1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The history of university education in Nigeria started with

the Elliot Commission of 1943, which led to the establishment

of University College Ibadan (UCI) in 1948 (Oloyede, 2010). In

April, 1959 the Federal Government commissioned an inquiry

(The Ashby Commission) to advise it on the higher education

needs of the country for its first two decades. The Eastern

Region Government before the submission of report by the

commission, established its own university at Nsukka

(University of Nigeria Nsukka in 1960). The implementation of

the Ashby report led to the establishment of University of Ife

(now Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife) in 1962 by the

Western Region, Ahamadu Bello University Zaria in 1962 by the

Northern Region and University of Lagos (1962) by the Federal

Government. In 1970, the newly created Mid-Western Region

opted for a university known as University of Benin. These

became the first generation universities in Nigeria.

 In the Third National Development Plan (1975-1980), the

government established another seven universities and took

over
 2

the four regional universities in 1975 (Oloyede, 2010). The new

universities were Universities of Calabar, Ilorin, Jos, Sokoto,

Maiduguri, Port Harcourt, and Ado Bayero University Kano.

Between 1980 and 1990, five federal universities of technology-

were established in Owerri, Markurdi, Yola, Akure, and Bauchi.

The 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria placed

education on the concurrent legislative list. This development

encouraged various state governments in Nigeria to establish

state universities. This was followed by establishment of private

universities by religious bodies, other organizations, and private

individuals. As at 2012, there were thirty seven federal

universities, thirty eight state universities and fifty private

universities in Nigeria. (NUC, 2012).

In addition to being centres for knowledge acquisition,

universities are also centres for the pursuit of excellence,

cultivation of dignity, respect, self-improvement, and self-

actualization. Universities provide the needed manpower to

accelerate the growth and development of the

economy.According to the National Policy on Education (2008),

the goals of university education shall be to:

 3

(a) Contribute to national development through high level

manpower training;

1. Provide accessible and affordable quality learning

opportunities in formal and informal education in response to

the needs and interests of all Nigerians;

2. Provide high quality career counselling and life- long learning

programmes that prepare students with the knowledge and

skills for self-reliance and the world of work;

3. Reduce skill shortage through the production of skilled

manpower relevant to the needs of the labour market;

4. Promote and encourage scholarship, entrepreneurship and

community service;

5. Forge and cement national unity; and

(g) Promote national and international understanding

and intervention.

To achieve the goals of university education in Nigeria,

there is the need to ensure proper management of the

personnel, finances, properties and expenditure of the

universities. In the core of the university enterprise are the

academic staff who are employed to research, teach and carry

out community service through knowledge application. The

complexity associated with

 4

increase in population of the members of the university

community, students and the teachers, as well as the increase

in the curriculum, made the function of the masters (teachers)

relative to their students difficult and cumbersome (Ogunruku,

2012). That necessitated the need for more non-academic

workers to facilitate the academic processes and assist the

academic to focus attention on their core responsibilities

(teaching and research). Part of these non-academic workers

constitute the administrators. Adegbite (1994) identified five

categories of administrators who are involved in the day to day

administration and governance of the university. These are the

policy group, the career administrators, the professionals in

administration, the academic administrators, and academics in

administration. The policy groups are the members of the

governing council, senate, principal officers as stipulated by

Statue (Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor(s), Registrar,

Bursar and University Librarian) (Adegbite, 1994).

Of all the groups of administrators, the governing council

is at the apex of the organogram of a typical university in

Nigeria. The governing council is the governing body of the

university with powers over the general management of the

university.
 5

Theuniversity governing council operates under the

fundamental legal authority over the university (Saint, 2009). In

particular, it is charged with the overall responsibility for the

personnel, finances and expenditure, and property of the

university. Governing council is tasked with defining a strategic

vision for the institution, setting institutional policies,

monitoring institutional performance, and ensuring good

stewardship of the institution's assets.

As part of the measures to strengthen university

governance and administration, the Federal Government on

10th July 2003 signed into law the Universities (Miscellaneous

Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003, otherwise called the

University Autonomy Act. The Act among other issues provided

a detailed guide for the structure, tenure, functions and

operations of governing councils in universities in Nigeria. The

law provided that the governing council is the governing

authority of each university and has the custody, control and

disposition of all property and finances of the university. Other

functions are:

1 To participate in the making, amendment or revocation of

statues;
 6

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, Nigeria

universities are facing a lot of challenges. The challenges

include inadequacies in the use of technology for teaching and

learning, deficiencies in using modern methods of teaching,

inadequacies in the up-to-date of content taught, and reduced

commitment to meeting teaching and evaluation

responsibilities to students. Others are staff with skills in

modern methods of conducting research are few and

infrastructure for ground-breaking research is weak (Okebukola,

2010). The Web Ranking of Nigeria universities 2014, ranked

the best university in Nigeria (Obafemi Awolowo University) as

the 25th in Africa and the 1700th in the world. In the South East

the best university based on the 2014 web ranking (University

of Nigeria Nsukka) was ranked 75th in Africa. Considering the

numerous challenges facing universities and poor ranking of

universities in Nigeria, one begins to wonder whether or not the

governing councils of universities are performing their

stipulated functions satisfactorily. It is against this background

that this study is set out to assess the university council

performance in the South East Nigeria.

 9

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Universities in Nigeria are facing a lot of challenges.

Omolewa (2010) identified some of the challenges to include

the form of the quality and quantity of local and international

patronage and support, staff and students funding, the

development of infrastructure, improving the learning

environment in the form of libraries, laboratories and now the

internet, reliable electricity and water supply, security of staff

and students and academic freedom. Okebukola (2010)

buttressed this assertion when he observed that a gap exists

between status of Nigerian universities and world class

standards in the following areas, inadequacies in the use of

technology for teaching and learning, deficiencies in using

modern methods of teaching, inadequacies in the up-to-date of

content taught, and reduced commitment to meeting teaching

and evaluation responsibilities to students, skills in modern

methods of conducting research are few, infrastructure for

ground breaking research is weak and there is also the

limitation of funds for research. Others are inadequacies of

extension services to industries and agriculture and in

providing viable solutions to

 10

local problems demanding government patronage of services

outside the university, severe delays in the release of students

results and transcripts; social vices, poor quality of graduates,

low potential for internally generated revenue, instability of

academic calendar and Nigeria universities tend to over-man

non-academic units while not adequately manning academic

units.

The above challenges have affected the quality of

graduates produced from Nigerian universities. NUC (2004)

assessment study on the labour market expectations of

graduates from Nigerian universities revealed that there were

scores of unemployed graduates roaming the streets and more

embarrassingly, those who were lucky to secure employment

had to undergo remedial training in order to bridge the huge

knowledge and skill gaps leftover from university training.

Furthermore, the decline in the quality of Nigeria university

education can be deduced from the 2014 web ranking of the

best university in Nigeria (Obafemi Awolowo University) as the

twenty fifth (25th) in Africa and one thousand seven hundred

(1700th) in the world. In the South East, there is no university in

the zone listed among the first forty six in the 2014 African

ranking of
 11

universities. The poor quality of products of universities and the

low ranking of universities in Nigeria in the web ranking of

universities in Africa and the world could be attributed to poor

performance of the various categories of administrators in the

university system. As the governing councils are at the apex of

the universities organigram in Nigeria, they are expected to

play a leading role in ensuring that universities live up to their

expectations.It is against this background therefore that it is

necessary to assess the university council performance.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to assess the university

council performance in North East Nigeria.

Perform personnel functions.

Maintain university culture.

Carry out financial functions.

Monitor and review programmes and awards.

Carry out external relations functions.

Maintain internal relationships.

Carry out development and maintenance of facilities and

infrastructure.
1.4 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will be of immense benefit to

policy makers, members of the governing council, university

administrators, universities' regulating agencies, academic and

non-academic staff, students, university community and the

general public.

Policy makers will find the outcome of this study useful in

assessing the achievements and performance of governing

councils of universities under their control and supervision. The

study will provide the policy makers quantitative and

qualitative indicators on the extent of performance of

governing council functions. This will facilitate the process of

decision making by the policy makers.

The findings of this study will provide governing councils

information they may need for self-evaluation of the extent of

performance in their functions. It will provide them indicators of

progress, or lack thereof, in the achievements of their set goals.

It
 13

will also equip governing council members with information

they need for timely decision making, to ensure that they are

meeting the university community expectations and

expectations of the supervising agencies such as the National

Universities Commission, the Joint Admission and Matriculation

Board and the Federal and States Ministries of Education.

Furthermore, the findings will help governing council members

to keep on track and know when they are deviating from their

statutory functions.

On the part of the other university administrators

(Principal Officers, Deans of Faculty, Heads of Department etc.)

the findings of this study will be a guide in the implementation

of decisions and policies made by the governing councils. The

findings will help the administrators to identify and clarify the

scope, purpose and the limits of governing council activities in

the universities. The findings will also abreast administrators of

the kind of information they may be required to provide to

governing council members to enable them carry out their

functions effectively and adequately.

The academic and non-academic staff of the universities

are major stakeholders in university education. The findings of

this study and the recommendations thereof will help enhance

the
 14

realization of the welfare and improved working conditions of

the staff. The findings will in addition provide a guide for future

research undertaking by the academic staff.

The findings of this study will be of benefit to university

regulating agencies such as the National University Commission

(NUC), Federal and State Ministries of Education, the Visitors

(President for Federal Universities, State Governors for State

Universities). The extent of performances of governing councils

in their functions will go a long way in determining whether or

not to widen the caliber of people to be appointed into

governing councils, the spread of membership to different

professions and trades and inclusion of international

membership in governing councils as obtainable in some other

countries. The regulatory agencies will also find the outcomes

of this study of immense help in the formulation and

implementation of policies towards enhancing quality

assurance in university education in Nigeria.

The findings and recommendations of this study will be of

benefit to students in that they will be guided in channeling

their demands and protests when need arises to the university

governing councils. The findings will highlight the shortcomings

of the governing councils thus students will be able to

 15

disaggregate their challenges in schools in terms of problems

arising from poor performance of governing councils and

limitations of other categories of administrators. This will

enable the students to channel their demands appropriately.

Finally, the university community will benefit from the

findings of this study. The university community as a major

stake holder in university education will find the findings of this

study helpful in assessing the governing councils‟ performance of

their functions. The findings will provide the members of the

university community valuable information that will assist them

in monitoring and evaluating of the quality of the products of

the universities and the extent governing councils provide

enabling environment for teaching and learning in universities

in Nigeria.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The study was delimited to all the federal and universities

in North East Nigeria. Content wise, the study was delimited to

the seven broad groups of the functions of governing councils

namely personnel functions; maintenance of university culture;

financial functions; monitoring and review of programmes and

awards; external relations; internal relationships; development

and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure.

1.6 Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:

To what extent do the governing councils perform personnel

functions in federal and state universities?

To what extent do the governing councils maintain university

culture in federal and state universities?

To what extent do the governing councils carry out financial

functions in federal and state universities?

To what extent do the governing councils monitor and review

programmes and awards in federal and state universities?

To what extent do the governing councils carry out external

relations in federal and state universities?

To what extent do the governing councils maintain internal

relationships in federal and state universities?

 17

To what extent do the governing councils develop and

maintain facilities and infrastructure in federal and state

universities?

Null Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of

significance:

1. There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

performance of personnel functions.

2. There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

maintenance of university culture

There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

performance of financial functions.

4. There is no significant difference in the mean ratings

of governing councils of federal and state universities in

their
 18

performance of monitoring and review of programmes and

awards functions.

There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

performance of external relations functions.

6. There is nosignificant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

performance of internal relationship functions.

There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of

governing councils of federal and state universities in their

performance of development and maintenance of facilities

and infrastructure functions.

 19

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, existing concepts, theories and empirical

studies that are related to the study were reviewed. The review
was done under the following subheadings: conceptual
framework, theoretical framework, theoretical studies,
empirical studies and summary of review of related literature.
Conceptual Framework
Concept of University
Concept of University Governing Council
Concept of Public University
Concept of Structure and Composition of University Governing
Council
Theoretical Framework
Systems Theory
Mega Planning Theory
Theoretical Studies
Personnel Functions
Maintenance of University Culture
Financial Functions
Monitoring and Review of Programmes and Awards
External Relations Functions
Internal Relationships
Development and Maintenance of Facilities and Infrastructure
Empirical Studies
Studies Related to Governing Council Functions
Summary of Review of Related Literature
 20

Concept of University

Universities, according to Encarta dictionary, are

“Educational Institutions for higher learning that typically

include undergraduate college and graduate schools in various

disciplines, as well as medical and law schools and sometimes

other professional schools. The dictionary.com defines

Universities as “Institutions of learning of the highest level,

having a College of liberal arts and a programme of graduate

studies together with several professional schools, as of

theology, law, medicine and engineering, and authorized to

confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Thus

university is an establishment where a seat of higher learning is

housed, including administrative and living quarters. It is the

body of faculty and students of a university; a large and diverse

institution of higher learning created to educate for life and for

a profession and to grant degree. Ogunruku (2012) summarized

a University as;

An institution – “an establishment consisting of a building or

complex of buildings where an organization for the

promotion of some cause is situated; a custom that for a

long time has been an important feature of some group or

 21

society; an organization founded and united for

specific

purpose‟

An institution that is committed to higher education and the

advancement of knowledge in various disciplines and

professional programmes.

An institution with administrative and living quarters and

which award degrees in undergraduate and graduate

programmes.

By its very nature, a university is an institution that is guided

and guarded by democratic norms. It is structured in a

hierarchical mode that allows for centrifugal operations.

Universities are universal academic communities where

students from across the world have placement. Such

universities are generally referred to as studies generalia.

Some other universities draw their students from their localities

such universities are referred to as stadium particulare.

