research and development series...final report richard bolden, georgy petrov and jonathan gosling...

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENTSERIESDeveloping Collective Leadership in Higher Education

Final Report

Richard Bolden, Georgy Petrov and Jonathan Gosling Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENTSERIESDeveloping Collective Leadership in Higher Education

Final Report

Richard Bolden, Georgy Petrov and Jonathan Gosling Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

February 2008

First published in February 2008Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

Published by the Leadership Foundationfor Higher Education

Registered and operational address:Leadership Foundation, 88 Kingsway,London WC2B 6AA, England

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7841 2814Fax: +44 (0) 20 7681 6219E-mail: [email protected]

© Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recordingor any information storage and retrieval system, withoutprior permission in writing from the copywriter owner.

ISBN 0-9553788-4-2ISBN 978-0-9553788-4-3

Designed & produced by Abbey DPM

Printed in the United Kingdom

Editor: Helen Goreham

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education in funding this project.In particular we would like to thank Professor Robin Middlehurst, Ewart Wooldridge, Helen Goreham and Rob Robertson fortheir invaluable support and advice.

We are also greatly indebted to the assistance of the leadership development managers in the 12 sample institutions althoughdue to confidentiality agreements are unfortunately unable to name them. Without their help it would have been impossibleto coordinate the extensive data collection process and their feedback on draft institutional profiles and input at two focusgroups has been instrumental in the framing of the research and interpretation of findings.

We would also like, of course, to thank the 12 institutions that willingly volunteered to participate in this research and the 152people who were kind enough to spare their time to be interviewed. We hope that they found the process as interesting as we did.

Richard Bolden, Georgy Petrov and Jonathan Gosling

Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

Acknowledgements

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 5

2.1 BACKGROUND 5

2.2 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 5

2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 6

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 7

3.1 GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

3.2 UNIVERSITIES AS ORGANISATIONS 8

3.3 FROM HIERARCHICAL TO DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 11

3.4 FORMS OF DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 12

3.5 DEVELOPING COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP 13

4. METHOD 16

4.1 RATIONALE 16

4.2 PROCEDURE 16

4.3 LIMITATIONS 17

5. LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES 18

5.1 OVERVIEW 18

5.2 CHANGING UNIVERSITY STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS 18

5.3 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 20

5.4 INSTITUTIONAL ROLES, SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 22

5.5 FORMAL AND INFORMAL NETWORKS 24

5.6 LEADERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES 25

5.7 KEY POINTS 26

6. TAKING UP A LEADERSHIP ROLE 27

6.1 OVERVIEW 27

6.2 MOTIVATIONS FOR TAKING UP A LEADERSHIP ROLE 27

6.3 RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION 30

6.4 SELECTION CRITERIA 36

6.5 KEY POINTS 38

7. SHARING LEADERSHIP 39

7.1 OVERVIEW 39

7.2 PERCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 39

7.3 PROCESSES OF DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 40

7.4 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 42

7.5 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE 43

7.6 KEY POINTS 45

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERIES

8. FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES 46

8.1 OVERVIEW 46

8.2 THE CHANGING NATURE AND CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 46

8.3 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES 48

8.4 KEY POINTS 48

9. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 50

9.1 OVERVIEW 50

9.2 CURRENT PRACTICE 50

9.3 EMERGING PRIORITIES 55

9.4 KEY POINTS 59

10. DISCUSSION 60

10.1 THE DISTRIBUTION OF LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION 60

10.2 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION: RHETORIC AND REALITY 64

11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67

STRUCTURAL/ORGANISATIONAL 67

INDIVIDUAL 68

SOCIAL 69

CONTEXTUAL 69

DEVELOPMENTAL 70

FURTHER RESEARCH 71

12. REFERENCES 74

13. ABBREVIATIONS 78

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report presents the findings from an 18-month,Leadership Foundation funded, research project oncollective leadership in UK Higher Education and itsdevelopment. The overall aim of this project was todevelop recommendations on how leadership andleadership development could be enhanced, particularlyin terms of encouraging collective engagement with theleadership process. In order to do this we: (a) exploredwhat is understood by the term ‘leadership’ by variousinstitutional actors; (b) investigated the processes bywhich leadership is distributed at different levels withinuniversities (i.e. school, faculty, executive group, etc.); and (c) examined the way(s) in which leadershipdevelopment (in its broadest sense) contributes towardsimproved leadership capability for individuals, groupsand the wider organisation.

2. In scoping the project we drew principally on threesources: (1) general literature on the impact ofmanagement and leadership development onperformance, (2) current theorising, debate and researchon the nature of collective or ‘distributed’ leadership and (3) existing research on leadership and leadership development in higher education. Eachsource highlighted the significance of the wider contextin which leadership and leadership development takesplace, as opposed to focusing solely on the traits andcapabilities of individual ‘leaders’. Thus integration,embeddedness and collective engagement are arguedto be central to the effectiveness of leadership withinHigher Education Institutions (HEIs) even though theyremain absent within many formal leadershipdevelopment interventions (still targeted at individualsin formal roles).

3. The key focus of this research was on the leadership ofthe academic work of universities (particularly teachingand research) and an exploration of how strategicdirection emerges and is negotiated between varyingactors within and beyond the institution.

4. The primary method of data collection for this study wasin-depth interviews with 152 leaders/managers from 12UK HEIs. Institutions were selected to offer a broad crosssection of universities on the basis of geographiclocation, type, size, disciplinary mix and ranking.Interviewees included senior university managers (atVice-Chancellor/Principal Executive Group level), middle

manager-academics (at faculty, school and departmentlevel), and professional managers and administrators.Interview data was supplemented by a literature review,institutional documentation and two collaborativeworkshops with staff development professionals inparticipating institutions.

5. Findings are presented under five sections as addressed in the interviews: (1) structural/organisationalapproaches to leadership (‘leadership strategies andapproaches’); (2) individual motivations, perceptions and experiences (‘taking up a leadership role’); (3) thesocial and collective aspects of leadership (‘sharingleadership’); (4) the context and changing shape ofhigher education (‘future trends and challenges’); and (5)the role of, and implications for, leadership development.

6. At a structural/organisational level it was noted that alluniversities in our sample have undergone substantialrestructuring within the last five years, including therationalisation of organisational structures includingfaculties, schools and departments; committees;professional and support services and the SeniorManagement Group. Invariably, this has been conductedwith the intent of flattening organisational hierarchiesand devolving greater strategic and operationalautonomy to academic faculties, schools and/ordepartments. These trends have been accompanied bythe expansion, merging, and occasionally closure, ofschools and departments to create larger ‘business units’reporting directly to senior university management,primarily in response to market and political pressuresdemanding a greater commercial orientation fromuniversities.

7. Our findings reveal two main approaches to thedevolution of managerial responsibility according to thelevel to which budget and line managementresponsibilities are allocated. Eight out of the 12universities in our sample devolve primary responsibilityto the faculty/school level, whilst the remaining four devolve this to the next level down (i.e.schools/departments). In the latter case the faculty (orequivalent) level becomes fundamentally a forum forfacilitating horizontal communication and collaborationbetween departments/schools.

8. Whatever the structure, we identify a number of differentkinds of leadership role within the institution, includingthose with formal line and budget management controlwhich have a primarily vertical influence within the

2


1 McNay, I. (1995)

institution and those with more cross-cutting rolesdependent on interpersonal and social influence whichserve a more horizontal function. A further major sourceof leadership within HEIs is people without formalmanagement roles who, nevertheless, commandconsiderable respect and influence through theiracademic and/or professional credentials within andbeyond the institution.

9. People in all of the institutions recognised the need toalign and connect top-down and bottom-up leadershipand management approaches as well as ensuringeffective cross organisational communication andconnection; however, this was recognised as a difficultbalance and in each case gave rise to specific challengesand difficulties. In institutions where a predominantly‘managerial’ or top-down approach to leadershipdominates, senior university managers may be perceived,at the school/department level, to be micro-managingand interfering unnecessarily in academic affairs. Bycontrast, interviewees in universities with highly devolveddecision-making structures frequently expressed a desirefor stronger direction and greater clarity of organisationalpriorities to help guide their activities.

10. In addition to the formally recognised channels forcommunication and influence within universities ourfindings highlight the importance of informal networksand relationships. This ‘social capital’ is integral to themanner in which leadership and management areenacted across the organisation and contributes stronglyto a shared sense of engagement, ownership, purposeand identity. Despite its significance, however, thisdimension of organisational functioning may well beneglected and can lead to dysfunction and confusion inthe exercise of roles and responsibilities.

11. With regard to the leadership of functions/services (suchas HR, Estates, Finance and IT) our findings indicate atrend towards the ‘professionalisation’of these services torender them more commercially orientated andcustomer focused. Associated with this trend, is atendency to decentralise services such as HR into schoolsand faculties and to provide professional managers toassist Deans and Heads in the day-to-day operation oftheir academic units. This shift is leading to a blurring ofthe traditional ‘academic-administrative’ divide and theevolution of a more ‘hybrid’approach.

12. Overall, our findings point towards an increasingmarketisation of UK higher education and

professionalisation of leadership and management.These trends are associated with a gradual shift awayfrom predominantly ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘collegial’forms of organisation towards more ‘corporate’ and‘entrepreneurial’approaches1.

13. At an individual level our findings reveal a range ofmotivations, barriers and incentives for taking on formalleadership and management roles within UK highereducation. Whilst these broadly map onto Deem’s (2001)three tracks (career-route, reluctant-manager and ‘goodcitizen’) the situation is inevitably more complex, withindividual motivations changing over time and oftenoperating in tension with one another. Overall, however,our findings indicate an increasing tendency towards thepursuit of academic leadership as a recognised anddesirable career path and a tendency for academicleaders to choose to remain in such roles after their initialterm in office.

14. Middle-level leadership and management roles such asHead of School/Department are no longer seen as purely‘operational’ or ‘administrative’ and have evolved intosomething more strategic and empowering. Such postsare now usually associated with substantial managerialresponsibility (in terms of finances, resources andinfluence) and are better supported (in terms ofadministrative expertise and ongoing development).Despite this, however, filling these posts has reportedlybecome more difficult for a number of reasons, including:the necessity of getting the right person rather than justsomeone willing to do the job; the need for relevant priorexperience; the detrimental effect on research profile;and unfavourable organisational systems and processes(e.g. for career progression, influence at a senior leveland/or performance appraisal).

15. Recruiting to more senior levels such as PVC/DVC andDean of Faculty/school was generally not regarded as sochallenging. Whilst many leaders at this level haveprogressed internally within the institution there is atendency nowadays to advertise such posts externallyand hold an open recruitment competition. Seniorleadership roles such as this are likely to be moreappealing than that of Head of School/Departmentbecause they can be clearly constituted as careerprogression and may even be regarded as easier roles toperform (with the exception of VC/Principal). There isgenerally less conflict of interests than at the middle level,sitting clearly within the university managementstructure with responsibility for a wide range of

32 Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006a)

disciplines (thus reducing emotional commitment tocolleagues within the same subject area), and moresignificant financial reward. There is also less likely to be aconflict with research activities as leaders at this level arelikely to have reached the pinnacle of their researchcareer and either maintain it or divert their attention tothe support/facilitation of other peoples’research.

