The basis of internationalisation differs from nation to nation and institution to institution; however, the current trend suggests that the number of activities is also increasing ( Xu, 2023 ; Rumbley et al., 2012 ). Internationalisation is also described with respect to the primary motivations or rationales which drive the concept. This may include academic standards, income generation, cultural diversity, and student and staff development ( Xu, 2023 ; Knight, 2015 ). Although different institutions implement internationalisation activities based on their context ( Rumbley et al., 2012 ), the following authors; Engberg and Green (2002) , Kehm and Teichler (2007) , Teferra and Knight (2008) , and Bennett and Kane (2011) share a common focus. As summarized on Table 1 below.

Exploring the list of internalisation activities, the difference between authors appears to lie in their selected terminology and the description level, driven by the institution’s focus and priority. It is evident that the number of activities is increasing over time; however, all activities are in line with the global consensus that internationalisation activities are diverse and are implemented differently by different stakeholders ( Xu, 2021 ; de Wit, 2013 ; Rumbley et al., 2012 ; Knight, 2015 ).

Leadership literature in general has revealed that leadership and management are catalysts for a successful organisation ( Tight, 2022 ; Fullan & Scott, 2009 ). However, it has been observed that the distinction between leadership and management is difficult to apply in practice despite literature consensus on the differences ( Bryman, 2007 ). Bryman (2007) also indicated that evolution in different organisations, including higher education, has significantly altered the balance between leadership and management activities. Brayman’s study on the roles of heads of departments in tertiary institutions, revealed that, despite recognising themselves as intellectual leaders, they turn into managers when they are given administrative positions ( Bryman, 2007 ). Conversely, the trend of university leadership shows that senior professors initially managed universities. The senior academic staff selected the rector or vice-chancellor from among their ranks, sometimes with the approval of government or clerical authorities ( Altbach, 2014 ; Tight, 2002 ). This arrangement worked well enough in small institutions with established roles requiring little management. With continued and expanded responsibilities, university institutions and systems are now large and complex organisations requiring skilled management, innovative leadership, and effective frameworks for decision-making ( Tight, 2022 ; Altbach, 2014 ). The expansion of university tasks to include the integration of an international dimension to higher-education activities brings an added responsibility to the leaders.

Leadership understanding has evolved, and it reflects the clear sequences, from trait to skills to style to behaviourist, then situational, and contingency, until transactional and transformational ( Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 2005 ). However, it appears that leadership styles are mostly purposefully oriented ( Fullan & Scott, 2009 ). Although most leadership theories were drawn from the business world before penetrating higher education ( Heyl & Tullbane, 2012 ), leadership theories are useful to higher-education leaders. According to Heyl and Tullbane (2012) , theories provide guidance on leading from strength, remedying weaknesses, and exploiting opportunities.

Contingency/situational leadership theory

The contingency leadership theory firstly focused on situational variables in leadership personality and behaviour ( Avolio et al., 2009 ). However, the situational leadership theory determines the leadership style which matches the situation to maximise performance. Therefore, situational leadership benefits from the situational approach which places the leader in a situation that becomes a variable of performance. Situational leadership is also based on the assumption that changes occur over time, calling for the leader to use diagnostic skills to assess these developmental changes, matching them with leadership style, ranging from directive to supportive ( Yukl, 2006 ). Therefore, the contingency leadership theory is based on a match between the leader and the situation. This encompasses the situation, depending on the relationships between leaders and followers, the task difficulty, and the power of the leader.

Transformational/transactional leadership theories

Discussion about transformational leadership points to leaders and followers’ relationship and level of motivation; on the other hand, the transactional leadership theory describes motivating followers by eliciting their self-interest ( Avolio et al., 2004 ). In this case, the transactional leader exchanges pay and status for work. Therefore, influence in transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority. However, transactional leadership does not only bank on incentive and rewards, it also encompasses clarification of the work. As with most leadership endeavours, the transformational leadership theory activates the motivation in followers. Therefore, transformational leadership seeks to inspire vision, and to empower others; hence it is applicable to higher education ( Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras McGavin, 2006 ).