To all, university is first and foremost a community of scholars

and students committed to the search for knowledge in specific

areas. They are institutions that are committed to knowledge

generation through research, knowledge dissemination through

teaching and knowledge application through community

 22

service.Subsequently, however, the search for knowledge

became important for solving societal needs, hence the interest

of society in the institution not as secluded ivory towers but

special interest for advancing the course of the society, the

economy and its politics. Consequently, the contending power

of the state, the church and interested individuals became

interested in becoming proprietors of tapping knowledge from

the enclave to solve societal problems (Ogunruku, 2012)

Universities are multi-purpose organizations undertaking

research and public services.Generally, the functions of each

university are to establish campuses, colleges,

faculties/schools, extra-moral departments and other teaching

and research unit; institute Professorships, Readerships and

Lectureships and other offices for the pursuit of their

objectives; institute fellowships and scholarships, bursaries and

prizes; determine the conditions for admission of candidates to

various programmes; grants and confer honorary degrees,

fellowships and other academic distinctions; provide for the

welfare and discipline of members of the university; deprive,

for good cause, any person so determined the degree, diploma,

certificate, fellowship, studentship, bursary, medal prize or

other distinctions earlier conferred; to demand,

 23

receive from persons attending the university such fees for the

purpose of instruction; accept and give gifts, legacies and

donations; enter into contracts, establish trusts and act as

trustee; erect, provide, equip and maintain libraries,

laboratories, lecture halls, halls of residence, refectories, sports

grounds, playing fields and other buildings or other things

necessary, suitable or convenient for any of the objects of the

university (Ogunruku, 2012).

Concept of University Governing Council

The constituent organs in a university are those

established by the laws and the statues of the university. There

are the council, the senate, the congregation, the convocation

and the faculty boards/boards of studies. Of all the organs, the

governing council is at the apex of the university organigram in

Nigeria. The governing council is the governing body (authority)

of the university with powers over the general management of

the university (Ogunruku, 2012).

The council is headed by the Pro-Chancellor who is the

chairman. The council is constituted to comprise

representatives
 24

of the various stakeholders: Government, the university

community, the alumni and the Ministry of Education.

The council exercises its functions through committees.

Generally, the committees of the council include;

The Finance and General purpose committee

The Tenders Board

Building, Works and Estate Committee

Administrative Staff Committee

Honorary Degree Committee

Legal Review Committee

Board of Advancement

Copyright and Patents Committee

Advisory Committee on Students Affairs

Appointments and Promotion committee for Academic Staff

Appointments and Promotion committees for Senior

Administrative and Technical Staff (SATS)

Disciplinary Committee etc.

The committees meet in between council meetings as clearing

houses for council and report their operations to council for

approval as appropriate.
 25

The governing council generally undertakes roles which

ensure that the university operates in conformity with the

peoples interests. The council is the policy making organ of

university and is constituted to reflect good representativeness

of the Nigerian public having the ultimate purpose of rendering

service to the nation rather than a section of the society

(Mohammed, 1988). In this regard therefore, a university

governing council is empowered by law to do anything which in

its opinion is calculated to facilitate the carrying on of the

activities of the university.

Mohammed (1988) adds that a university governing

council wields tremendous powers and authority. University

governing council are tasked with defining a strategic vision for

the institution, setting institutional policies, monitoring

institutional performance and ensuring good stewardship of the

institutions assets (Saint, 2009). It is charged with approving the

university‟s budget, takes responsibility for quality assurance

and the equivalence of academic awards, defines salary

structures, terms of employment for academic staff, and or

recruitment of the principal officers of the university. It is also

empowered to set students fees.

 26

Larsen (2001) listed the functions of governing boards to

include;

Responsibility for maintaining a high standard of academic

quality

Draw up a strategy for the institutions educational

programmes, research and other academic activity.

Responsibility for the disposition of the institutions economic

resource.

Responsibility for making the internal organization of

activities appropriate and cost effective

Responsibility for the budget accounts and reporting of

results.

These functions are carried out in accordance with applicable

laws, regulations, rules, limits and targets laid down by the

authorities.

Concept of Public University

Public university is a university that awards degrees and

awards that receive a share of funding from the federal or state

government and serve as a critical component of the overall

higher education landscape.These universities enroll a large

 27

number of undergraduate and graduate levels and maintain

relatively low tuition when compared with private

universities.Public universities provide a number of services to

their states and the nation, such as improving access to

cutting-edge medical care and contributing to protection of

natural resources at the national, state and local level.

Concept of Structure and Composition of University Governing

Council

In any organization, the management structure is the

hierarchy of the authorities involved in the management process

and the devolution of powers and responsibilities at those

levels.In other words, the management structure of an

organization is the chain of authorities and the functions of each

level of authorities (Oloyede, 2010).Management structure of

universities in Nigeria comprises the Chancellor of the university

who is the ceremonial head of the institution. He is next only to

the titular head of the institution who is the Visitor- the

Proprietor and President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the

Governor of a state. Next is the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of

Council, who presides at every statutory meeting of the

 28

institution.The Vice Chancellor is the field Officer who sees to

the daily administration of the university. He presides at every

Senate meeting and at such other meetings of some of the

Council Committees, as well as the Congregation.

The composition of council of federal universities is

provided for in the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions)

(Amendment) Act, 2003. Under the Act, the Governing Council

of Federal Universities consist of:

The Pro- Chancellor

The Vice Chancellor

The Deputy Vice Chancellor

(d) One person from the Federal Ministry of Education

Four persons representing a variety of interest and broadly

representatives of the whole federation to be appointed by

the National Council of Ministers.

Four persons appointed by the Senate from among its

members

Two persons appointed by the Congregation from among its

members; and

(h) One person appointed by Convocation from among its

members.
 29

The composition of Governing Council of State Universities is

similar to the above with minor variations to suit the peculiar

needs of the states.

The council so constituted shall have tenure of four years from

the date of its inauguration provided that where a council is

found to be incompetent and corrupt it shall be dissolved by

the Visitor and a new council immediately constituted for the

effective functioning of the university.

Theoretical Framework

Systems Theory

Von Bertalanffy was the founder and chief proponent of

the system theory and it was propounded in the year 1950. The

systems theory considers the school as a set of distinguishable

but interrelated and interdependent parts operating in a logical

manner or sequence in order to achieve a goal. The theory

argues that a system must be viewed as a whole where

changes in one part of the system affect the other parts and

the entire system. The whole is not just a sum total of the

subsystems, but a holistic representation of the characteristics,

what the whole can do, the sub-system cannot.

 30

The systems theory considers the school as a set of

distinguishable but interrelated and interdependent parts

operating in a logical manner or sequence in order to achieve a

goal. On a wider scope, this theory considers educational

institutions as sub systems operating within an environment

and tries to apply the system approach to problems (Onele,

2014). Knowledge of system theory gives the educational

managers (including governing council members) an insight

into the importance of involving the community, being

receptive to external forces in order to regulate and maintain

itself in a desired "steady state". Related to this is the

importance of gaining purposive and evaluative feedback

channels. Thus, there is need for critical feedback which rather

than positive or re-entering, is necessary for an open system

like the educational system (Onele, 2014). In universities,

internal feedback is needed between governing council

members and principal officers, staff and students as well as

external feedback between the university and the community.

Thus the governing council members should maximize the

university relationship with regulating agencies such as federal

and state ministries of education, National Universities

Commission, Joint Admission and Matriculation

 31

Board etc. Governing council does not exist in isolation rather

than it is functionally related and necessarily contributes to a

larger system. That is, it is actually a sub-system of a larger

organization. Being an open system, it draws on its

environment, and, its outputs affect the environment.

Mega Planning Theory

Mega planning theory was founded by Roger Kaufman in

1972 in his book; Educational System Planning and further

developed in Kaufman & English 1979. Mega thinking and

planning is about defining a shared success, achieving it, and

being able to prove it. Mega thinking and planning is a focus

not

on one‟s organization alone but upon society now and in the

future. It is about adding measurable value to all stakeholders.

Mega planning is a critical aspect of successfully defining,

prioritizing, and achieving useful educational results (i.e.,

societal and community results, payoffs, and consequences). It

is characterized by planning where the primary client and

beneficiary is society, now and in the future. Mega planning

views individuals and organizations as means to societal ends,

 32

and begins by identifying the Outcomes that an institution

commits to contribute to society. Mega planning includes these

levels of planning (Macro and Micro) as well as by aligning them

with positive societal contributions.

Mega planning begins from the belief and assumption that

the primary purpose of every person and every organization is

to create a better world for the child of Tomorrow. The

applicable principles of mega planning include; (1) Needs exist

at mega (societal), macro (organizational), and micro

(individual/team) levels. (2) Needs are gaps in results.Strategic

Management: A Stakeholder Approach, he set the Agenda for

what is known as stakeholder theory. Thus an educational

institution benefits from the application of Mega planning when

it creates and assures the linkages between the mega, macro,

micro, process, and inputs levels of the Organizational

Elements Model (Kaufman, Herman, and Water 1996).

In the light of the mega planning theory, the governing

councils of universities have to create value for students,

employers, financiers, communities and all who intervene in

the activities of the university in one form or the other.

 33

Theoretical Studies

Personnel Functions

The human resource is the most important resource of any

organization and any effort spared in motivating the workforce

will pay off. In this era of globalization, organizations are not

only paying for their inefficiencies they are also paying for the

global inefficiency, and environmental degradation (Orga &

Ogbo, 2012). Organizations that do not put their emphasis on

attracting and retaining talents may find themselves in dire

consequences, as their competitors may be outplaying them in

the strategic employment of their human resource. With the

increase in competition, locally and globally, organizations must

achieve a competitive advantage. Bohlander, Snell and

Sherman (2001) argued that why people have always been

central to organizations, they have now taken on an even more

central role in building a firm's competitive advantage.

Research in human resource management (HRM) has

established that the success of any organization is highly

influenced by the caliber of its human resource (HR), which in

turn, is affected by the organization's human resource

management practices (Okoh, 2005).

 34

Armstrong (2006) observed that the assumptions

underpinning the practice of human resource management is

that people are the organization's key resource and

organizational performance largely depends on them.

Therefore, if, an appropriate range of human resource polices

and processes are developed and implemented effectively,

then human resource will make a sustainable impact on

organizations performance.

Boohene and Asuinura, (2011) argued that the case for an

association between human resource management and

organization performance is based on two arguments: The first

one being that the effective deployment of human resources

offers one of the most powerful bases of competitive

advantage. The second argument is that effective deployment

of human resources depends on the application of a distinctive

combination of practices or the use of consistent set of human

resource practices. Again, according to Collins and Druten

(2003) researchers have produced compelling evidence for the

causal link between how people are managed and

organizations performance. They argue that the effectiveness

of human resource practices, particularly employee selection

procedures, performance appraisal, compensation

management, and
 35

employee training and development often have a direct bearing

on organizational productivity and performance. Also Boohene

and Asuinura (2011) presented that, the result of effectively

managed human resources is an enhanced ability to attract

and retain qualified employees who are motivated to perform.

To them, the benefits of having the right employees motivated

to perform include greater profitability, low employee turnover,

high product quality, lower production costs, and more rapid

acceptance and implementation of corporate strategy.

Training and development is an important area for

appropriate range of policies and processes. Human resource is

the most dynamic of all resources of any organization;

therefore, considerable attention must be given to human

development in the organization (Osemeke, 2012). Employee

development is a necessary effort of a company to improve

quality and to meet the challenges of global competition and

social change (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2004).

Huselid (1995), Oshionebo (2007) noted that providing formal

and informal training experiences, such as basic skills training,

on-the-job experience, coaching, mentoring and management

development can further influence employees development and

hence, their
 36

performance. Employee compensation management is another

important area. Compensation management is concerned with

the formulation and implementation of strategies and policies,

the purpose of which is to reward people fairly, equitably and

consistently in accordance with their value to the organization

and thus help the organization to achieve its strategic goals.

Armstrong (2006) presented that the philosophy of reward

management recognized that if resource management is about

investing human capital from which a reasonable return is

required, then it is proper to compensate people differently,

according to their contributions.

Another important policy issue is staff performance

appraisal. The process of performance management, according

to Campbell and Adebayo (2007), involved a continuous

judgment on the behavior and performance of staff. It is

important that employees know exactly what is expected of

them, and the yardstick by which their performance and results

will be measured. Most importantly, an effective appraisal

scheme can improve the future performance of staff (Osemeke,

2012). According to Campbell et al (2007), there is a clear and

strong
 37

relationship between organizational performance and the

attention given to performance management and employee

appraisal.

Employee recruitment and selection is another critical

personnel policy issue. Ezali and Esiagu (2010) stated the

success of any organization or efficiency in service delivery

depends on the quality of its workforce who was recruited into

the organization through recruitment and selection exercises.

Recruitment and selection involve getting the best applicants

for a job. Recruitment is the process of attracting a sufficient

number of individuals with right profile in terms of

qualifications, experience, skills and other relevant attributes to

indicate their interest in working for the organization (Obikeze

& Obi, 2004). Mullins (1999) pointed out that the important

thing is for some suitable plans to be used; and that the plan is

appropriate to the essential or desired characteristic of the

candidate. It is also necessary to comply with all legal

requirements relating to employment and equal opportunities,

to follow recommended codes of practice and to ensure justice

and fair treatment for all applicants. When the best people are

selected for the job, productivity increases (Osemeke, 2012).

Trustees (governing
 38

council) are expected to assure policy and fiduciary

responsibilities, hire and fire the chief executive officer, and in

most cases, approve the appointment of senior officers (Laner,

1997). Williams (2011) stated that boards (governing councils)

must have the vision and ability to stay on course, to

effectively and efficiently manage and utilize fiscal and human

resources, and handle a myriad of issues that affect the

operations of the institutions. Also the Association of Governing

Boards, (n.d.) affirmed that fulfilling the mission of hiring a

CEO, assessing

the president and engaging in their fiduciary responsibility are

responsibilities that boards are charged with.

Maintenance of University Culture

Organizational culture is conceptualized as shared beliefs

and values within the organization that helps to shape the

behavior patterns of employees (Kotter & Heskett, 1992).

Gordon and Cummins (1989) defined organization culture as

the drive that recognizes the efforts and contributions of the

organizational members and provides holistic understanding of

what and how to be achieved, how employee could attain

goals. Hofstede (1980) summarized organizational culture as

collective process of the mind that differentiates the members

of one group from the other

 39

one. The organizational culture is outlined in Schein (1990) as

overall phenomenon of the organization such as natural

settings, the rite and rituals, climate, values and programmes

of the company e.g. performances management, training and

development, recruitment and selection, etc.

