Abstract:
This study sought to investigate the practices and relationships between servant leadership, good governance, institutional
health and effectiveness of public universities. The research questions were: To what extent do leaders perform servant
leadership, good governance, institutional health and effectiveness? How do staffs describe the existing practices of
servant leadership, good governance, institutional health and effectiveness in their respective institutions? Is there
statistically significant mean difference between the faculty and students? Is there statistically significant mean difference
among leaders, faculty and students regarding the practices of the variables in their respective institutions? Is there
statistically significant relationship between the variables? What is the combined effect of servant leadership, good
governance and institutional health on institutional effectiveness? The researcher employed mixed methods research
approach of explanatory sequential design. A total of 737 participants were involved. Closed-ended questionnaires, semistructured
interviews
and
observation
of
selected
documents
were
used
to
gather
data.
The
mean,
standard
deviations,
an
independent
samples t-test, One-Way ANOVA, Pearson correlation and multiple regressions were employed for data
analyses. Hence, the study came up with four major findings. First, the computed mean values portrayed ‘moderate’
implementations of the variables in sample universities. And these are partly in agreement with the qualitative results.
Secondly, the mean difference between the faculty and students at BDU found not statistically significant; but the mean
differences were statistically significant both at DTU and DBU. The ANOVA results also showed not statistically
significant differences of the mean among leaders, faculty and students at BDU; but statistically significant both at DTU
and DBU. Thirdly, Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient revealed statistically significant and strong positive relationships
between the variables. Fourthly, the coefficient of determination of servant leadership, good governance and institutional
health showed statistically significant accounts on the variance of institutional effectiveness. Thus, the findings may help
leaders and practitioners aware about the extent of the implementations of the variables in their own context and instigate
them for enhanced performances. On top of this, leaders and practitioners may be cognizant of the positive contributions
of servant leadership, good governance and institutional health to ensure institutional effectiveness in universities. In the
meantime, such practices and contributions may add values for university leadership and governance system. Therefore,
so as to sustain and act as exemplar in leadership, governance and in creating healthy as well as productive institutions,
leaders in universities are recommended to instate servant leadership and equip themselves and others with the required
knowledge and skills of such leadership philosophy, demonstrate down-to-earth practices on good governance and create
healthy working environments in their contexts. This may also help record better performances and ensure institutional
effectiveness. In addition, researchers are recommended to conduct longitudinal studies and test long-term correlations
and causality between servant leadership, good governance, institutional health and effectiveness. Consequently, they may
come up with better insights and results that can add values for the existing body of knowledge and practices.