The present study designed a model for the implementation of constructive leadership in the higher education system using an interpretive structural modeling approach. This study was applied in terms of aim and qualitative type of descriptive in terms of method of implementation. The statistical population of the study included experts in educational and constructive leadership in higher education at Urmia University. Based on the principle of random sampling, 7 of them were selected as a sample using convenience and snowball sampling methods. A semi-structured interview with experts whose questions were designed based on the theoretical foundations of constructive leadership in higher education with the help of professors was used as the study tool. The validity of the results was examined and confirmed by the triangulation method. Also, its face validity was confirmed by the opinions of experts who were not members of the study, and its reliability was calculated at 0.83 using the inter-coder coefficient of the agreement method. The data obtained from semi-structured interviews were analyzed with open, axial, and selective coding based on grounded theory in MAXQDA software. The results showed that the model of constructive leadership in higher education based on grounded theory included 12 components and 9 dimensions. The category of causal conditions included two dimensions of the necessity of constructive management (with two components of knowledge management and organizational innovation) and organizational culture (with two components of collaborative management and innovative atmosphere). The category of contextual conditions included two dimensions of management maturity (with the component of evaluating and applying policies for constructive management) and the system of fostering change and transformation (with the component of establishing relationships with aligned people and organizations). The category of intervening conditions included the dimension of competition with the surrounding environment and increasing progress (with the component of planning and paying attention to facilities). The category of strategies included two dimensions having facilities and requirements (with the component of financing and equipment) and responsibility and cooperation (with the components of empathy and public desire). Finally, the category of implications included two dimensions of academic development (with 2 components of individual competence development and university development) and social development (with the component of gaining public trust).
Read full abstract