Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
109
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.50.02.11
How to Cite:
Alenezi, O.Y. (2022). University leadership styles using the Kaizen approach. Amazonia Investiga, 11(50), 109-121.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.50.02.11
University leadership styles using the Kaizen approach
Estilos de liderazgo académico utilizando la metodología Kaizen
Received: November 28, 2021 Accepted: January 19, 2022
Written by:
Omier Yetaim Alenezi48
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9429-9773
Abstract
The current research seeks to enhance current
university leadership styles by using the Kaizen
approach from a university leadership point of
view it also highlights the requirements needed
to improve university leadership by applying the
Kaizen approach. To achieve these objectives,
the research uses the questionnaire as a tool to
collect research data and applies this to the
leaders, faculty, and staff of four universities in
the MENA area. The research sample consists of
160 individuals (including deans, co-deans,
department heads, faculty, staff, and employees)
from four different universities. The research
concluded with several results, from which the
majority of the sample first agreed that there is a
lack of a Kaizen approach culture among
university leadership, and also agreed on the
importance of applying Kaizen principles as a
model for enhancing university leadership.
Keywords: Kaizen, universities, leadership,
Higher education, management, enhancement.
Introduction
Organizations often seek to improve the quality
of their management, and in this context, they
search for the most effective and newest methods
to support their institutional system. Currently,
universities wish to be acknowledged as a source
of good-quality higher education. As such, they
constantly strive to discover innovative ways of
performance enhancement.
Universities, as an educational sector, are
currently one of the most dynamic sectors today
48
Dr. Associate professor Faculty of Education and Arts Northern Border University Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
and, as such, need tools to create and monitor
quality improvement for each aspect of their
managerial processes. Relying on this, many
developing countries have recognized the
importance of higher education and have
committed themselves to the development of the
workforce by providing policy support and
substantial funds to create one of the world's
largest systems of higher education (Naik, 2004).
The challenges faced by universities, such as
students demanding continuous excellence in
110
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
higher education, raising standards of
accreditation, and competitiveness between
universities, mean that traditional styles for the
quality management of education,
administration, and modern strategies of
universities must be altered (Khayum, 2017).
One of the more recent trends in university
leadership is the methodological Kaizen
approach, with its essence emphasizing the
encouragement of innovation and change,
demonstrating confidence in the ability and
participation of staff in defining the objectives of
the organization, and empowering them
administratively; thus, it contributes to making
them more aware of the tasks that they are
assigned, and more capable of completing them,
thus increasing the global competitiveness of
universities (Thessaloniki, 2006).
The Kaizen model also contributes to the
enhancement of the performance of the
university and goes forward with the process of
improvement in every aspect of their operations.
Thus, the desired improvement of universities as
educational institutes can be very well fulfilled
by applying Kaizen. What is the meaning of
‘Kaizen’? Kaizen is a Japanese word consisting
of two phrases: Kai meaning changing and Zen
meaning for the better; that is, the whole word
means changing for the better (Eteir, 2007).
Kaizen is a Japanese philosophy that refers to
continuous and gradual improvement. It focuses
on all institute management aspects, social,
personal, and practical, and connects quality and
improvement (Imai, 1989); therefore, it is a
suitable leadership approach for organizations
that need quality, change, and improvement. This
type of management, which one could call
Japanese management, has emerged as a new,
organized, and effective management style that
has proven its effectiveness in changing
management for the better.
In the context of the continuity of improvement,
and regarding Japanese management, kaizen
means “continuous improvement”, involving the
entire workforce from top management, to
middle managers and workers (Lindell, 2014).
Kaizen philosophy emphasizes continuous and
gradual improvement, which allows major
change and provides a basis for collecting the
factors of success, such as the key concepts of
strategic planning, assessment, and total quality
management (Muffo & Krallman, 1992);
therefore, it is a way to create leadership change
within the university community. This has given
the researcher the motivation to conduct this
research, with the hope of contributing some of
this research to highlight Kaizen as an efficient,
effective, and systematic approach for university
leadership change, which is needed.
This research aims to:
• Identify university leadership regarding the
Kaizen approach from the perspectives of
university leaders and staff members.
• Highlighting the requirements for
improving university leadership by
applying the Kaizen approaching light of its
principles.
The research seeks to answer the following
questions:
1. How does the Kaizen approach to
leadership relate to higher educational
institutions in the MENA area?
2. What are the requirements for improving
university leadership by applying the
Kaizen approaching light of its principles?
This research contributes significantly to
extending the current literature relating to
improving university management by reviewing
previous studies that have processed Kaizen as a
leadership approach at universities or higher
education institutes all over the world. It attempts
to close the gap in the current literature regarding
applying Kaizen in the educational sector. The
research also emphasizes universities’ need for
changing their traditional leadership styles and
approaches, to the present time that is
characterized by scientific and economic change.
