Examining leadership styles in higher education management: evidence from Kazakhstan

ABSTRACT

This study examines leadership styles exhibited by university managers and heads in Kazakhstan. The peculiarity of the academic management system in the universities of Kazakhstan is determined by the traditions of management and leadership that have developed both in the culture of the people and in the educational system of the Soviet era, and new trends and values adopted from the Western academic community through internationalization and joining the Bologna process. The study’s results demonstrate that most Kazakhstani university managers (79%) self-asses their leadership style as ‘democratic’ or ‘collegial’. Interesting divergences were observed, such as men in the sample preferring a more independent leadership style compared to women. At the same time, correlation analysis shows a positive relationship between age and the leadership abilities of managers in Kazakhstani universities, as well as between leadership abilities and management styles. Such results are consistent with well-known trends in gender assessment of management styles, and demonstrated gender asymmetry in the Kazakhstani university leadership. The study’s findings can serve as a starting point for larger investigations aimed at deepening understanding of how trained leaders can positively influence the development of the academic environment, the social, educational capital of universities, and overall competitiveness of Kazakhstani universities.

Introduction

Higher education is increasingly a distinctively export-oriented industry, with the opportunity to create jobs and good tax revenue. Kazakhstan, following the lead of developed countries, is actively engaging its top universities to make them more competitive in the international educational space. Foreign universities, including the University de Montfort Leicester, the University of Arizona, and others are being supported in opening branches in Kazakhstan (opened in 2021 and 2022 respectively) so that they might exchange experience and best practices with homegrown Kazakhstani universities, even as the overall number of universities in the country has consolidated from 146 to 119 in the 30 years since independence. Over 600,000 students are enrolled at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels, with 60% of them attending private institutions. Financing of education in Kazakhstan is 3.3% of GDP, of which higher education is less than 1% of GDP (State Program for the Development of Education and Science, 2019). These indicators are lower than in OECD countries (4.6% − 1.6%), and less than in the neighboring countries – Uzbekistan, Russia, Tajikistan. To assure a supply of qualified instructors, the number of allocated state grants for training has doubled (Concept for the Development of High Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2022–2026, 2022) in recent years to about 73 thousand, and is expected to reach 75 thousand by 2025. As Tokbolat (2023) explains, the government of Kazakhstan promotes the enlargement of the higher education to support the stability of the state and the sustainability of the national system. The State Program (2019) previously indicated planning to increase education funding to 5% of GDP.

The funding per student is also increasing annually to about US$2,600 in 2023, with all universities in Kazakhstan having switched to a system of per capita funding. Public and private universities receive funding from the state budget proportional to the amount of applicants who enroll, leading to fierce competition. In particular, state universities do not receive additional direct funds from the budget for renovation works, salaries, or material improvements, making their reliance on state grants an existential matter. «State educational grant» is the target amount of money in national currency provided to the individuals who have become eligible for free of charge education under the state educational scholarship to fund their professional education (Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 58 as of January 23, 2008). The state grant is distributed on the basis of the per capita funding standard (per capita funding standard is the standard for financial support of the guaranteed state cost of education at all levels of education (Methodology for pea … , 2017)).

The authors Karabayev et al. (2023) and Kussaiynov et al. (2023) indicate that the number of university students has almost no impact on GRP per capita and the population’s income level, and expenses on higher education do not affect changes in GDP (as opposed to expenses on secondary vocational education). At the same time Karabayev et al. (2023) observe in 2015–2020 an increase in the correlation between economic growth and the development of innovation in universities. Mambetkaziyev et al. (2022) conducted a study of clustering universities by ratings, linking rating indicators with the effectiveness of university management, and hierarchizing management according to the degree of deterioration of management. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the quality of higher education management, both in general at the state level and in particular at the level of each university.

Under such conditions, universities need to prove their compliance with quality standards in order to publicly show their competitiveness and secure a leading position, since the struggle for resources between universities is growing, primarily for human resources (students and teaching staff), financial or material resources (scientific grants and development programs) and non-material resources (e.g. marketing) (Sudakova et al., 2020). According to Zomer and Benneworth (2011), higher education institutions deal with various barriers to success, including lack of funding. Managers and leaders in universities are therefore under immense pressure to develop their leadership potential and management styles to search for new opportunities, withstand the competition and successfully survive difficulties.

However, radical shifts in modern society have forced universities to deal with many new challenges and tensions in recent years (Zhu & Zayim-Kurtay, 2018). Various studies show a lack of competencies and skills required for academic leaders to handle these issues (Garwe, 2014; Parrish, 2015). Garwe (2014) argues that many leadership positions in the universities are occupied by teaching staff, who have limited practical experience in academic and managerial roles. Accordingly, building leadership capacity is seen as essential for dealing with the emerging academic crisis successfully (Dinh et al., 2021).

Research questions

The main research question that guided this study is: ‘What are the features of management and leadership styles of university managers in Kazakhstan and how does this contribute to education?’

