The Meaning of Leadership for Leaders of Private Universities in Indonesia

Leading a university is generally more complex than a business organization, as the situation requires the presence of a leader who not only meets the criteria but is also willing to lead, a very rarely found combination in universities. Interestingly, although it is not easy to find academics with such qualities, these people still exist because they see the importance of leading for the survival of the organization. Therefore, it becomes interesting to understand how they ascribe meaning to their leadership amid the difficulties they must deal with. This study was conducted using in-depth interviews with 13 academic leaders to ascertain how they ascribe meaning to their leadership. The results of the interviews were then analyzed using the Atlas.ti 8 software. Four interpretive themes emerged from the interviews: (1) the many faces of university leaders; (2) community leadership style; (3) knowledge development and non-profit oriented leadership mission; and (4) corporate leadership.


INTRODUCTION
Managing a university is generally more complex than the management of a for-profit business (Lowman, 2010;Teece, 2017). Pinheiro and Young (2017) view the complexity as being comprised of two sides, namely an external and an internal one. On the external side is the competitive climate brought about by economic pressure, social pressure, and state policy (Pinheiro & Young, 2017). Besides, the dualism of organizational structure (Teferra, 2014) and the culture of academic freedom (Teece, 2017) also add to the complexities associated with the management of a university.
Moreover, the existence of diverse sub-entities in a university's organization (i.e., departments, research groups, institutes, and faculties), each of which is at least semi-autonomous, results in the internal complexity of a university's management. After all, it is possible for each sub-entity to have their own unique set of perspectives, and not all of them may fully comprehend the reality of the organization, which can potentially result in uncertainties (Manning, 2018). Furthermore, the transformation process from an academician to an academic leader is also inherently filled with its own complexities (Gmelch, 2015).
Considering such various complexities, appointing a capable and qualified individual to lead a university is imperative. In addition to being expected to carry the university to achieve its ultimate mission of generating knowledge, an academic leader is also required to own the skills needed to confront the multitude of complexities associated with the job. Despite its inevitable importance, finding a leader in a university is not at all an easy task. Typically, only a handful of a university's teaching staff fulfill the criteria of an academic leader, and an even smaller number of them show interest in becoming a leader.
As a concrete illustration, this phenomenon has previously been found at a private university in Jakarta, Indonesia (Yosua, 2020). In the election process of the university's chancellor for the 2015-2019 period, only 23 of 403 academic staff members (5.7%) were deemed eligible as prospective chancellor candidates according to the eligibility criteria that were in effect. Of the 23 individuals, only five were willing to proceed with the candidacy.
A desire to focus on academic career appeared to be the leading cause of such a situation. Accordingly, the idea of holding management position which is temporary yet highly demanding might be perceived as a time loss from career advancement perspective.
Following the line of thought of Hofstede et al., (2010) and Markus & Kitayama, (2010), we propose that the way individuals define or process their life experiences are contextual and influenced by the culture in which they grow and develop. Culture itself is defined as "an orientation system of a society," (Thomas, 2018, p.27) or "a collective programming of the mind" (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.6), which is reflected in the values that guide their life preferences and life purposes. University leaders ascribed meanings guided by their personal values and norms. We put forward the idea that the way university leaders cultivate meanings from their leadership roles will play significant role for their leadership willingness as well as performances.
Therefore, the present research is focused on investigating how leaders of private universities in Indonesia ascribe meaning to leadership. Private universities were chosen because from the 563 actively operating universities in Indonesia, 500 of them (89%) are privately owned (Pusdatin, 2018). In addition, compared with public universities, private universities have more management challenges due to their high dependability on tuition fees and fierce market competition.
influencing others to achieve the expected objectives of an organization (Spendlove, 2007). On the other hand, academic leadership can be depicted as "a process through which academic values and identities are constructed, promoted, and maintained" (Bolden et al., 2012, p.3). Various leadership complexities at the university have previously been explained.