The research thus stresses the necessity of
transformation towards modern styles of
leadership, especially in universities, as they are
a resource for future workforces. The current
research, therefore, highlights Kaizen as a
proposed approach. This is a Japanese strategy
that aims to create major changes in university
leadership and continuous improvement over all
aspects of university leadership. The research
also highlights the leadership styles regarding
Kaizen in the MENA area, where leaders are
usually resistant to changes and are used to
depending on traditional leadership styles.
Literature Review
The Kaizen Concept
Kaizen literally means continuous improvement,
which can be applied to steadily enhance our
personal, family, social, and work lives.
Concerning organizations, Kaizen means
continuous improvement for all human
resources, leaders, and employees alike (Imai,
Alenezi, O.Y. / Volume 11 - Issue 50: 109-121 / February, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
111
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
1997). We can also define Kaizen in a strategic
context as systematic actions that have been
taken to accumulate improvements and enable
organizations to beat their competition. (Macias
et al, 2017).
Kaizen is a system that calls for teamwork and
cooperation; it comprises human aspects, such as
self-esteem and creativity. It is a strategic
approach that is used to achieve the aims of an
organization (Keijiro, 2018). For some
researchers, Kaizen is a kind of philosophy for
management that creates changes or gradual
improvements in work systems or processes,
reduces waste, and thus improves work
performance, Salah, S. A., & Sobhi, N. (2018) It
must also be mentioned that Kaizen, within the
literature review, means quality management,
and relates to lean management.
The Kaizen approach has been given many
definitions during its development phase;
however, they all focus on continuous
improvement.
Within the Kaizen approach study, there are
many concepts, the most important of which are
as follows:
• KAIZEN - continuous improvement
• KAI – change
• ZEN - good (do better)
• GEMBA – the actual physical place where
each employee works, the place where we
add value
• GEMBUTSU – the unconformable
physical/touchable element (out-of-order
equipment, scrap)
• MUDA – loss, scrap, scantling, any activity
or process that is not worthy
• PDCA – the cycle of ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’
to standardize and prevent the recurrence of
nonconformities (Titu, 2010)
The previous concepts must be realized by
leaders for the successful application of Kaizen,
in addition to the key points of Kaizen, which
will be illustrated in the following section.
The main principles of Kaizen
For Imai, who established Kaizen, advancement
and continuous enhancement correspond to the
basic thought of a procedure in progressive
improvement. Kaizen arrangements underline
good judgment, ease, change, and continuous
improvement. This philosophy advocates the
utilization of normal sense and straightforward
arrangements.
Kaizen philosophy refers to the ability to step
back from all activities, observe the current
situation, and propose appropriate improvements
or solutions to problems (Abdulmouti, 2018).
There are five primary principles for Kaizen.
Contingent upon collaboration, as every opinion
is esteemed and considered, and utilizing each
contribution as a prop to accomplish constant
enhancement, Kaizen rationality perceives that
there is dependably an opportunity to get better.
Last, the Kaizen methodology depends on the
quality of circles and workgroups that cooperate
to take care of issues and can finish with creative
changes.
The application process of a Kaizen event
contents of:
1. Definition of the area to be improved
2. Key problem analysis and selection
3. Identification of the cause for improvement
4. Improving project implementation
5. Measuring, analyzing, and comparing
results
6. Standardizing systems.
On the one hand, the application of the Kaizen
principles supposes a continuous dialogue
between the manager and the employees (vertical
communication); on the other hand, it supposes a
dialogue between the employees on the same
hierarchical level (horizontal communication)
(Titu, 2010) .
The Kaizen concept also incorporates three key
principles in one work method:
• Commitment and persistence: Improvement
will not be achieved if there is no clear and
strong motivation to seek and implement
improvement, or if this effort is not sustained
in the long term. The approach is a
philosophy that should be adopted at work.
• Small and incremental processes: The
Kaizen approach is against radical change,
and its key methodology is to proceed by
frequent small, but controlled attempts at
improving practice.
• Participative: In an organizational context,
the adoption of the philosophy by one
employee alone would be pointless. Thus, it
is important that all employees and
departments within an organization adopt
and practice the Kaizen work method
(Leseure, 2010, p.192).
112
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Kaizen and university leadership
According to the development of leadership and
its theories, there has been a growing interest in
the role of leaders, especially within higher
education (HE) institutions, in recent years. This
interest has been driven both by the influence of
HE institutions in developing learners who will
later act as leaders in the wider society and by the
changing shape of HE leadership itself in the face
of global challenges in the sector. In this context,
Kaizen appears to be a suitable method to use for
university leadership; hence, one of the main
elements of implementing Kaizen is the serious
commitment of the leader (Swartz and Graban,
2013).
Kaizen is a system of continual procedures
undertaken by an institute to improve its
activities and processes, with the objective of
improving the quality of educational and
managerial aspects so that universities can meet
their full potential (Reddy and Karim, 2014).