The sub-objectives that led to this research are as follows:

1. How do leadership abilities and management styles correlate?

2. What management styles do leaders of university subdivisions prefer and how to motivate them for further development?

3. What factors impact management styles at the university and how to find the optimal balance between these factors?

Definition of concepts and historical framework of the study

Definition of concepts

Leadership in various studies is understood as (1) a process of influencing others (Yukl, 2002); as (2) the ability to lead (Zhivitsa, 2019); as (3) a process of influencing the structure, on the values of the organization and people; as (4) a feature of the effectiveness of the organization and the person (Bush & Glover, 2003); as (5) a factor of success, ensuring continuous improvement (Taffinder, 1995; Zairi, 1994); and others. Educational leadership is viewed as the ability to combine and understand needs, to be able to allocate resources where they are most needed, and to hire and manage qualified university staff (Grissom & Loeb, 2011), as well as the ability to influence others in the field of education (Connolly et al., 2019). While this implies that views of leadership differ in terms of emphasis on these disparate parts, there are also opinions that there is no clear and unambiguous understanding of leadership (Cuban, 1988, p. 190; Leithwood et al., 1999; Yukl, 2002, pp. 4–5).

In some cases, leadership is confused with management, as managers are often called upon to exhibit traits of leadership, including high intelligence (but not too high) and familiarity. For example, research shows that people prefer to choose as leaders those whose IQs are 20 points higher than their own, but not more (Gibb, 1969). People also tend to prefer people like them as leaders (Rushton, 2005). There are two points of view about where leadership is inherently localized: 1) only in the manager and 2) in each employee. Conditionally, this corresponds to the theory of leadership qualities and the theory of situational leadership. The second management theory relates to management or leadership styles.

Historical frame

Historically Bendas (2020) identifies five periods in the development of global leadership research: before the beginning of the twentieth century; first quarter of the twentieth century; 20–30s of the twentieth century; 50–70s of the twentieth century; the last quarter of the twentieth century – to the present.

In the 1930s Kurt Lewin (Hussain et al., 2018) spoke about the relationship between leadership style and managing-leading. Leadership abilities and management styles are associated with communication skills, motivating people, and organizational skills. While management carries the connotation of maintaining consistency, leadership additionally implies innovation.

If the fourth period is associated with the development of situational, personal and interactionist approaches, then in the last period research is actively carried out related to cross-cultural and gender characteristics of leadership. In the study we will look at gender differentiation and leadership styles. Analyzing established styles, Bendas (2020) summarizes the six most common leadership styles: transactional (task-oriented), interpersonal/communicative (relationship-oriented), authoritarian, democratic, structuring (directive), collaborative. In our study, based on the classics for self-assessment, we used the types – authoritarian, democratic and liberal (since it is easier for respondents to self-assess); Yevtikhov’s test (Yevtikhov, 2007) ‘Leadership style’ was used for an objective assessment. Thanks to Bendas (2020), there are certain styles identified including business (D); communicative (K); independent(C) and official, indirect (O) styles.

In relation to international universities’ current issues, Adams et al. (2017) argue that over the past 10 years there has been a shift in the analysis of management and leadership practice: from management in education to leadership in education. However, even though publications for leadership in education in 2015–2018 in Asia, Latin America and Africa grew by 42%, according to Hallinger et al. (2020), it can be stated that very few practical studies have been published in English on the experiences of countries of the former USSR, including Kazakhstan and the Central Asian region.

The peculiarity of the academic management system in the universities of Kazakhstan is determined by the traditions of management and leadership that have developed both in the culture of the people and in the educational system of the Soviet era. We can observe multi-layered or multi-factorial influence on management styles both in the academic environment and in the country in general. Yakavets (2016, p. 702), studying the secondary education system in Kazakhstan, found that schools emphasize the fusion of cultural, national, and Soviet traditions in the educational environment: ‘schools and school principals are influenced by a developing mixture of the following factors: traditional Kazakh cultural traditions, values (for example, harmony; collectivism; loyalty to your boss); paternalistic culture (for example, the traditional form of ’family’ relationships used as a model for the whole society; respect for older members); and Soviet legacy (e.g. senior management) [as well as] low information flow; order and obedience; [and] avoidance of uncertainty and “pursuit of order”’. Other studies on Kazakhstani samples, show that the most significant qualities for leadership are (ranged by importance): “behavior of a leader in relation to followers”, “successfulness of a leader”, “attitude of followers to a leader”, “possession of power, official position” (whereby, the Kazakh ethnos higher expression rates of 23.3% versus 15.1% of the Russian ethnos living in Kazakhstan), “emotional-volitional qualities of the personality and moral qualities”, “organizational abilities”, “intellectual qualities and education” (Bendas, 2020), etc.; for a manager in education, according to the staff, “7 groups of qualities as strategic, communicative, organizational, psychological, pedagogical, entrepreneurial, political skills are important” (Moldazhanova et al., 2018). Such a description of a portrait of a leader as a result of study can be attributed to the cross-cultural approach of the ’theory of traits of a leader’, which defines both universal and specific leadership qualities. As known, the cross-cultural study (GLOBE) has identified universal (attributed to instrumental by Bendas (2020)) qualities of a leader (communicativeness, reliability, the ability to motivate subordinates, encourage and encourage them, etc.) and specific ones, which the author associated with expressive qualities: enthusiasm, ambition, the ability to keep a low profile, sincerity, the ability to sacrifice oneself, sensitivity, compassion, self-will (Bendas, 2020). Since Kazakhstan was not included in the list of the observed 60 countries in cross-cultural study, our study may provide additional data on Kazakhstani features.