To be able to effectively deal with such a condition, Ruscio (2016) further emphasizes the importance of an informal approach to leadership. An informal approach alludes to a capacity that is oriented more towards the act of persuading others rather than dictating or regulating. This is in line with the transformational leadership principle that is aimed at building awareness and acceptance of the goals and missions of an organization, while encouraging others to view the interests of the organization well beyond their own personal interests (Bass, 1990).
Another approach that would be equally relevant in the leadership of a higher education institution is servant leadership. Wheeler (2012, as cited in Aboramadan, Dahleez, & Hamad, 2020) discovered that compared to other types of leadership, servant leadership is a good fit for the values held within an academic institution. This is due to the unique organizational form of an academic institution that bases its decision-making mostly on community, collaboration, and involvement of others, which is very much aligned with the servant leadership model (Crippen & Willows, 2019) as well as the facilitative leadership style (Murniati et al., 2020).

Private Universities in Indonesia
Indonesian universities are categorized into public universities and private universities. Most of the universities belong to the private universities category (Pusdatin, 2018).
The difference in status between public and private universities has several implications, especially in terms of their administration, management, and finances. In the administration aspect, public universities are run by the government, while private universities are run by the private community (referring to the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, Article 1).
On the management aspect, public universities are typically under the jurisdiction of the government, implying that various state laws (e.g., state treasury, education system, civil servants, etc.) are applicable within the institution. In contrast, private universities are under the management of both private foundations and the national education system (Wicaksono & Friawan, 2011).
With regard to the financial aspect, public universities have greater access to state funding compared to private universities. Public universities receive almost 95% of the government's budget although the number of students is only one third of all private universities (Andriani, 2007). However, the government's more recent policy of granting special autonomy to several leading public universities universities has reduced the responsibility for state financing (Wicaksono & Friawan, 2011). This makes tuition fees at those universities almost the same as at the private universities, which makes the distinction between public and private universities blurred, especially from a financial perspective (Azra, 2008).

RESEARCH METHOD
A qualitative approach (Creswell & Poth, 2017) was employed to investigate how participants ascribe the meaning of leadership based on their own perceptions of their experiences in leading a private university. The participants were recruited using a purposive sampling method (Creswell & Poth, 2017), through the personal networks of the team of researchers.
Research participants were comprised of thirteen leaders of private universities. All participants had a scope of work that emphasized the practices in organizational management and should thus have a representative outlook on university management.
We applied maximum-variation sampling procedures (Creswell, 2015) by taking into account three variations: tenure, age, and size of the university. For this purpose we classified university age (year of establishment) and size (number of students). There are three categories of universities based on the period since their establishment: traditional universities (established in 1945-1970, 50-75 years in age), intermediate universities (established in 1971-1996, 25-49 years in age), and modern universities (established after 1996, maximum 24 years of age). Size-wise, the universities are categorized into three groups: large universities (> 10,000 students), middlesize universities (5,000-10,000 students), and small universities (< 5,000 students).
Ten participants had been in office for at least four years and were therefore more than halfway through their 29 to 96-month tenure as leaders. Three participants had been in office for less than 2 years, with tenures that ranged from 8 to 20 months in duration. Almost all participants were males, except for two females.
Based on the two categorizations, 6 participants were from large traditional universities, 1 participant each was from a middle-size intermediate university and a small intermediate university, 2 participants were from middle-size modern universities, and 3 participants were from small modern universities.
Data collection was conducted through in-depth interviews. Eleven participants were interviewed offline, and two participants were interviewed through online means due to the coronavirus pandemic. The duration of the interviews was 60-90 minutes. The topics inquired through the interviews included: past experience leading a large-scale change at the university, obstacles and challenges faced during the process as well as ways to overcome them, parties perceived to contribute to their success, insights and lessons learned from the experience of leading a university.