16. In terms of recruitment to academic management/leadership roles, whilst ‘research excellence’ (and awillingness to do the job) was traditionally the primaryfactor taken into consideration (particularly within ‘old’,research-intensive universities) the criteria are now beingextended to take greater consideration of managementand leadership experience and potential and to view‘academic credibility’within a broader context than justresearch. Thus, candidates are now likely to beconsidered on a range of factors, including credibility (topeers and colleagues within and beyond the institution),capability (including operational and strategicmanagement experience), character (particularlyintegrity, distinctiveness, inter-personal skills andpersonal style) and career tactics (ambition and desire toprogress, political skills, self-management and ability toproactively manage change).

17. With regards to the social dimensions of leadership inhigher education, especially the shared/distributednature of this type of work, a number of findings wereidentified. Amongst all interviewees there was a sensethat leadership was in some way distributed, with bothstrategic and operational responsibility and influencebeing taken at all levels. The majority of intervieweesconsidered that distributed leadership was not justconceivable within the higher education context, but anecessity – that it is a function that is too complex andimportant to leave to a small group of individuals informal roles.

18. Despite this, however, analysis of responses revealed anumber of variations in the way in which distributedleadership was being conceived. These classificationsbroadly match MacBeath et al’s (2004) typology of formal,pragmatic, strategic, incremental, opportunistic andcultural forms of leadership. The form adopted isinfluenced by a range of factors, perhaps the mostsignificant of which is financial control, with greaterpower and influence afforded to schools/departmentswith direct control of budgets and resources. Ourfindings distinguish between two principal concepts of

distributed leadership: firstly as formally delegated tospecific individuals and groups (top-down influence) andsecondly as informally dispersed across the organisation(bottom-up and horizontal influence).

19. Benefits attributed to a distributed approach toleadership included: responsiveness, transparency,convenience and teamwork. Disadvantages mayinclude: fragmentation, lack of role clarity, slow decision-making and variations in individual capability. Accountsof how leadership practice actually occurs withinuniversities included descriptions of dislocation,disconnection, disengagement, dissipation, distance anddysfunctionality – together these provide a vivid imageof the difficulties in balancing top-down, bottom-up andhorizontal leadership within universities.

20. Alongside distributed leadership, however, there is also aclear desire for strong and inspiring leadership fromindividuals in key roles. This can help give a sense ofcommon purpose and direction, engender a sense oftrust and openness, encourage communication anddialogue and create an innovative and supportive culturein which initiatives can flourish. Thus, distributed (ordispersed) leadership is not regarded as a successor to traditional hierarchical leadership but rathercomplements and enhances it. The evidence from ourresearch implies that effective university leadershiprequires a combination of both individual and collectiveleadership – what Collinson and Collinson2 label“blended leadership”.

21. In terms of the changing context of higher education,our findings indicate an increasing marketisation of thesector, driven by political and market pressures andassociated with broadening of the student demographic,increasing customer focus, professionalisation ofservices, greater political engagement, differentiation of research orientation, internationalisation andregionalisation, interdisciplinarity and vocationalisation.

22. Universities are responding to these challenges in a varietyways, including optimising opportunities from location,strategically reviewing disciplinary mix, creating strategicalliances with other HEIs, developing commercial alliances,and establishing additional campuses both within andoutside the UK. Key development challenges include:encouraging diversity, succession planning, career routes,hybrid management, balancing competing priorities,integration with organisational systems, and managementof the university brand and reputation.

4


23. Despite variations between each of the sampleinstitutions in terms of structure, approach, strategicpriorities, etc. our impression was that overall, thesimilarities outweighed the differences. Of thedifferences that did appear significant, a key one was thedistinction between ‘old’(pre-1992) and ‘new’(post-1992)universities. In our sample, this difference was not onlyassociated with a difference in organisational legacy andstructure but often linked to research orientation. Thus,the ‘old’ universities in our sample placed a highimportance on traditional academic research andregarded it as of paramount strategic importance,whereas this was not as evident in the ‘new’universities,enabling them to focus more on the student experienceand community/business engagement (includingapplied research). Overall, we perceived a greateracceptance of ‘managerialism’(or the need for top-downmanagement) within ‘new’ than ‘old’ universities whichstill showed a preference for ‘collegiality’ (or consensualdecision-making).

24. With regards to leadership development, senior leaderswithin the sample universities clearly see this as an areaof high priority and recognise its vital role in the long-term future and success of their organisations. This is alsoevidenced by the fact that the majority of institutions areeither developing or have developed a clear policyframework to guide the institutional strategy andapproach to leadership development.

25. In terms of provision, there is a general trend fromgeneric centrally-delivered programmes to bespoke/tailored leadership development for all levels. There is atendency to view leadership development as an ongoingprocess of relevance to all staff and to invest more in thedevelopment of both existing leaders (at the middle andsenior levels) as well as potential and future leaders (at a more junior level). Thus, whilst development wastypically provided to managers after they had taken

on a formal role, there is a move towards offeringdevelopment prior to assuming roles and responsibilitiesand on an ongoing basis from then on.

26. In addition to formal programmes there is increasinginvestment in more personalised support such asmentoring, coaching, development centres and jobshadowing. This can be particularly useful in helpingpeople decide whether or not to apply for and progressto formal leadership roles and can also assist in thedevelopment of skills and experience relevant to the job.

27. Emerging priorities for development include:sustainability of finances and resources, integration withHR processes (such as the Performance andDevelopment Review (PDR) mechanism), successionplanning (especially for junior and middle-level roles), partnerships and collaborations, continuingdevelopment, programme accreditation, careerprogression structures and performance management.

28. In the discussion, it is proposed that successful universityleadership requires the dynamic interplay between arange of factors and priorities at a number of levels:individual, social, structural/organisational, contextualand developmental. With regards to the notion of‘distributed leadership’ it is argued that its utility as aconcept is perhaps more valuable in rhetorical thandescriptive terms – thus distributed leadership offers anew language (and perspective) with which to discussopportunities for collective engagement in institutionalleadership and management even if the actual executionof such activities remains relatively unchanged.

29. The report finishes with a series of conclusions and

recommendations for higher education leaders,leadership developers and policy makers, grouped bytheme (structural/organisational, individual, social,contextual and developmental) as well as furtheravenues for research.

5

2. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings from an 18-month,Leadership Foundation-funded, research project oncollective leadership in UK higher education and itsdevelopment.

2.1 BackgroundHigher education in the UK is undergoing a major transition.Changing funding mechanisms, regulation and audit,increasing customer demands, competition andinternationalisation are all parts of the shifting landscape.Combined with a need to deliver high quality teaching andresearch and engage more actively with business andcommunity it is, perhaps, unsurprising that ‘good leadership’is increasingly espoused as a strategic and operationalimperative within the sector3. The structure and nature ofhigher education institutions (HEIs), however, is not generallywell suited to top-down leadership or ‘managerialism’. Thereremains a deep-seated desire for collegiality, consultationand academic freedom. In such a context, where universitiesmust steer an uncertain path through competing andconflicting demands and expectations, how can they offer asense of continuity, motivate staff to work towards sharedgoals and mobilise leadership throughout the organisationrather than just from senior figures?

Partly in response to these challenges the higher educationsector is increasingly espousing the practice of ‘distributedleadership’4 whereby the leadership process is conceived ofas dispersed across the organisation (within systems andrelationships) rather than residing within the individual traitsand capabilities of formally-recognised ‘leaders’. Despitehaving embraced this concept, however, it is still not clearwhat is actually distributed (in terms of power andaccountability), the processes by which it is distributed andwhether the concept itself offers substantial benefits foreither practice, analysis or policy-making.

In this report we present findings from a LeadershipFoundation funded research project that explores themanner in which leadership is perceived and enacted atdifferent levels in UK universities. We will explore whetherthe concept of ‘distributed leadership’ offers a usefulframework for understanding the nature of leadershipwithin such organisations and will reveal some of thetensions and paradoxes faced when leading in HEIs.

Our findings reveal a wide range of factors associated withleadership in UK higher education, including individual

motivations and aspirations, organisational structures andprocesses, and the ‘social fabric’ (including culture,relationships and interactions) within and beyondinstitutions. Each of these holds implications for thedevelopment and support of existing and future leaders, anddiscussion of this forms a substantial part of this report.

The report finishes with a discussion section, followed by a seriesof conclusions and recommendations, which should assistthose responsible for leadership and leadership development in universities in identifying policies and practices suited to the changing and future face of UK higher education.

2.2 Research aims and objectivesThis research was proposed in response to a call to tenderfrom the Leadership Foundation in 2005, looking to enhancethe empirical evidence base for leadership and leadershipdevelopment practice in UK higher education. Following arigorous review process, this project was selected alongside12 others, covering a wide range of issues of relevance toleadership, management and governance in UK HEIs5.

In framing the project we drew principally on three sources:(1) general literature on the impact of management andleadership development on performance, (2) currenttheorising, debate and research on the nature of collective or‘distributed’ leadership and (3) existing research onleadership and leadership development in higher education.Each source highlighted the significance of the widercontext in which leadership and leadership developmenttake place, as opposed to focusing solely on the traits andcapabilities of individual ‘leaders’. Thus integration,embeddedness and collective engagement are argued to becentral to the effectiveness of leadership within HEIs yetfrequently remain absent within formal leadershipdevelopment interventions.

The current project contributes towards the evidence basefor leadership development in the sector by carefullyexploring the processes by which leadership developmentmay lead to enhanced organisational capability. The researchaimed to identify those organisational systems andprocesses (such as career and reward structures, integrationwith HRM strategy) and individual motivations to adoptleadership and management responsibilities that supportand/or enhance the effectiveness of leadership within highereducation. One of the intentions of this work, therefore, is toreveal insights into how the precision of leadershipdevelopment in higher education can be enhanced, and thecreation of more appropriate forms of leadershipdevelopment and support for the sector.

3 Hefce (2004)4 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (2004)

5 Visit www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects/ for further details of the Leadership

Foundation research portfolio

6


6 Petrov, G. et al (2006)

In doing this work we inevitably spent considerable timelooking at the manner in which leadership is conductedacross differing HEIs and hence many of our findings and implications are broader than simply ‘leadershipdevelopment’, at least in its formal sense. Thus the overallaims can be extended to the following:

• Explore what is understood by the term ‘leadership’ byvarious institutional actors

• Investigate the processes by which leadership isdistributed at different levels within universities (i.e.department, school, faculty, executive group, etc.)

• Discover the way(s) in which leadership development (inits broadest sense) contributes towards enhancement ofleadership capability for individuals, groups and thewider organisation

The key focus of this research was on the leadership of theacademic work of universities (teaching, research and ‘thirdstream’ activities). Within this, we especially focused onleadership at the school/department level as this is the mainoperational unit of universities, the primary source of futuresenior academic leaders, and the main point of interfacebetween leadership of the institution and leadership of theacademic discipline. We were interested both in howleadership is experienced at this level and how it interactswith other parts of the organisation. Notably we were keen toexplore how strategic direction emerges and is negotiatedbetween varying actors within and beyond the institution.