This cluster includes the following factors- transparency of

the board, openness in discussion, level of involvement of

directors, atmosphere at board meetings, sharing of common

vision by directors and level of team spirit on the board. Culture

in this case is a set of informal unwritten rules which regulate

board and directors behavior. A vibrant board that works

towards adding value to the organization should have a culture

of open debate and freedom of thought. It should also have a

high level of director involvement in board meeting and

activities.

The general atmosphere at the board will determine to

some extent the way the board operates, a friendlier and open

atmosphere will lead to frank and useful discussions and

debates. Boards need to pursue a common vision if all directors

are going to 'sing from the same song sheet' (Ogbechie &

Koufopoulos, 2010).
 40

"Board culture refers to the norms and values that

guide board work. To be effective, boards must adopt
professional culture where civil interactions are the
norm. In addition, many individuals who are
appointed or elected to public boards do not have
experience with board work and must be socialized to
its values. Board culture affects overall board
performance in several ways, 'by shaping the
decision process, by leading toward or away from
consensus, by using data to understand or argue, or
by not using at all, by building or not building
constructive relationships among members, and by
influencing which matters get on to the board's
agenda "(Kezar, 2006:987).

When a board has established a professional culture

rather

than political culture; decisions will be more rational, debates

will

focus on ideas rather than power, and agenda items will reflect

collegiality rather than the individual desires of powerful

members. Kezar (2006) stressed that the Chief Executive

Officer

and Board Chair can and should nurture/model the desired

qualities of board members and should create a culture where

certain behavior is accepted. Board members need to be civil,

appreciate working in diverse groups, have patience for

consensus, be open to multiple views, subsume his or her

judgments to the collective, be politically astute, be big picture

thinkers, honest, wise, and have a capacity to understand

complexity. Although these represent certain skill, they also

 41

represent the values of the board and the approach that needs

to be taken to effectively do our work. Board chairs are the

most visible symbol of the values. If they do not live them, it is

unlikely that the board will have them (Kezar, 2006).

A troubling aspect of most public boards is that people

come to the work with a particular ideology based on their

political party, yet the work of the board needs to be carried out

in a nonpartisan way. The board chair and CEO play a role in

working with new board members to make them aware that

decisions are based on what is good for the overall institution

and to re-enforce that the board values civility (Kezar 2006).

Another strategy is that all groups should be treated similarly.

No one should receive more information and there should be

equal communication. There needs to be a high degree of

transparency with all work and communication among all board

members. This also deputizes the board.

Writing on boards in the banking industry, Ogbechie and

Koufopoulos (2012) stated that behavioural characteristics of

directors will have a bearing on the effectiveness of the board.

Directors with domineering and over bearing personality are

 42

likely to cause disharmony on the board. Integrity of directors,

their ethical standard and attitude will likely influence their

expectation and behaviour on the board. Board culture

includes; transparence of the board, openness in discussion,

level of involvement of directors, atmosphere of board meeting,

sharing of common vision by directors and level of team spirit

on the board (Ogbechie & Koufopoulos 2012). Culture in this

case is a set of informal unwritten rules which regulate board

and directors' behaviour. A vibrant board that works towards

adding value to the bank should have a culture of open debate

and freedom of thought. It should also have a high level of

director's involvement in board meeting and activities. The

general atmosphere at the board will determine to some extent

the way the board operates, a friendlier and open atmosphere

will lead to frank and useful discussions and debates (Ogbeche

& Koufopoulos 2012). In the words of Welsh (2010) ensuring

the ethics of institutional and board actions is a vital

responsibility for the governing board. Due to external

pressure, boards must pay attention to issues of ethics: Many

states have established strong standard for behaviour,

requiring board trustees and professionals' interests (Leslie &

MacTaggart, 2008).
 43

A challenge faced by public governing boards like

community colleges in fulfilling their governing role is the need

to deliberate in full public view. All states have established

open records or "sunshine laws" that require meetings and

records be open to public review (Leslie & MacTaggart, 2008;

Mclendon & Hearn, 2006). In an examination of the impact of

sunshine laws on boards of trustees in six states, Mclendon and

Hearn (2006) found that most respondents felt that the benefits

of openness outweighed the costs.

Financial Functions

Nowadays financial resources are inadequate and not

always available to sustain university projects, hence university

Bursars should ensure greater accountability and eliminate

waste. (Mohammed, 1988). Yusuf, et al (2010) observed that in

comparison with other African nations, Nigeria funding on

education is less than ten percent. This has created some

problems and a disabling environment that hamper goal-

realization for the Nigerian universities. Among such problems

according to Adesina (2005), are lack of focus; failure to relate

enrolment to available human and material resources,

excessive
 44

trade unionism, decaying and obsolete learning and teaching

facilities unbecoming of centres of excellence, inadequate

research and frustrated staff and students and poor

remuneration packages for teaching and non -teaching staff.

These pose great challenges to university governing councils.

Neville (1988) stated that a university is a several hundred

million naira operation. The council should lay down general

policy but the Vice Chancellor is the manager (Neville). Kezar

(2006) listed specific areas to be considered for governing

boards effectiveness in financial management to include

involvement in preparation, approval, and monitoring of the

budget; whether board members have expertise in long range

fiscal planning and analysis of financial reports; and whether

board members receive financial reports, and if these are

useful.

In a study McDonagh (2006) stated that findings indicated

that expenses decreased and profitability increased as

board‟sperformance increased. Okojie, J. A. the National

Universities Commission Executive Secretary observed that

many Nigerian universities such as the University of Lagos,

University of Maiduguri, University of Benin, Bayero University

Kano and
 45

Nnamdi Azikiwe University (NAU) have developed creative fund

generation strategies which are assisting the running of the

universities. He explained some varieties of creative strategies

which universities may utilize such as: Alumni tracking,

database of alumni, periodic contact with alumnus to maintain

sense ofbelonging, Alumni Consultancy/Services;

Linkages/partner ships with philanthropists/donor agencies,

collaborative research and development; Small and Medium

Scale enterprises like built-up shops for rent, operation of cyber

cafes, fee for-services parking lots, launderettes, transportation

services, renting of halls in idle time and other ventures that

create avenues for student-work programmes.

Empirical Studies

Some studies that are related to governing council (boards) are

presented in this section.

Kezar (2006) conducted a study on rethinking public

higher education governing board performance in the United

States. The study conducted elite interview with 132 different

experts on board performance. The snowball sampling

technique was used as those interviewed provided additional

names of people whom they knew were particularly insightful

and had significant

 57

expertise with higher education boards. Two research questions

were formulated for the study. The study found out among

others that there are a set of unique elements necessary to

facilitate high performance among public higher education

boards. One of the factors that appear to differentiate public

from private board performance is the political nature of public

boards, leadership in public boards takes the form of a formal

agenda and involves stake holder input.

English (2008) conducted a study on board competencies

and peer mentoring in East Carolina, United States. A cross-

sectional quantitative non-experimental study was

implemented using an internet-based survey to gather data

from mentors, mentees and professional board staff at

participating institutions. The main body data was gathered

from closed-ended Likert-scale survey questions. Nine hundred

and twenty-seven (927) board professionals, each representing

one post-secondary governing board from the association of

governing boards of colleges and universities board

professional membership list, were invited to participate. Three

research questions and six hypotheses were formulated for the

study. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey data

beginning with sample demographics

 58

through a review of perceptual differences associated with

each hypothesis.

The study found out that there may be a mismatch

between the perceptions of board professionals, mentors and

mentees regarding the presence of training related to the

mentoring program's purpose. There is also a discrepancy

between mentor and mentee perception of the content of

mentoring discussions, mentors perceived discussion of each of

the board competency dimension to a greater extent than did

mentees among others. The mismatch between the perceptions

of board professionals (governing council members and

principal officers of universities) will create discrepancies in

formulation and implementation of personnel policies with

respect to training and development of staff.

Williams (2011) conducted a study on assessing the

impact of governing boards for Louisiana Public Institutions of

higher learning regarding policy and governance in Louisiana,

United States. The research was conducted utilizing the

grounded theory approach of qualitative research. Five

research questions were formulated for the study. The

researcher used a research technique called axil coding to

interpret the collected data. Axil

 59

coding is utilized when the categories and themes that have

emerged from the interviews are compared, cross-referenced,

and analyzed across data. All chains of Louisiana public higher

education governing boards and one member were

interviewed.

The findings of the study were that Louisiana governing

boards have made significant impacts on their respective

systems regarding policy and governance; however, there is

room for improvement to enhance their performance, and

establishing effective policies and governance will make public

higher education institutions more effective and efficient with

their resources. Thus the findings indicate that there are rooms

for improvements in the performances of governing councils in

their functions in higher education institutions including

universities.

Myers (1997) conducted a study on maintaining the public

trust: core competencies associated with effective governing

boards of state multi-campus systems of higher education in

Maryland, United States. The inductive approach was adopted

in the study. The inductive route was taken by talking directly

to board members about their experiences - both good and bad

- to gain insight into what makes for good system governance.

Four research questions and two hypothesis were formulated

for the
 60

study. A sample of twenty seven board members was selected

from proposed list of six study sites. ANOVA was adopted in the

analysis of the data.

The study found that effective governing boards of multi-

campus systems demonstrate identifiable behaviours that can

be categorized and those behaviours are characteristic of all

the competency dimensions - to greater or lesser degrees - in

the Chait, Holland and Taylor model. However, the behaviours

that really appear to define those exemplary boards are those

characteristic of the political, analytical and strategic

dimensions. The results also show that the behaviours of

exemplary boards in the study vary from those of the less than

exemplary study sites. There, behaviours in the political,

analytical and strategic dimensions played less a role in

predicting board effectiveness; behaviours in the contextual

and interpersonal dimensions played a greater role in

contributing to board effectiveness and, equally important,

behaviours in the educational and strategic dimensions

appeared to diminish board effectiveness. These behaviours to

a large extent influence the maintenance of internal and

external relationships by governing council members in the

universities.
 61

Bikmoradi (2009) carried out a study on exploring

academic leadership in medical schools and universities in Iran.

The study adopted methodological triangulation. The results of

two qualitative and two quantitative studies were combined to

achieve the research objectives. The qualitative methodologies

included use of an expert panel to explore requirements of

effective academic leadership. The quantitative technique used

included a nationwide survey to explore the preferences and

perception of faculties with regard to organizational culture,

values and routines. A semi-structured consultation guide was

used to conduct discussion in the investigation. Factor analysis

was used to assess consistency and reliability. A sample of 40

participants was used in the study.

The study found that the requirements of effective

academic leadership in Iranian medical schools and universities

could be grouped with six themes: 1) shared vision, goals and

strategies;

teaching and research leadership; 3) transformational and

collaborative leadership; 4) development and recognition

performance; 5) fair and efficient management; 6) climate of

mutual trust and respect. There are some barriers to effective

academic leadership, for example politicization, instability,

 62

paradoxical management, lack of meritocracy, centralization,

bureaucracy, and belief in misconceptions. These barriers no

doubt will affect the performances of governing council

functions in universities.

Welsh (2010) carried out a study on increasing a

community college governing board's engagement in

accountability for students' success: what are the principal

influence in Texas, United States. The study employed

qualitative research using a grounded theory approach with a

single-case design. A combination of interviews and

observation was adopted. Purposive sample approach was used

in selecting the college that was studied. Purposive sampling

was also used to select individuals who were interviewed. Two

research questions were formulated for the study. A grounded

theory of data coding was used for the study identified eight

factors or affinities that influenced the governing board's

interest in students success. These include board

characteristics (values, skills, knowledge, expertise, life

experience and personalities that influence board behaviour),

achieving the dream, changing external context, students

success, board roles and responsibilities ( policy making,

setting direction, leadership, establishing high

 63

expectations, fiscal responsibility and evaluation and

compensating employees), board culture, college roles and

purpose and changing internal context.

Akpakwu and Okwo (2014) carried out a study on politics

and the appointment of council members, vice chancellors and

other principal officers in federal and state universities in the

north central states of Nigeria. The study examined the

influence of political factors of partisan politics, ethnic and

sectional considerations, religious affiliations, favouritism, the

quota system and catchment area policy on the appointment of

members of governing councils, vice chancellors and other

principal officers in federal and state universities. Two research

questions and hypotheses respectively guided the study. The

population of the study was 11,582 made up of staff of five

federal universities and staff of five state universities. A 14-item

structured questionnaire titled „Influence of Politics on

Appointment Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to collect data for

the study. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer

the research questions while t-test analysis was used to test

the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.

 64

The study found out thatpartisan politics, ethnic and

sectional considerations, religious affiliations, favouritism,the

quota system and catchment area policy significantly

influenced appointment of members of governing councils, vice

chancellors,and other principal officers in federal and state

universities in the north central states of Nigeria. This study

relates to the present study in the area of consideration for

appointment of university governing councils‟ members. The

study identified various biases in the appointment of university

governing councils‟ members. When the wrong people are

appointed due to partisan and mundane considerations, the

performance of the functions of the university governing

councils is hampered.

Tsav (2015) conducted a study on governing councils‟

activities on staff and students personnel management in

federal and state universities in the north central states,

Nigeria. The study adopted a descriptive survey design. The

population of the study was 1827 made up of governing council

members, senate members, ASUU executive members, SSANU

executive members, NASU executive members, and SUG

executive members. A sample of 374 was drawn for the study

and a ten item structured

 65

questionnaire and interview schedule were used to collect data

for the study. Data collected were presented using descriptive

statistics while t-test was used to test the null hypotheses at

0.05 level of significance.

The study found out that there was no significant

difference in the mean rating of senate members and staff

union executive of federal and state universities on the extent

the governing council activities influenced staff personnel

administration while the council and senate members in federal

and state universities significantly differed in their mean

responses on the extent that the governing council activities

affected the student personnel administration. The study

focused on the activities of the university governing councils in

such areas as personnel functions and relationships in the

university system. These activities translate to aspects of the

functions of university governing councils which is the concern

of this present study.

Summary of Review of Related Literature

The review of related literature in this section covered

definitions and explanations of the key concepts and variables

under study. The review started with the definitions and

descriptions of the major concepts of the study, thus; the

concept
 66

of personnel, the concept of finance, the concept of monitoring

and the concept of relationship. From the studies of scholars

the functions of governing councils were identified. Ogbechie

and Koufopoulos for example stated that relationship between

board members (council members) includes interpersonal

relationship between directors, cohesiveness of the board, and

informal contacts between directors (council members),

teamwork, trust and respect.