This approach has its origins in the fifth of W.
Edwards Deming’s 14 management points:
“Improve constantly and forever the system of
production and service” (Deming, 1982). It is
commonly expressed as “continuous
improvement.” Deming represented continuous
improvement as the repeated application of the
cycle of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) to all
activities in higher education institutions, in the
pursuit of making them even better in terms of
delivering value to society. Thus, according to
the meaning and principles of Kaizen as
mentioned in the previous section, the suitability
of this approach to lead universities successfully
becomes clear. However, the question that arises
here is, what can the Kaizen approach introduce
to the university leader? let us discuss the answer
briefly in the next section.
The need for the Kaizen approach in
university leadership
The difficulties experienced in HE over recent
decades have promoted the emergence of several
leadership approaches which can be observed in
many universities within the educational sector,
including hierarchical models, individualistic
models, collegial models, collaborative models,
and transformative models (Black, 2015).
The leadership style that continues to prevail in
universities can be criticized on two main
grounds – first, that it fails to sufficiently develop
robust styles of professional management (and
can even be accused of perpetuating a ‘cult of the
amateur’); and second, that it encourages
conventional thinking and behavior that goes
unchallenged because most university leaders
have been bred within the system (Khayum,
2017).
Thus, universities need to develop new models of
leadership to provide the increased intellectual
resources that they need to make sense of the
highly complex political, economic, social, and
cultural landscapes of the modern 21st-century
world (Khayum, 2017).
It is worth mentioning that the Kaizen model has
already been used in various universities and
higher education institutes all over the world and
has proven its validity regarding continuous
improvement and maintaining success in both
academic and managerial aspects. For example,
it has been used in Ireland (Irish University with
over 20,000 students and over 2,700 staff
members) as a tool for continuous improvement
(O’Reilly, Seamus, et al, 2017). Additionally, in
the USA, for example, Kaizen is used to improve
graduate business school degree programs. The
study has suggested that Kaizen can help higher
education institutions compete more effectively
against both traditional non-profit, and newer for-
profit sources of higher education (Emiliani,
2005).
In Germany, there is an example of Kaizen being
used to evaluate teaching quality in terms of time,
and to facilitate the short-term reaction of
lecturers (Kregel, 2017).
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a study was
conducted at 19 public universities to study the
performance levels of Saudi universities in light
of visual management and Kaizen concepts in
different aspects (administrative, social,
economic, and political), where the study
recommended using Kaizen to measure
university performance (Barhamin, 2012).
Based on the previous models, Kaizen, as a
model for leadership, has proven its ability for
continuous progress.
Implementing the Kaizen approach in
universities
Many factors help to attain successful change,
which leads to continuous improvement through
the Kaizen approach. Antony et al. (2012)
identified seven critical success factors for the
successful deployment of Kaizen in universities:
(i) leadership support and commitment; (ii)
effective communication at all levels; (iii)
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
113
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
strategic and visionary leadership; (iv) develop
readiness within the university; (v) be sure about
available resources and skills to facilitate
implementation; (vi) selection of programs and
prioritization; and (vii) change organizational
cultures.
Salewski and Klein (2009) developed five steps
to launch Kaizen in universities, which are
mentioned, in brief, below:
Step one: Find early adopters who have an initial
interest or need to improve their processes.
Step two: Make it clear that “transactional lean”
is different and sometimes more difficult than
“manufacturing lean”.
Step three: Create and use a central
improvement office that will support
departmental leaders and early adopters in their
efforts to launch continuous improvement
activities.
Step four: Once a department is selected to
undertake the initial launch of lean processes at
the university, determine what the initial trial
Kaizen events should be.
Step five: Spread the effort to other university
areas after the first event is completed, and
identify additional university departments that
show an interest in starting a lean initiative.
Al-Harbi, 2017 proposed a further system to
implement Kaizen in universities. He proposed
steps and then illustrated them through the
following shape:
Figure 2. Requirements for university leadership improvement Al-Harbi 2017, p. 254
Research methodology
This research uses the analytical descriptive
approach, as it is the most suitable approach for
the nature of the current research. This approach
is used for quantitative data that require statistical
assistance to extract information from them
(Leedy, 1981, p.124). This helps to describe the
perspectives of the research sample, identify
prominent patterns of the studied subject, and
then facilitate the analysis of the data.
Overview of selected Arabian universities
This research selected four universities located in
the MENA area in four different countries
(Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia), with
two of them being located in Asia and the other
two in Africa. These are the most well-known
universities in the region. The next section
introduces a brief description of each university.