Let us continue to offer arguments on the specificity of the influence not only of cultural and national characteristics, but of the Soviet experience. The system of higher education is more democratic but retains similar features with secondary education.

In the Soviet era, higher education had ‘top-down’ management. When analyzing the administrative structure of Soviet higher education, scientists identified three defining characteristics: uniformity, ‘top-down’ management, and one-person management (Kuraev, 2016). Educational management textbooks focused on the linear, functional and matrix structures of university management (Pionova, 2005). Scholars have since critically assessed the implementation of linear-functional and matrix management structures in post-Soviet universities, saying that there is a conflict of ‘foundation and superstructure’: ‘a university with a linear functional management structure creates a superstructure in it in the form of a matrix structure’, and ‘any project or decision, in general, requires coordination with many services and responsible persons, which leads to bureaucratic delays and red tape in decision-making’ (Bgashev, 2018).

Even as institutions struggle to move beyond these traditions, sourcing qualified leaders is an issue. Many teachers are unwilling to engage in administrative work, and only a few are willing to voluntarily perform functions of academic management. Understanding the reasons for this was an important motivation for the current study.

As Smith (1996) argues, if a person is not in awe of a challenge, then they are not a potential leader. Some arguments show (Kuraev, 2016; Yakavets, 2016), the complexity of the situation – both in the peculiarities of the historically established style of management (autocracy, ideological past and collectivism) and in the national/ethnic, Eastern mentality of ‘respect for the older generation’ (‘aksakals’), as well as submissiveness to people of power – continues to be reflected to the autocratic style of leadership. Corbett (2021), studying leadership, also argues that it is shaped by the values of local culture. However, by exploring the phenomenon of collective leadership, he states that leaders and teams in the Asian region are changing their understanding and practice of leadership, from a process led primarily by an individual to a system. Indeed, a large number of challenges in which the leadership abilities of both teachers and education leaders are being manifested (theory situational leadership) and the openness of the university and society in recent years has helped expand the leadership potential of the team, as well as opening up a new model of connectivism leadership. Moreover, there is a perception that academic staff and leaders may have different perceptions of the concept of academic leadership and its associated role (Scott et al., 2008; Spendlove, 2007). Consequently, at different levels, leadership potential and new management styles can manifest themselves in different ways.

Several studies have noted that the ongoing need for leadership development among managers and employees is critical (Jooste et al., 2018; Zhu & Zayim-Kurtay, 2019). In addition, leadership development requires more than just traditional training (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2011). New forms of training need to be tailored to the needs of leaders, including increasing leadership capacity to respond to new challenges (Zhu & Zayim-Kurtay, 2018). While at present, decision-making centers lie on the shoulders of specific actors: leading people in certain positions, conventionally called decision-making nodes; there is an ongoing transformation of managerial leadership into more innovative models of connectivism leadership, as the points of decision-making are expanding.

Theoretical background

Gender differences in leadership abilities and management styles

A Catalyst study (conducted in 2008) found that the proportion of women in leadership positions has steadily increased from 13.8% in 1950 to 26.1% in 1980 and over 50% today (Apostolidis & Ferguson, 2009; Latu et al., 2011).

Radu et al. (2017) examined how gender differences can affect organizational performance. According to the authors, gender differences do exist, and people should take advantage of diversity to benefit from them. The authors also argue that leaders can develop a range of skills that are not necessarily traditionally associated with their own gender. Approaches based on the same-sex leadership style (male or female) certainly need, according to the authors, to be replaced by the vision that both genders complement each other (Radu et al., 2017, p. 78).

It should be noted that the statements above were made in relation to the business environment. The challenge for higher education is that research on leadership and organizational performance tends to involve traditional profit-making businesses rather than more ‘loosely coupled’ educational organizations (Weick, 1976). This may be a reason for the lack of research on the organizational effectiveness of universities.

Asmawi (2017) argue that the university as an organization has a unique culture. Therefore, according to the authors, a university leader should apply an appropriate leadership style that is consistent with the organization’s members and goals. Because of the diverse nature of university departments, moreover, democratic leadership is an effective leadership style that must be implemented at the university.

Various articles published on this topic develop and compare female leadership to male leadership (Bendas, 2017; Eagly et al., 1995; Kairys, 2018). The normatively feminine leadership style was described as socially expressive, with personal attention paid to subordinates and an emphasis on a good work environment; in contrast, the normatively male leadership style has been described as instrumental and directional. Helgesen (1997) conducted research that led to the identification of such differences between male and female leadership styles.