Some theories that are related to university management

and performance of governing council functions were also

reviewed. The theories reviewed were systems and stake

holder theories. The review of these theories broadened the

spectrum of governing council functions and governing council

activities. Thus the two theories provided an anchor for the

study. The system theory for example provided an anchor for

the study because it maintained that the functions of a

governing council as a sub-system will invariably affect the

other sub-systems and the entire university system as a whole

as they are interrelated and interdependent of each other.

Empirical studies on university management and

administration were also reviewed. The researcher found out from

 67

the literature review that studies available were not directly in

the area of performance of university governing council

functions particularly in Nigeria. There is therefore a gap in

literature in the area of assessment of the performance of

governing council functions in universities in Nigeria. The

researcher therefore sought to fill this gap in literature and

empirically carried out an assessment of university council in

South East Nigeria.

 68

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

This chapter presented the method used to carry out the

investigation. Included here are the following: Research Design;

Area of the Study; Sample and Sampling Technique; Instrument

for Data Collection and Validation of the Instrument; Reliability

of the Instrument; Method of Data Collection and Method of

Data Analysis.

Research Design

The research design used in carrying out this study was

the descriptive survey research design. This research design

was used because the researcher sought to find out the

conditions or relationships that exited, opinions that were held,

processes that were ongoing, effects that were evident or

trends that were developing (Akuezuilo & Agu, 2003). The

descriptive survey design helped the researcher to collect data

on the views of internal governing council members and

principal officers, and staff whose duties related to governing

council activities (Deputy Registrars in charge of governing

council matters and Public Relations Officers)

 69

Area of the Study

The area of study is South East geopolitical zone of Nigeria

made up of five states as follows, Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi,

Enugu, and Imo states. Geographically, the zone is bounded in

the West and South by South South Zone, in the East and North

by North Central Zone. Generally, the people of the zone speak

Ibo, and are mostly traders as well as industrialists, public and

civil servants. A pertinent feature of the zone is the high quest

for university education. At present there are five state

universities and five federal universities in the area.

Population of the Study

All the ten universities (five federal and five state

universities) in the area were used for the study. The

population of this studyconsisted of 165 persons made up of

115 internal members of governing councils and 50 persons

whose duties relate to activities of governing council

(Registrars, Bursars, University Librarians, Deputy Registrars in-

charge of governing council matters and Public Relations

Officers).
 70

Sample and Sampling Techniques

Due to the small size of the population, all the members

were used in the study.

Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument used for data collection was an

assessment of university council performance questionnaire

(AUCPQ) constructed by the researcher. The questionnaire

consisted of two parts; part one contained information on the

university, and part two was made up of structured items to

which the respondents expressed opinion on. Part two was

divided into seven sectionsABCDEFG containing eleven items

on personnel functions, ten items on maintenance of university

culture, seven items on financial functions, seven items on

monitoring and review of programmes and awards, five items

on external relations, four items on internal relationships, and

four items on development and maintenance of facilities and

infrastructure respectively. The respondents supplied

information on their universities and then reacted to the

structured items on the questionnaire using a four point scale.

The response format was as follows: Very High (VH) = 4;

High(H) =3; Low (L) = 2; and Very Low (VL) = 1.

 71

Validation of Instrument

The draft copies of the instrument for data collection were

subjected to expert review to ensure its face and content

validity. In ensuring this, the researcher consulted three

experts, two from Educational Policy and Management

Department and one from Measurement and Evaluation

Department. The experts were given copies of the research

topic, purpose of the study, research questions and hypotheses

together with draft instrument for the validation exercise. They

were requested to vet the instrument in terms of their clarity,

coverage and relevance to the problem under study. They also

reviewed the appropriateness of the language and expressions.

The vetting by the experts helped the researcher to re-

structure and modify the instrument. This ensured that the

instrument measured what it was designed to measure. Copies

of the validators' comments are attached as appendix 5.

Reliability of the Instrument

The Cronbach alpha method of reliability was carried out

todetermine the internal consistency or average correlation of

 72

items in the survey instrument to gauge its reliability. The

designed questionnaire was pilot-tested on twenty principal

officers and staff of University of Benin and Ambrose Ali

University Ekpoma (ten per university) whose duties relate to

governing council activities. The mean rating of the items in

each of the seven clusters were coded in the statistical package

of the Social Sciences using Norris (2005) guidelines. The

scores were analyzed using Cronbach alpha reliability analysis

scale. Coefficients of 0.71, 0.71, 0.79, 0.86, 0.89, 0.91, 0.92,

were obtained for the seven clusters respectively. Overall

coefficient of the instrument was 0.96. These coefficient values

were considered adequate for the study as the least coefficient

is greater than 0.7.

Method of Data Collection

The questionnaire was administered in all federal and

state universities in the five states that make up the

geopolitical zone. The questionnaire was administered and

collected through direct visit by the researcher and other

research assistants (one research assistant per university). The

Research Assistants were personnel officers in the employment

of universities. They were

 73

trained by the researcher to ensure that they effectively do the

work. Two weeks were used for the administration and

collection of the questionnaire. The direct approach used in the

distribution of the questionnaire availed the researcher and the

research assistants the opportunity to appeal to the

respondents and solicit for their co-operation. It ensured a high

percent (79.39%) return of the distributed questionnaire.

Method of Data Analysis

The research questions were answered using mean and

standard deviation while z-test was used to test the hypotheses

at 0.05 level of significance. The mean score of the responses

to each item on the questionnaire was calculated. The mean of

means of all items in a cluster was also calculated. The decision

rule for interpreting the mean scores of the data was, a mean

score of 2.5 and above was regarded as a high level

performance of governing council functions while a mean score

of less than 2.5 was regarded as a low level performance of

governing council functions. The hypotheses were tested using

z-test at 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis was

rejected if the calculated value was less than the table value

while the null hypothesis was

 74

upheld if the calculated value was greater or equal to the table

value.
 75

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

In this chapter, the data collected from the field for this study were

analyzed and the summaries were presented in tables to highlight the findings.

The presentation was sequential starting with answering of the research

questions and then testing of hypotheses.

Research Question One

To what extent do the governing councils perform personnel functions in

federal and state universities?

Table 1

Mean Scores on the Extent Governing Councils Perform Personnel

Functions

S/N Items Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

1. Clarification of the mission of 2.967 .948 High 2.64 .963 High

the university
2. Attracting qualified staff for 2.721 .968 High 2.542 .828 High

recruitment
3. Retaining qualified staff 2.082 .737 Low 2.885 .893 High

4. Planning succession for filling 2.623 .778 High 2.785 .849 High

positions of principal officers

(vice chancellor, registrar,
 76

bursar, university librarian )

5. Control and discipline of staff 2.245 1.010 Low 2.928 .889 High

6. Conflict resolution among 2.967 .965 High 2.400 .923 Low

staff
7. Development of human 2.852 .872 High 1.785 .930 Low

resources management
policies
8. Staff compensation 2.950 .973 High 2.342 .866 Low

management
9. Staff performance appraisal 3.016 .991 High 2.942 .946 High

10. Staff recruitment and selection 2.213 .685 Low 2.742 .973 High

11. Acting as court of the last 2.901 .888 High 1.814 .921 Low

appeal to aggrieved staff

Mean of means 2.685 .386 High 2.528 .424 High

The result in table 1 shows that federal and state universities were rated high

extent in classification of the mission of the university, attracting qualified staff

for recruitment, planning succession for filling positions of principal officers

(vice chancellor, registrar, bursar, university librarian) and staff performance

appraisal. The table also shows that federal universities were rated high extent

in conflict resolution among staff, development of human resources

management policies, staff compensation management and acting as court of the

last appeal to aggrieved staff, and rated low extent in retaining qualified staff,

control and discipline of staff, andstaff recruitment and selection.State

 77

universities were also rated high extent in retaining qualified staff, control and

discipline of staff and staff recruitment and selection, but rated low extent in

conflict resolution among staff, development of human resources management

policies, staff compensation management and acting as court of the last appeal

to aggrieved staff.

The overall result in the table 1 shows that federal and state universities

had a mean of means rating of 2.685 and 2.528 respectively. This indicates that

they perform personnel functions to a high extent.

Research Question Two

To what extent do the governing councils maintain university culture in federal

and state universities?

Table 2

Mean Scores on the Extent Governing Councils Maintain University culture

S/N Items Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

1. Maintenance of transparency in 2.934 0.928 High 1.728 0.797 Low

activities of the university

2. Maintenance of good atmosphere 2.885 0.858 High 1.871 0.899 Low

in the university
 78

3. Sharing of common vision by 2.704 0.989 High 2.100 0.764 Low

council members
4. Maintenance of team spirit in 3.098 0.850 High 2.885 0.808 High

decision making process

5. Maintenance of openness in 3.098 0.850 High 1.814 0.921 Low

discussion
6. Building constructive relationship 2.639 0.876 High 2.657 0.866 High

among council members

7. Establishment of professional 2.278 0.985 Low 1.814 0.921 Low

culture
8. Nurturing of desired qualities and 2.114 1.034 Low 1.785 0.535 Low

values
9. Building a professional non- 2.623 1.051 High 1.628 0.870 Low

partisan culture
10. Subjecting meetings and records 1.868 0.957 Low 2.714 0.704 High

to public review
Mean of means 2.624 0.415 High 2.100 0.494 High

The result in table 2 indicates that governing councils of federal universities

were rated high extent in all the items except in establishment of professional

culture, nurturing of desired qualities and values, and subjecting meeting and

records to public review, while governing councils of state universities were

rated low extent in all items except in maintenance of team spirit in decision

making process, building constructive relationship among council members,

and subjecting meetings and records to public review. Also the result in table 2
 79

shows that the mean of means rating of governing councils of federal

universities was 2.624 while that of governing councils of state universities was

2.100. This indicates that governing councils of federal universities perform the

functions of maintenance of university culture to a high extent, while the

governing councils of state universities perform the functions of maintenance of

university culture to a low extent.

Research Question Three

To what extent do the governing councils carry out financial functions in

federal and state universities?

Table 3

Mean Scores on the Extent Governing Councils Carry Out Financial

Functions

S/N Items Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

Approval of university budget 2.754 .809 High 2.671 .846 High

High 2.014 .648 Low
Monitoring budget 3.065 .793
implementation

Implementation of long range fiscal 1.803 .653 Low 1.942 Low

.507
planning
 80

Analysis of financial reports 1.786 .412 Low 2.842 .972 High

Low 2.085 .811 Low
Regulation of university 1.918 .936
business/undertakings

High High
Appointment of university 2.966 .862 3.085 .775
auditors to audit university
account

Low High
Borrowing money on behalf of the 1.800 .879 2.842 .926
university

Low 1.857 Low

Investment of money belonging to 1.716 .884 .905-
the university

Low 1.957 Low

Purchase of property on behalf of the 1.883 .845 .858
university

Low 2.014 Low

Sell of property of the 1.967 .729 .496
university

Low 1.842 Low

Leasing of property of the 1.688 .466 .911
university

Low 2.287 Low

Mean of means 2.121 .406 .455

In table 3, it was observed that federal and state universities were rated low

extent in implementation of long range fiscal planning, regulation of university

business/undertakings, investment of money belonging to the university,

purchase of property on behalf of the university, sell of property of the

university and leasing of the property of the university. Federal universities

were also rated low extent in analysis of financial reports and borrowing money

on behalf of the university, while state universities were rated low extent in
 81

monitoring budget implementation. Table 3 also shows that federal and state

universities were rated high extent in approval of university budget and

appointment of university auditors to audit university account. Federal

universities were also rated high extent in monitoring budget implementation,

and state universities were rated high extent in analysis of financial reports and

borrowing money on behalf of the universities. In overall, table 3 shows that the

mean of means scores of governing councils of federal universities (2.121) and

state universities (2.287) are below the benchmark of 2.50 indicating that

governing councils perform financial functions to a low extent.

Research Question Four

To what extent do the governing councils monitor and review programmes and

awards in federal and state universities?

Table 4

Mean Scores on the Extent Governing Councils Monitor and Review

Programmes and Awards
Item
S/N Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

Low High
1. Development of intended 2.229 .955 2.557 .911
learning outcomes
2. Publication of learning 2.442 .827
Low High
2.642 .799
outcomes
 82

Low High
Careful attention to curriculum design 2.180 .885 2.942 .866
and contents

Low 1.871 Low

Careful attention to different modes 2.032 .706 .720
of delivery (full time, part-
time, distance learning, e-
learning)

Provision of appropriate 2.688 .764 High 1.985 Low

.670
learning resources

Monitoring of the progress and 1.606 .556 Low 1.942 Low

.634
achievement of student

Regular review of programmes 1.836 .453 Low 1.971 .537 Low

Low 1.828 .563 Low
Soliciting feedback from 1.967 .604
employers of labour

Mean of means 2.123 .347 Low 2.217 Low

.405

Table 4 shows that federal and state universities were rated low extent in all the

items except in provision of appropriate learning resources for federal

universities and development of intended learning outcomes, publication of

learning outcomes and careful attention to curriculum design and contents for

state universities. In addition, table 4 indicates that the mean of means scores of

governing councils of federal universities (2.123) and state universities (2.217)

are below the benchmark of 2.50. This indicates that governing councils

perform the functions of monitoring and reviewing of programmes and awards

to a low extent.
 83

Research Question Five

To what extent do the governing councils carry out external relations in federal

and state universities?

Table 5

Mean Scores on the Extent of Governing Councils Carry out External

Relations

S/N Item Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

1. Co-ordination of president’s or 2.623 .734 High 1.771 .515 Low

governor’s strategic plan with

the university agenda
2. Joint goal setting between the 1.770 .559 Low 1.885 .602 Low

governing council and layers

of governance
3. Governing council members 1.704 .527 Low 1.942 .634 Low

access to the president or

governor
4. Maintaining high level of 1.901 .650 Low 2.628 .640 High

communication vehicle across

layers of governors
5. Staying on the agenda even as 2.737 .793 High 1.800 .579 Low

presidents or governance
turnover

Low Low
Mean of means 2.147 .417 2.005 .304
 84

Table 5 shows that federal and state universities were rated low extent in joint

goal setting between the governing council and layers of governance and

governing council members’ access to the president or governor. The table in

addition, shows that federal universities were also rated low extent in

maintaining high level of communication vehicle across layers of governance

(item 4 with a mean of 1.901) while state universities were also rated low extent

in coordinating of president’s or governor’s strategic plan with the university

agenda and staying on the agenda even as presidents or governors turnover

(items 1 and 5 with means of 1.771 and 1.800 respectively).