114
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
University of Kairouan: The University of
Kairouan was established in 2004 and is located
in Kairouan city. It is officially accredited by the
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific
Research, Tunisia, with a rank enrolment range
of 10,000-14,999 students. It offers programs
that lead to many academic degrees that are
granted by the university, such as pre-bachelor's
degrees (that is, certificates, diplomas, and
associate’s or foundation degrees), as well as
bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees in
several study fields. These higher-education
institutions have a selective admission policy
depending on entrance examinations. The rate of
admission ranges from 60% to 70%, making this
Tunisian university a selective institution to
some extent. It allows enrolment for international
applicants.
Northern Border University: Northern Border
University was built in 2007. It is located in
Saudi Arabia in the city of Arar. The university
comprises 12 colleges granting many degrees,
such as bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
Northern Borders University represents the last
competing university of education blocks, in
terms of the coverage of all regions. It receives
approximately 3,000 applications from across the
globe annually. The university started with seven
different schools of learning, including Historical
Studies, Environment, and Ecological Studies,
Buddhist Studies, Philosophy, and Comparative
Religion, Languages and Literature,
International Relations and Peace Studies,
Information Sciences and Technology, and
Business Management schools. It also comprises
many colleges in different specializations, such
as the Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Business
Administration, Faculty of Science, and the
Faculty of Arts and Education. It also includes
several Deanships that serve both students and
staff, with the most important of them being the
Higher Education Development Deanship, which
works on advancing education at the university o
keep up with global developments. Continuous
Learning and Community Service Deanships
help the community thrive.
The University of Jordan: The University of
Jordan was established in 1962. It was chosen to
be a distinctive university in all aspects,
especially academic and research, seeking to
keep up with international standards. It
introduced and placed a wide range of academic
programs in the hands of its students, allowing
them to choose from more than 250 academic
programs offered by 24 colleges. In various
disciplines, it introduces 94 different programs in
Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing,
Rehabilitation, Science, Agriculture,
Engineering, Information Technology, Arts,
Business Administration, Sharia, Law, Physical
Education, Arts and Design, International
Studies, Foreign Languages, Tourism, and
Archaeology. At the postgraduate level, the
university presents 38 Ph.D. programs,
representing more than 50% of the Ph.D.
programs in Jordan, and 111 Master's programs,
representing approximately 25% of the Master's
programs in Jordan, with the number of
graduates reaching more than 200,000 globally.
The graduates of the University of Jordan rank at
267 in the world in terms of employment
reputation, according to QS 2018.
Cairo University: Cairo University is the second
oldest university in Egypt and the third oldest in
the Arab world. Its various faculties were
established during the reign of Muhammad Ali
(approximately 1820). After a popular campaign
to establish a modern university, Cairo
University was founded on 21 December 1908
under the name Egyptian University. It was later
renamed the University of Fouad I and finally
Cairo University after the revolution of 23rd July
1952. It includes a large number of university
colleges. The university is located in the city of
Giza, west of Cairo. Three Nobel laureates
belong to Cairo University. In 2004, it was
globally ranked among the top 500 universities
worldwide and has over 155,000 students
annually. This ancient university is known
globally as the most famous among Arabian
universities. It is one of the 50 largest institutions
of higher education in the world by enrolment
and offers all academic degrees at the
postgraduate level. Several globally famous
scientists have graduated from this university,
including the well-known surgeon Magdi
Yaqoub.
Research sample and population
The population of this research was made up of
160 leaders and employees of the selected four
universities in the Arab region. The research
sample was purposefully selected, as they are
from the most famous universities in the region.
The research sample’s individuals were then
chosen by sending e-mails to the selected
universities’ staff members, including the Dean,
Co-dean, Department Heads, and other
employees. There was a total of 160 leaders: 98
males, and 62 females. The following table
explains the sample distribution:
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
115
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
Table 1.
Sample distribution of the selected universities.
List of universities, the population of academic leaders, and sample size
Universities
Country
Sample size
Cairo University
Egypt
40
North border University
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
54
Qurawan University
Tunisia
29
Jordan University
Jordan
37
Total
Male 98
Female 62
Total 160
Data Collection Tools
A questionnaire was developed as the main tool
for collecting data and consisted of closed- and
opened-ended questions derived from the
research questions and their objectives. The
questionnaire comprises three sections. Section
(A) relates to the personal information of the
respondent, and sections B and C are
questionnaires on leadership styles in light of the
Kaizen approach, and the requirements of
applying the Kaizen approach to enhance
leadership in Arabian universities, respectively.
The first axis consists of 17 items that have been
drawn from the previous literature and studies
that are related to Kaizen principles, the second
axis consists of 20 items that have also been
developed, depending on previous studies.
The questionnaire consisted of statements to
which participants responded by assigning a
grade from 1 to 5, following the Likert scale.
Questionnaire reliability and validity
The reliability and validity of internal
consistency were calculated as follows:
A. The Pearson correlation coefficient was
used between the scores of each phrase and
the total score of the topic to which it
belongs.
B. The Pearson correlation coefficient was
used between the scores of each topic and
the total score of the questionnaire.