University leaders’ management and leadership styles

Bush (1998, p. 328) associates the concept of leadership with values or purpose, while governance is associated with implementation or technical issues. Meanwhile, as Yukl (2002), Yukl and Becker (2006) and Becker and Huselid (2006) have stated, the shared values, beliefs, and norms held by members of an organization are known as organizational culture. Building (Groshev et al., 2017) an organizational culture cannot be accomplished by focusing on vision only; instead, governance is linked to cultivating those shared values, beliefs, and norms. Consequently (Groshev et al., 2017), administrative leaders must work through their governance to develop the culture of the organization, ensure unity and clarity of purpose in the organization, and create an environment in which excellence can be achieved.

Ogbonna and Harris (2000) argue that leadership style is not an autonomous system, it is related to the behavior, style, and characteristics of a particular leader. In their view, there are correlations between organizational culture, leadership style, and performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). In modern conditions, managers or leaders of an organization need to respond to the challenges of the external environment and take a leading role in the implementation of positive changes. Indeed, the ultimate success of an organization will depend on the ability of its people to creatively work together toward a common goal, and here we need leadership that nurtures, maintains the right skills and the right attitude (Edgeman, 1998). There are claims that leadership in education contributes to the development of the organizational culture in universities and the development of ‘intellectual, organizational and social capital for organizing education’ (Yakavets et al., 2017, р. 353). Their unity creates conditions for the development/promotion of innovations both in education and in the production of university scientific and innovative products.

Wang et al. (2023) developed a new concept of leadership as dialectical leadership behavior based on dialectical thinking rooted in Chinese culture. In their opinion, dialectical leadership behavior is characterized as a strategic behavior, including the timely adaptation of organizational strategy and management practices, environmental changes, the understanding and balancing between management contradictions, as well as the holistic coordination of various departments and resources of an organizations.

Organizational culture is formed due to its connection with the behavioral models of the leader, manifested in leadership styles. This is consistent with the opinion of Sutarto (1978), who argues that a manager’s leadership style is a behavior pattern designed to integrate the goals of an organization with members of the organization. Institutional organizational culture is linked to values, understanding and historical meaning and should become a code of conduct (Moran & Volkwein, 1992). There are also claims that organizational culture is developed to address the problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Schein, 1985). Analysis of the literature shows that the formation of organizational culture correlates with the style of leadership and the abilities of the leader, and leaders with positive leadership qualities will easily improve the efficiency of the organization. According to Leithwood et al. (1999, p. 14), leaders must adhere to a ‘bifocal’ perspective, management, and leadership, i.e. to see both managerial situational decisions and leadership strategic decisions, the development perspective in every moment of activity. Consequently, managerial leadership focuses on functions, tasks, and behavior. Likewise, it is assumed that the behavior of members of an organization is largely rational, and that influence is exercised through positional power in the organizational hierarchy. Moreover, it looks like a formal management model.

Good governance and the proper practices of governance are essential for universities to achieve their overall goal of providing the skilled workforce needed for economic and social development in the 21st century (Bush, 2003). Carvalho et al. (2022) find that the growing attention to the activities of public higher education institutions increases the value of leadership as a tool, guides universities’ courses of action and stimulates their success and performance. If leadership paradigms are improved, this should also lead to better educational services. Consequently, effective leadership and good management practices are necessary and important prerequisites for quality in higher education (Boyle & Bowden, 1997; Osseo-Asare et al., 2007). Hao and Yazdanifard (2015), that effective leadership takes place when a leader motivates and directs employees toward organizational goals by communicating with them, generating a creative environment, revealing the abilities and talents of employees; whereas management traditionally is total control and single-handed setting of activities from start to the end. An effective leader must possess such qualities as passion, consistency, trust and vision (‘passion, consistency, trust and vision’). It is good when there is a combination and even harmony in leadership and management in an organization.

A wide range of research topics is a hallmark of research into leadership and management in education (Hui-Ling & Wen-Yan, 2021). Topics that often attract attention are social justice (Lewis, 2016; Wang, 2018), women’s leadership (Bush, 2022; Fitzgerald, 2020; Radu et al., 2017; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2014; Thompson & Thompson, 2017), training and development of school management (Ariratana et al., 2015; Bush, 2022; Yakavets et al., 2017), trust, and teaching and leadership in training (Adams et al., 2017; Ismail et al., 2011). Cutting-edge research focuses on the following topics: head teachers, school management and student achievement (Bush, 2022; Yakavets et al., 2017); distributed leadership (Corbett, 2021), instructional leadership (Hallinger et al., 2020), teacher training (Dinh et al., 2021), accountability, improvement of schools (Salvo-Garrido & Cisternas-Salcedo, 2021), reforms and leadership development (Carvalho et al., 2022), and race, justice and urban education (Khan et al., 2021). Leadership styles are potential and important predictors of various organizational outcomes, hence transformational and transactional leadership styles are considered as important employee performance traits (Khan et al., 2021). The performance of employees, as well as other dynamic factors, bears responsibility for either the failures or the successes of higher education institutions. In the research (Hancock et al., 2023) there are also exploring leadership styles and discussing new insights proposed by the pattern-driven (person) analytic strategy and the broader theoretical and practical implications for leadership research.