2.3 Structure of this reportThis report is intended to be accessible to practicingmanagers and leaders in higher education. It draws togetherfindings from the Interim Report6 and subsequent analyses

to provide a comprehensive overview of project findings and their implications for leadership and leadershipdevelopment practice. Whilst theoretical concepts arediscussed, our focus, in this report, is primarily on theirpractical implications. A number of more elaborate,theoretically-orientated papers are being produced foracademic and specialist audiences.

Following this introduction, a brief literature review andoverview of the methodology are given. The majority of thisreport presents research findings as outlined below:

• Leadership strategies and approach

• Taking up a leadership role

• Sharing leadership

• Future trends and challenges

• Leadership development

These sections broadly map onto the conceptual diagram inFigure 2.1 and coincide with the structure of the interviewschedule. Thus, there is a section on organisational approachesto leadership (‘leadership strategies and approaches’);individual motivations, perceptions and experiences (‘takingup a leadership role’); the social and collective aspects ofleadership (‘sharing leadership’); the context and changingshape of higher education (‘future trends and challenges’); andthe role of, and implications for, leadership development.

The discussion section builds on from the findings to indicatethe principal factors associated with leadership and leadershipdevelopment practice in higher education. The report finisheswith a series of conclusions and recommendations for policymakers, universities and individual leaders.

LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

FIGURE 2.1

(1) Leadership strategiesand approaches

(2) Taking up aleadership role

(4) Future trendsand challenges

(3) Sharing leadership

Contextual

Structural/

Organisational

SocialIndividual

(5) Leadershipdevelopment

7

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

Recent years have seen burgeoning calls and directives forimproved university leadership. Like the rest of the educationsector (schools and further education) the majority ofresearch on leadership and management in higher educationconcludes that leadership in HEIs is widely distributed7 orshould be distributed across the institution8. Despite this,however, the actual processes and mechanisms by whichleadership is distributed and the implications for leadershippractice and development in universities have receivedrelatively little attention.

3.1 Governance, management and leadership in higher education

The concept of governance is fairly well documented withinhigher education. Governance is generally taken to refer toorganisational responses to legislation, regulation andaccountability and, over time, has become synonymous with agoverning body and how it conducts its business (rather thanwith the roles played by Senates, academic boards, etc.)9. Thegoverning body is held ultimately accountable for the affairs ofthe institution and for ensuring that public funds received byan institution are used only in accordance with legislation, fordelivering value for public money and for approvinginstitutional strategic and financial plans. Although associatedwith the themes of this research, university governance is nota key focus of our work, but does form the basis of anotherLeadership Foundation funded project10. Our project isconcerned with institutional management and leadership.

Unlike governance, management in universities is generallytaken to be about the operational implementation ofinstitutional strategies and goals through systematicplanning and the effective use of resources. As Tricker claims:

“If management is about running the business, governanceis about seeing that it is run properly.”11

Leadership, a relatively new concept within the sector, isharder to define. In setting out their strategic plan for the UKhigher education sector, Hefce define leadership as:

“Agreeing strategic direction in discussion with others andcommunicating this within the organisation; ensuring thatthere is the capability, capacity and resources to deliver

planned strategic outcomes; and supporting andmonitoring delivery. As such this embraces elements ofgovernance and elements of management.”12

Such a definition, however, offers little insight into howleadership is actually enacted in higher education. Furthermore,it neglects the long and heated debate on the nature ofleadership that makes it an ‘essentially contested’concept13.

Grint14 identifies four reasons that make agreement on acommon definition of leadership highly unlikely. Firstly,there is the ‘process’ problem – a lack of agreement onwhether leadership is derived from the personal qualities (i.e.traits) of the leader, or whether a leader induces followershipthrough what s/he does (i.e. a social process). Secondly,there is the ‘position’ problem – is the leader in charge (i.e.with formally allocated authority) or in front (i.e. withinformal influence)? A third problem is one of ‘philosophy’–does the leader exert an intentional, causal influence on thebehaviour of followers or are their apparent actionsdetermined by context and situation or even attributedretrospectively? A fourth difficulty is one of ‘purity’ – isleadership embodied in individuals or groups and is it apurely human phenomenon? From Grint’s perspective,accounts of effective leadership are more likely theconsequence of rhetoric – the ability to construct andcommunicate a convincing and influential argument/story –than who leaders are and/or what they do.

Despite this, a number of authors have endeavoured toidentify the common ground amongst leadershipdefinitions. Northouse, for example, concludes thatleadership tends to be considered as:

“… a process whereby an individual influences a group ofindividuals to achieve a common goal”15

Yukl reaches a similar conclusion, whilst acknowledging thepossibility of leadership by groups as well as individuals andthe role of leadership in structuring activities:

“Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption thatit involves a social influence process whereby intentionalinfluence is exerted by one person [or group] over otherpeople [or groups] to structure the activities andrelationships in a group or organisation.”16

7 e.g. Middlehurst, R. (1993); Knight, P.T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001)8 Shattock, M. (2003)9 Shattock, M. (2002)10 See David Llewellyn’s project on the Role and Influence of the University Secretary

(www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects)11 Tricker, R.I. (1984) p7

12 Hefce (2004) p3513 Gallie, W.B. (1955) cited in Grint, K. (2005) p114 Grint, K. (2005)15 Northouse, P.G. (2003) p316 Yukl, G.A. (2002) p3

8


This quote offers an acceptable definition of leadership forthe purposes of this report, whilst leaving sufficient flexibilityof application.

Without doubt there is considerable overlap between theconstruct of ‘leadership’ and notions of ‘management’ and‘governance’. Whilst each may give a slightly differentemphasis to the work of direction, control and agency withinorganisations they are inevitably interconnected andinterdependent. There is insufficient space in this report toexplore the debate about leadership versus managementmore fully, suffice to say that the authors concur withMintzberg17 that they are somewhat distinctive yetcomplementary processes, frequently carried out by thesame people18. To this extent, we feel that furtherdifferentiation is not only unnecessary but also potentiallyunhelpful.

“The separation of management from leadership isdangerous. Just as management without leadershipencourages an uninspired style, which deadens activities,leadership without management encourages adisconnected style, which promotes hubris.”19

It is for this reason that we use the words ‘management’and‘leadership’ and ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ largelyinterchangeably throughout the rest of this report, becausein isolation they are impoverished. The notion of‘governance’ is reserved for the work of senior managers inrelation to fulfilling their legal obligations.

3.2 Universities as organisationsBargh et al20 argue that the nature of state-universityrelationships and government regulation shapes patterns ofuniversity leadership, governance and management. Thereare clear differences in the manner in which HEIs respond tothese, and other, contextual factors, with the literature onhigher education revealing a range of organisationalcultures, including ‘collegial’, ‘bureaucratic’, ‘corporate’ and‘entrepreneurial’21.

Bureaucracy (often referred to as ‘managerialism’) in highereducation is traditionally associated with formal hierarchy andauthority relations, written governing rules and regulations,prescribed functions, position-based leadership and

hierarchical decision making22. It can be argued to work well instable and predominantly centrally controlled higher educationsystems, but can render a university resistant to change.

Collegiality, by contrast, assumes a ‘first among equals’styleof leadership, authority of professional expertise overpositional power, academic autonomy, and self-regulation.Institutional authority within this culture may be perceivedas weak and the university viewed more as a ‘holdingcompany’ for the disparate disciplines rather than anintegrated whole23. Within collegiality, decisions are largelyreached (and frequently evaded) through a consensualprocess of discussion and debate within universitycommittees24. Organisational change, in this context, isassumed to be organically introduced after a process ofreasoned discussion amongst institutional actors inprofessional networks25.

With the emergence of a state-regulated market in UK highereducation in the 1980s, universities started to move fromcollegial and bureaucratic organisational cultures towardsthe corporate organisation. The corporate organisationalculture is characterised by authority of the Chief Executive(the Vice-Chancellor (VC) or Principal) and stronginstitutional management and strategic planning combinedwith devolution of responsibilities to the lower levels, thepromotion of collective identity and loyalty to the institution,a transformational style of leadership, disempoweredcommittees, functional distinction between staff groups,consistency of corporate procedures and administration26. Inthe process of bargaining and negotiation thisorganisational culture has a strong resemblance to thepolitical perspective advocated by Baldridge in the 1970s,which emphasises the importance of power, the presence ofmultiple (and competing) coalitions and interest groups andalliances formed outside formal decision arenas27.

The apparent differences and tensions between theseorganisational cultures are made implicit in the so-calledentrepreneurial perspective. Its focus is on institutionalchange, adaptation, flexibility, and the constant interactionof a university with its external environment. Clark28 andPeterson29 propose similar approaches as to how universitiescan transform themselves through entrepreneurial action;identifying several broad features which, they claim, will

17 Mintzberg, H. (1975 & 2004)18 See Bolden, R. (2004) for a review19 Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003) p5420 Bargh, C. et al (1996)21 This is not an exhaustive list of organisational cultures in universities. For other

typologies, see Bargh, C. et al. (1996), Braun, D. and Merrien, F-X (1999), Cohen, M.D.

and March, J.C. (1974), Henkel (2000), Miller, H. (1995) and Sporn, B. (1999) 22 Kogan, M. and Marton, S.G. (2000); Miller, H. (1995)

23 Bargh, C. et al (1996)24 Miller, H. (1995)25 Miller, H. (1995)26 Henkel, M. (1997); McNay, I. (1995)27 Baldridge, J.V. (1971); Baldridge, J.V. et al (1978); McNay, I. (1995 & 1999)28 Clark, B.R. (1998)29 Peterson, M.W. (1995)

9

determine the success of an innovative and adaptiveuniversity. Like bureaucratic and collegial culture, however,this is an ‘ideal type’30. No real university is whollyenterprising; but the idea of the ‘entrepreneurial university’may be a powerful factor in the way institutions areconceived and individuals recognised and rewarded.

These organisational cultures are found to co-exist in mostinstitutional settings, but with different balances amongstthem31. Whilst all universities engage with each of these fourcultures to a varying extent, many place stronger emphasison one or two approaches over the others. Bargh et al argue

that the balance is largely dependent on institutionalmission and history, culture and leadership approach, andemphasise that:

“It is necessary to look for elements of all perspectives… ifwe are to construct a comprehensive view of governancewithin specific organisational settings.”32

Table 3.1 summarises the key elements of organisationalcultures in universities. From this it can be seen that thedifferent cultures address somewhat different concerns, andthat, if taken separately, do not offer a comprehensive

30 Weber, M. (1949)31 McNay, I. (1995, 1999)

32 Bargh, C. et al (1996) p34

Keywords Freedom and Regulation and rules Loyalty and External autonomy consistency environment

(Market)

Organisational Person Role Power Taskculture

(Handy, 1993)

Perception of Professional Position-based The Chief Executive Entrepreneurleaders expertise, ‘first

among equals’

Leadership style Servant Managerial/hierarchical Transformational Collective (Handy, 1993) (Clark, 2001)

Decision-making Consensual and Formal, regulatory and ‘Steering at a Flexible andstyle bottom-up top-down distance’(planning devolved

at the top), strategic and political (negotiations)

Decision arenas Committees and Hierarchy Senior Management Business unitscommunity of Team and interest scholars groups

Environmental ‘fit’ Evolution Stability Crisis Competition

Change Organic innovation Rigidity and resistance Unpredictability and Adaptability andto change transformation tactical flexibility

Referents “Invisible college” Regulatory bodies Policy makers Clients, sponsorsand rules and stakeholders

Basis for Peer assessment Audit of procedures Performance Satisfaction ofevaluation indicators consumer and

stakeholder demand

UNIVERSITY COLLEGIALITY BUREAUCRACY CORPORATION ENTERPRISE

SUMMARY OF KEY ELEMENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURES IN UNIVERSITIES (ADAPTED FROM MCNAY, 1995)

TABLE 3.1

10


picture of the increasing complexity of universities asorganisations, but nevertheless each sheds light on itsnature and dynamics33.

Because of the increasing complexity of the highereducation sector, the categorisations of university culturescited above may be overly simplistic to capture the reality ofuniversity leadership, governance and management. In thecurrent context, for example, universities have strengthenedtheir professional managerial expertise in order to betterrespond to external demands brought about by transition toa mass higher education provision, reduced state funding,increased external scrutiny and marketisation, leadingscholars to redefine traditional depictions of collegiality.

Middlehurst34 suggests re-interpreting collegiality in amodern university as the sharing of information, ideas andtasks. Clark, Henkel and Kogan, and Hanney35 talk about theissue of authority and discern the reinvention of collegialityin a modern university as the joint participation of academicsand managers/administrators in decision-making (i.e. as ahybrid of collegiality and bureaucracy/managerialism).Others argue for a flexible model of shared governance andmanagement, which combines both collegial and corporateapproaches and takes into account the particular conditionsof each institution36. In these new interpretations, collegialitybecomes dependent on bureaucracy and corporation and isno longer perceived to be free of formal organisationalhierarchies. Within institutional decision-making mostdecisions made by collegia have to be legitimated and translated into systems and procedures bymanagers/administrators37.

This re-interpretation is reminiscent of the politicalperspective, advocated by Baldridge38, as it assumes theexistence of several stages of internal decision-making:collegiality (interest articulation), a hybrid of collegiality andbureaucracy (legislative stage), corporation (policyformation). However, in some HEIs there can still be foundexamples of critical decisions being made in hierarchical andeven authoritarian ways; in these cases, differences andtensions in collegia can be subsumed by leadershipintervention to achieve institutional control andcoordination through subordination. As Miller argues:

“…some senior managers assume that it is sufficient forthem to search for solutions and that, once presented, therest of the academic staff will see the reasonableness,indeed inevitability, of the action proposed and will concurwith them.” 39

Lapworth40 and Shattock41 argue that neither a purely top-down nor bottom-up approach works and that institutionswork best when leadership and management is seen as apartnership between the corporate and collegialapproaches.

Other authors advocate looking at collegiality against abackdrop of the entrepreneurial perspective, brought aboutby ‘new managerialism’42. The entrepreneurial perspectiveclearly integrates universities within wider public policyreforms that cannot be ignored or underestimated even byinstitutions that prefer more traditional forms of leadershipand management43. In this interpretation, collegiality can nolonger be seen as a defensive ideology against change, butshould instead be geared towards it. Furthermore, thetraditional depiction of the entrepreneurial university itselfas being responsive, innovative and adaptive has beenrecently redefined as the ability of a university to respond tochange and adapt to the external environment in a business-like way, with attention to the profitability of differentactivities44. Thus, stronger commercial and financialawareness becomes one of the most importantcharacteristics of the entrepreneurial university, as opposedto a merely responsive and adaptive university.

The entrepreneurial model, however, poses a danger to theuniversity as a corporate entity, because it can lead tofragmentation of the institution. Institutional coherence maydissolve as academic units offer their own programmes, andgo their own way, and individuals within the departmentsincreasingly respond to market opportunities or becomesellers of services rather than members of a specificinstitution45. In this respect, Williams46 asks what the futureholds for the entrepreneurial university, and whether it willbe short-lived or durable. Clark argues the opposite: that theentrepreneurial university will become more prominent inthe future, because:

33 Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992); McNay, I. (1995)34 Middlehurst, R. (1993)35 Clark, B.R. (2001), Henkel, M. (2000) and Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. (2000)36 Dearlove, J. (2002); Lapworth, S. (2004)37 Kogan, M. (1999)38 Baldridge, J.V. (1971)39 Miller, H. (1995) p98

40 Lapworth, S. (2004)41 Shattock, M. (2002)42 Clark, B.R. (2001 & 2004); Deem, R. (2001)43 Clark, B.R. (2001)44 Davies, J.L. (2001); Jones, M. (2003)45 Clark, B.R. (2001); McNay, I. (1999)46 Williams, G. (2003)

11

“… [it] maintains continuity with the past and present…provides new foundations for the rebuilding of internalcollegiality and external autonomy. It finds ways tointegrate its many disparate parts around the assertion ofa distinctive character.” 47

These re-interpretations of organisational cultures in theuniversity sector suggest that they are no longer mutuallyexclusive. In other words, the elements of collegial andbureaucratic/managerial decision-making manifesting thefeatures of the corporate form may often co-exist with oneanother and yet be accommodated within the frames of theentrepreneurial university.

These differing perspectives, despite their interconnections,can be seen to represent possible responses to two principlechoices as to how universities are managed and led from thecentre/top: policy definition (loose to tight) and control ofimplementation (loose to tight). This is represented in Figure3.1, along with associated leadership styles.

3.3 From hierarchical to distributed leadership An increasing awareness of the importance of social relationsin the leadership contract, the need for a leader to be givenauthority by their followers and a realisation that no oneindividual is the ideal leader in all circumstances have givenrise to a new school of leadership thought. Referred to as

‘shared’, ‘collective’ or ‘distributed’ leadership48, this approach argues for a less formalised model of leadership (where leadership responsibility is dissociated from theorganisational hierarchy). It is proposed that individuals at alllevels in the organisation and in all roles (not simply thosewith an overt management dimension) can exert leadershipinfluence over their colleagues and thus influence the overalldirection of the organisation.

The concept of distributed leadership has become popular inrecent years as an alternative to traditional leader-followermodels of leadership, arguing instead that leadership is aproperty of the collective rather than the individual. Gronn49

describes it as ‘concertive action’where the total is significantlymore than the sum of its parts, whilst Spillane proposes that:

“From a distributed perspective, leadership practice takesshape in the interactions of people and their situation,rather than from the actions of an individual leader.” 50

This approach has much in common with process theories ofleadership51 and the systems perspective on organisations52.It offers a more inclusive view of organisational life wherebyindividuals, groups and teams at all levels within theinstitution collectively influence strategic direction. Drawingon activity theory53 the distributed perspective places theactivity or practice of leadership centre stage:

47 Clark, B.R. (2001) p2348 Despite variations in the definitions of these terms we see them as broadly

representative of an endeavour to capture the collective dimensions of leadership.

Throughout this report the primary theoretical focus is on ‘distributed’rather than

‘democratic’leadership Woods, P.A. (2004)49 Gronn, P. (2000, 2002)

50 Spillane, J.P. (2004) p351 Hosking, D.M. (1988); Wood, M. (2005)52 Senge, P. (1990); Wheatley, M. (1999)53 Engestrom, Y. (1999)

Control of

implementation

Policy definition

Loose

Tight

A

CollegialityServant leadership

Consensual and bottom-up

B

BureaucracyHierarchical leadershipFormal and top-down

D

EnterpriseCollective leadershipFlexible and devolved

C

CorporationTransformational leadership

Strategic and political

TightLoose

FORMS OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT (ADAPTED FROM McNAY, 1995)

FIGURE 3.1

12


“Activity theory emphasizes social life as a continuous flowof mediated activity; a process of ever-movingrelationships between technologies, nature, ideas, personsand communities, in which the focus of action circulates toone person, then another according to the social andenvironmental context and the flow of action within this.”54

This perspective poses a serious challenge to traditionalhierarchical and bureaucratic models of organisation,shifting the locus of control from the individual to thecollective. In a review of the literature Bennet et al55 suggestthat, despite some variations in definition, distributedleadership is based on three main premises: firstly thatleadership is an emergent property of a group or network ofinteracting individuals; secondly that there is an openness tothe boundaries of leadership (i.e. who has a part to play bothwithin and beyond the organisation); and thirdly, thatvarieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not thefew. Thus, distributed leadership is represented as dynamic,relational, inclusive, collaborative and contextually-situated.It requires a system-wide perspective that not onlytranscends organisational levels and roles but alsoorganisational boundaries. Thus, for example, in the field ofhigher education one might consider the contribution ofparents, students and the local community as well asacademics, administrative/support staff, members of theUniversity Council and government policy makers.

“Taking this view, leadership is about learning together andconstructing meaning and knowledge collectively andcollaboratively. It involves opportunities to surface andmediate perceptions, values, beliefs, information andassumptions through continuing conversations. It meansgenerating ideas together; seeking to reflect upon andmake sense of work in the light of shared beliefs and newinformation; and creating actions that grow out of thesenew understandings. It implies that leadership is sociallyconstructed and culturally sensitive. It does not imply aleader/follower divide, neither does it point towards theleadership potential of just one person.”56

That said, distributed leadership does not deny the key roleplayed by people in formal leadership positions, butproposes that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Spillane et al57

argue that leadership is ‘stretched over the social andsituational contexts’ of the organisation and extend thenotion to include material and cultural artefacts (language,organisational systems, physical environment, etc.). The

situated nature of leadership is viewed as ‘constitutive ofleadership practice’58 and hence demands recognition ofleadership acts within their wider context.

By considering leadership practice as both thinking andactivity that ‘emerges in the execution of leadership tasks inand through the interaction of leaders, followers andsituation’59 distributed leadership offers a powerful post-heroic representation of leadership well suited to complex,changing and inter-dependent environments. The questionremains, however, as to whether this is just an idealisticfantasy unattainable in practice. It is certainly true that thehierarchical nature of HEIs, with their imbalances of power,authority and resources, combined with reward, recognitionand career paths that tend to reward individual overcollective achievement are largely at odds with the principlesand premises of distributed leadership. Furthermore thesomewhat abstract representations of such forms ofleadership make them difficult to convey in ways ascompelling as the tales of heroism and achievementrecounted from more individualistic perspectives. It is theintention of this report therefore to put more meat on thebones of what distributed leadership in universities mightlook like in practice and how it could be developed.