As the results of the Pearson correlation
coefficients between all the questionnaire
phrases and their totals are statistically
significant at a level less than (0.01), which
indicates the phrase's coherence, they are valid
for the study sample application.
The researcher also calculated the consistency
coefficient of the questionnaire to verify the
validity and constancy of the content by
calculating the internal consistency between its
paragraphs (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient). The
questionnaire recorded a coefficient with a value
of 0.871, which indicates the stability of the tool.
Data analysis
For the objective of processing and analyzing the
research data, the SPSS program was used. The
analysis was conducted depending on the
correlations, frequency, and percentages of the
research sample opinions, after which the means
and standard deviations are presented in the next
tables to illustrate the results of these analyses.
Results and discussions
This research identifies university leadership in
terms of the Kaizen approach and highlights the
requirements for improving university leadership
by applying the Kaizen approach.
This section presents the analysis of the data
collected to answer the research questions to
achieve the mentioned goals.
A total of 160 respondents completed the
questionnaire; thus, these data were used in the
analysis. Regarding experiences, the results
showed that the majority of the sample(40%) had
between 5 and 10 years of experience, 31.25% of
the sample had between 0 and 5 years of
experience and 22.5% had more than 10 years of
experience. The results further indicated that
56.2% of the individuals had a doctoral degree,
followed by 37.5% who held a master’s degree.
The data analysis also indicated that the majority
of the research sample was staff members,
followed by Department Heads at 23.1%, while
the lowest percentage was among the College
Deans (see Table 2).
116
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 2.
Description of the study sample according to research variables.
Percentage
Number
Category
Variable
61.2%
98
Male
Gender
38.7%
62
Female
31.25%
50
0-5
Experience
45%
72
5-10
22.5%
36
More than 10 years
12.5%
20
Dean
Position
18.7%
30
Co-dean
23.1%
37
Department chief
39.3%
63
Staff member
6.2%
10
Other
56.2%
90
Doctoral
Qualification
37.5%
60
Master
6.2%
10
Other
The Statistical methods used in the analysis were:
Lower degree - scores arithmetic mean ranging
from 1.00 to 2.49
Medium degree - scores arithmetic mean ranging
from 2.50 to 3.49
High degree - scores arithmetic mean ranging
from 3.50 to 5
For Toentify the reality of university leadership
in light of the Kaizen approach (principles and
dimensions of Kaizen), the arithmetic means and
standard deviation ranking have been set out in
Table 3to illustrate the results.
Table 3.
Leaders' perspective about the reality of university leadership regarding the Kaizen approach.
Rank according to
the questionnaire
Item
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Rank
11
The university seeks to enable workers, and
maintain previous successes
3.99
0.85
1
9
University leadership always seeks change
3.98
0.99
2
6
Leaders present themselves in the workplace
daily
3.99
0.98
3
17
Work procedures and the exchange of tasks
inside the university depend on electronic
webs or PCs, rather than paper, to avoid
wasting time with moving between offices,
and poor storage of important files
3.85
0.90
4
7
Leadership seeks to participate in all parts (for
example, staff and employees) of the decision-
making processes.
3.62
1.00
5
3
University leadership always measures the
variables and analyses the data that are related
to the problems in a regular way
3.24
1.08
6
14
University leadership focuses on reducing
MODA, in its processes, resources, time, etc.
3.22
1.00
7
15
University leadership focuses on the processes
more than the results
3.11
0.82
8
2
Problems and issues that need to be solved or
changed are regularly identified within the
university’s departments
3.17
1.02
9
9
University leadership works to resolve
problems immediately
3.5
0.71
10
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
117
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
16
University leadership tends to identify all
issues and objectives that have no added value
within the university, to overcome or
eliminate them later
2.71
1.18
11
4
University leadership usually develops several
solutions cooperatively to seek to experiment
with a valid solution
2.3
1.51
12
8
University leadership accepts suggestions and
ideas that benefit their work, regardless of
their resources
2.1
0.89
13
12
The university staff and employees have the
right to change in their field of work
2.1
0.80
14
5
University leadership seeks to apply the best
solutions after experimenting with their
validity regarding two aspects - academic and
managerial
2
0.25
15
6
University leaders present themselves in the
workplace daily
1.9
0.1
16
13
University leadership uses more thoughtful
and creative methods and does not depend
only on increasing effort
1.88
0.13
17
Total
2.4
0.82
Regarding leaders’ perspectives about the reality
of university leadership in light of the Kaizen
approach, the previous table shows that the
arithmetic means for the leaders’ opinions is 2.4,
which represents a weakness in the reality of
university leadership in light of Kaizen,
according to leaders’ opinions. This also reflects
those leaders still use traditional leadership styles
in leading and managing university departments;
this ensures the need for applying the Kaizen
approach to maintain success and striving for
continuous improvement for the university.