Hallinger and Bryant (2013) analyze the trends in research about and/or from Asia, published in major educational leadership journals in non-Western countries. Interesting patterns were found in relation to the distribution of publications both across and within Asian regions. The results show that progress in the development of the ‘Asian knowledge base’ in this area, excluding Hong Kong and Israel (Hallinger & Bryant, 2016), remains stagnant, and the region’s ability to produce new empirical knowledge is still limited by individual societies and universities.

Interestingly, the Chinese scientists Wang et al. (2023) discuss the importance of the influence of cultural traditions on management styles. The studies mentioned above confirmed the existence of the influence of age and gender on management style. Similar results are also presented in studies by Bush et al. on women’s preference for a collegial style of management and cooperation (Bush, 2022), and Thompson and Thompson (2017) on the existing stereotypes in the behavior of men and women as leaders.

On the other hand, there are other studies that have shown no significant difference between male and female managers in higher education, which are explained by the situational approach, i.e. male or female managers choosing a management style based on the situation and the necessity of solution (Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2014). It is necessary to widely study the cultural differences between East and West in the effectiveness of leadership behavior (Wang et al., 2023).

Thus, having analyzed the links of management, leadership and organizational culture, as well as the directions of contemporary research in the world and Asia, the following conclusions can be drawn. The strength of the university becomes the unification of the roles of manager and leader in the heads of the organization, which can influence both the development of the university’s organizational culture and the effectiveness of response to constant challenges and the success of the university’s activities. At the same time, the manager himself as a person accumulates personal, gender, ethnic, cross-cultural characteristics, and thus influences the values and styles of management and leadership in the organization, and through them affects the organizational culture and climate in the university as a whole.

The context of this study

Kazakhstani universities are faced with the need to build up leadership potential to create internal conditions for their development through an intensive exchange of views, best practices, ideas, and methods for improving the academic environment of the university. This study presents the results of an in-depth study of leadership styles and leadership qualities based on a survey, questionnaires, and self-assessment of situational and personal orientations. The purpose of our research was to set a baseline for the leadership potential, leadership qualities and management styles in the universities of Kazakhstan.

Methods and data

A three-part test questionnaire was offered to 200 respondents to describe leadership skills and leadership style. The questionnaires were in Russian. The survey covered 155 women and 45 men aged 20 to 69 who were heads of structural divisions in universities in Kazakhstan, and it was held from January 8 to 10 March 2019. Statistically, the covered gender profile represents a representative selection sample. According to a report by the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the annual ratio of women to men in leadership positions in the domestic higher education system is 3:1 (76% and 24%, respectively) (Report of the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2019). In addition, women are more active in surveys on education (Moldazhanova et al., 2018). Interestingly, there is a large representation of women in the education management system of Kazakhstan: almost all directors of kindergartens are women, female representation prevails among school and college directors, and the number of women university rectors is growing (Asylova, 2019).

According to Eremeeva (2005), leadership in universities is necessary at all levels of government. Following this approach, the survey covered the representatives of different levels of departments, and vice-rectors of universities.

Procedure and data processing

Leadership and style were assessed using three methods:

1. Online leadership test (Zharikov et al., 2002, website, Google form). For example, this leadership test was used in the authors’ studies: on the development of leadership abilities of university students Kamaeva et al. (2021) and sportsmen Kargapolova et al. (2022), etc. The survey included 50 questions with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers. According to the authors of the test, leadership abilities depend on organizational and communication skills, strong motivation, perseverance, patience, and the ability to work independently and overcome obstacles. The presented methodology allows you to assess a person’s ability to be a leader: weakly expressed abilities (less than 25 points); moderately expressed (26–35 points); strongly expressed (36–40 points), and a tendency to dictate (more than 40 points). The questions are related to the assessment of one’s ability to reason a decision, to show initiative, to value people, to draw attention to oneself, and even to dictate in communication.

2. Yevtikhov’s test (2007) ‘Leadership style’ was used to measure the following four types of managerial behavior: ‘D’ – characterizes competence, the ability to make independent decisions, individual productivity (business); ‘K’ – highlights the desire to maintain good relations with people, promote a good psychological climate in the team, and rely on the decisions of colleagues (communicative); ‘C’ - self-reliant and independent (independent); ‘O’ – showing the intention to remain in official reporting and maintain distance from their colleagues (official, indirect). The respondents were asked to evaluate the strategies for navigating 20 business situations and choose one of the 4 suggested answers, which is estimated at 1 point (5%) and put on one of the scales – D, K, C, O. The maximum value on each scale is 20 (100%) points, with the dominant style involving passing 10 (50%) points on one of the scales.

The author of the test also offers scales for transferring styles D, K, C, O into the traditional classification system according to K. Levin – authoritarian, democratic, liberal (non-interfering).

Leadership style is insignificant or absent if the leader does not provide answers on this type or their number is insignificant (up to 2–3).