Connective leadership theory

The connective leadership model was developed while in search of the various behaviours used by men and women to achieve goals ( Lipman-Blumen, 2006 ). Therefore, connective leadership is the leadership style that enhances the connectivity between the various elements of business ( Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2005 ; Lipman-Blumen, 2006 ). This involves collaborative and joint efforts of actors that might spread globally. Therefore, the leadership task in connective leadership is to synchronise workers in order to ensure that they achieve the common goal of the organisation ( Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2005 ). Connective leadership is also situation based; hence businesses require leaders with a keen eye to identify the actors with skill, thereafter assigning them tasks that may be mutually beneficial to both members and the company ( Lipman-Blumen, 2006 ). Connective leadership, through different studies, has revealed the ability to adapt leadership to suit the context ( Lipman-Blumen, 2006 ). Hence, connective leadership is appropriate in connecting leaders with academic members, academic to academic, academic to institution, leader to institution, and institution to institution.

Martin Trow (1985)

In the article Comparative Reflections on Leadership in Higher Education, Martin Trow (1985) presents leadership in higher education in large part as the taking of effective action to shape the character and direction of a college or university, presumably for the better. Leadership shows itself chiefly along four dimensions: symbolic, political, managerial, and academic. In this case, the symbolic dimension is the ability to express, project, and indeed seem to embody the institution’s character, central goals, and values in a powerful way. Internally, leadership of this kind explains and justifies the institution and its decisions to participants by linking its organisation and processes to the larger purposes of teaching and learning in ways that strengthen their motivation and morale. Externally, a leader’s ability to articulate the institution’s nature and purposes effectively helps shape its image, affecting its capacity to gain support from its environment and recruit able staff and students. The political dimension refers to a leader’s ability to resolve the conflicting demands and pressures in an organisation, both internal and external, and gain support for the institution’s goals and purposes. The managerial dimension is the familiar capacity to direct and coordinate the various support activities of the institution; this includes good judgment in the selection of staff, the ability to develop and manage a budget, planning for the future, and building and maintaining organisation stability. Finally, the academic dimension shows itself, among other aspects, as the ability to recognise excellence in teaching, learning, and research; in knowing where and how to intervene to strengthen academic structures; in the choice of able academic administrators, and support for efforts to recruit and advance talented teachers and scholars.

Bolman and Deal (2008)

In the book Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, Bolman and Deal (2008) , discuss four element frames for leading organisations. These include Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic. The structural frame is focused on positioning the right people in the appropriate roles, creating organisational structures, and strategically using committees and task forces to lead. The human resource frame assumes a co-dependency between the organisation and the people employed by it. Leaders see the people within the organisation as its most important asset and competitive advantage. In the political frame, interest groups and scarce resources result in power and position being important in negotiating goals and decisions. Finally, the symbolic frame relies on creating meaning, instilling faith, and using symbols and ceremonies to develop a culture that is unified and committed to a vision.

Martin Trow (1985) and Bolman and Deal (2008) Leadership Dimensions ( Table 2 ).

Exploring Bolman and Deal (2008) shows that these researchers place much value on matching the frame to the specific situation to enhance understanding of the organisation, helping to accomplish the intended purpose. In contrast, Martin Trow sees that leadership varies in how talents and energy are distributed. Therefore, effective action must be taken to shape the character and direction of the university. In the university context, understanding the organisation and the most effective action for shaping the direction of internationalisation is relevant. The frame appears sufficient and critical regarding academic organisations and the nature of governance. Tight (2022) recognise that many factors, functions, and effects may constrain leadership influence on governance of higher education. Though, identifying the type of governance may help the type of leadership, enabling more remarkable success in achieving institutional goals.