These results are in agreement with Omar, 2018,
who showed that the university staff at Menia
University (Egypt) were not very knowledgeable
about Kaizen as a style for leadership at the
university. Additionally, a study by Al-Shareif
and Al-Sahat (2014) in Tabuk (Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia) emphasized the lack of knowledge
regarding Kaizen among university staff and
identified the need to disseminate Kaizen culture.
This agrees with Al-Salami 2017, who conducted
a study to improve educational leaders’
performance in Jeddah (Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia), where the most important results of the
study were the requirements for the development
of educational leaders’ performance, in light of
Kaizen, are very important.
Identifying the requirements for applying the
Kaizen approach to enhance university
leadership
To achieve this objective, the data analysis of
leaders (research sample) is presented in the next
table.
Table 4.
Leaders' Perspectives about Requirements for Applying the Kaizen Approach.
Questionnaire No.
Item
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Rank
1
Dissemination of Kaizen culture among university
staff, and identifying its principles
4.25
1.02
1
3
Apply the QUAD model of Kaizen (identify the
problem, find the solution, test the solution’s
feasibility, apply the solution)
4.17
0.90
2
2
Formwork teams to enhance performance rather than
depending on one expert according to Kaizen principles
4.16
0.89
3
4
Measure the variables and analyze the data of problems
and issues that are required for improvement and
change
4.13
0.85
4
5
Continuing improvement through daily follow-up
inside the university, physically, rather than through the
office
4.09
0.84
5
118
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
6
Take Immediate solutions for small problems, which
may cause more problems when neglected
4.13
0.90
6
7
Study all aspects (administrative, technical, academic)
to discover what has no value and causes consumption
of money and effort
4.12
0.88
7
9
Determine the time-wasting aspects (such as students
waiting for lectures, waiting for research approval from
academic supervisors, etc.), and then develop
suggestions to overcome this problem of time-wasting
3.99
0.85
8
8
Determine waste in an academic aspect that represents
elongated instruction, repetition, approval of repeated
topics for research, etc.
4.1
0.80
9
10
Depending on computers in transcriptions, and
recording staff and student data to avoid time-wasting
as well as damage of paper files in storage
3.98
0.99
10
13
Depending on thinking and wisdom, and not on effort
and money
3.88
1.094
11
14
Adopt an accountability policy for those who are
reasonable for any mistakes, according to Kaizen
principles
3.98
1.00
12
15
Concern about regulations and organization in all
aspects, such as the admission of students and
employment
3.85
0.88
13
11
The necessity for focus on processes, and manage from
the event's location, as this is more positive than
focusing on results, according to the Kaizen approach
3.85
0.80
14
12
Use the data and facts available instead of developing
theories
3.62
1.00
15
16
Meet academic, technical, and financial requirements
3.66
1.1
16
17
Being mindful of human relationships and spreading
the spirit of teamwork
3.64
1.015
17
18
Contributing to professional developments for
university staff and adopting creative capabilities and
talents
3.65
0.77
18
19
Providing the opportunity for university staff to make
changes without the need for administration approval
3.63
0.99
19
20
Partnership in developing plans and programs of study,
developing curriculum, and others which contribute
towards continuous improvement
3.56
0.81
20
Total
3.8
0.91
From the results of the data analysis (university
leaders’ opinions), it was found that there is an
agreement by the leaders regarding the need to
apply the Kaizen approach in university
leadership; hence, the total axis shows the
arithmetic mean (3.8); thus, the leaders tend to
apply previous items from the second axis that
indicate the Kaizen principles. These results are
in line with Omar’s 2018 study, which revealed
the need to develop a proposed scenario in light
of a particular method that had proven successful
in improving performance, the Japanese method
(Kaizen). These results are in line with the results
of Youssef (2013), which suggested the
importance of applying the Kaizen approach,
especially the four stages (Plan-Do-Check-Act),
for the enhancement of leadership in Egyptian
universities. In a study by Emiliani (2005),
Kaizen was found to be an effective leadership
style that improves higher education
institutions.Kaizen can help higher education
institutions compete more effectively.
Alharby’s (2017) study also emphasizes Kaizen
as a style that is needed by Arabian university
leaders. It found that Kaizen meets modern
requirements to enhance university leadership,
and it is necessary to adopt the Kaizen approach
with a real commitment to applying it; however,
in Al-Kaser’s (2016) study, the respondents
strongly agreed on the importance of the
requirements of the Kaizen strategy for the
administration at Shaqra University, Saudi
Arabia.
Discussion
This research seeks to achieve specific objectives
– to identify the university leadership style
regarding the Kaizen approach from the
university leaders' and staff’s perspectives – and
to illustrate the requirements to improve
university leadership by applying the Kaizen
approach. The results revealed that the majority
of the leaders at the four chosen Arabian
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
119
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
universities agreed on the weakness of using the
Kaizen approach for enhancing leadership and
administration, seeking changes for the best, and
keeping up continuous improvements.