The leader’s combination of the prevailing selections ‘D’ and ‘C’ speaks to their initiative, while ‘O’ and ‘K’ characterize the performing style. A lack of answers on the ‘K’ scale and a predominance of answers on the ‘D’, ‘C’, and ‘O’ scales characterize a leader with an authoritarian style. The flexible style is considered the most versatile; the rest may be useful depending on the requirements of the job and the level of development of the team.

1. In addition, a self-assessment of one’s leadership style was conducted using the following question: ‘What is your leadership style?’ with five possible options: ‘authoritarian’, ‘democratic’, ‘liberal’, ‘mixed’, ‘something else’.

During the survey, the sample was distributed according to:

• gender;

• management experience;

• age;

• the position held at the department, faculty, at the university.

Ethical considerations

This study was a continuation of previous work on the study of leadership and leadership potentials, leadership styles. All participants were informed about confidentiality, the purpose and design of the study, and the voluntary nature of their participation. The participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Results and discussion

All participants had managerial experience from 1 to 36 years and held positions at different administrative levels: departmental, faculty, and university administration (see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic and leadership experience data.

No	Gender	%	N	Mean	SD
Age
	All	100	200	43.96	11.93
Gender
1	Women	77.5	155	44.98	12.07
2	Men	22.5	45	40.42	10.82
Management experience
1	None	16	33	0	0
2	up to 5 years	37	77	1.97	0.22
3	from 6 to 15 years	30.5	59	10.60	1.33
4	from 16 to 25 years	11	22	18.77	2.39
5	from 26 to 35 years	3	6	30.00	3.46
6	more than 36 years	2,5	3	41.67	2.89
Administrative position
1	Departments	79	160	7.77	8.95
2	Faculty	7	15	10.27	8.30
3	University	14	25	6.80	5.00

A statistical analysis of the results of the study was conducted by applying the SPSS 21 software package. We used/applied Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients to calculate all tests.

Based on the results of the survey, the authors of this study conducted a one-way analysis of variance and correlation analysis with Pearson’s coefficient.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was determined to assess the internal consistency of the test results in the study (Table 2). The level of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is in the range of 0.698–0.857, which indicates the fairness of the tests performed.

Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha results for leadership measurements.

No	Questionnaire	Mean	Standard error	The elements	α-Cronbach
1	Leadership ability	28.13	5.29	50	0.698
Management style
1	D	23.34	3.76	20	0.857
2	K	21.92	2.32	20	0.738
3	С	22.51	2.92	20	0.800
4	О	22.04	2.35	20	0.738

Self-assessment of leadership style

The distribution of self-assessment results is shown in Table 4. Most participants felt they had a ‘democratic style’ of leadership (157 participants, 79%), while the remainder split between ‘authoritarian’ (12 participants, 6%), ‘liberal’ (19 participants, 9.5%), mixed (6 participants, 3%), and ‘other’ (6 participants, 3). Thus, the single-question self-assessment with definitions of leadership styles did not yield a reliable indicator of management style. Self-perception may not determine the actual leadership style of leaders. There is likely a biased perception of one’s own leadership style, which may or may not reflect actual style.

Table 3. Correlation between age, management experience and leadership qualities and management styles.

	Leadership	‘D’	‘K’	‘C’	‘O’
Age	.162(*)	.035	.102	−.004	−.159(*)
Managerial experience;	.074	−.069	.201(**)	−.030	−.114

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 4. Gender differences in leadership styles.

№	Questionnaire	Group	Mean	Standard error	F significance	Significance level
1	Leadership ability	female	27.68	5.36	4.876	0.028
		male	29.13	4.83
Management Style
1	D	female	26.85	1.94	3.887	0.050
		male	26.20	1.90
2	K	female	23.98	1.92	5.020	0.026
		male	23.29	1.44
3	C	female	24.94	1.84	11.521	0.001
		male	26.02	2.02

Indeed, further testing demonstrated that only 63% (126 participants) of the managers in the sample show a collegial style of interaction. The results of the self-assessment and reflection by managers should be compared with the diagnostic data, which is essential for further work to advance the strategies of managerial development and educational leadership, as well as approaches for management psychology training for educational managers and the development of social capital. Participation in the diagnostics helped us compare self-assessments of leadership style and the diagnostic results, which is important according to Shushlyapin and Nazaryan (2015), since the manager must know their inner ‘face’ without abusing its manifestations, including to their own detriment. Bearing in mind the potential connotational biases of these descriptors of leadership style, the comprehension of one’s management and leadership style nevertheless becomes a coaching practice to launch the manager’s self-development as a leader.