To obtain informed consent from participants, we provide research information prior to interview procedures. Participant identities were kept anonymous by obscuring important data and information.
A grounded theory-based data analysis was done using Atlas.ti version 8.0 software. The data analysis procedure consisted of the following steps: (1) transcription of interview data, (2) data coding based on the emergent themes (open coding), (3) building of categories based on the thematic patterns revealed through the open coding process (axial coding), and (4) construction of a model based on the emergent themes from the axial coding process (selective coding). An example of the procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Based on the data analysis, seven themes emerged (see Figure 1). The seven themes were then abstracted into four main themes that describe patterns in participants' interpretations of the meaning of leadership, namely: (1) the many faces of university leaders, (2) community leadership style, (3) knowledge development and non-profit oriented leadership mission, and (4) corporate leadership oriented towards business and management aspects.

The Many Faces of University Leaders
Participants perceived their own roles as university leaders in multiple levels and dimensions. At least two levels emerged, the first of which is a philosophical level that links the role of the leader with the university's existence for human civilization. The second is an instrumentalist level that pertains to the socialorganizational aspect of the university.
Participants who interpreted the role of a leader at the philosophical level placed the university as part of human evolution with two contradictory yet complementary roles. On the one hand, the university is entrusted with the future of the civilization, namely "enabling humans to live in the future." On the other hand, the university also bears the role of a "repository institution" in which human knowledge and experiences are retained, maintained, and utilized. Given these two roles, adaptation of the university's organization becomes vital.
A leader is tasked with ensuring that the university can keep moving forward adaptively with the repository of legacies it is equipped with. An interpretation of leadership that emphasizes the university's adaptive capacity to maintain its existence is consistent with the notion of a university's resilience in facing both external and internal challenges (Pinheiro & Young, 2017). This particular interpretation was expressed by one participant as follows, "In evolutionary theory, the key is the ability of the organization to adapt evolutionarily…This is especially true in the world of education, where we hold multiple roles… Education is indeed generally defined as the enablement of citizens to live in the future… But secondly, education is also a repository institution. A very long history is kept, maintained, and used by the educational institution, especially in higher education… But it always carries its heritage because when we step into the future, our steps are based on our past repositories" (P-8) As stated below, the participant also understood the philosophical meaning of a leader, in which the emphasis lies on autonomy, criticism, and full awareness that a leader is not defined merely by whether they follow the rules: "Each of us will ultimately need the courage to be ourselves, to think in our own way, and to have the freedom to go about with our activities with full awareness, (because) it would be practically impossible for the university to progress (if) everything is done only for the sake of following instructions or rules" (P-6) Participants who ascribed meaning to university leadership at an instrumental level highlighted the complexity of the role of a leader, as a leader is deemed responsible for embodying various leadership roles that include academic leadership, community leadership, and corporate leadership.
The participant (P-12) elaborated detail meanings of the three leadership roles. Academic leadership is characterized by leadership commitments and efforts to ensure that the study programs can run well in accordance not only with national educational standards, but also with the educational aspirations of the university. Community leadership is the chancellors' role to encourage lecturers and the academic community to implement the spirit of the academic world, thus to apply knowledge for social contributions.
Corporate leadership focuses on managing university governance, business models and financial issues. The participant shared in more details, "Therefore, the three leadership styles must be carried out, academic (leadership) which ensures the program of study can run well in accordance with national standards, but also in accordance with the educational aspirations of the university itself ... (Leadership), on the community side, indeed encourages lecturers and the academic community to implement what I call a spirit, the spirit of the academic world. … Then the third one is corporations, they talk about governance and so on, suggesting that they are not too different from companies, they must understand business, models, and so on." (P-12) Although participants agreed on the depth of the role complexities, there appear to be variations in the extent to which the multidimensionality of leadership was perceived, with some viewing the three roles in an integrative manner while others regarded them partially.
