a growing
prominence on the role of self-efficacy in
the field of entrepreneurship, involving
areas such as intentionality,
entrepreneurial career preferences and
performance (Boyd and Vozikis 1994;
Chandler and Jansen 1992; Gartner 1989;
Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Scherer et al.
1989). From the above discussion it may
be articulated that in today’s dynamic
environment as a predictor of performance
there is an immense need of self efficacy
in university leader’s behavior to meet and
respond all the challenges. Although
studies showed the relation between
leaders self efficacy and performance, but
research states, even though leaders self- efficacy looks to be a promising construct
for understanding their behavior and
motivation, it has been comparatively
unstudied (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,
2007). Also the literature of self efficacy
in the combination of university leader’s
performance specifically in the field of
tertiary education institutions of Pakistan
is sparse and somewhat unstudied.
Administrators and scholars alike talk
about a big leadership catastrophe in
tertiary education. Extensive studies have
been concentrated on the jobs of
chancellors, presidents and deans, and
have discovered the leadership catastrophe
by higher learning institutions (Coats,
2000). The search for solutions to this
leadership issue directs us to understand
that university leader development is the
least researched and most misunderstood
management procedure (Gmelch, 2013).
One of the most obvious deficiencies in
the leadership development field is the
lack of sound research on how to develop
and train leaders (Conger & Benjamin,
1999). (Gmelch, 2013)
Literature Review
Performance
Job performance is questionably one of
the most significant dependent variables of
interest to businesses, educators, the
society and government. Businesses and
researchers are just now reaching
agreement on widespread
conceptualizations and definitions of
individual level job performance. The
presence of a seamless relation between
broader organizational goals and
individual performance is a vital
supposition that underlies a systems
approach to performance management
(Wholey & Hatry, 1992; Behn, 1995;
Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000; Hood, 1991,
1995; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). In high- performing businesses, every person is
assessed according to his or her
performance. If assessed correctly both the
organization and the persons within it will
be affected positively (Alam et al., 2010).
The acceptance of individual
performance management in higher
learning institutions is studied at the
position of the dean, deputy dean,
academic director and the heads of
department who have a chief liability for
managing the performance of their unit of
institution, and therefore the performance
of individual teachers and department
associates (Meek et al, 2000). Growing
rivalry for public funds and burden of
greater liability were said to be basis for