The majority of respondents (>60%) mentioned the following qualities that are characteristic of a manager-leader: decisiveness, the ability to make decisions independently and in a timely manner, taking responsibility in critical situations; reliability, the ability to keep their word and protect their subordinates; a strong-willed character, the ability to overcome obstacles on the way to the goal; being demanding to themselves and others, the ability to hold themselves accountable for the assigned work, etc. Similar characteristics are found in studies specifically on educational leaders; for comparison, in a foreign study from Malaysia (also an Asian country), the authors Ismail et al. (2011) identify the following qualities of university leaders: (1) Strong determination (2) Integrity (3) Boldness (4) Perseverance (5) Ambition (6) Creativity (7) Imagination (8) Curiosity (9) Originality and (10) Contribution to others. Meanwhile, regarding useful leadership skills, the authors Ariratana et al. (2015) in another study on schooling emphasized eight leadership soft skills for administrators: (i) communication and presentation; (ii) leadership competency; (iii) teamwork; (iv) analytical thinking and creative problem solving; (v) professional and morality; (vi) learning; (vii) use of information technology, and (viii) development of interpersonal relationships. Conventionally, the study of university leaders showed, in our opinion, their commitment to the theory of personality traits, while the look at school managers focused on the situational approach, i.e. managerial skills. The current situation for universities is such that both approaches can be combined. In our opinion, it is also necessary to form leadership soft skills in the university. In comparison, social capital in higher education, according to Tonkaboni et al. (2013) is related to ‘social confidence, social integration and social participation’, and due to the overlap, it is Leadership soft skills that can best contribute to the development of social capital. Salvo-Garrido and Cisternas-Salcedo (2021) points out that education should move from models of ‘leadership as an individual competence’ in administrative teams to seeing manifestations of leadership as part of the organization’s social capital (Salvo-Garrido & Cisternas-Salcedo, 2021).

An important strategy for achieving this is executive education. The presented questionnaire discovered only 17% of respondents surveyed had a management/managerial education. This indicates most of them were not specially trained, and they gained managerial skills from their own work experience.

Leadership abilities and different management styles

There was a significant correlation between leadership abilities and management styles. C style was positively correlated with leadership qualities (r = 0.188, p < 0.008). Self-reliance and independence are critical to the leadership qualities of local government. Surprisingly, the ‘K’ management style, which is expressed as intentionally working to maintain a good psychological climate in the workplace, was negatively correlated with leadership qualities (r = −0.230, p = 0.001). How can this result be explained? It may be that leaders in the K style, who rely on the decisions of colleagues, adjust, listen and then follow the best decision provided by the team, making them seem passive. Consequently, this style is related to situational leadership, or perhaps it is the incipient model of ‘connectivist leadership’. As a new model, it requires training in leadership and the management skills of educational managers, developing leadership soft skills, and inculcating lessons from theories of social capital and connectivist leadership.

Age, managerial experience, leadership qualities and management style

The results of the study show correlation between age, management experience, leadership qualities and management styles.

A positive correlation between age and leadership ability (p < 0.022) points to the influence of age on leadership, and leadership as a set of skills that can be developed over time. For example, a negative correlation between age and the ‘O’ style indicates a decrease in the desire to maintain subordination with age (p < 0.024). Management experience was also positively correlated with the ‘K’ style (p < 0.004), indicating a growing understanding of the importance of relationships with peers and a warm psychological climate with longer managerial experience (Table 3).

From this perspective, such results are quite reasonable, as with longevity one gains experience in facilitating positive interactions with people, grows to appreciate the wisdom of communication and sharpens the ability not to provoke conflicts. On the other hand, young leaders needing to establish their authority may be more likely to attempt to do so by enforcing norms of formal behavior and distance among subordinates.

Gender differences in leadership ability and management style

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of males and females revealed significant differences in leadership style (Table 4). Male test takers demonstrated higher ratings of leadership ability (p < 0.028) and ‘C’ leadership style (p < 0.001), indicating that they prefer a more independent and autonomous style compared to women. At the same time, the ‘K’ style score was higher for female participants, which reflected a more emotional approach to professional relationships and a desire to maintain a good psychological climate for the work team.

Eagly et al. (1995) and Bendas (2017) are among the researchers who have conducted studies on the similarity of leadership and gender roles, etc. Bendas (2017) looked at gender differences and effectiveness of leadership, the results of which expressed that ‘men are more effective if the leadership role requires the ability to solve the problem, and women – in situations where it is necessary to show interpersonal abilities’. In other words, according to Danilova (2009): ‘men are task-oriented, [while] women are task-oriented to the person who has to solve the task’. The results of this study have matched these findings.

Leadership ability, management styles, and gender dependence on positional levels

There were no significant differences in leadership abilities and management styles among the groups created by the positions held, likely due to the unweighted number of participants (160 participants at the departmental level, 15 participants at the faculties level, and 25 participants at the university administrator level).

Gender representation of the three levels of administrative positions presented a preponderance of women at all three levels. However, men were more represented at the university administrator level (36%) compared to faculties (27%) and departments (20%).

In comparison, according to Eagly (1995) and Bendas (2017), the study of management styles at the lower level shows a preference for better male-style managers, while at the middle level, where you need to show interpersonal skills, the advantage is on the side of female-style managers. At the highest level of management, the question remains open due to the lack of data on gender differences.

The Kairys (2018) study confirms that, ‘The findings provide insight into how gender influences leadership with men focused on task-oriented leadership skills while and women focused on relationship development leadership skills’, leading to the proposal of development programs plan to introduce different gender strategies. Fitzgerald (2020), emphasizing men predominate in high leadership positions in higher education, explored how ‘women navigate their institutional and individual positioning as leaders’. Indeed, growing familiarity with such strategies of university leaders will help leaders to develop optimal strategies of interaction with the team and expand strategies of social participation of team members. Accordingly, this can help to develop the social capital of the university.