Five-Dimension Leadership Frame

Although the two leadership frameworks differ in focus and coverage, they are relevant to higher education as an organisation. Bolman and Deal (2008) focus is general and aligned towards organisational structure and operations; however, this does not appear clearly in academic activities. While Trow (1985) has aligned the discussion with specific purposes, such as academic elements, he does not clarify the relationship between the organisation and the people. However, in the context of the current higher education and activities related to internationalisation, integrating the two focus points will provide an appropriate framework for higher-education leadership in internationalisation context. Therefore, the five-dimensional higher education leadership framework emerged from the reflections of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Trow (1985) and insights into leadership activities relating to the internationalisation of higher education. The five-dimensional higher education leadership framework stand out because it addresses clear and specific activities, has broader coverage, and recognises the academic, structural, and managerial imperatives. The five-dimensional leadership framework represents a continuous sequence in the organisation’s operation. All the leadership dimensions are at the same level of importance, and the sequence of operation has no direction because the sequence is based on appropriate tasks rather than direction.

Higher education five-dimensional leadership framework ( Figure 1 ).

Structural Leadership Dimension

The structural leadership framework focuses on creating and recognising organisational structures, with a fully-fledged and filled structure for higher education. There is a consensus among literature on the internationalisation activities taking place at the lower level of the organisation. The lower level comprises staff assigned to work on the activities based on their expertise in their respective disciplines. This shows that internationalisation activities are also determined by expertise within the structure and disciplines. Therefore, university leadership needs to strengthen the offices by supplying the best structure and people. Some university leaderships have recognised that internationalisation is both academic and administrative matter; therefore, they are developing a structure of a stand-alone international office. Therefore, knowledge of higher education structure and an appropriate leadership framework is imperative.

Political Leadership Dimension

The political leadership is expected to strive to gain support for the institution, to make decisions based on available resources, to make decisions based on powers of the office, and above all, to be able to resolve conflicting demands, both internal and external. Political leadership framework will be useful in cases such as prioritising resource mobilization as a key activity to support the current financial distress. Politically, the current situation demands vigorous resource-mobilization strategies. Leaders are expected to choose internationalisation activities based on substantial financial benefits and with work minimum financial implications. However, in a situation where higher education is still at the development stage, and the priorities are still internal capacity building, conflicting decision-making arises. Therefore, leaders must choose between enrolling local students as a national priority and taking on international students for much-needed financial benefit. This type of decision will be influenced by the realities at institutional or national level through a political-leadership framework.

Symbolic Leadership Dimension

A symbolic leadership dimension is intended to help leaders articulate the nature and purposes of the institutions to develop a higher-education culture. Leaders use various methods to demonstrate commitment to internationalisation. The universities have benefited from the symbolism which has helped to increase its visibility using explicit policy for internationalisation to articulate the goals and purposes of the institution apropos of internationalisation of higher education activities. Hence, it is necessary to ensure meaningful knowledge and understanding of the relentless forces of internationalisation which will continue to urge higher-education institutions.

Managerial Leadership Dimension

The managerial leadership dimension scrutinises the interface of people and the organisation. People are expected to contribute to the organisation; hence, they are assets, and their activities should be coordinated. Management leadership also deals with creating co-dependence, directing, and coordinating support and making plans. Internationalisation activities are initiated at different levels, either top-down or down-top. However, all activities are facilitated by a central office in terms of memoranda of understanding and facilitation of international travel requirements. As the internationalisation opportunities unveil, leadership connects the activities with the proper department for implementation. Therefore, there is need for plans which will show commitment to internationalisation and a demonstration of managerial leadership.

Academic Leadership Dimension

The academic leadership dimension is demonstrated through recognition of excellence in academic matters, strengthening of academic culture, and support for advancing staff and scholars’ talents. The universities generally structure academic leadership through the university committee of the senate, whose responsibility is to decide on quality aspects of academic programmes to strengthen academic culture. University leadership should strive to recognise staff development and maintain processes to encourage local lecturers to accept the internationalisation context through exposure to other countries.

Leaders in the university would practice these leadership dimensions to varying degrees. The leadership dimensions often overlap, while some operate simultaneously. The study revealed that, during internationalisation leaders make symbolic statements while providing structural support. As national goals and institutional priorities create an opposing continuum, the political and the symbolic will dominate. During financial distress, the political dimension will dominate because such situations demand negotiation before decision-making.

Therefore, depending on the context of the demand for internationalisation, one leadership dimension may suffice; but all the five leadership dimensions may be used as leadership tool for internationalisation of higher education.