The results of the perspectives of the university
leaders about applying the Kaizen approach for
the enhancement of leadership, administration,
and management of all aspects (managerial,
financial, academic) showed that they are all in
agreement about the needs of Arabian
universities. Although there are differences in
their locations, they all agreed that using
traditional leadership styles makes change and
keeping up with globalism very difficult. The
results also revealed the importance of applying
Kaizen principles to enhance leadership at their
university, such as applying the ngQUAD model
of Kaizen (identifying the problem, finding the
solution, testing the solution’s feasibility,
applying the solution), avoiding time-wasting,
continuing improvement through daily follow-up
within the physical location rather than from
within their offices, and Kaizen principles.
Conclusions and recommendations
The study concluded that although there is a
success with Kaizen as a leadership approach and
its strategies and principles are strongly
beneficial for supporting and enhancing leaders
in the management of their university’s
departments, it is still not applicable by
university leaders, and they also have very little
information about this approach.
The leaders of the different Arabian universities
(University of Kairouan, Northern Border
University, the University of Jordan, and Cairo
University) all agreed on the need to apply
Kaizen in university leadership.
The principles of Kaizen, which have been
placed in the research tool (the questionnaire),
seemed to be very necessary from the
perspectives of the university leaders.
The research contributes to raising awareness
about implementing the Kaizen approach,
targeting the increase in efficiency, and quality of
university leadership. The research is considered
small work to meet the needs of time and
evolution in higher education. Although the
current research is important, it does have several
limitations, such as the low number of examined
universities (four), and it would also be better if
postgraduates and new members of staff were
asked about leadership styles. However, the
problem that the researcher mainly faced was a
lack of previous research relating to Kaizen.
Thus, there is a need for further studies in the
respective field to avoid limitations in this
research.
In light of this research, the authors recommend
using the Kaizen approach and its strategies and
principles as a method for the enhancement of
university leadership and emphasize conducting
further studies about Kaizen.
Bibliographic references
Abdulmouti, H. (2018) Benefits of Kaizen to
Business Excellence: Evidence from a Case
Study. Ind. Eng. Manage, 7, 251. DOI:
10.4172/2169-0316.1000251
Al Sharif, R.M & Al-Sahat, M.Z.A. (2014).
Developing the quality of education at the
University of Tabuk in light of the (KAIZEN)
strategy for continuous improvement. Journal
of the Faculty of Education, Tanta University
- Faculty of Education, Egypt, 6, 1 – 38.
Retrieved from
https://search.mandumah.com/Record/74038
5
Al Harbi, M.M.A. (2017). Requirements for
improving university leadership in light of the
Gemba kaizen methodology. Journal of
Educational Sciences, 25 (1-Parte 2),
233-262. Retrieved from searchshamaa.org.
Al Kaser, S. (2016). Kaizen theory and its
applicability in the Faculty of Education for
Girls in Shaqra, Saudi Arabia from the point
of view of the administrative body. IUG
Journal of Educational and Psychology
Sciences, 26(2), 154 -187 Retrieved from
https://journals.iugaza.edu.ps/index.php/IUG
JEPS/article/view/3028
AL Salami, A. (2017). Development of the
performance of educational leaders in
secondary schools in Jeddah in light of the
Kaizen methodology. Journal of Research in
the Field of Specific Education, Faculty of
Specific Education, Minia University, Egypt.
Retrieved from
https://jedu.journals.ekb.eg/?_action=press
Antony, S. et al., (2012). Critical failure factors
of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature
review. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 31(9), 1012 – 103.
Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/do
i/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2013-0147/full/html
Arbeláez-Campillo, D. F., Rojas-Bahamón, M. J.,
& Arbeláez-Encarnación, T. F. (2018). Notes
for the debate of the categories universal
citizenship, human rights and globalization.
Cuestiones Políticas, 34(61), 139-161.
120
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Black, S. (2015) Qualities of Effective
Leadership in Higher Education. Open
Journal of Leadership, 4, 54-66. DOI:
10.4236/ojl.2015.42006.
Barhamin, A. A. (2012) The performance level
of the Saudi universities under visual
management and Kaizen concepts as
perceived by their director’s/deputy directors.
(Doctoral thesis), Umm Al-Qura University,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from
http://search.shamaa.org/FullRecord?ID=10
7800
Deming, W.E. (1982). Out of the Crisis.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study. ECU (Equality Challenge
Unit) (2015). Athena SWAN Charter.
Retrieved from
https://issuu.com/ijtsrd.com/docs/111_educa
tional_leadership_implicat
Eteir, M.F. (2007) Studying the ability of
Jordanian manufacturing companies to utilize
the principles of continuous improvement
(Kaizen). (Master’s thesis) Faculty of
Graduate Studies, University of Jordan.