The integrative interpretation of the three leadership roles regards the three roles as being inseparable and as a balanced competence required from a university chancellor. In this sense, a chancellor must be sufficiently observant and flexible in demonstrating the three roles as the situation calls for. Here, situational factors as determinants of the focus of a leadership style reflects the fundamental feature of a classical situational leadership theory (Yukl, 2013).
For those who view the three leadership roles partially, the corporate leadership was the most prominent emergent theme, which indicates the strong meaning of this business-like leadership for the participants. Participants shared how high the demands is for a chancellor to demonstrate such a businessstyle leadership and thus renders corporate leadership as a high-priority meaning of leadership. The role of corporate leadership was strongly accentuated by participants from large traditional universities that were undergoing massive-scale transformations, as well as those from modern universities. In this interpretation, one participant drew an analogy between the role of a chancellor with the leader of a corporate transformation, and also emphasized the importance of accommodating various strategic functions of the university that range from strategic to operational ones.
"The job of a chancellor is double-edged, as he or she is responsible for carrying out the role of an academic leader… but he or she also has to be a manager or CEO who rehabilitates the organization, and this is a sizable task…" (P-9) How participants ascribe meaning to their roles as leaders is inseparable from the organizational context in which the role occurs. Such a contextual factor additionally contributes to the complexity of the role of a leader (Smith & Hughey, 2006), and consequently leads to the need for a leader who is fit for context (Middlehurst et al., 2009).
Participants from large traditional universities highlighted academic and community leadership aspects, which are oriented towards the role of a chancellor as an academic symbol and the endeavor to build positive relations among the diverse groups of academia. This view is consistent with past studies that have emphasized the dualism of academic and social aspects as a consequence of the academic culture and the complex social relations within it (House, 2018;Ruscio, 2016). It also reflects the context of the group of large traditional universities, with their relatively well-established academic reputation and the supporting track records of their publicly acclaimed academics.
In contrast, participants from middle-size intermediate universities and small modern universities tend to focus on corporate leadership aspects, in line with the established features of modern management more common among this group of universities. The emphasis on a corporate leadership trait is consistent with several past studies that have advocated the need for a chancellor to adopt a business leader's role and to acquaint with the industrial world in their approach to managing the university as a modern organization (Lowman, 2010;Sart, 2014).

Community Leadership Style
Participants viewed that leading a university can be executed through two leadership styles. The first leadership style is a collegiality-based leadership, while the second is an iron-fist style. Participants who deemed collegiality appropriate for leading a university perceived the university as an egalitarian institution: "From an organizational standpoint, the organization is egalitarian, in that friends are considered as equals" (P-10).
Contrary to corporations that usually have a more clear-cut superior-subordinate hierarchical structure, the academic staff in universities are recruited on the basis of expertise and are highly autonomous in their work. In the face of such an environment, it would be more suitable for university leaders to appeal for the academic's support by presenting convincing arguments when proposing ideas rather than to rely on their formal power which is very often also perceived as forceful power.
"Driving academic staff and administrative staff is different from corporate employees in non-educational settings. A strong argument is needed for ideas to be accepted and executed." (P-10) Participants who interpreted collegiality as a university leadership style also viewed the success of the university as a shared success and not as an individual effort, as stated below: "The success of the chancellor is the success of the university, and not the individual. The more blended the roles of all parties in achieving success, the better it is for the university. Everyone can have a sense of ownership." (P-10).
On the other hand, participants who ascribed iron-fist leadership as suitable for use in universities perceived that the performance of academic staff need to be managed regardless. Accordingly, the performance of academic staff has to be continuously monitored, followed through and regulated for target achievements. As such, a form of university leadership that tends to give employees the autonomy and freedom to decide what they want to do would be inappropriate and counterproductive.
"I believe that democracy is not applicable in education. For example, if several academic staff refuse to do research and publication, and democracy will leave it up to them. This is not what I do here. I would summon them and reprimand them, then give them a 'love letter'. Even then, some would not be able to stand it, and end up resigning. Some are obstinate, but iron-fist is the way." (P-7) With the iron-fist management style, a consistent and systematic rewards and punishments becomes crucial to fulfill organizational targets. That is, there needs to be a university mechanism to reward academic staff who perform, and to punish those who do not. In addition, the implementation of iron-fist leadership was acknowledged by the leaders as detrimental to their popularity as leaders. Nevertheless, the participant believed that this was not an issue, as leaders are appointed to advance the university and not to simply please a group of people: "Yes, I am aware that I am risking my popularity and that many people hate me, but I don't care. I get paid here not to please them, but to move the university forward." (P-7) How leaders ascribe collegiality as a necessary leadership style for implementation at universities is not a new idea. Collegiality-based leadership is in fact a unique feature of university leadership (Bryman & Lilley, 2009) and is placed at the heart of university leadership (Kligyte & Barrie, 2014). Within organizations in which membership is equivalent to expertise, a collegial leader is critical. Leadership, in this sense, needs to be enacted collectively, and decision making has to be achieved through a consensus (Kligyte & Barrie, 2014). This is in line with the finding of Sart (2014) that a leadership based on the involvement of members/democracy is a leadership model most recommended by academic staff.
Interestingly, even though collegiality is considered to characterize university leadership, a portion of leaders apply a more controlling style of leadership such as an authoritative one. This style is chosen because it facilitates a clear understanding of what is expected by the leader and enables a more rigid control of performance, despite the potential to evoke dissatisfaction from subordinates. Conversely, a collegiality leadership style will only incur job relationship satisfaction, but is less able to respond to the needs for change that originate from both inside and outside the university (Allen et al., 2013). Two situations in which a more controlling approach can be effectively implemented are when decision making is constrained by time and when the leader is the most knowledgeable figure in the group (Bhargavi & Yaseen, 2016).

Leadership Mission
The participants saw leaders of universities as having two missions. As a nonprofit organization, the university has the primary mission of addressing social objectives that are not nuanced by the seeking of profit. Moreover, the university also has the mission of producing knowledge that is implemented in the three pillars of higher education (tridharma perguruan tinggi). In this sense, the mission functions as a compass that shows direction and determines the path that the university will take.
This mission materializes in values, both values that one adheres to (instrumental values) as well as the goals of the university's existence (terminal values). These values, in turn, bind stakeholders together (Murphy, 2011). As something to adhere to, values and their hierarchies enable leaders to create a list of priorities based on degree of importance, and all actions are always referred back to their priorities.
"First, I decide on a main orientation, so I reaffirm the meaning of the university as a not-for-profit entity, and if I subsequently decide on a strategic way of thinking, that clarifies who is important for the university and how they are important, so for example students are the most important, as students are the reason for the existence for all of us here. Then it brings a clear consequence, staff, officials, and the office of the chancellor must all orient towards it." (P-6) A hierarchy of values also enables leaders to orient themselves towards the mission of the organization, even when faced with the expectations of other parties like the managing body, to pursue resources. The leader would not lose direction and diverge from the mission of a social organization to that of a for-profit organization and would instead cultivate these expectations by returning to the university's mission to produce knowledge through research and to disseminate knowledge to students through quality teaching.
"It turns out that the job of a chancellor is to earn money. Earn money, what is earning money? Well, through new students, we get grants, how to get new students. As said before, accreditation is increased, academic staff must be good. Frequent publications, how to earn money, it's through grants, and grants are received from proposals and such. That's where the chancellor plays a role." (P-7) Comprehension of the university's mission to produce knowledge is further deemed necessary for an academic leader. The mission is manifested in the three pillars of higher education (tridharma perguruan current study identified the importance of applying corporate leadership in leading a university. At least three meanings are ascribed to the role of corporate leadership, namely the need for a leader to concentrate on strategic issues, the need to build vision and to urge others to pursue the same vision, and to develop new leaders. The need to concentrate on strategic issues saw the importance of a leader's role in responding to erarelated changes observed in the field. A rapid change (e.g., as indicated by the advancement of information technology, social relations, production process), calls for the university's ability to develop various strategies to answer to such changing needs. This is in line with Andrade's (2018) view that an effective leadership is needed to respond to the need for change required for the university to remain relevant. This interpretation is evident in the following statement of a participant: "Of course, in our case, we have unitedly come to understand advancements in information technology as well as production management, changing social relations, which last year we tried to formulate in our documentation of the long term development plan of our university… Which then leads to, let's call it a blended system, especially in digital or learning (P-13)" Interestingly, although the concentration on strategic issues was believed to be the main priority of leaders, one participant asserted that this is not necessarily applicable in all universities. At a relatively new university, a leader has to be willing to directly take part in tackling technical issues. A leader, in this case, needs to ensure that all existing systems can proceed smoothly, which is conceptualized as a rectification from on end to the other end. This is suggested from the following statement of the participant: "A leader should think about strategic issues and not technical ones. [..] But I have to admit that in a relatively new university, improvements in organizational practices or daily operations are still needed ... that is… leaders in that level are considered to still be at the initiating stage, or at the reparation stage, which is done from on end to the other end" (P-1) When faced with volatile highly competitive situations, a university leader also needs to persuade and engage people to head towards the same goal. Therefore, a leader with vision, as well as having deep understanding about the mission of a non-profit organization, is needed. In a higher education context, vision is represented as "a mental model each faculty leader defines, used to both understand system operations and guide actions within the system" (Kantabutra, 2010, p.377). With this vision on hand, a leader is able to see the future organizational directions, similar to the visioning function of a CEO (Kantabutra, 2010).
"When asked formatively what the task of a leader is.. one, being able to define goals; the vision needs to be definitive, where we are headed must be made clear because it is what determines other (matters)." (P-9) tinggi) that consist of three activities, namely conducting quality teaching, conducting research, and conducting community service. Teaching is the dissemination of academic staff's research findings through lectures, while community service refers to the application of those findings for the community.
"If we imagine a river of knowledge where the source is the investigation of knowledge for the advancement of knowledge. The source would be theoretical physics or theoretical genetics. In between is applied research, which generally leads to evidencebased policy formulation. Further downstream is the use of knowledge, and I always cite Hayek's the use of knowledge in society. Hayek wrote in the context that the use of knowledge can't be controlled centrally. You have to rely on the centralized mechanism. In such a river, the university is positioned halfway to the estuary" (P-8).
The mission of a university as a non-profit entity where knowledge is produced is a unique mission of the university. This is especially true considering that the existence of a non-profit institution, as well as an educational institution (Mainardes et al., 2011) is for the sake of its mission (Murphy, 2011). The organization exists to meet social objectives, human needs, and national priority, which do not take the form of profits (Carlson & Schneiter, 2011). Leading an educational institution requires a figure who can step out from his or her own interests and who places the needs of others as priority ("to intellectualize the nation's life" as idealized in the nation's declaration of independence), all the while the individual remains able to discover the values in his or her own actions.
How a leader ascribes meaning to the university's mission of producing knowledge is also indivisible from the advancement of the times. The position of knowledge, in this case, transforms alongside the demands of needs (Antoniuk el al., 2019). In the 1970-1990 period, the primary mission of a university was to create, collect, and disseminate knowledge. The mission then underwent a change when the higher education system was integrated into the national innovation system (1990-2010 period), and from then on began the commercialization of knowledge, in which knowledge was seen as having economic value (Antoniuk et al., 2019).
As for the university's mission in the contemporary society has also changed again. The mission of the university in this contemporary society is to cultivate innovators who are able to think critically and make contributions in conditions of uncertainty, for example, in the form of a sustainable society of learners (Antoniuk et al., 2019). In this context, the university's mission is founded neither on the dissemination of knowledge (teaching) nor the production of knowledge, but rather on its contributions to the society, which is also known as the third mission (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020).