Federal universities were rated high extent in coordination of president’s

or governor’s strategic plan with the university agenda and staying on the

agenda even as presidents or governors turnover (items 1 and 5 with means of

2.623 and 2.737 respectively) while state universities were rated high extent on

maintaining high level of communication vehicle across layers of governance

(item 4 with mean of 2.628).

Table 5 indicates that the mean of means scores of governing councils of

federal universities (2.147) and state universities (2.005) are below the

benchmark of 2.50. This indicates that governing councils perform the functions

of carrying out external relations to a low extent.

 85

Research Question Six

To what extent do the governing councils maintain internal relationship in

federal and state universities?

Table 6

Mean Scores on the Extent Governing Councils Maintain Internal

Relationships

S/N Item Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

1. Maintenance of internal 2.426 .884 Low 2.714 .744 High

contacts between governing

council members
2. Maintenance of cordial 2.754 .745 High 2.671 .756 High

relationship between the Vice

Chancellor and governing
council members
3. Maintenance of cordial 2.426 .845 Low 1.771 .515 Low

relationship between the Vice

Chancellor and chairman of
governing council
4. Maintenance of cordial 1.934 .679 Low 2.128 .946 Low

relationship among staff

Mean of means 2.385 .499 Low 2.321 .474 Low

In table 6 it was observed that federal universities were rated low extent in all

items except in maintenance of cordial relationship between the Vice

Chancellor and governing councils (item 2 with mean of 2.754). The table also
 86

shows that state universities were rated high extent in maintenance of internal

contacts between governing council members and maintenance of cordial

relationship between the Vice Chancellor and governing council members

(items 1 and 2 with means of 2.714 and2.671 respectively) while maintenance

of cordial relationship between the Vice Chancellor and chairman of the

governing council and maintenance of cordial relationship among staff (items 3

and 4 with means of 1.771 and 2.128 respectively) were rated low extent. From

table 6, it was also observed that the mean of means scores of governing

councils of federal universities (2.385) and state universities (2.321) are below

the benchmark of 2.50. This indicates that governing councils perform the

functions of maintaining internal relationships to a low extent.

Research Question Seven

To what extent do the governing councils develop and maintain facilities and

infrastructure in federal and state universities?

 87

Table 7

Mean Scores on the Extent of Governing Councils Develop and Maintain

Facilities and Infrastructure

S/N Item Federal (N=61) State (N=70)

Mean SD Decision Mean SD Decision

1. Successful negotiation and 2.016 .618 Low 1.771 .593 Low

entering into contracts for

projects in the university

2. Cancellation of non- 2.065 .573 Low 1.985 Low

.601
performing contracts
3. Provision of adequate teaching 2.032 .604
Low 2.157 Low
.500
facilities in the university
4. Provision of information and 2.786 .732
Low 2.357 Low
.834
communication technology in
the university

5. Establishment of maintenance 2.032 .546 Low 2.757 .731 High

culture in the university
Mean of means 2.186 .468 Low 2.205 .324 Low

The result in table 7 indicates that federal and state universities were rated low

extent in all the items with the exception of establishment of maintenance

culture in the university which was rated high extent in state universities (item 5

with mean of 2,757). Table 7 also shows that the mean of means scores of

governing councils of federal universities (2.186) and state universities (2.205)

are below benchmark of 2.50. This indicates that governing councils perform
 88

the functions of development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure to

a low extent.

Testing of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis One

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

federal and state universities in performance of personnel functions.

Table 8

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

Performance of Personnel Functions (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
Federal 61 2.685 .386 2.201 .030 S

State 70 2.528 .424

S-Significant @ z-cal> 1.96

Table 8 indicates that there is significant difference in the mean rating of

governing councils of federal and state universities in performance of personnel

functions (z(2,129) = 2.20, -value = 0.03). The null hypothesis was thus rejected.

Then, it was concluded that there is significant difference in the mean rating of

governing council of federal and state universities in performance of personnel

functions.
 89

Hypothesis Two

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

federal and state universities in maintenance of university culture.

Table 9

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Maintenance of University Culture (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
61 2.624 .415 6.521 .000 S
Federal
70 2.100 .494
State

S-Significant @ z-cal> 1.96

In the table 9 it was observed that there is significant difference in the mean

rating of governing council of federal and state universities in maintenance of

university culture (z(2,129) = 6.52, -value = 0.00). The null hypothesis was thus

rejected. Then, it was concluded that there is significant difference in the mean

rating of governing council of federal and state universities in maintenance of

university culture.

Hypothesis Three

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing council of

federal and state universities in performance of financial functions.

 90

Table 10

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Performance of Financial Functions(N = 131, df = 129).

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
61 2.121 .406 -2.173 .032 S
Federal
70 2.287 .455
State

S-Significant @ z-cal> 1.96

Table 10 indicates that there is significant difference in the mean rating of

governing council of federal and state universities in performance of financial

functions (z(2,129) = -2.17, -value = 0.03). The null hypothesis was thus rejected.

Then, it was concluded that there is significant difference in the mean rating of

governing council of federal and state universities in performance of financial

functions.

Hypothesis Four

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

federal and state universities in the performance of monitoring and review of

programmes and awards function.

Table 11
 91

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Performance of Monitoring and Reviewing of Programmes and Awards
Functions (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
61 2.123 .347 -1.427 .156 NS
Federal
70 2.217 .405
State

NS-Not Significant @ z-cal< 1.96

In the table 11 it was observed that there is no significant difference in the mean

rating of governing councils of federal and state universities in the performance

of monitoring and review of programmes and awards functions (z (2,129) = -1.43,

-value = 0.17). The null hypothesis was thus not rejected. Then, it was

concluded that there is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing

council of federal and state universities in the performance of monitoring and

review of programmes and awards functions.

Hypothesis Five

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

federal and state universities in the performance of external relations functions.

Table 12

z-test on Federal and State universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Performance of External Relations Functions (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
 92

61 2.147 .417 2.239 .027 S

Federal
70 2.005 .304
State

S-Significant @ z-cal> 1.96

Table 12 indicates that there is significant difference in the mean rating of

governing councils of federal and state universities in the performance of

external relations functions (z(2,129) = 2.24, -value = 0.03). The null hypothesis

was thus rejected. Then, it was concluded that there is significant difference in

the mean rating of governing councils of federal and state universities in the

performance of external relations functions.

Hypothesis Six

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

the federal and state universities in the performance of internal relationship
functions

Table 13

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Performance of Internal Relationship Functions (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
61 2.385 .499 .750 0.455 NS
Federal
70 2.321 .474
State

NS-Not Significant @ z-cal < 1.96

 93

Table 13 shows that there is no significant difference in the mean rating of

governing councils of the federal and state universities in the performance of

internal relationship functions (z(2,129) = 0.75, -value = 0.46). The null

hypothesis was thus not rejected. Then, it was concluded that there is no

significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of the federal

and state universities in the performance of internal relationship functions.

Hypothesis Seven

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of

federal and state universities in the performance of development and

maintenance of facilities and infrastructure functions.

Table 14

z-test on Federal and State Universities Mean Rating of Governing Councils

in Performance of Development and Maintenance of Facilities and
Infrastructure Functions (N = 131, df = 129)

Source of N Mean SD z-cal Sig. Decision

Variation
Federal 61 2.186 .468 -0.270 .788 NS

State 70 2.205 .324

NS-Not Significant @ z-cal < 1.96

In Table 14 it was observed that there is no significant difference in the mean

rating of governing councils of federal and state universities in the performance

 94

of development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure functions

(z(2,129) = -0.27, -value = 0.79). The null hypothesis was thus not rejected.

Then, it was concluded that there is no significant difference in the mean rating

of governing councils of federal and state universities in the performance of

development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure functions.

Summary of Major Findings

Below are the summary of the findings of the study:

The extent of performance of personnel functions by governing councils in

federal and state universities was high.
The extent of performance of maintenance of university culture functions by
governing council was high in federal universities but low in state
universities.
The extent of performance of financial functions by governing councils was
low in federal and state universities.
The extent of performance of monitoring and reviewing of programmes and
awards functions by governing councils was low in federal and state
universities.
The extent of performance of external relation functions by governing council
was low in federal and state universities.
The extent of performance of internal relationship functions by governing
councils was low in federal and state universities.
 95

The extent of performance of development and maintenance of facilities and

infrastructural functions by governing councils was low in federal and
state universities.
There was a significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of
federal and state universities in the performance of personnel functions.
There was a significant difference in the mean rating of governing councils of
federal and state universities in the maintenance of university
culture.
10. There was a significant difference in the mean rating of governing
councils of federal and state universities in the performance of financial
functions.

11. There was no significant difference in the mean rating of governing

councils of federal and state universities in performance of monitoring and
review of programmes and awards functions.
12. There was a significant difference in the mean rating of governing
councils of federal and state universities in the performance of external
relations functions.

13. There was no significant difference in the mean rating of governing

councils of federal and state universities in the performance of internal
relationship functions.
14. There was no significant difference in the mean rating of governing
councils of federal and state universities in the performance of
development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure functions.
 96

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINGINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discussed the findings of this study by

making inferences from the results obtained and the literature.

The chapter also identified the various educational implications

of the study. In addition, recommendations were made for

improvement of educational practices in the concerned and

related institutions. Finally the limitations of the study were

indicated while suggestions for further research were also

made.
 97

Discussion of Findings

The discussion of the findings was done in relation to the

research questions posed under the following headings:

The extent of performance of personnel functions by governing

councils of federal and state universities

The extent of maintenance of university culture by governing

councils of federal and state universities.

The extent governing councils of federal and state universities

carry out financial functions.

The extent governing councils of federal and state universities

monitor and review programmes and awards.

The extent governing councils of federal and state universities

carry out external relation functions

The extent governing councils of federal and state universities

develop and maintain internal relationships.

The extent governing councils of federal and state universities

develop and maintain facilities and infrastructure.

Extent of Performance of Personnel

Functions by Governing Councils

The study disclosed that the extent of performance of

personnel functions by governing councils in federal and state

 98

universities was high. This finding indicated that the governing

council members appreciated the observation of Armstrong

(2006) that the assumptions under pinning the practice of

human resource management is that people are the

organizations key resources and organizational performance

largely depends on them. Therefore, if an appropriate range of

human resource policies and processes are developed

andimplemented effectively, then human resource will make a

sustainable impact on organizational performance. Okoh (2005)

also stated that research in human resource management has

established that the success of any organization is highly

influenced by the caliber of its human resource, which in turn,

is affected by the organizations human resource management

practices.

The study revealed that the governing councils of federal

and state universities took issues such as attracting qualified

staff for recruitment into the universities, planning succession

for filling positions of principal officers (Vice Chancellor,

Registrar, Bursar, University Librarian) and staff performance

appraisal very seriously. In federal universities, issues such as

conflict resolution among staff, development of human resource

management policies, staff compensation management and

 99

acting as court of the last appeal to aggrieved staff were given

due attention. On the part of state universities, retaining

qualified staff, control and discipline of staff were given high

attention. This position agrees with the view of Orga and Ogbo

(2012) who stated that organizations that do not emphasis on

attracting and retaining talents may find themselves in dire

consequences,as their competitors may be outplaying them in

the strategic employment of their human resource.

The study further revealed from the hypothesis testing

that there is significant difference in the mean rating of federal

and state universities in the performance of personnel

functions. Governing councils of federal universities perform

personnel functions to a higher extent, and this according to

the researcher could be as a result of membership of governing

councils of federal universities being more broad based and

consisting of professionals of various backgrounds. As

illustrated by Saint (2009) in some cases (e.g., Denmark,

Singapore, Spain, and United States) nearly all the board

members are drawn from beyond the university and outside

the government. In other cases, specific constituencies are

earmarked for membership, such as alumni (e.g., Austraria,

Columbia,and. Philipines),
 100

women (e.g., Tanzania), donor representatives (e.g., University

of Cape Town) or the region/locality in which the university is

located (e.g., Chile, Malaysia, Spain). In Nigeria, the governing

councils of federal and state universities are composed of the

principal officers of the universities (the Vice Chancellor,

Deputy Vice Chancellors, Registrar, representatives of senate,

representatives of congregation, government representatives

(drawn from different backgrounds)and representativesof the

federal or state ministriesof education. Notwithstanding this

provision, the membership of governing councils of federal

universities are more diversified, particularly in regional spread.

This wider spread no doubt could make room for attracting

professionals in different areas including personnel

administration.

Extent of Maintenance of University Culture by

Governing Councils

The study revealed that the maintenance of university

culture functions by governing councils was to a high extent in

federal universities but to a low extent in state universities. The

study further revealed that there was a significant difference in

the mean rating of governing councils of federal and state

 101

universities in the maintenance of university culture in the

South-East zone. Issues such as maintenance of transparency

in activities of the university, sharing common vision by council

members, maintenance of openness in discussions, and

maintenance of team spirit were rated high in federal

universities. As pointed out above, the membership of the

governing councils of federal universities are wider spread.

Some of the members are drawn from different universities in

other regions of the country and other works of life. As they

assemble in the governing council of a university, each person

brings in his ideas and experiences on best practices from his

university or background thus building up a pool of best

practices. Whereas in state universities, the membership of

governing councils are mainly restricted to indigenes of the

state. This creates a narrow experience and idea pool for state

universities. Thus the higher ranking of governing councils of

federal universities in the maintenance of university culture

than state universities in the opinion of the researcher could be

attributed to establishment of professional culture rather than a

political culture. This assertion is in line with the view of Kezar

(2006) when he stated that if a board (governing council) has

established a professional culture

 102

rather than a political culture, decisions will be more rational,

debates will be focused on ideas rather than power, and

agenda items will reflect collegiality rather than the individual

desires of powerful members. Similarly, Ogbechie and

koufopoulos (2012), also shared this view while writing on the

banking industry and stated that behavioural characteristics of

directors will have a bearing on the effectiveness of the board.

