Descriptive qualitative analysis evaluates leadership strengths and ethical issues in a local college, suggesting improvements for enhanced organizational performance.
Institutional health assessments offer systematic evidence on leadership practices, ethical standards, and organizational dynamics in higher education. This study conducted an institutional health check to evaluate leadership strengths, ethical issues, negative workplace behaviors, and recommend improvements within a local higher education institution. A descriptive qualitative approach was used, employing an open ended leadership evaluation tool administered to all faculty and staff. A total of 232 responses were analyzed thematically, guided by Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework. The findings identified four key leadership strengths: effective communication characterized by clarity and responsiveness; strategic, mission-aligned planning; empowerment through appropriate delegation and guidance; and professionalism demonstrated by fairness and integrity. Ethical concerns and workplace issues were also reported, including inconsistencies in accountability, perceived favoritism in decision making, lapses in professional conduct, procedural irregularities, communication tone issues, and concerns about attendance, task alignment, and interpersonal sensitivity. Participants suggested improvements, including clearer communication protocols, more consistent decision-making, greater leadership accountability, enhanced team collaboration, systematic tracking and documentation, and expanded professional development opportunities. The results supported the development of a corrective action framework that links diagnostic insights to recommended interventions across training, policy updates, and mentorship. This study provides evidence to support organizational strength, demonstrating the value of institutional health checks as diagnostic tools for enhancing leadership capacity, ethical culture, and operational processes in higher education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aguilar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: