It has long been known companies’ success largely depends on the leaders who head them. There have been singled out five models of leadership with level 5 leaders being the highest level of a manager’s abilities. The key characteristic of level 5 managers is the complete absence of egocentrism (Caldwell & Anderson, 2021). According to the generally accepted point of view, the “great leader” has a strong personality, he is selfish and ambitious. However, level 5 managers, on the contrary, look modest and unassuming. Although they are fully responsible for mistakes, poor results or failures, managers of this type give credit to other people in achieving success.
Despite their modesty, level 5 managers are resolute in achieving high organizational performance. They are extremely ambitious, but not in personal, but in corporate terms. Managers of this type manifest themselves especially vividly in the field of planning. They form a strong team of top managers, so that after their departure the company continues to thrive (Caldwell et al., 2017). Egocentric leaders, on the contrary, attribute failures to the mistakes of their successors in order to preserve the image of a “great leader” if the company shows poor results after their resignation. Everything in the organization is built around a single egocentric leader who surrounds himself with many assistants. Level 5 managers act in the opposite way. They create a company with several strong leaders who are able to move forward and build on the success achieved. Level 5 managers strive to ensure that each employee reaches their full potential, and the company becomes a learning leadership organization.
Level 5 leaders are able to achieve exceptional and long-term results, thanks to an amazing combination of personal qualities and professional will. Level 5 leaders are able to evoke genuine enthusiasm, and will be able to prepare a worthy successor. The leaders of the fifth level are modest, correct, intelligent and take great care of their offspring. These are people with highly developed spirituality. They do not humiliate their subordinates, they know how to take responsibility for failures on themselves and appreciate the merits of others.
The leaders of the fifth level are ambitious, but their ambition manifests itself not in the desire for personal success and recognition, but in achieving the success of their enterprises. They are doing everything possible to ensure that their successors achieve even more outstanding results. They are fanatically devoted to their work, with the desire to achieve outstanding results for a long time. They are distinguished by their exceptional dedication and willingness to do everything necessary for the success of their companies, regardless of the scale of the decisions taken, or the difficulty with which these decisions are made.
The USA has created a very complex, differentiated system of financing both institutions of higher education and directly students and their parents. Due to the decentralized nature of North American federalism, the powers in this area largely belong not only to federal government agencies, but also to the states. The importance of legal regulation of the financing of higher education is emphasized by the fact that the most important law in this area – the Law on Higher Education of 1965 – is mostly devoted to financial aspects.
In the context of increasing education costs, financial state assistance to students and their family members is of great importance. In five years, the number of students receiving financial assistance increased from 80 to 85%. However, a number of negative trends are developing. The number of recipients of student loans and the amount of borrowings is growing, which significantly
increases the debt burden on students, graduates and their families. The number of recipients of student loans is 76% for two–year private commercial universities, 61% for private non–profit ones, and 26% for public ones. For four-year colleges, the average loan amount was $8,430 for private for-profit institutions, $8,028 for private non-profit and $6,682 for public institutions (Hussar et al., 2020). Over 12 years, the average student loan increased by 39 % (from $5,100 to $7,000). The number of payers on such loans has reached 4.7 million, and the number of those who are unable to repay the loan has increased – 651 thousand people (or 13.7%) (Hussar et al., 2020). In general, over 12 years, the number of the number of recipients of student loans increased by 9 % (from 40 to 49%). The credit burden negatively affects not only family budgets, but also the career prospects of graduates.
Despite the increase in the total amount of federal funding for higher education, a significant budgetary burden continues to be placed on regional and municipal budgets. The growth of tuition fees, the total expenses of students for education and accommodation, an increase in the number and volume of student loans, an increase in student loan debt and the number of defaults, a decrease in the costs of most universities for training demonstrate negative and alarming trends.
To solve the existing problems, it seems necessary to increase the role of the federal government in streamlining the system of financing higher education and implementing inter-budgetary regulation in this area; increasing the role of gratuitous grant aid in the structure of financial assistance to poor students; clear legislative regulation of not only public, but also private student loan programs; optimization of the taxation system in the field of higher education to stimulate private investment in this area.
References
Caldwell, C., Ichiho, R., & Anderson, V. (2017). Understanding level 5 leaders: the ethical perspectives of leadership humility.Journal of Management Development. Web.
Caldwell, C., & Anderson, V. (2021). University Professors as “Transformative Leaders”. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 14(1), 8. Web.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Saenz, M. (2019). State higher education funding cuts have pushed costs to students, worsened inequality.Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 24, 9-15. Web.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., Masterson, K., & Waxman, S. (2018). Unkept promises: State cuts to higher education threaten access and equity.Higher Education Policy for Minorities in the USA. Web.
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J.,… & Dilig, R. The Condition of Education 2020. NCES 2020-144. National Center for Education Statistics. Web.