Directors with domineering and over bearing personality are

likely to cause disharmony on the board integrity of directors

(governing council members), their ethical standard and

attitude will likely influence their expectations and behaviour.

Extent of Performance of Financial

Functions by Governing Councils
The findings of the study revealed that the extent of

performance of financial functions by governing councils were

low in federal and state universities and there is a significant

difference in the mean rating of governing councils of federal

and state universities in the performance of financial functions

in federal and state universities. The study found that the

 103

performance of governing councils of federal and state

universities was low in implementation of long range fiscal

planning, regulation of university business, undertaking

investment of money belonging to the universities, sell of the

properties on behalf of the universities and leasing of properties

of the universities. This low rating of the governing councils of

federal and state universities in the performance of financial

functions could be considered as a contributory factor to low

funding of universities in Nigeria. As Yusuf (2011) observed, in

comparison with other African nations, Nigeria funding on

education is less than ten percent. This has created some

problems and a dis enabling environment that hamper goal

realization for the Nigerian universities. Adesina (2005) agreed

with this and added that such problems lead to decaying and

obsolete learning and teaching facilities unbecoming of centres

of excellence, inadequate research and frustrated staff and

students and poor remuneration packages for teaching and

non-teaching staff. Very often many universities are finding it

difficult to meet their funding obligations any time there is a

delay in release of funds to the universities by the federal or

state government. This ought not to be the case where the

governing council is carrying

 104

out financial functions effectively. It is also a common

knowledge that governing council members focus their

attention in award of bogus contracts without ensuring that

funds are available for the execution of the projects. This

leaves the universities with numerous uncompleted projects.

Extent of Performance of Monitoring and Review of

Programmes and Award Functions by Governing

Council

The findings of the study revealed that governing councils

of federal and state universities were rated low in the extent of

performance of monitoring and reviewing of programmes and

awards functions. The study also shows that there is no

significant difference between the extent of performance of

monitoring and review of programmes and awards by

governing councils of federal state universities. The function of

monitoring and review of programmes is critical in the life a

university. It is a function that provides governing councils

opportunities to evaluate their activities and the output of the

universities. The elements of the monitoring and review

programmes and awards that were rated low include attention

to different modes of delivery (full-time, part-time, distance

learning, e-learning), provision of appropriate learning

resources, monitoring the

 105

progress and achievements of students, regular review of

programmes and soliciting feedback from employers of labour.

A governing council that does not give due attention to these

critical indicators of success in a university setting has not laid

a good foundation for high level of accomplishment in the

university. This is in line with the views of Kieslar and Sproull

(1982) who stated that monitoring can be directed to three

main components of a project namely, project inputs,

processes, and outputs. Reviewing of programmes helps

universities keep abreast of the developments in technology

and keep in tone with global changes. A university that does

not review her programmes from time to time runs the risk of

carrying obsolete programmes and producing products that will

not fit into the present requirements the world of work. This in

the view of the researcher may be a contributory factor to the

high graduate unemployment being experienced in Nigeria

today. Monitoring and review of programmes and awards also

ensures that universities are operating at some predetermined

standards. It is on this note that Nwagwu (2014) cautioned that

quantities growth must provide for the maintenance of

standards and quality.

 106

For universities to help solve national development problems of

eradication of poverty, reduction of unemployment and

ultimately the achievement of improvement in the conditions

and quality of life for all citizens, there is need for constant

monitoring and review of programmes and awards. This view

was supported by Nwagwu (2014), Okoro (2014), and Esu and

Emah (2014).

Extent of Carrying out External Relations Functions by

Governing Councils

The findings of the study revealed that governing councils

of federal universities coordinated presidents strategic plan

with the universities agenda and stay on the agenda even as

presidents turn over. Similarly, governing councils of state

universities maintained high level of communication vehicles

across layers of governance(the executive, legislature etc.)

On overall, the findings of the study further revealed that

the extent of performance of external relation functions by

governing councils in federal and state universities was low.The

findings also revealed that there was a significant difference in

the mean rating of governing councils of federal and state

universities in the extent of carrying out external relations

functions. Governing councils of federal universities maintained

 107

relatively a higher external relations than governing councils of

state universities. Generally, governing councils of federal and

state universities were rated low in joint goal setting between

the governing councils and the layers of governance and

governing

councils‟ member access to the president/governor. For effective

operations, there is need for ongoing communication among

governing council members and president/governors and

legislature in their collective plan for university education but

the study revealed a gap between the governing members and

various layers of governance with the governing council

members not having access to the president/governor. This gap

leads to a situation where in some instances governing councils

frustrate president/governors and legislators by failing to see

an alignment between the goals of the state and those of the

institutions. This leads to the formulation of policies on

university education at cross purposes, creating overlap and

duplication of programmes with their associated wastages.

Though Kezar (2006) stated that

board (governing council) and governor‟s visions will not always

be aligned, but at least examining linkages was noted as crucial

to performance.
 108

To facilitate proper linkages Kezar (2006) suggested a

joint goal setting between the president/governors, legislature,

stakeholders and governing councils. This mechanism will

afford all concerned parties to contribute their own quotas to

enhancement of university education in the country. It is also

important to note that governing council leadership and

decisive actions require support from the President/Governors.

A good communication between the governing council and the

President/Governor helps to smoothen out university challenges

including funding issues which always constitute major

obstacles to university effectiveness. The governing council

members particularly the Chairman should maintain a

relationship or speak with the President/Governor to ensure

that the council is not limited in effectiveness. The following

options suggested by Kezar (2006) could be of immense help.

They include annual forum to discuss agenda of university

education, quarterly updates from stakeholders, and annual

evaluation meetings and activities.

Extent of Maintenance of Internal Relationship by

 109

Governing Councils of Federal and State Universities

The findings of the study showed that the rating of the

governing councils of federal and state universities was to a low

extent in maintenance of internal relationships. The study also

showed that there was no significant difference in the mean

rating of governing councils of federal and state universities in

the maintenance of internal relationships. Maintenance of

internal relationships includes interpersonal relationship

between governing council members, governing council

members and principal officers of the universities (Vice

Chancellors, Registrars, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Bursars,

University Librarians), and governing council members and staff

and students of the universities. Internal relationships also

includes quality of management, informal contacts between

governing council members and management, trust, respect

and proper understanding of functions. Good internal

relationship is the right chemistry for success in a university.

However, the study indicated low maintenance of cordial

relationships between the Vice Chancellors and the Chairmen of

governing councils, low cordial relationship between governing

council members and staff of the universities. This low level of

internal relationships in our

 110

universities as revealed in the study could be one the reasons

why there is always constant disputes between governing

councils of universities and universities management. In some

cases these disputes lead into a situation where one party

challenges the other in the law court. Such litigations greatly

affect the development of the concerned university.

On the other hand, internal relationship could be fostered

through good governing council meetings, retreats, campus

events and ceremonies. These provide opportunities for the

governing members to interact on one on one basis and

exchange ideas and experiences. This helps to breakdown

political/ideological orientations and enable members to learn

through casual conversations.

Effective internal relationships affect how governing

council recommendations are received by university principal

officers and other staff of the universities, as well as the quality

of information given to governing councils to make policies.

Kezar (2006) agreed with this view and added that relationships

need to be intentionally fostered. Ogbeche and Konfopoulos

(2010) also supported this view.

 111

Extent of Performance of Development and Maintenance

of Facilities and Infrastructure Functions by Governing
Council
The findings the study revealed that the extent of

performance of development and maintenance of facilities

functions by governing councils in federal and state universities

was low. The study also revealed that there is no significant

difference in the mean rating of governing councils of federal

and state universities in the performance of development and

maintenance of facilities and infrastructure functions. This low

level of performance of the functions of development and

maintenance of facilities and infrastructure by governing

councils of federal and state universities could account for the

poor state of facilities and infrastructure in universities in

Nigeria. Many universities in Nigeria lack basic facilities and

infrastructure like regular water supply, sufficient

accommodation, well equipped libraries or functional rest

rooms in the halls of residence or in lecture arenas, sufficient

power supply, basic equipment and chemicals in laboratories.

In spite of the gap in facilities and infrastructure, many

universities as reported by the Executive Secretary National

University Commission Okojie, J.A.(2007) are going beyond the

carrying capacity allotted to them.

 112

Related to the above insufficiencies, another problem

facing universities in Nigeria is lack of good maintenance

culture. Dilapidation of facilities and uncompleted projects are

common features in universities in Nigeria. It is in recognition of

these challenges that the National Universities Commission in

collaboration with the then Overseas Development Agency and

Economic Community in 1986, set up five pilot Equipment

Maintenance and Development Centres (EMDCs) in five Nigeria

federal universities at Zaria, Ile-Ife, Nsukka, Calabar and

Bauchi. The primary aim of the project was to establish

maintenance culture in universities in Nigeria.

Conclusion

An inference that was drawn from the findings of this

study is that the governing councils of federal and state

universities in South East Nigeria were not performing their

functions at an optimal level, specifically the extent of

performance of financial functions, reviewing programmes and

awards, carrying out external relations, maintenance of internal

relationship and development and maintenance of facilities and

infrastructure was low. However the study showed that the

extent of performance of
 113

personnel functions and maintenance of university culture by

governing councils were high in federal universities. Similarly,

the extent of performance of personnel functions by governing

council in state universities was high but the extent of

maintenance of university culture by governing councils was

low in state universities. Therefore one can conclude that the

low level performance of the functions of governing councils in

federal and state universities in South East geopolitical zone in

Nigeria to a great extent was responsible for the low quality of

university education in the South East zone of Nigeria in

particular and Nigeria in general and the consequent low

ratings of universities in South East Nigeria among the comity

of universities in the world, Africa and in Nigeria in web metric

university rankings.

Educational Implications

The findings of this study have far reaching implications to

the development of university education in Nigeria.

The high ranking of governing councils of federal and

state universities in the performance of personnel functions

gives hope that top level administrators in the university

system(governing council members) appreciate the

indispensable role of the human

 114

element in the university system. As the personnel is the “life

wire” of any organization, the need for the governing councils

to sustain the attention given to it cannot be over emphasized.

Both the skilled and unskilled human resources need to be

continuously updated to meet the challenges of a technology

driven world. In addition to upgrading the skill and competency

of staff, their welfare should also rank top in the priority of all

levels of administrators in the university system particularly

the governing council.

On the maintenance of university culture, the low rating of

governing councils of state universities is not a good

development. This has the capacity of making state owned

universities to lag behind in the quest by universities to meeting

global parameters of quality assurance and international

competitiveness. A vibrant governing council should work towards

adding value to the university and have a culture of open debate

and freedom of thought. This will create opportunities for

universities in Nigeria to move away from the parochial

approaches to running a university and move to the next level,

level of global competitiveness and equipping grandaunts with

 115

quality skills and knowledge for the world of work and

better living in the society.

On financial functions, a governing council that meets the

needs of the age should aim at implementation of long range

fiscal planning, qualitative investments on behalf of the

university, leasing, sell and purchase of properties for or on

behalf of the university and monitoring budget implementation

in the university, and creating alternative sources of funds for

the development of the university and so on. But with low level

of performance of financial functions by governing councils of

federal and state universities, it implies that the challenges

facing universities in Nigeria due to lack of funds will linger.

With the wide spread of application of information

communication technology (ICT) in various spheres of life,

universities all over the world are undergoing transformation

and rapid changes to meet global challenges and demands of

the economy of various countries. Universities in Nigeria should

not be left out. It is therefore worrisome that governing councils

of federal and state universities were rated low in the

performance of monitoring and review of programmes and

awards. If nothing is done to change this situation, universities

in Nigeria may not meet the demands

 116

of a technology driven era. The products of universities in

Nigeria will continue to be deficient in relevant skills,

knowledge and exposure. The unemployment arising from lack

of marketable skills will continue to be in the increase.

The importance of maintaining a good external and

internal relationship by governing councils of federal and state

universities cannot be over emphasized. The study revealed a

low rating of the governing councils of universities in the South

East zone. This presents a great challenge to the universities

not only that internal cohesion within the universities is in

question, their external reach in terms of relating with their

regulatory and supervising agencies such as Joint Admission

and Matriculation Board, National Universities Commission,

Federal and State Ministries of Education, the legislature and

the executive arms ofgovernment will not stand on a healthy

ground.

Finally, the low rating of governing councils in the

functions of maintenance of facilities and infrastructure does

not augur well for universities in Nigeria. The governing

councils are expected to take a lead in ensuring that requisite

facilities and infrastructure are developed in universities. Not

only that carrying out these functions effectively will increase

the carrying
 117

capacity of Nigerian universities, it will also enhance the quality

and standards of products of the Universities. The expectations

of employers of labour and the society will be met and

universities in Nigeria will attain global competitiveness.

Recommendations

On the basis of the findings of this study, the following

recommendations were made.

Federal and state governments should improve on the

welfare packages and training progammes of staff

of universities.

The state universities maintained university culture to a low

extent, state governors should appoint knowledgeable

people in university administration into university

governing councils.

Federal and state governments should give governing

councils of universities a wide latitude to create fund

generating opportunities for the universities.

To ensure that university programmes are meeting the

expectations of stakeholders, governing councils of

federal and state universities should strengthen internal

quality assurance mechanisms.

 118

Governing councils of federal and state universities should

create quarterly, biannual or annual fora for joint goal

setting involving different layers of governance.

Governing councils of federal and state universities apart

from regular council meetings should engage in other

activities (such as retreats, talk shops and so on) that

will foster interaction between governing council

members, university management, staff and students.

Governing councils of federal and state universities should

discourage commencement of projects that there are

insufficient funds for completion.

Limitations of the Study

The limitation to this study is that it was carried out in only

federal and state universities in the South-East zone of Nigeria,

and therefore the findings of the study may not be generalized

to universities in the other remaining five geopolitical zones in

the country and private universities in Nigeria.