Thus, the definition of leadership potential and self-awareness among managers creates the grounds for the development of training for the development of social capital and the organizational culture of the university, or the academic environment. The study allowed for developing a course on the professional development of managers, with the inclusion of topics of development for soft leadership skills, including interaction strategies, the strengthening social participation and integration among team members, connectivist leadership, gender leadership strategies, psychology of management, and the development of social capital of the university.

Conclusion and implications

In order to develop the competitiveness of universities and overcome the new challenges of the society, universities need to develop strategies for educational leadership, that is, an organizational culture imbued with the values of academic leadership. Motivation for the development of management styles can be achieved through diagnostics and self-awareness of leadership styles by managers, which was done in the framework of this study, as well as training in modern concepts of leadership in education, management in education, case studies of examples of the best universities in the development of leadership values in organizational culture and educational connectivist leadership strategies. That is, it is necessary to develop a course on academic leadership and management in education for Kazakh lecturers, and to train potential university managers on this course. It is through such a cognitive-behavioral strategy that it is possible to harmonize factors (traditional ethnic, historical, gender, etc.) influencing management styles at the university.

The first important step for the members of the organization can be a clear definition of the current styles of leadership and management of the organization, their measurement, understanding of the Kazakhstani realia and the influence of cultural and gender factors on leadership and management, as well as awareness of the division of academic leadership and management phenomenon, for further qualitative transformation of management styles into leadership. This can become an impetus for the university to put its efforts on the formation of an organizational culture and values focused on educational and academic leadership. This study provides an important first step in this direction.

On the basis of the test survey, and diagnostics of situational and personal orientations of managers of different levels, the leadership potential, abilities and styles of managers were determined. According to the respondents themselves, they adhere to the following management styles: authoritarian − 6%; democratic − 79%; liberal − 9.5%. In addition, 3% of respondents adhere to a mixed management style, depending on the situation. However, test results showing that only 63% of the selected managers fit the democratic management style imply that further support is needed.

Gender asymmetry was revealed at the management level in the use of leadership qualities and the potential of university employees. Women were found to predominate overall in the university system, as in all educational institutions of Kazakhstan. However, asymmetry is expressed in the fact that men prevail at the top management level (99.0%). This fact also shows the professional opportunities of women are mainly realized at the middle level of management, that is, many female teachers are leaders in the middle level of the higher education system.

Examination of the problem of this study provides an additional question for further research: Why do lecturers not want to participate in administrative management and how to attract the best representatives to management and develop their leadership skills through the study of management? In our opinion, the professional development of education managers should be recommended, including teaching them the concepts of modern management and organizational psychology, organizational culture, ‘distributed leadership’, ‘connectivist leadership’ for the post-pandemic period, strategies of academic and educational leadership and the development of social capital of the organization (i.e. the university). Trained managers in leadership positions can personally and actively contribute to the advancement of integrated communications, the implementation of educational leadership strategies, and the leveraging of staff potential at all levels.

This study shows the need for the education and specialized training of leaders in the educational system. It was revealed that in the selection of management personnel at all levels in the system of top management, certain objective criteria are mainly considered that do not include the psychological, communicative, moral and ethical parameters of the applicant. However, work experience and achievements in scientific and teaching activities are not necessarily causal indicators of leadership qualities.

Hence, we can conclude that it is necessary to consider a holistic evaluation of the psychological, communicative, moral, and ethical characteristics of the candidate when promoting personnel to various levels of top management. Academic programs aimed at training education managers of various levels in a variety of leadership qualities, programs still missing in the Kazakhstani education system, should also be created.

Thus, this study can serve as a starting point for larger studies aimed at deepening understanding of how trained and trained leaders can influence the development of the academic environment, the quality of education, and the overall competitiveness of higher education institutions.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aigerim Mynbayeva

Aigerim Mynbayeva, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. Coordinator of the PhD program “Pedagogy and Psychology” at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. Her research is related to the pedagogy of higher education, the digitalization of education, the history of education, the Action Research in the pedagogical activity of a teacher, etc. She is also a member of the Kazakhstan Education Researchers Association (KERA).

Gulsharat Minazheva

Gulsharat Minazheva, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Acting Professor. Director of the Center for Strategic Development at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. Her research is related to management issues in universities, issues of quality assurance and the integration of higher education in the international educational space. She is an academic of the Academy Pedagogical Sciences Kazakhstan (APSK).

Mansiya Sadyrova

Mansiya Sadyrova, Doctor of Sociology, Professor at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. Her research focuses on studying the professional potential of university graduates and young professionals and management in the education system. She is an academician of the Association of Academicians of Kazakhstan.

Manzura Zholdassova

Manzura Zholdassova, PhD. She works in the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience in the Department of General and Applied Psychology and the Department of Biophysics, Biomedicine, and Neuroscience at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. Her research interests include cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, computer modeling of social behavior, experimental psychology, personality psychology.