Corporate Leadership
The leaders of universities who participated in the is in corporations (Klein & Salk, 2013). This lack of a succession planning further leads to the reluctance of academic staff to take office, as they themselves feel unprepared.
To facilitate the birth of new leaders, universities need to develop not only a formal and systematic succession planning strategies (Darvish & Temelie, 2014) but also non-formal ones. Providing opportunities for lecturers to emerge as leaders (for example by giving trust, delegation, and empowering or encouraging them to move forward), is one example of an informal strategy that is also very useful in developing potential leaders. This is in line with the research findings of Allen et al. (2013), in which a greater benefit was found when formal and informal approaches are combined in the succession planning process.

Discussion
Based on the current research findings, the meaning of leadership in a private university can be described as a spectrum. On the one hand, some of the leaders interpret the university in a traditional manner. This is exemplified in the interpretation of a university as a nonprofit entity whose mission is to cultivate knowledge. Such a university is also characterized by a strong academic culture, with collegiality as the basis of its governance. On the other hand, several leaders ascribe meaning to the importance of implementing a stronger management function in managing a higher education institution to achieve effectiveness and efficiency. This approach is mentioned by the University of the Czech Republic as one that "enables us to get more and better output using existing resources" (Kupriyanova et al., 2018, p.606).
Various changes in time periods have had a significant impact on the emergence of this meaning. Changes such as the start of higher education accreditation in 1994 (Fitri, 2010), the massive growth in the number of universities (Santoso, 2011), limited access to the state budget (Andriani, 2007), have forced private universities to be able to respond and survive in this situation. Thus, the implementation of a strong management system without sacrificing academic quality is a step that must be taken by university leaders to ensure the survival of universities.
Two main issues can be considered in this regard. First, although management implementation is recognized to be important for the university as an organization, this idea may not necessarily be accepted by academics in general. This as experienced by one of our participants who acknowledge that the implementation of reward-punishment system could reduce his popularity as a leader (interview result P-7).
Mintzberg (as cited in Ernø-Kjølhede et al., 2001, p.5) view universities as "professional bureaucracies" that are marked by independence in controlling work activities, collegial decision making, and equality between individuals. Conversely, management typically perceives individuals in managerial and nonmanagerial in unequal positions. Thus, management The next affair in corporate-type leadership that needs to be addressed by a university leader is the development of new leaders. As expressed by one leader: "the job of the leader is developing another leader (P-7). The success or failure of a leader in this endeavor is determined not only by how successful the leader is in leading, but also by his or her success in grooming a successor who will take over the wheel of leadership. The concept of systematic leadership development that is widely known in the corporate world (Klein & Salk, 2013), is not yet equally recognized in university contexts.
"I often think and admit the opinion that says that, if after a leader's term ends there is no successor, then it can be said that the leader has failed." (P-13) To enable the emergence of new leaders, current leaders of universities need to provide sizable opportunities for their subordinates to rise as leaders. This can be accomplished by giving trust, delegating tasks, and providing support for other parties to help them progress. This is consistent with the recommendations of Allen et al. (2013), that the appointment of subordinates as deputies, equipped with adequate mentoring, can be an effective tool to prepare them for a position of leadership.
"The leader or leadership process, if I may say, should ideally strengthen others or provide opportunities or support for others, (for them) to develop and progress" (P-13).
Just as it is in for-profit corporations, a leader of a university also needs to carry out the various management functions that characterize corporate leadership (Fayol, as cited in McNamara, 2009). Planning, in this case, becomes one of the most important functions, wherein a leader is expected to respond to different strategic issues that occur and to decide on the actions that need to be taken. This planning itself cannot be separated from the organizational development stage (Daft, 2007). In the relatively new organization for example, most of the planning is geared towards ensuring that the entire system runs smoothly. Leaders often even must be directly involved to ensure the system works. This contrasts with plans at the older universities that focus more on organizational expansion.