Emiliani, M.L. (2005) "Using kaizen to improve
graduate business school degree programs",
Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1),
37-52.
Gupta, S., & Jain, S.K. (2014). The 5S and
Kaizen concept for overall improvement of
the organization: a case study, nt. J. Lean
Enterprise Research, 1(1), 22-40
Imai, M. (1989). Gemba Kaizen a Common
Sense Approach to a Continuous
Improvement Strategy. McGraw-Hill eBooks
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen: A Common
Sense, Low-Cost Approach to Management.
McGraw Hill.
Keijiro, O. (2018) Applying Kaizen in Africa: A
new avenue industrial development. Palgrave
Macmillan. Retrieved from
https://www.amazon.com/Applying-Kaizen-
Africa-Industrial-
Development/dp/3030082431
Khayum, H.M. (2017). Quality of Higher
Education: Implementation of Kaizen
Philosophy. World Journal of Social
Sciences, 7(1), 10–18
Kregel, I. (2017). Applying Kaizen to University
Teaching Through Weekly Course
Evaluation. International Conference on Lean
Six Sigma for Higher Education, West
Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 4.
Leedy, P. (1981). How to read research and
understand it? Collier Macmillan
Leseure, M. (2010) Key Concepts in Operations
Management, Kaizen chapter. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lindell, J.T. (2014) Controller as Business
Manager. United States: Chartered global
management accounting, American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants NC.
Retrieved from
https://www.bookdepository.com/Controller
-Business-Manager-James-T-
Lindell/9781940235639
Macias, M et al. (2017). Kaizen planning,
implementing, and controlling. Published by
Springer Nature. Retrieved from
https://pdfcoffee.com/kaizen-planning-
implementing-and-controlling-2017-pdf-
free.html
Muffo, J.A. & Krallman, J.D. (1992). Kaizen and
the Art of University Administration. TYPE
Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
Information Analyses (070) Viewpoints
(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120).
Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-
ir/bitstream/handle/2346/61223/3129500870
2176.pdf?sequence=1
Naik, B.M. (2004). Technological Innovation in
Educational Institutes. J. Technical
Education, 27, 59-61
O’Reilly, S, Healy, J., Murphy, T. &
O’Dubhghaill, R. (2017). A continuous
improvement journey in the higher education
sector: a case study of a university in Ireland.
4th International Conference on Lean Six
Sigma for Higher Education, May 25–26,
2017. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31
9277289_A_Continuous_Improvement_Jour
ney_in_the_Higher_Education_Sector_A_C
ase_Study_of_a_University_in_Ireland
Omar, A.M. (2018). A proposal to develop the
performance of the staff of the Faculty of
Education at Minia University, in light of the
Kaizen style, Faculty of Education magazine,
Assiut University. Retrieved from
https://mfes.journals.ekb.eg/article_105346.
html
Prošić, S. (2011). Kaizen management
philosophy. International Symposium
Engineering Management and
Competitiveness, 2011 (EMC2011) June
24-25, 2011, Zrenjanin, Serbia.
Reddy, S.K., & Karim, S. (2014). Kaizen
Approach for Enhancing Quality
Management Practices in HEIs. Proceedings
of the National Symposium on Establishing,
Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in
Education. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35
0973382
Salewski, A., & Klein, V. (2009). How to Launch
Lean in a University. ASQ Higher Education
Brief. Retrieved from
Volume 11 - Issue 50
/ February 2022
121
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322 - 6307
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24
9007449_IMPLEMENTING_LEAN_IN_A_
HIGHER_EDUCATION_UNIVERSITY
Salah, S. A., & Sobhi, N. (2018). Productivity
enhancement through lean implementation–a
case study. In The International Conference
on Applied Mechanics and Mechanical
Engineering (Vol 18, No. 18th International
Conference on Applied Mechanics and
Mechanical Engineering., pp. 1-14). Military
Technical College.
Scott, P. (2011). Leadership in universities.
International Journal of Leadership in Public
Services, 7(3), 229-234.
Swartz J.E. & Grabn, M. (2013). Healthcare
Kaizen - engaging frontline staff in
sustainable continuous improvements. CRC
Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1201/b12274
Thessaloniki, R. (2006) KAIZEN: Definition &
principles in brief: A concept and tool for
employees in evolvement. Michailolidis.
Retrieved from www.michailolidis.gr
Titu, M.A. (2010). Applying the Kaizen Method
and the 5S Technique in the Activity of Post-
Sale Services in the Knowledge-Based
Organization. International Multi
Conferences of Engineers and Computer
Scientists 2010, Vol. 3, Hong Kong
Youssef, D. (2013) How to use the Gemba
Kaizen method in the development of
Egyptian university education. Arabic studies
in educational and physiological (ASEP)
Journal, 35(4). Retrieved from
https://jfe.journals.ekb.eg/article_129820_8a
6a95e9f6876b79276569be05853855.pdf