3.4 Forms of distributed leadership Although Knight and Trowler60 contend that “consciousattempts to disperse leadership across the workgroup by itsformal leader… should not be confused with distributedleadership”, our study does not dismiss devolution anddelegation as forms of distributed leadership. Indeed, suchapproaches feature prominently in MacBeath et al’s61 taxonomyof distributed leadership in the school sector. Their researchidentified six ways in which distribution may take place: (1) Formal distribution (via hierarchical structures)

(2) Pragmatic distribution (via ad hoc delegation to meetdemands and challenges)

(3) Strategic distribution (based on the plannedappointment of individuals to contribute positively tothe development of leadership in the organisation)

(4) Incremental distribution (devolving more responsibilityas people demonstrate their ability to lead)

(5) Opportunistic distribution (people willingly extendingtheir roles and taking initiative to lead)

(6) Cultural distribution (leadership is assumed rather thangiven, shared organically and opportunistically and isembedded in the institutional culture).

54 Woods, P.A. (2004) p5-655 Bennet, N. et al (2003)56 Harris, A. (2003) p31457 Spillane, J.P et al (2004) p5

58 Spillane, J.P et al (2004) p20-2159 Spillane, J.P. et al, (2004) p2760 Knight, P.T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001) p4561 MacBeath, J. et al (2004)

1362 Gronn, P. (2002) p446-44763 Spillane, J.P. et al (2004)

64 Bolden, R. (2004, 2005 & 2006)

Whilst this taxonomy gives a reasonably comprehensivepicture of how leadership is distributed within schools itcovers the full spectrum of leadership practice fromindividual, positional influence to more collective andemergent direction. As such, it makes it difficult todistinguish ‘distributed leadership’ from more traditionalforms of management and leadership practice inorganisations.

Other authors go further, to offer a more processual view ofdistributed leadership in which the division of ‘leadershiplabour’ is the result of “three forms of concertivelypatterned and reproduced activity-based conduct, eachrepresenting varying degrees of structural solidity:spontaneous collaboration, intuitive working relations, andinstitutionalised practices.”62. In other words, people worktogether in these three ways, and in so doing produceeffects that we call ‘leadership’. For Gronn, the unit ofanalysis is these three forms of collective conduct ratherthan the choices made by individuals or even interpersonalrelations per se. In a similar manner, Spillane et al63

distinguish between collaborated distribution (where twoor more individuals work together in time and place toexecute the same leadership routine), collectivedistribution (where two or more individuals workseparately but interdependently to enact a leadershiproutine) and coordinated distribution (where two or moreindividuals work in sequence in order to complete aleadership routine), arguing that ‘leadership practice’ is thefundamental unit of analysis and is constructed andshaped over time through the interaction of leaders,followers and the situation.

Within our own study we chose to give institutional actorsfreedom to construct their own interpretations of distributedleadership, be it devolved, delegated, conferred, invited orassumed, and encouraged them to demonstrate theirdistinctive way of looking at how they saw distribution ofleadership working/not working at the various levels withinthe institution.

3.5 Developing collective leadership Like so much within the field of leadership studies the issueof leadership development and its impact remains highlycontentious. Whilst many accounts propose that enhancingleadership capability is central to improved investment,productivity, delivery and quality across both the public andprivate sectors, others question its value.

Central to this argument is the question of whether or notyou can train or develop leaders. Early theories of leadershipproposed that great leaders emerged because of an innatecombination of ability and personal characteristics (i.e. abelief that leaders were ‘born not made’). Subsequentmodels have questioned this assertion, arguing thatleadership behaviours and competencies can be learntand/or acquired over time. The current popular viewprobably lies somewhere in between, to the extent thatwhilst many leadership qualities (such as communicationskills, strategic thinking and self-awareness) can bedeveloped, core personal characteristics (such as dominanceand sociability) are less amenable to change and willinfluence the type of leadership style adopted. In turn, therelative effectiveness of any of these styles will bedetermined by a whole array of situational and contextualfactors64.

The theories and models upon which these views are based,however, still tend to be couched in a very individualisticnotion of leadership whereby it is conceived of as a propertyof the ‘leader’. Whilst this might make life easy for thoserecruiting and developing leaders (you simply need toidentify the appropriate individuals and whichskills/competencies to develop) it dissociates the practice ofleadership from the organisational and situational context inwhich it occurs. An alternative perspective is to considerleadership as a process – contextually situated within therelationships between people (be they ‘leaders’ or‘followers’). From this perspective what is more importantthan the leadership qualities of a number of individuals arethe underlying processes that give rise to improvedorganisational effectiveness. This is the perspective impliedby ‘distributed leadership’.

If considered in this way, it is perhaps possible tounderstand why many leadership development activitiesfail to achieve the sorts of outcomes desired by thoseinvesting in them. Whilst leadership can undoubtedly be instrumental in organisational performance, thedevelopment of a small number of individuals in isolation isunlikely to result in marked improvements to these or otheroutcome measures. Likewise, the capacity to transfer thelearning from the classroom to the workplace and/orconvert it to practical outcomes is beyond the remit of manyprogrammes. Even if participants leave as ‘changed’persons they more often than not return to unchangedorganisations, or as Raelin proposes:

14


“Most leadership training that is being conducted incorporate off-sites is ill-advised […] because the intent ofmost of this training is to put leadership into people suchthat they can transform themselves and theirorganisations upon their return.”65

He, and other authors66 argue that this simply does not work and, instead, that leadership (and management)development should be aligned with the organisationalculture, context and objectives, amongst a wide array ofother factors. To this extent, it could well be concluded thatmuch current leadership development is going to waste andthat effort would be best spent on increasing the quality andprecision, rather than the quantity, of provision67.

Day68 posits that leadership development is distinct frommanagement development to the extent to which it involvespreparing people for roles and situations beyond theircurrent experience. Management development, he argues,equips managers with the knowledge, skills and abilities toenhance performance on known tasks through theapplication of proven solutions whilst leadershipdevelopment is “orientated towards building capacity inanticipation of unforeseen challenges”69. He continues bymaking a distinction between ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’development, whereby leader development is aboutdeveloping individuals in leadership roles, whilst leadershipdevelopment takes a more relational view of leadership as aprocess involving everyone within the organisation. To thisextent, Day views leadership development as beingfundamentally concerned with the development ofcollective organisational capacity.

“In this way, each person is considered a leader, andleadership is conceptualised as an effect rather than acause. Leadership is therefore an emergent property ofeffective systems design. Leadership development fromthis perspective consists of using social (i.e. relational)systems to help build commitments among members of acommunity of practice.” 70

This distinction is useful in encouraging us to consider whatit is that we wish to achieve through executive development,even if Day’s concept of leadership development may besomewhat idealistic in practice. Leader development is aninvestment in ‘human capital’ to enhance intrapersonalcompetence for selected individuals, whereas leadership

development is an investment in ‘social capital’ to developinterpersonal networks and cooperation withinorganisations and other social systems. According to Day,both are equally important although traditionallydevelopment programmes have tended to focus exclusivelyon the former. Within the current report we also take theview that both types of development are required andshould be an integral part of any development initiative.Therefore, in the remainder of this report when referring to‘leadership development’we refer both to the developmentof human and social capital – of both leaders and leadership.

Even when considering leadership development in thisbroader context, however, it remains difficult to specify whatexactly constitutes leadership, as opposed to any other formof, development. Campbell et al71 argue that the currentdiversity of perspectives on leadership development ismisleading as it leads practitioners and researchers tosuggest that, firstly, leadership development constitutes anyunderstanding that develops individual(s) and secondly thatall development activities are equally useful/effective.

Like Day, in their review, Campbell and his colleaguesidentify that the field of leadership development is currentlydominated by individualistic approaches to development.Such approaches focus on developing five principalcategories:1. Intrapersonal attributes (e.g. self awareness)2. Interpersonal qualities3. Cognitive abilities4. Communication skills, and5. Task-specific skills.

At the intrapersonal level it could be argued that “there is nodifference between becoming an effective leader andbecoming a fully integrated human being”72 and thusCampbell et al73 conclude that “there is little reason to labelthis leadership development, except in the broad sense thatthe developing individuals hold leadership positions”. Theinter-personal level fits more closely with Day’s conception of‘leadership development’, viewing leadership as a socialinfluence process and the goal of development to enhanceinter-personal competence in order to obtain the trust,respect and commitment of others74. The additional threecategories (cognitive, communication and task-specificskills) are a range of personal capabilities that help enhancean individual’s inter-personal influence. In each case a

65 Raelin, J. (2004) p13166 Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003); Mintzberg, H. (2004)67 Burgoyne, J. et al (2004)68 Day, D. (2001)69 Day, D. (2001) p582

70 Day, D. (2001) p58371 Campbell, D. et al (2003)72 Bennis, W. (1999) p2373 Campbell, D. et al (2003) p3174 Campbell, D. et al (2003)

15

challenge remains as to how to differentiate the types ofskills required by ‘leaders’ as opposed to ‘managers’ and/or‘followers’ and the response remains largely dependent onyour theoretical and philosophical views on the nature ofleadership (e.g. if you take a distributive perspective thensuch a differentiation is inappropriate as who is consideredthe ‘leader’varies over time).

Campbell and colleagues take Katz and Kahn’s75 notion ofleadership as ‘incremental influence’ as the foundation fortheir conception of leadership development. Thus, the aimof leadership development is to enhance “inter-personalinfluence over and above the influence that stems from aperson’s positional authority or legitimate power”76. Fromthis perspective the most effective leadership developmentmethods are likely to be those that develop core influencingskills including values that can serve as a ‘moral compass’,problem-defining and problem-solving skills, task facilitationskills, and communication and motivational skills.

From our own experience, at the Centre for LeadershipStudies, of developing people in leadership positions wetend to take the view that it is important to develop all ofthese skills within a contextual appreciation of the culturaland organisational environment. When consideringleadership, rather than management development theprimary emphasis is on enabling people to think beyond theapparent restrictions of their current role and to develop thecritical capabilities to move between operational andstrategic modes as required - to balance an attention fordetail with an understanding of the bigger picture.

“All in all, leadership development within managementeducation should develop the 'character', integrity, skillsand discursive intelligence necessary for the responsibleexercise of power.”77

To this extent, leadership development may well incorporateelements of more typical management and self-development programmes (including time management,project-management, delegation, self-awareness, etc.) butwith the objective of creating a reflexive space in which theleader/manager can critically reflect upon current practiceand experience. There is no reason to consider, therefore,that leadership development should only be offered tosenior managers and, indeed, there would be good reason toencourage this kind of development throughout theorganisation to enhance collective as well as individualcapacity. The nature of the required intervention, however, islikely to vary depending on the job role and current level ofexperience of the participants.

“Leadership development is broader than programmes ofactivity or intervention. It is concerned with the way inwhich attitudes are fostered, action empowered, and thelearning organisation stimulated” 78

Further elaboration on many of the arguments in thisliterature review can be found in the Leadership Foundationreport Effective Leadership in Higher Education79.

75 Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978)76 Campbell, D. et al (2003) p3977 Gosling, J. (2004) p5

78 Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2004) p19, citing the work of Frost and Durrant (2002)79 Bryman, A. (2007a)

16


4. METHOD

This section of the report offers a brief overview of themethodology for the current study, particularly focusing onthe interview procedure.