Suggestions for Further Studies

Based on the limitation of the study, the researcher

suggests that similar research be carried out in other geo-

political zones of Nigeria and in private universities

 119

REFERENCES

Adegbite, J.G.O. (2007). Administering and managing

universities.
Ibadan: Mosuro.

Adesina, S. (2005). Growth without development: The

Nigerian
educational experience. Lagos: Yema Investment Ltd.
 120

Aja-Okorie, U. Personnel Management in School Administration,

In G. O. Unackukwu & P. N. Okorji (Eds.),Educational
management. A skill building approach (pp.366-
383).Nimo, Anambra State: Rex Charlse & Patrick Limited.

Akinsulire, O. (2006). Financial management (4th Ed.). Lagos,

Nigeria: Ceemol Nigeria Limited.

Akpakwu, O.S.,& Okwo, F. A. (2014). Politics and the

appointment of council members, vice chancellors and
other principal officers in federal and state universities in
the north central states of Nigeria. Journal of Education
and Practice5 (33).

Akuezuilo, E.O.,& Agu, N. (2003). Research and statistics

education & social sciences. Methods and
application.Awka, Nigeria: Nuel Centi and Academic Press
Ltd.

Alder, P.S.,& Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital, prospects for a

new concept. Academy of Management Review. January,
17-40.

Armstrong, M. (2003). Ahandbook of human resource

management practice. London: Kogan page.

Armstrong, M. (2004). Ahandbook of human resource

management practice(9th ed.). London: Kogan page.

Armstrong, M. (2006). Ahandbook of human resource

management practice(10th ed.). London: Kogan page.

Association of governing boards and colleges (nd) Washington,

D.C. Association of Governing Boards and colleges.

Awosika, B. Y. (1982) International programme in selected

Nigerian universities. In Iheanacho, S. B. C., Ikpene, E. E.,
Saba, I. A. Assessment on provision of recreational
facilities in Nigerian universities in the 21 stcentury.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 3 (1)
 Ayeni, A.O. (2014). Human communication and
interpersonal relationships in organizations. In G. O.
Unachukwu,& P.N.
 121

Okorji (Eds.), Educational management: A skill building

approach (213-229). Nimo, Anambra State: Rex Charles &
Patrick Limited.

Bamberger, M.,& Hewitt, E. (1986). Monitoring and Evaluating

Urban Development Program: A Handbook for Program
Manager and Researchers (Technical Paper No 53). World
Bank Washington D.C.

Barney, J.B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage

Academy of Management Executive, 9, (4).

Bartle, P. (2007). The Nature of monitoring and

evaluation.
Definition and Purpose. Workshop Handout.

Bello, M. (nd). The State of the Nigeria Public Universities.

Belloonline @ yahoo.com.

Bertalanffy, L. V. System theory, foundations, development,

application. Canada: George Braziller.

Bikmoradi, A. (2009). Exploring academic leadership in medical

schools and universities in Ivan Karolinska
Institute.Sweden: Stockholm.

Blan, P. (1995). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Bohlander, G., Snell, S.,& Shennan, A. (2001). Managing Human

Resources. New York: South-Western College.

Boohene, R,& Asuinura, E.I. (2011). Effect of human resource

management practice on co-operate performance:
International Business Research,4, (1), January. Available
online @ www.ccenet.org.jbr. Retrieved on May 5, 2015.

Campbell, O. A. & Adebayo, T.F. (2007). Staff performance

evaluation in Nigeria Universities. Ibadan: Nigeria College
Press.
 122

Campbell, O.A., et al (2007). Staff performance Evaluation in

Nigeria Universities. Ibadan: Nigeria; College Press.

Collins, R. & Druten, K.V. (2003). Human resource management

practice. Available online @ http://www.edu.au/
agsm/web.agsmuf/attachementby Titlcch -Report
2003/&File /C. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

Cornett, M.M., & Saunders, A. (2002) Fundamentals of financial

institution management.United States of America, Irwin:
McGraw Hill.

English Dictionary (2010). Available: www.oed.com.

English, S.K. (2008). Board competencies and peer mentoring.

UMI 3318384 Pro Quest LLC Ann Arbor.

Esu, A.E.O.,&Emah, I.E. (2014). Nature, purpose and process of

curriculum development. In N.A. Nwagwu & U.M.O. Ivowi
(2014) (Eds.) Education in Nigeria: Development and
Challenges.Lagos: Foremost Educational Services Ltd.

Ezeali, B.O.,& Esiagu, L.N. (2010). Public personnel

management (human capital strategy in the 21st
Century).Onitsha: Book Point Limited.

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A

Stakeholder
Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) National Policy on Education

(10th ed.). Lagos: NERDC Press.
Gege, D. (1996). Maintenance Strategies for improving
productivity in the Nigerian economy: A Paper Presented
at the 1996. Symposium of the National Productivity Day.
February, 28.

Goleman, D., Boyarzis, R,& McKee, A. (2002). Primal

Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional
Intelligence.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gordon, G.,& Cummins, W. (1989). Managing management

climate. Poronto, Canada: Lexington Books.
 123

Hodge, B. (2010). Topography of space, time and disciplinary in

early modern English: The case of Andrew Marvel. In P.
Kelly & I.E. Sember (Eds.), Word and Self Enstragned in
English Texts 1550-1660 pp. 151 -166. London: Ashgate.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture consequences: International

differences in work related issues. Beverly Hills: C.A.
Sage.

Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource

management practice on turnover, productivity and
corporate financial performance. Retrieved May 5, from
@http://www.Mark-huselid.com/articles.html.

Kaufman, R.A (1972) Educational System Planning. Englewood

Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.

Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979) Needs Assessment:

Concepts and application. Englewood Cliffs, N. J:
Educational Technology publications.

Kezar, A. (2006). Rethinking high education governing

boards‟performance: Result of a national study of
governing
boards in the United State. The Journal of Higher
Education77, (6) 968-1008.

Kiesler & Sproull (1982). Managerial responses to changing

environmental: Perspectives on problem sensing from
social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly,27,
548-570.

Kotter, E.H., & Heskett, O.K. (1992). Culture: The missing

concept in organizational studies. Administrate Science
Quarterly,4(2), 220-240.

Kveitner, R.,& Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational behaviour (6th

ed.). Ivwin, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Laner, I.M. (2001). The role of the governing board in higher

education institutions. Tertiary Education and
Management,7, (4) 323-340.
 124

Leslie, D.,& Mac Taggart, T. (2008). The new ethics of

trusteeship: How public college and university trustees
can meet higher public expectations. Washington DC:
Ingram Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance and
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges.

Leisyste, I. (2014). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Leisyte, I.,& Westerheigden, D.F. (2014). Stakeholders and

quality assurance in education. In Eggins, Heather,
drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher
education. ISBN 9462094942.

McDonagh, K.J. (2006). Hospital governing boards: A Study of

their effectiveness in relation to organizational
performance.Journal of Healthcare Management, 51, 377-
389.

McLendon, M.K.,& Hearn, J.C. (2006). Mandated openness in

public higher education: A field of study of state sunshine
laws and institutional governance. The Journal of Higher
Education,77(4) 645-683.

Micaiah, W. (2013). University governing council: Structure,

functions, responsibilities. Posted on April, 9.
Comconlearn @ yahoo.com.

Mohammed, A.N. (1988). Effective policy formulation and

implementation within university system. Proceedings of
the NUC/CVU British Council International Seminar, Abu
Zaria.1987, November 9-10.

Morphy, T. (2015). Stakeholder analysis, project management,

templates and advice. Stakeholder Management e-book
and Real World Templates.

Mullins, J. I. (1999). Management and organizational behavior.

London: Prentice Hall.
 125

Myers, R.E. (1997). Maintaining the public trust: Core

competencies associated with effective governing boards
of state multi-campus system of higher education.U.S.A.
MI 48106-1346.

National University Commission Report (2012).

National University Commission Report (2014).

National University Commission assessment study on labour

market expectations of graduates from Nigeria
universities. (2004).

Neville, A. (1988). Creating a more efficient machinery in

resource management in the university. Proceedings of
the NUC/CUV, British Council International Seminar.
A.B.U., Zaria.1987, November 9-10.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2004)

Fundamentals of human resource management. United
States of America, Irwin: McGraw-Hill.

Nwagwu, N.A. (2014). Development of tertiary education in

Nigeria. In N.A. Nwagwu, & U.M.O. Ivow (2014) (Eds.)
Educational in Nigeria: Development and Challenges.
Foremost Educational Services Ltd Lagos.

Obi, E. (2003). Educational planning in contemporary

Nigeria.
Enugu: Computer Edge.

Obi, E. (2004). Issues in educational administration, Enugu,

Nigeria: Empathy International.

Obikeze, S.O.,& Obi, E.A. (2004). Public administration in

Nigeria.
A developmental approach. Onitsha: Book Point Limited.

Odikpo, C.K. (1988). Effective structure of university

administration. Proceeding of NUC/CVC/BE British Council
International Seminar. A.B.U., Zaria, 1987, November 9-
10 144-156.
 126

Ofoegbu, E. (1985). Personnel recruitment and management. In

H. N. Nwosu (Ed.) Problems of Nigerian administration.
Enugu: Fourth Dimension.

Ogbechie, C.,& Konfopolus, D.N. (2010). Board effectiveness in

the Nigerian banking industry.

Ogunruku, A. O. (2012). University administration in the 21st

century a new direction. Ile-Ife Osun: Obafemi Awolowo
University Press Ltd.

Okebukola, P. (2010). World class status for Nigerian

universities: Goals, challenges and pathways, In J. Okoyie,
I. Oloyede, & P. Obaya (Eds.).50 years of university
education in Nigeria, evolution, achievements and future
directions Nigeria: University of Ilorin and National
University Commission,535-551.

Okoh, A. O. (2005). Personal and human resource management

in Nigeria Lagos: Amfitop Books.

Okojie, J.A. (2007). Higher education in Nigeria. Retrieved June

16, 2010 from http://www.nuc nigeria.org

Okoro, D.C.U. (2014). Inspection and supervision for quality

assurance. In N.A. Nwagwu, & U.M.O. Ivowi (2014) (Eds.).
Education in Nigeria: Development and
challenges.Lagos:Foremost Educational Services Ltd,
Lagos.

Oloyede, I.O. (2010). Phases in the development of a Nigerian

University: The University of Ilorin Experience. In 50 years
of University Education in Nigeria. University of Ilorin and
National Universities Commission.

Omolewa, M. (2010). Highlights of historical development of

university education in Nigeria: Evolution, achievements
and future directions (ed.). University of Ilorin and
National University Commission.
 127

Omopariola, O. (nd) Business finance in Nigeria. Ile-Ife, Nigeria:

Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd.

Onah, F.O. (2008). Human resource management. 2nd Edition

Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Ltd.

Onele, A. A. (2014) Basic theories in educational management.

In G. O. Unachukwu & P. N. Okorji (Eds.) Educational
management. A skill building approach. Nimo, Anambra
State: Rex Chrles & Patrick Limited.

Onyeishi, A.O., Eme, O.I., Emeh, I.E.J. (2012). Problems of

personnel management in Nigeria: The Nigeria local
government system experience. Arabia Journal of
Business Management Review (OMAN Chapter) 1, (6)
January, 2012.

Orga,C.C.,& Ogbo, A.I. (2012). Evaluating the challenge of

human resource management in Nigeria: European
Journal of Business and Management,4, (13)

Osemeke, M. (2012). The impact of human resource

management practice on organizational performance: A
Study of Guinness Nigeria PLC. AFRREVIJAH. An
International Journal of Arts and Humanities,1(1)
February, 79-94. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Oshionebe, M.E. (2007). Recruitment selection, placement and

induction process of human resource in complex
organization. In Bello, I.B; Oshionebo, B.O.,& Ojeifo, S. A.
(Eds.) Fundamental of human resource management in
Nigeria. Ibadan: College Press.

Pandit & Mohammed (1990). In Obi, E. (2004) Issues in

educational administration. Enugu: Nigeria Empathy
International.

Punch Newspaper (2015, May 11).Nigeria Varsities: Saddled

with aging infrastructure.
 128

Quest, D.E., Michie, J., Conway, N.,& Sheenan, M. (2003).

Human resource management and corporate
performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial
Relations,41,(2) 291-314.

Roembloom, A.L. (2004). Academic leadership: References in

the key of C. Journal Pediatrics, 145, 281-282.

Saint,W. (2009). Guiding university: Governance and

management arrangements around the globe, Human
Development Network, World Bank October, 20.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American

Psychologist.45 (2), 109-119. Retrieved March 10, 2003
fromhttp://dxdoi.org /10 /03 /0003- 066x.45.2.109.

Sera Y.& Beaudry, S. (2007). Social development. The World

Bank Monitoring and Evaluation: Tips for Strengthening
Organizational Capacity. www. world
bank.org/smallgrants program.

Shapiro, J. (2001). Civicus: World alliance for citizen

participation.
Newtown, Johannesbburg. Retrieved from http://www.
civicus. org.

Tsav, S. A. (2015) Governing councils‟ activities on staff and students

personnel management in federal and state universities
in the north central states, Nigeria. The Journal of
Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research (JEPER)2
(4) 85-99.

Ume, T. (2002). Fundamentals of educational administration.

Nsukka. Chukwu Education.

Unachukwu, G.O.,& Okorji, P.N. (2014) (Eds.) Educational

management: A skill building approach. Nimo, Anambra
State: Rex Charles & Patrick Limited.
Welsh, L.S.A. (2010). Increasing a community college governing
boards’ engagement in accountability for student
success:
 129

What are the principal influences? UMI 3438, UMI

Dissertation Publishing ProQuest LLC Ann Arbor.

Williams, K. A. (2011). Assessing the impact of governing

boards for Louisian public institutions of higher learning
regarding policy and governance UMI 3453031, UMI
Publishing ProQuest LLC. Ann Arbor.

Williams, S. (2009). Guiding universities: Governance and

management arrangements around the globe
commissioned by the human development network.
World Bank 2009 October, 20.

Yusuf, A. (2010). An overview of the philosophical, historical

political and socio-economic factors that have impacted
on the development of universities in Nigeria. In 50 years
of university education in Nigeria: Evolution,
achievements and future directions (ed.). University of
Ilorin and National University Commission.

