DIRECTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL: EVIDENCE FROM KARAKALPAKSTAN AND KHOREZM, UZBEKISTAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23093348Abstract
Regional universities in Uzbekistan operate within a governance environment characterised by a considerable degree of centralisation, which may influence the effectiveness of leadership-development initiatives implemented in isolation. This article proposes directions for improving the efficiency of higher education management mechanisms at the regional level and examines their empirical rationale using data from Karakalpakstan and Khorezm. Following the IMRAD structure, the study combines a literature review with a survey of 403 academic and administrative staff and regression analysis examining the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived management effectiveness. The results indicate a positive and statistically significant association between transformational leadership and perceived management effectiveness (β = 0.61, p < 0.001), while branch status is associated with lower levels of perceived leadership quality. Based on the findings, six interrelated directions are proposed, ranging from targeted leadership development to the introduction of a composite evaluation index incorporating safeguards to support balanced and reliable performance assessment.Keywords
higher education governance, transformational leadership, regional management mechanisms, institutional autonomy, composite index, UzbekistanReferences
1. Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 08.10.2019-yildagi “Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi oliy taʼlim tizimini 2030-yilgacha rivojlantirish konsepsiyasini tasdiqlash toʻgʻrisida”gi PF-5847-sonli Farmoni, https://lex.uz/docs/-4545884
2. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership / B.M. Bass, B.J. Avolio (eds.). Sage.
3. Bazanova, E. M., Zabolotskikh, A. V., & Sokolova, E. E. (2024). Transformational leadership in higher education: A critical review. Mir Nauki. Pedagogika i Psikhologiya, 12(3).
4. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
5. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership / J.M. Burns. Harper & Row.
6. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
7. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14.
8. – P. 57–74.
9. Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Problems of monetary management: The U.K. experience. Papers in Monetary Economics, 1, 91–121.
10. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review.
11. – № 2. – P. 149–164.
12. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence / E. Hazelkorn. Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Higher education in Uzbekistan: yesterday, today and tomorrow. (2025). Ma’rifat [Elektron resurs].
14. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action / R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. Harvard Business School Press.
15. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change / J.P. Kotter. Harvard Business School Press.
16. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life / K.E. Kram. Scott.
17. Krestinin, V. S. (2025). Barriers to implementing transformation in universities and factors for overcoming them: The view of university leaders and experts. University Management: Practice and Analysis.
18. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423.
19. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes?. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803–839.
20. Mirsoliyeva, M. (2019). Improving mechanisms for developing the professional competence of leaders and teaching staff of higher education institutions: DSc dissertation abstract.
21. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5–15.
22. OECD, European Commission Joint Research Centre. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2008.
23. Pinheiro, R., et al. (2025). External university autonomy evaluations: The new autonomy ecology of Finnish universities. Studies in Higher Education, 50(2), 1–19.
24. Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Andrews, M. (2013). Looking like a state: Techniques of persistent failure in state capability for implementation. Journal of Development Studies, 49(1), 1–18.
25. Qurbonov, Sh. E., & Seytxalilov, E. A. (2006). Managing Education Quality / Sh.E. Qurbonov, E.A. Seytxalilov.
26. Revans, R. W. (1982). Action Learning: New Techniques for Management / R.W. Revans. Blond & Briggs.
27. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2024/5: Leadership in Education – Lead for Learning. – Paris: UNESCO, 2024.
28. World Bank. Examining Autonomy and Accountability in Public and Private Tertiary Education. – Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008.
29. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ECONOSCITECH INTEGRATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.