4.1 RationaleThe study of leadership is inherently problematic for a numberof reasons, including the multitude of ‘nested’ phenomena(social, psychological, behavioural, environmental, etc.), itsdynamic and changing character over time, and the symbolic and subjective dimensions of construction andinterpretation80. Added to these challenges, our study soughtto explore ‘distributed leadership’(an emergent, relational andprocess perspective) together with the impact of leadershipdevelopment at an organisational as well as individual level.

Together these pose serious challenges to the socialresearcher. Due to the complexity of the issues being explored,their interconnection and the difficulty in identifying causalrelationships, we chose to opt for a qualitative, interpretivistapproach as is increasingly advocated in the field ofLeadership Studies81. The intention of such an approach is toreveal insights into how various actors interpret and makesense of social phenomena, highlighting some of thecontextual variables at work, and offering varying accounts ofhow leadership is perceived and enacted. The intention is notto provide a comprehensive or precise description of thecurrent nature of higher education leadership nor empiricalconfirmation of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of specificleadership development interventions.

Instead, our research was designed to capture a range ofperspectives on leadership and leadership development inhigher education in order to identify common and competingexperiences and perceptions within and between institutions.To do this we chose to focus our investigation on a sample ofuniversities representing a broad cross-section of the UKhigher education sector.

4.2 ProcedureWithin institutions the main data collection method was in-depth interviews with informants at varying levels within theuniversity hierarchy. Additional data was gathered throughfocus groups, document analysis and literature review.

For operational reasons we chose to limit participation in thisstudy to informants from a selected number of UK HEIs. The

initial intention was to hold interviews with about 10 peoplefrom 7-8 universities however, following a selected invitationto 20 institutions the level of interest was so high that 12institutions were finally selected and up to 17 interviewsconducted within each.

Participating institutions were selected to offer a broad crosssection of UK higher education on the basis of geographiclocation, type (research and/or teaching focus, old or new),size, disciplinary mix and ranking. Each university was broadlyexplored as a ‘case’, the main source of data being in-depthinterviews (enabling the capture of ‘narrative’ accounts ofleadership), supported by additional documentary evidenceas well as two collaborative focus groups/workshops (onebefore the interviews and one after) with institutionalrepresentatives from the staff/leadership developmentdivision.

Within each university we interviewed 10 to 17 people atdifferent levels. Although the exact titles and functionsdepended on the organisation, three broad categories of staffwere interviewed (see Section 5.2 for further details):

• Senior Executive: Vice-Chancellors/Principals, Pro-/Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, Deans ofFaculty/School, Directors of HR on their perceptionsabout leadership within the university, issues they face inselecting/appointing Heads of School and Heads ofDepartment, and institutional strategies on successionplanning for this particular group of manager-academics;

• Middle Manager-Academics: Heads of School/Department on their perceptions about leadershipwithin their units and challenges of their work andprocesses by which leadership is distributed within theirunits and their needs for leadership development.

• Professional Managers and Administrators:

Professional managers and senior administrators withinthe faculties, schools and departments on theirperceptions about the interface between academic andadministrative leadership.

Within each university 2-3 faculties/schools were selectedand 2-3 schools/departments within them. The key focus ofthis research was on the leadership of the academic work ofthe university including teaching, research and ‘third stream’ (business and community) activities. Within this, we were particularly interested in leadership at theschool/department level as this is the main operational unitof universities, the primary source of future senior academic

80 Conger, J.A. (1998) 81 Conger, J.A. (1998); Parry, K.W. (1998); Ospina, S. and Sorenson, G.L.J. (2006)

17

leaders, and the main point of interface between leadershipof the institution and leadership of the academic discipline.We were interested both in how leadership is experienced atthis level and how it interacts with other parts of theorganisation. Notably we were looking to explore howstrategic direction emerges and is negotiated between thevarying actors.

The interviews generally lasted 45 minutes to one hour andcovered the following areas, with some variation dependingon nature of role: leadership strategy and approach; taking upa leadership role and leadership development; sharingleadership; and future issues. Interviews were arranged byrepresentatives within the Staff Development Unit of eachparticipating university. An informed consent form wascompleted by all interviewees and data collected accordingto a strict ethical protocol, including individual andorganisational confidentiality.

In total, 152 interviews were conducted, with all but two(where participants requested that only written notes betaken) being electronically recorded and subsequentlytranscribed.

Additional contextual data was gathered through two focusgroups: the first with 10 representatives from 10 universitiesbefore data collection and the second with sixrepresentatives from six universities after data collection.Within universities relevant documents were also analysedand the study supported through an extensive literaturereview (see Section 3).

During analysis a profile of each institution was constructedfrom the data to reveal the key issues and factors for eachinstitution and leadership role.

4.3 LimitationsThe primary limitation of this approach is that all interviewswere conducted with holders of formal academic oradministrative management posts, ranging from Head ofSchool/Department and School Manager/Administrator to VCand Registrar (or equivalent). In effect, therefore, there is a layerof leadership that has not been engaged with (i.e. that whichoccurs below formal leadership at the School/departmentallevel) however, as nearly all academic leaders will have spentsome time working at this level and many even expect toreturn to it (in the case of rotating headships) we havegathered quite a bit of material relevant to this. Anotherpotential limitation is the lack of observational data, however,as members of the higher education sector themselves,combined with the site visits during this project, theresearchers were able to draw on their own experiences in arange of universities when interpreting and appreciating theintricacies of the findings.

There are also some peculiarities of the institutions studied.Despite attempts to gain a balanced sample, our studypopulation was strongly weighted towards research intensive‘old’ universities, comprising five Russell Group universities,four 1994-Group universities and only three post-1992universities. Furthermore, the sample was biased towardsEnglish universities, with only one from Scotland, one fromWales and none from Northern Ireland. This should beconsidered when generalising or extrapolating findings.

18


82 Within this report ‘executive’, ‘top’or ‘central’university relates to the first level,

‘faculty/school’to the second and ‘school/department’to the third

83 Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993)

5. LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES

This section of the report presents findings aboutorganisational approaches to leadership and managementwithin the sample universities.

5.1 OverviewWithin all of the 12 universities studied evidence ofmanagerial, collegial, enterprise and corporate forms ofleadership could be identified (see Section 3.2). Broadly‘managerial’ leadership was perceived as coming top-downfrom the executive group and involved putting in placemechanisms for meeting the goals and priorities of theinstitution, whilst ‘collegial’ leadership was perceived toemerge from within schools and departments and to beprimarily concerned with the operational delivery of teaching,research and third-stream activities and strategic leadership ofthe discipline. ‘Corporate’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ approachesnecessarily demanded a combination of vertical (top-downand bottom-up) and horizontal (across the institution)leadership. The universities in our sample placed differingemphases on these approaches, with eight of the 12managing resources and direction setting at the faculty leveland the others opting for a greater degree of devolution, withfinancial and strategic responsibility managed at theschool/departmental level. For each approach there wereadvantages and disadvantages, with the former potentiallybeing perceived as ‘micro-management’, restricting academicautonomy, and the latter being perceived as somewhat weakor ‘laissez-faire’, leading to a fragmented, inconsistentapproach across the institution. What is clear, however, is thatall the participating institutions have either recently, or are inthe process of, restructuring and/or reviewing their structureto achieve a better balance between the needs of top-down,bottom-up and horizontal leadership and management.

5.2 Changing university structures and systemsOverall our findings point towards significant change withinthe higher education sector as a whole and the structure andoperation of universities in particular. All universities in oursample had undergone substantial restructuring within thelast five years, including the rationalisation of organisationalstructures including faculties, schools and departments;committees; professional and support services and the seniorexecutive group. Invariably, this had been conducted with theintent of flattening organisational hierarchies and devolvinggreater strategic and operational autonomy to academic units.

These trends had been accompanied by the expansion,merging, and occasionally closure, of schools/departments tocreate larger ‘business units’ reporting directly to senioruniversity management.

Despite variations in the structures and their names betweenthe HEIs in our sample we generally identified three levelswithin each. The first was the institutional level represented bythe Senior Management Team (e.g. Vice-Chancellor’sExecutive Group (VCEG)) as well as ‘central’functions offeringuniversity-wide services (e.g. HR, finance and estates), thesecond a cluster of disciplines (i.e. faculty or large school), andthe third a single or limited group of disciplines (i.e.department or small school)82. In three of the sampleuniversities there was no formal faculty-level although in eachcase schools were large and multidisciplinary and HoSs ineffect acted like Deans of Faculty managing large units withclear internal sub-divisions.

Broadly within our sample two primary models oforganisation could be identified. In the first, financial and line-managing responsibility was devolved to the second level ofthe hierarchy (i.e. faculty or large school). Whilst there may besome variations across the institution as to the involvement ofschools/departments below this level in budgetary andresourcing matters, formal accountability lay primarily at thesecond level, with occasional exceptions for particularly largeor economically significant units such as medical and/orbusiness schools.

Within the second model financial and line-managementresponsibility was devolved to the third level (i.e. school ordepartment). Within this model, the Dean of Faculty (orSchool) served a primarily connecting role of facilitating,coordinating and communicating between disciplines andlevels rather than a vertical line-management function. Withinthis model, the Dean’s power is vested in interpersonalrelationships and their representation on the VCEG/SMT ratherthan formal resource power. To use the analogy offered byKatzenbach and Smith83 they were seen to act as a‘matchmaker’rather than a ‘switch’.

A simplified, annotated diagram of these structures is given inFigure 5.1.

Within each of the universities visited there were somevariations to the models above, with different approachesbeing taken for different parts of the university and different

19

functions. Thus, for example, in one new (post-92) universitythere were some Deans of Faculty who served a cross-cuttinguniversity-wide role as well as being responsible for theirgroup of schools/departments, whilst others did not. In otheruniversities DVCs/PVCs held both territorial and cross-cuttingresponsibilities, with not all faculties/schools beingoverseen/supported by someone at this level.

Broadly, however, the findings point towards a tendencywithin all institutions to devolve financial and linemanagement responsibility down the hierarchy and to

encourage both vertical and horizontal management andleadership. Although the precise reasoning for such changesvaried between institutions, it generally appeared to be largelyin response to changing funding mechanisms (from centralgovernment, research bodies and students); externalregulation, legislation and assessments of organisationalperformance (including teaching, research, employerengagement, etc.); increasing competition (through theinternationalisation of higher education and greater mobilitywithin the academic community); and the merging and/ordownsizing of separate institutions (see Section 8). Together

MODEL 1Dean of Faculty/School as budget holder

Top Management Team - VC

Cross-cutting DVCs/PVCs with university-wide roles Territorial/sectoral DVCs/PVCs with responsibility

for a cluster of schools/faculties

Dean of Faculty/School as a formal management role

Head of School/Dept as a semi-formal management role

MODEL 2Head of Department as budget holder

Top Management Team - VC

Cross-cutting DVCs/PVCs with university-wide roles

Dean of Faculty/School as a cross-cutting rather thanhierarchical management role

Head of School/Dept as a formalmanagement role

Cross cutting DVCs/PVCs with university-wide rolesinclude those responsible for R, T&L, Strategy,Resources, etc. They do not have formal line-management responsibilities

Territorial/sectoral DVCs/PVCs are responsible for acluster of schools/faculties. They can either have aformal line-management responsibility forHeads/Deans or not.