APPENDIX 1
 130

QUESTIONNAIRE

Department of Educational
Management and Policy
NnamdiAzikiwe University
Awka
10th February, 2015.

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am a Ph.D. research student in the Department of Educational

Management and Policy, NnamdiAzikiwe University Awka. The
focus of this study is on Assessment of university council
Performance in South East Nigeria.

The attached questionnaire is designed to elicit information

from present and past members of governing council and staff
of universities whose duties relate to governing council
activities. The information derived is hoped to help in reshaping
governing council activities in the universities.

I will be grateful if you kindly assist in this study by completing

the questionnaire faithfully through your objective and honest
response as it affects your institution.
I assure you, information given will be treated as confidential.
Kindly oblige me and God bless you.

Yours Faithfully

Mr. Ofor, Raymond Ozoemena.

ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY COUNCIL

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART ONE
 131

Institutional Data
Please thick (√) in the spaces provided, otherwise complete.
1. Name of University ------------------------------------------------
2. Typeof ownership.
a) Federal Government University
b) State Government University

PART TWO
Instruction: Please tick (√) on the column that describes your
rating of the governing council of your university in the
performance of the following functions in sections A-G. Very
High (VH), High (H), Low (L), Very Low (VL).

Section A: Personnel Functions

S/N Items VH H L VL

1 Clarification of the mission of the university.

2 Attracting qualified staff for recruitment.

3 Retaining qualified staff.

4 Planning succession for filling positions of

principal officers (Vice Chancellor, Registrar,
Bursar, University Librarian)

5 Control and discipline of staff.

6 Conflict resolution among staff.

7 Development of human resource management

policies.
 132

Staff compensation management.

Staff performance appraisal.

Staff recruitment and selection.

Acting as court of the last appealto aggrieved staff.

Section B: Maintenance of University Culture

S/N Items VH H L VL

12 Maintenance of transparency in activities of

the university

13 Maintenance of good atmosphere in the

university.

14 Sharing of common vision by members.

15 Maintenance of team spirit in decision

making process.

16 Maintenance of openness in discussion.

17 Building constructive relationship among

members.

18 Establishment of professional
culture.

19 Nurturing of desired qualities and values.

20 Building a professional non–partisan culture.

21 Subjecting meetings and records to public

review
 133

Section C: Financial Functions

S/N Items VH H L VL

22 Development of intended learning

outcomes.

23 Publication of learning outcomes.

24 Careful attention to curriculum design and

contents.

25 Careful attention to different modes of

delivery (full time, part

time, distance learning, e-learning)

26 Provision of appropriate learning resources.

27 Monitoring of the progress and

achievements
of students.

28 Regular review of programmes.

Section D: Monitoring and Review of Programmes

and Awards
S/N Items VH H L VL

29 Development of intended learning

outcomes.

30 Publication of learning outcomes.

31 Careful attention to curriculum design and

 134

contents.

Careful attention to different modes of delivery

(full time, part

time, distance learning, e-learning)

Provision of appropriate learning resources.

Monitoring of the progress and achievements of

students.

Regular review of programmes.

Section E: External Relations

S/N Items VH H L VL

36 Co-ordination of President‟s or Governor‟s

strategic plans with the university agenda.

37 Joint goal setting between the governing

council and layers of governance.

38 Governing council members access to the

president or governor.

39 Maintaining high level of communication

vehicles across layers of governance.

40 Staying on the agenda even as presidents or

governors turn over.
 135

Section F: Internal Relationships

S/N Items VH H L VL

41 Maintenance of informal contacts between

governing council members.

42 Maintenance of cordial relationship between

the Vice Chancellor and governing
council
members.

43 Maintenance of cordial relationship between

the Vice chancellor and chairman of
governing council.

44 Maintenance of cordial relationship among

staff.

Section G: Development and Maintenance of

Facilities
and Infrastructure
S/N Items VH H L VL

45 Successful negotiation and entering into

contracts for projects in the university.

46 Cancellation of non-performing contracts.

47 Provision of adequate teaching facilities

in
the university.

48 Provision of information and communication

 136

technology

APPENDIX 2
STATISTICAL TABLES

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 a11 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10

c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 f1 f2 f3 f4 g1 g2 g3 g4 g5

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

 137

Descriptives

univasitype = Federal

a
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

a1 61 1.00 4.00 2.967 .948

a2 61 1.00 4.00 2.721 .968

a3 61 1.00 4.00 2.082 .737

a4 61 1.00 4.00 2.623 .778

a5 61 1.00 4.00 2.245 1.010

a6 61 1.00 4.00 2.967 .965

a7 61 1.00 4.00 2.852 .872

a8 61 1.00 4.00 2.950 .973

a9 61 1.00 4.00 3.016 .991

a10 61 1.00 4.00 2.213 .685

a11 61 1.00 4.00 2.901 .888

b1 61 1.00 4.00 2.934 .928

b2 61 1.00 4.00 2.885 .858

b3 61 1.00 4.00 2.704 .989

b4 61 1.00 4.00 3.098 .850

b5 61 1.00 4.00 3.098 .850

b6 61 1.00 4.00 2.639 .876

b7 61 1.00 4.00 2.278 .985

b8 61 1.00 4.00 2.114 1.034

b9 61 1.00 4.00 2.623 1.051

 138

b10 61 1.00 4.00 1.868 .957

c1 61 2.00 4.00 2.754 .809

c2 61 2.00 4.00 3.065 .793

c3 61 1.00 3.00 1.803 .653

c4 61 1.00 2.00 1.786 .412

c5 61 1.00 4.00 1.918 .936

c6 60 1.00 4.00 2.966 .862

c7 60 1.00 4.00 1.800 .879

c8 60 1.00 4.00 1.716 .884

c9 60 1.00 4.00 1.883 .845

c10 61 1.00 4.00 1.967 .729

c11 61 1.00 2.00 1.688 .466

d1 61 1.00 4.00 2.229 .955

d2 61 1.00 4.00 2.442 .827

d3 61 1.00 4.00 2.180 .885

d4 61 1.00 3.00 2.032 .706

d5 61 2.00 4.00 2.688 .764

d6 61 1.00 3.00 1.606 .556

d7 61 1.00 3.00 1.836 .453

d8 61 1.00 3.00 1.967 .604

e1 61 2.00 4.00 2.623 .734

e2 61 1.00 3.00 1.770 .559

e3 61 1.00 3.00 1.704 .527

e4 61 1.00 3.00 1.901 .650

e5 61 2.00 4.00 2.737 .793

f1 61 1.00 4.00 2.426 .884

 139

f2 61 2.00 4.00 2.754 .745

f3 61 1.00 4.00 2.426 .845

f4 61 1.00 3.00 1.934 .679

g1 61 1.00 3.00 2.016 .618

g2 61 1.00 3.00 2.065 .573

g3 61 1.00 3.00 2.032 .604

g4 61 2.00 4.00 2.786 .732

g5 61 1.00 3.00 2.032 .546

Valid N (listwise) 60

a. univasitype = Federal

univasitype = State

a
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

a1 70 1.00 4.00 2.642 .963

a2 70 1.00 4.00 2.542 .828

a3 70 1.00 4.00 2.885 .893

a4 70 2.00 4.00 2.785 .849

a5 70 1.00 4.00 2.928 .889

a6 70 1.00 4.00 2.400 .923

a7 70 1.00 4.00 1.785 .930

a8 70 1.00 4.00 2.342 .866

a9 70 1.00 4.00 2.942 .946

a10 70 1.00 4.00 2.742 .973

 140

a11 70 1.00 4.00 1.814 .921

b1 70 1.00 4.00 1.728 .797

b2 70 1.00 4.00 1.871 .899

b3 70 1.00 4.00 2.100 .764

b4 70 1.00 4.00 2.885 .808

b5 70 1.00 4.00 1.814 .921

b6 70 1.00 4.00 2.657 .866

b7 70 1.00 4.00 1.814 .921

b8 70 1.00 3.00 1.785 .535

b9 70 1.00 4.00 1.628 .870

b10 70 1.00 4.00 2.714 .704

c1 70 1.00 4.00 2.671 .846

c2 70 1.00 4.00 2.014 .648

c3 70 1.00 3.00 1.942 .507

c4 70 1.00 4.00 2.842 .972

c5 70 1.00 4.00 2.085 .811

c6 70 2.00 4.00 3.085 .775

c7 70 1.00 4.00 2.842 .926

c8 70 1.00 4.00 1.857 .905

c9 70 1.00 4.00 1.957 .858

c10 70 1.00 3.00 2.014 .496

c11 70 1.00 4.00 1.842 .911

d1 70 1.00 4.00 2.557 .911

d2 70 1.00 4.00 2.642 .799

d3 70 1.00 4.00 2.942 .866

d4 70 1.00 3.00 1.871 .720

 141

d5 70 1.00 3.00 1.985 .670

d6 70 1.00 3.00 1.942 .634

d7 70 1.00 3.00 1.971 .537

d8 70 1.00 3.00 1.828 .563

e1 70 1.00 3.00 1.771 .515

e2 70 1.00 3.00 1.885 .602

e3 70 1.00 3.00 1.942 .634

e4 70 2.00 4.00 2.628 .640

e5 70 1.00 3.00 1.800 .579

f1 70 2.00 4.00 2.714 .744

f2 70 2.00 4.00 2.671 .756

f3 70 1.00 3.00 1.771 .515

f4 70 1.00 4.00 2.128 .946

g1 70 1.00 3.00 1.771 .593

g2 70 1.00 3.00 1.985 .601

g3 70 1.00 3.00 2.157 .500

g4 70 1.00 4.00 2.357 .834

g5 70 2.00 4.00 2.757 .731

Valid N (listwise) 70

a. univasitype = State

Descriptives

univasitype = Federal
 142

a
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Personnal functions 61 1.82 3.36 2.685 .386

Maintenance of culture 61 1.90 3.80 2.624 .415

Financial function 60 1.55 2.82 2.121 .406

Monitorin 61 1.50 2.88 2.123 .347

External relations functions 61 1.40 3.00 2.147 .417

External relations functions 61 1.50 3.50 2.385 .499

Development and maintrenance

of facilities andinfrastructure 61 1.40 3.20 2.186 .468

functions
Valid N (listwise) 60

a. univasitype = Federal

univasitype = State

a
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Personnal functions 70 1.73 3.55 2.528 .424

 143

Maintenance of culture 70 1.50 3.40 2.100 .494

Financial function 70 1.45 3.36 2.287 .455

Monitorin 70 1.38 3.00 2.217 .405

External relations functions 70 1.40 2.40 2.005 .304

External relations functions 70 1.50 3.50 2.321 .474

Development and
maintrenance of facilities 70 1.60 2.80 2.205 .324
andinfrastructure functions

Valid N (listwise) 70

a. univasitype = State

Z-TEST GROUPS=univasitype(1 2)

/MISSING=ANALYSIS

/VARIABLES=personnel maintenance financialfuntn monitorin external internal

development /CRITERIA=CI(.95).

Z-test

Group Statistics

Univasitype N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Personnal functions Federal 61 2.6855 .386 .049

State 70 2.5286 .424 .050

Maintenance of culture Federal 61 2.6246 .415 .053

State 70 2.1000 .494 .059

Financial function Federal 60 2.1212 .406 .052

State 70 2.2870 .455 .054

Monitorin Federal 61 2.1230 .347 .044

 144

State 70 2.2179 .405 .0484

External relations functions Federal 61 2.1475 .417 .053

State 70 2.0057 .304 .036

External relations functions Federal 61 2.3852 .499 .063

State 70 2.3214 .474 .056

Development and maintrenance Federal 61 2.1869 .468 .060

of facilities andinfrastructure
functions State 70 2.2057 .324 .038

Independent Samples Test

z-test for
Levene's Test for Equality of Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. t

Personnal functions Equal variances assumed .373 .542 2.20

Equal variances not assumed 2.21

Maintenance of culture Equal variances assumed .103 .749 6.52

Equal variances not assumed 6.598

Financial function Equal variances assumed .020 .889 -2.173

Equal variances not assumed -2.192

Monitorin Equal variances assumed .203 .653 -1.427

Equal variances not assumed -1.442

External relations functions Equal variances assumed 7.211 .008 2.239

Equal variances not assumed 2.192

External relations functions Equal variances assumed .315 .575 .750

Equal variances not assumed .747
 145

Development and maintrenance Equal variances assumed 2.779 .098 -.270

of facilities andinfrastructure
functions Equal variances not assumed -.263

Independent Samples Test

z-test for Equality of Means

df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Personnel functions Equal variances assumed 129 .030 .156

Equal variances not assumed 128.748 .028 .156

Maintenance of culture Equal variances assumed 129 .000 .524

Equal variances not assumed 128.855 .000 .524

Financial function Equal variances assumed 128 .032 -.165

Equal variances not assumed 127.784 .030 -.165

Monitoring Equal variances assumed 129 .156 -.094

Equal variances not assumed 128.976 .152 -.094

External relations functions Equal variances assumed 129 .027 .141

Equal variances not assumed 108.240 .031 .141

Internal relations functions Equal variances assumed 129 .455 .063

Equal variances not assumed 124.524 .456 .063

Development and maintenance of Equal variances assumed 129 .788 -.018

facilities and infrastructure
functions Equal variances not assumed 104.741 .793 -.018

Independent Samples Test

z-test for Equality of Means

 146

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper

Personnal functions Equal variances assumed .07132 .015 .298

Equal variances not assumed .07085 .016 .297

Maintenance of culture Equal variances assumed .08045 .365 .683

Equal variances not assumed .07950 .367 .681

Financial function Equal variances assumed .07629 -.316 -.014

Equal variances not assumed .07562 -.315 -.016

Monitorin Equal variances assumed .06651 -.226 .036

Equal variances not assumed .06582 -.225 .035

External relations functions Equal variances assumed .06334 .016 .267

Equal variances not assumed .06470 .013 .270

External relations functions Equal variances assumed .08512 -.104 .232

Equal variances not assumed .08542 -.105 .232

Development and maintrenance Equal variances assumed .06977 -.156 .119

of facilities andinfrastructure
functions Equal variances not assumed .07149 -.160 .122

APPENDIX 3
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
 154

APPENDIX 4
 155

4
156
157
158

156
 159

5
 160

5
 161

5
162