Building vision and inviting others to pursue that vision is the next meaning of leadership ascribed. The process of arriving at each leader's unique vision can be objective and rational, but also occasionally intuitive, especially among experienced leaders. In addition, the visions of different leaders can also be distinguished by their leadership styles, as observable from the content and the context in which the vision is founded upon (Kantabutra, 2010). Verbatim explanations that place students, along with their satisfaction and participation, at the center of the process are an example of the content and context of the participant's vision.
Another issue in corporate leadership relates to the developing of new leaders. Although this idea has been introduced in universities, the succession of leadership is not as well known in universities as it implementation can be considered contrary to the values of the university which then can lead to rejection. Moreover, the assumption that the application of management principles will create a liberalization of education (Mainardes et al., 2011) or lead to other negative side-effects (e.g., budget cuts and layoffs) (Kupriyanova et al., 2018) also creates greater resistance.
Secondly, the extent to which a university is open to applying a management approach in its governance seems to be determined also by the age of the university. Although this may not be generalizable, it appears that younger universities have stronger management tendencies. This is attributable to the fact that when these universities were founded, they had already been exposed to many modern challenges and are thus better prepared to face such challenges. The provision of strong governance, along with adequate technological support, will enable universities to face these challenges. It is therefore not surprising that in younger universities, the application of Key Performance Indicators, along with measurable reward-punishment or a business approach in the marketing of the university, is more commonplace.
In response to this, a leader needs to place the university in the center of the spectrum. A university should not lean too far to the right, such as by positioning itself purely as a for-profit organization and losing its idealism in the process. The opposite also holds true, in that a university should neither slant too much to the left that it cuts off the implementation of management in its governance. No matter what, to guarantee their continued existence, management is extremely necessary for universities to be able to respond to the changing of the times. Deciding on the university's main orientation as a non-profit organization and clarifying who the most important stakeholders are (interview result P-6) can help guide the university towards such an awareness.
Communication, then, is the most important thing that leaders need to build in the organizational change process.This first needs to be done by echoing the benefits of change and involving all stakeholders during the process. Efforts to involve all stakeholders, not as actors but also as co-owners, would facilitate the sustainability of the proposed changes (Brown, 2013). This is also consistent with the viewpoint of one participant who saw success as being determined not individually, but by how blended the contributions of all parties are in achieving that success (interview result P-10).
Finally, this study is not without its limitations. First, data collection in the current research was carried out only with private university leaders and therefore may not necessarily reflect the entirety of universities, or all higher education institutions, in Indonesia.
Secondly, the universities included in the study were mostly located on the Indonesian island of Java and may not represent the actual discrepancies between the management of universities inside and outside of Java. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of leadership, future research should therefore be conducted on universities with more diverse characteristics.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results, it can be concluded that university leaders ascribe meanings to their leadership into four different themes. The first theme is the many faces of a university leaders, which consists of three important pillars namely: academic leadership, community leadership, and corporate leadership. The second theme relates to a community leadership style, which consists of collegiality-based leadership style and controlling leadership. The third theme pertains to a leadership mission that is oriented towards the cultivation of knowledge and not for profit. The fourth theme relates to corporate leadership.
How a leader ascribes meaning to the leadership itself can be described as a spectrum. On one end is the view adopted by most leaders, whereby leadership is interpreted from a traditional perspective. On the other end, some leaders place value on the necessity of strong management in the governance of the university as a consequence of the changing times. In responding to the phenomenon, leaders should strive to place the university in the middle of the spectrum. This means that the university should not entirely remove itself from the importance of implementing a management approach, but at the same time it also needs to ensure that it does not lose sight of its noble mission as a university. Communication and the involvement of all stakeholders may prove to be key to the success of this implementation.