Dean of Faculty/School in this model is a formal roleand has the main formal budget holding and line-management responsibility. The Dean may be amember of the VCEG and serve a similar role to that ofTerritorial/sectoral DVCs/PVC where no such role exists.

Head of School/Department in this model is regardedas an informal management role - i.e. it does not carryformal financial and line management responsibilities.In two sample universities this role is not formallyrecognised in the university management structuredespite its existence.

Prevalence: this model predominated in 8 of the 12sample universities.

DVCs/PVCs with cross-cutting roles (R, T&L, Strategy,Resources, etc). In universities of this model, there wasno instance of a DVC/PVC with responsibility for facultyand Deans were members of the VCEG.

Dean of Faculty/School in this model is a cross-cuttingrather than hierarchical management role, with littleformal budget-holding or line-managementresponsibility (but recognized within the universitymanagement structure all the same). The role involvescoordinating a cluster of fairly autonomousschools/departments and facilitating communicationbetween the levels. In one university Deans have across-institutional role apart from being responsible fora faculty and in many cases they serve a leadership rolebeyond the institution.

Head of School/Department in this model is a formalmanagement role and has the main budget-holdingand line-management responsibility.

Prevalence: this model predominated in 4 of the 12sample universities.

UNIVERSITY STRUCTURES

FIGURE 5.1

20


these factors point towards greater marketisation of the sectorand the requirement to become more commerciallyorientated. Inclusion and engagement of leaders andmanagers at lower levels of the organisation, it would seem, isa response rather than a driver for change.

Within this context, effective leadership has becomeincreasingly seen as a strategic and operational priority. Talk of ‘leadership’, as opposed to ‘management’ and/or‘administration’, however, has been a relatively recent trendand the degree to which it was mentioned varied betweeninstitutions. Whilst some universities used the notion of‘leadership’ to encourage active engagement with strategicand operational decision-making (without necessarilyimplying an administrative and/or bureaucratic burden)others felt more comfortable with the concepts of‘management’and/or ‘administration’as, particularly the latter,was already perceived to be part of the agreed academicworkload (i.e. teaching, research and administration). To thisextent ‘leadership’ appears to carry a powerful rhetoricalfunction that may help in reframing traditional conceptions ofacademic work. On the other hand, it may be perceived as amanagerial device to enhance commitment to institutionalaims. Either way, the language used seems to be an importantaspect of how the need for change is communicated withinuniversities

HoD, Pre-1992 University: “There’s a certain ameliorationbetween the kinds of attitudes expressed by centralmanagement and a general perception across the universitythat there’s a clash between a business culture and anacademic culture and I think HoDs are caught in the midst ofthat. There's a certain amount of translation again in termsof perception as well as language. You try to convert some ofthe statements into something a bit more palatable for theperhaps more old school academics. A classic example isreferring to the students as customers and all that kind ofthing. It doesn’t go down well in departments but it’s clearlythe way that people in the centre perceive it. That same sortof idea will roll down to a number of different areas as well. Idon’t think there's necessarily anything wrong with it but it’snot the language you wish to use with colleagues.”

The current study appears to have been conducted during ortowards the end of a period of intense change in UK highereducation, where institutions have been forced to becomemore commercially aware and responsive to their markets. Itis unclear whether or not this is an unprecedented period of

change for the sector and/or whether the rate of change isnow slowing. However, within most of the institutionsvisited there was a sense of having completed the mostsubstantial changes and a need now to consolidate the new structures. Indeed leaders, particularly at theschool/department level, appeared weary of change84 andwere looking for a period of greater stability. Whether or notthis will happen in the light of the changes and trendsidentified in Section 8, is another matter.

5.3 Institutional approaches to leadershipThe changes highlighted above point to an increasingtendency to devolve operational leadership to academic units.Indeed, within all of the universities visited, there was a sensethat the management and leadership of the discipline (i.e.what should be taught and researched) was best placed in thehands of those with the subject expertise. Within thischanging context, the role of the VCEG was increasingly takento be one of strategic oversight – providing broad strategicvision and objectives within which academic schools anddisciplines can agree their own goals and priorities. Thus,crudely, the role of the VCEG was seen as ensuring leadershipof the ‘institution’ whilst that of academic leaders wasleadership of the ‘discipline’. PVCs and other cross-cutting roleswere primarily in place to ensure an alignment and integrationof institutional and disciplinary leadership.

In achieving these aims there was considerable variationbetween and within institutions as to the preferred leadershipapproach. What was clear, however, is that some form ofbalance between top-down (managerial) and bottom-up(collegial) leadership is required. Whilst ideally these shouldbe complementary processes, supporting and reinforcing oneanother, in reality a tension was experienced between theseapproaches in our sample. A further important dimensionrecognised, yet difficult to achieve in practice, was horizontalcoordination, communication and collaboration.

Figure 5.2 attempts to capture these tensionsdiagrammatically, indicating that within academic unitsleadership was primarily focused on the operational (and tosome extent strategic) interests of the discipline. By contrast,at the VCEG level, leadership took a broader, more strategicfocus on the institution and its place within the wider regional,national and international context. Within this structure, someroles were primarily concerned with managerial control (i.e.formal vertical channels of influence) whilst others were morecross-cutting and concerned with integration and

84 What Abrahamson, E. (2004), called ‘Repetitive Change Syndrome’

21

coordination across the institution (although obviously theremit and nature of these roles varied between institutions).Tensions were inevitably experienced between these differingfunctions and became especially clear as individualsprogressed through the organisational hierarchy - movingfrom a primary allegiance to the discipline to the institutionand alternating between vertical and horizontal leadershiproles.

In the majority of HEIs we visited, organisational strategies andpolicies tended to originate from the most senior universitylevel, whilst the operationalisation of these was devolved tolower levels. The majority of interviewees agreed that a degreeof top-down leadership and direction was inevitable given thecurrent context of higher education, but that the importanceof collegial and bottom-up leadership should not beunderestimated. Without this dimension of engagement itwould be both impossible to manage the complexity ofuniversity work or to gain the commitment of professionalacademics.

On this point, despite the limitations of our sample, itappeared that there was a greater acceptance of top-downleadership in new (post-1992) than in old (pre-1992)

universities. There may be a number of reasons for this,including the vocational orientation of such institutionsattracting more late entrants to academia who are familiarwith management practices in more corporate environments;the relatively recent history of Local Education Authority (LEA)control and the move to university status being associatedwith greater autonomy and freedom; and the clearerrecognition of academic management as a desirable careerpathway within this part of the sector (see Section 6).

PVC, Post-1992 University: “I think like a lot of post ’92institutions, compared with pre ’92, the managerial culture isstronger, and therefore the VC has been able to impose hiswill just through being the chief executive. He doesn’tnecessarily have to go through the decision-makingprocesses to make something happen.”

In institutions where a predominantly ‘managerial’ or top-down approach to leadership dominated, senior universitymanagers were often perceived, at the school/departmentlevel, to be micro-managing and interfering unnecessarily inacademic affairs. In these institutions middle-level academicmanagers expressed a desire for greater devolution ofdecisions on academic matters.

OPERATIONAL

School/Department

Faculty/School

Top Management Team (VCEG)

STRATEGIC

Managerialism(Bureaucracy and

Corporation)

Collegium andEnterprise

VC/Principal

PVCs

Deans

HoS/HoD

Leadership of disciplineNarrow focus

Broad focus Leadership of institution

LEADERSHIP ROLES AND APPROACHES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 5.2

22


By contrast, interviewees in universities with highly devolveddecision-making structures frequently expressed a desire forstronger direction and greater clarity of organisationalpriorities (usually from the VC/Principal) to help guide theiractivities. In these instances, manager-academics at thelower levels felt frustrated by what they saw asindecisiveness or evasiveness from the Senior ManagementGroup and indicated a need for greater support andrecognition.

In most institutions the need to align and connect top-downand bottom-up leadership appeared to arise from an intentto become more ‘corporate’ (in terms of meeting a realisticand efficient business model) and/or ‘entrepreneurial’ (interms of innovation in products and services) and most VCsand Principals interviewed saw themselves as the ‘CEO’ –responsible for running an effective and sustainableorganisation.

5.4 Institutional roles, systems and processesDuring interviews, respondents were asked to describe theirroles and how they saw leadership occurring within theinstitution. They were also invited to identify the keyleadership roles and processes within the organisation.

It has already been remarked that the VC/Principal generallysaw him/herself as the CEO of the university and ultimatelywhere ‘the buck stops’. S/he operated, however, within acomplex structure, needing to work effectively with a widerange of groups and individuals and reporting to a variety ofstakeholders including the University Council.

In universities with a somewhat managerial approach todecision-making, leadership was said to be embodied verymuch in and around the office of the VC/Principal. In a numberof universities, other senior managers, such as the DVC,Registrar, Director of Finance and/or Director of StrategicPlanning, were also seen as providing substantial strategicleadership and direction.

When responsibilities were split between multiple roles (e.g. VCand DVC, Dean and Deputy Dean, and Head and Deputy Head)this was often done on the basis of external (acting as afigurehead and liaising with key stakeholders outside theinstitution) and internal focus (dealing with ‘hands on’strategyand operations within the institution). The decision as to whotook on which responsibilities largely arose out of one-to-onenegotiation and a response to personal strengths and interests.

There were also many instances, however, where there was alack of clarity over the division of roles and plenty ofopportunity for confusion and competition. This situationtended to be most strongly felt for cross-cutting roles at theuniversity, faculty or school level. Thus, for example, there wassome confusion over the relative roles and responsibilities ofthe PVC of Research (university-level), Dean of Research(faculty-level) and Head of Research (school-level). Roleambiguity was particularly keenly experienced in universitieswith a devolved resource management structure in whichcase faculty and university level roles (especially PVC/Dean)held significantly less budgetary and line-managementresponsibility than Heads of School/Department. In this case,although nominally lines of accountability ran between theHead and VC via the PVC/Dean there was ample opportunityto bypass the formal channels and, in effect, cut the PVC/Deanout of the loop.

Thus, from a command and control perspective it might seemadvisable to place more direct power in the hands of thePVC/Dean, so as to reduce the number of direct reports tosenior management and clarify channels of command.Despite this, however, a number of universities expressedbenefits from having a less formal line of command. In theseinstances, significant benefits accrued from having someoneat the PVC/Dean level who could act as an impartial advisor,arbitrator or representative. By virtue of their need toinfluence through more informal means, such roles acted asvaluable facilitators, both for encouraging inter-disciplinarydialogue and activity and for representing the needs of theschools to the central university and vice-versa.

Non-budget holding Dean of Faculty, Pre-1992 University:“[HoDs] are strongly autonomous because they’re thebudget holders and they have to make the case. What I cando is facilitate the process when it comes to its progressionthrough the university machine. Eventually it will come up toa Senior Management Group and more likely than not I’ll beon it… The HoDs will be invited to come and make their case.They then leave and the first thing that happens is the chairof that committee asks what the chair of the faculty thinks.So if they’ve discussed it with me and convinced me that thecase is strong then they’re going to get a much smoother rideat that sort of level than if they come in cold and haven’tprimed me with the right information to help them with theircase. I champion their cause but at the same time, because Ihave an overview of the whole faculty, I can make more of afair judgement. The HoD job is to do the best for their

23

department but of course across the faculty and theuniversity there has to be more balance than that because ifdepartment ‘x’ is always the one that gets then that’s goingto have a detrimental effect on other areas. There should bea check and balance and you’re almost a collective memoryand you have to carefully consider the balance.”

Another tension, felt particularly strongly at the HoS/HoD-level, was between being a peer to academic colleagues andalso being their line-manager. In effect, the HoS/HoDsometimes felt torn between the demands of the institutionas a whole and those of his/her own school/department.This was particularly significant in pre-1992 universities withrotating headships where there was an expectation for theHoS/HoD to return to the ranks of their colleagues once theirterm was up. For many, the Association of UniversityTeachers85 (AUT) industrial action short of a strike, whichoccurred during the period of the interviews, had been thefirst major test of their allegiances and one where it becameclear that their responsibility was to the institution even ifthey felt sympathetic to the cause of those taking action.

HoS, Pre-1992 University: “That's the other thing that isquite a strange thing because throughout the dispute onboth sides there has been a tendency for there to be a “themand us” and in my situation as a HoS I’m part of “them” andI'm part of “us”. I go to meetings where I'm told bymanagement “you must do this to them” where “them” is mycolleagues and in fact myself. That’s probably true foreverything in the HoS role. We are perceived to be part ofmanagement by the management and we are perceived tobe part of the team by the team. There isn’t a clear divide.”

In terms of the key decision-making bodies withinuniversities, as a rule, the main decision-making body for theinstitution as a whole was the VC/Principal’s Executive Group(often held on Monday-mornings) comprising, amongstothers, VC/Principal, DVC, PVCs and/or Deans of Faculty(Provost), Registrar and Director of Finance (Bursar). Similargroups were present at the faculty and school level which,likewise, had a significant strategic remit within universitieswith a devolved structure. In all cases these groupscomprised a mix of academic and professional service staffand were concerned with the practical delivery of servicesand achievement of objectives. These groups highlight theblurring distinction between academic and administrativeleadership and the merging of managerial and academicpriorities. At an individual-level, our findings provide support

for ‘hybrid’ roles that combine both academic andadministrative responsibilities86.

In addition to the executive/management groups there wasinvariably an extended Senior Management Group (SMG),comprising members of the VCEG, all other academic and professional services Heads, and a range of other stakeholder representatives (including studentrepresentatives). Such groups were relatively large asdecision-making bodies (usually over 12-15 members) butwere seen as essential forums for communication anddebate. In addition to this, there were a number of influentialcommittees focused on particular aspects of universitymanagement/administration. Of these, those concernedwith resource allocation and strategic planning wereparticularly influential, and frequently chaired by membersof the VCEG, with a select membership drawn from seniorroles across the university.

A further factor considered was the number of direct reportsto different managers. In organisations with a devolvedstructure there were often large numbers of peoplereporting to the same person thus putting great pressure ontheir time and availability. On the other hand, putting inplace reporting structures that did not meet the actual needsof the principal actors was seen to be counter-productiveand occasionally led to decisions being taken via the‘backdoor’ (e.g. the HoS bypassing the PVC if they did nothave executive authority). In most cases, intervieweesdiscussed the need to identify the way in which decisionswere actually made within the university, locating the keydecision-makers rather than depending on the formalchannels as captured in organisational charts.

Whilst formal top-down channels for communication andinfluence typically ran from the VCEG to Faculty toSchool/department, the formalised mechanism for upwardsinfluence was the committee structure, usually reporting toSenate. Despite the large importance placed on thecommittee structure within a ‘collegial’ approach toleadership and management, in all of the institutions therewas a sense that the traditional committee structure wasunwieldy and largely unproductive and had, to a largeextent, simply become a ‘rubber-stamping’exercise. In manycases it was believed that the true decisions were madeoutside these groups (through executive meetings and/orinformal networks) and that committees simply tended toslow down decision-making.

85 Now part of the University and College Union (UCU) 86 Whitchurch, C. (2006a, 2006b)

24


HoS, Post-1992 University: “I think [the committees are]there as a pseudo-consultation exercise so people thinkthey’re involved in the decision-making but decisions goround and round. I've only been here six months but in thattime the school learning and teaching committee hasn’tmade a single decision. Stuff gets passed up and passeddown, so I’ll be in one group and they’ll say ‘this has to go tothere’ or I’ll be somewhere else and they’ll say ‘we can’t makethat decision, it has to go up there’ “.

In terms of aligning school/department direction withuniversity strategy, the annual strategic planning processwas seen as essential within many universities. This processgave academic units the opportunity to devise a businessplan and set out their goals and priorities within the widerremit of the university strategy. Frequently this was the onlytime where schools/departments liaised directly with thecentral/senior university about planned initiatives and theonly opportunity for the university as a whole to ensure anintegrated and coherent approach across the varying units.Despite this, however, universities with a highly devolvedstructure found it hard to foster collaboration andinterdisciplinary activities between academic units,particularly due to inflexibilities in resource managementsystems.

5.5 Formal and informal networksWithin universities, like most large organisations, greatemphasis is placed on formal mechanisms for leadership andmanagement. Our research reveals, however, the significanceof informal networks and relationships87 in the execution ofleadership.

At inter-School level, informal networks such as the HoS emailgroup, monthly lunches, etc. were identified as importantchannels of communication, influence and support. Suchforums offered Heads (or peer groups at other levels within theuniversity) the potential to discuss university policies andpractices; to provide support and mentoring; to ‘sound out’opinions; and to learn about what was going on in other partsof the university. Significantly, too, such forums offered theopportunity for post holders to develop a sense of ‘sharedidentity’as members of the university management structureand, where necessary, to collectively join forces and challengesenior management decisions. Such networks appeared to beparticularly valuable where members did not have a formalforum in which to meet. Similar groups were observedamongst both academic and professional/functional staff

groups at varying levels within the organisation and weredeemed to constitute an essential element of the social fabricof the organisation.

PVC, Post-1992 University: “I use networks. If I used theformal channels I’d never get anywhere because all theformal channels are the teaching and learning committee,and the senate… they’re all academics. One of the mostinfluential groups in the university is the planning resourcesgroup, who divert resources and make decisions. I've hadthings going via other people to the planning resourcesgroup and I’ll just go around and lobby. I’ll go round to lots ofpeople and make sure they understand it before they see it. A paper isn’t worth anything until you've been around tomake sure they understand your position.”

HR Director, Pre-1992 University: “There’s also an informalgrouping of the academic members of that committee andthat’s used for debate and consultation prior to more formalprocesses. I think the risk is that more decision making flowsto that informal body and not so much to the other. That’snot unusual in the organisation and there’s a sort of cyclicalnature to these structures in terms of how well they’reworking.”

Within the universities visited, as executive authority wasincreased for HoSs/HoDs and/or Deans of Faculty/Schoolthere was a tendency to increase representation by allmembers on the SMG, thus giving them a greater ownershipand awareness of senior-level decisions. In addition to formalmeetings and committees, however, at several of theuniversities in our sample the VC and other members of theVCEG held regular informal meetings (usually lunches orcoffee mornings) where they interacted with staff fromacross the institution. These events also served as importantchannels for upwards influence from people at lowerorganisational levels.

There was also evidence of considerable leadershipinfluence being exerted by individuals outside the formaluniversity hierarchy. These were most frequently senioracademics with a well established research record and theability to attract high-quality academic staff, students andresearch funding to the institution. Whilst such people maywell lead research centres, manage research budgets and siton key committees, their influence appeared to be largely aconsequence of their role within the wider academic,practitioner and policy community than their membership

87 Often referred to in the academic literature as ‘social capital’

25

of a specific institution. Such people have the potential to behighly sought-after and mobile within the sector anduniversities may have to work hard to retain them. Losing aperson in such a role may result in the departure of asignificant number of other staff who are in their jobs notbecause of the institution per se, but because of who theyare working with. In such cases, although not formally partof the university management structure their influence is feltfar and wide across and beyond the institution. It is alsoincreasingly the case that ‘hybrid’professional managers canexert similar influence through their ability to attract andmanage funds and people.

5.6 Leadership of professional and support servicesThe discussion so far has focused primarily on the leadershipof academic work. Another essential dimension, however, isthe leadership of professional and support services. A keyelement of the restructuring of universities in recent years hasinvolved a revision and reframing of services, including theregistry, HR, finances, hospitality, estates, IT and student affairs.Such services, whilst not directly involved in academicprovision, are central components of the universityinfrastructure and essential to the effective delivery ofteaching, research and business/community engagement.

Within many of the universities visited there has been a trendtowards the ‘professionalisation’ of these services to renderthem more commercially orientated, customer focused (bothinternal and external) and recognised as partners rather thansubservient to academic mission. This trend has sought tobreakdown the old academic-administrative divideexperienced within many institutions and to replace it with amore integrated or ‘hybrid’approach.

Associated with this trend, and the devolution of greateroperational and strategic authority to faculties, schools anddepartments, was a tendency to decentralise services such asHR. To this extent, rather than remaining within a centralisedarea, HR specialists were being moved out into schools so as toprovide a more direct, hands-on response. At the risk of ‘goingnative’or duplicating provision this was generally perceived toenhance the quality of support88.

Registrar, Pre-1992 University: “The most popular part ofthe administrative service is the service which is deliveredlocally in the faculties - we get a lot of support for that. TheHeads of Administration report to me but they work for thefaculty and I’ve got no problem with that as a structure,

indeed I think it’s quite a good little understanding, that thereporting line is one way, but the working arrangements arethat way. Great. That relieves the [Deans] of one of thedifficulties caused by absenteeism or maternity leave oranything, I have to cover, but they have to enjoy the serviceand that’s how it works. The downsides to it are obvious onesreally. It is more expensive than either a fully devolved or fullycentralized model. There is an element of duplication. Thereis a difficulty of taking advantage of scale of activity. There isa tendency, although I have to say I think our staff managesvery well, there is a tendency towards the ‘Going Native’issue, which is a very central perspective on life. I don’t thinkthat’s been particularly noticeable here. I mean if ‘GoingNative’ means supporting the faculty then good.”

Universities within the UK still generally operate with a highratio of academics to support staff however there is someevidence of a shift. This was most clearly evident withinschools/departments with a high external focus andengagement with businesses and professionals (such asBusiness Schools) who invariably had higher numbers ofprofessional/support staff involved in student and employerliaison. With the intention of many university departmentsto grow their post-graduate numbers as well as internationalstudents (both of which generally demand greater support)it is likely that this trend may spread.

Focusing on how professional and support services aredelivered is an essential element of university leadership.Many organisations were starting to recruit high-profileprofessional managers (e.g. for IT, HR, finance, marketing)from outside the higher education sector and paying morecompetitive rates for their expertise.

Another feature of the professionalisation of leadership andmanagement, present within many of the universities visitedwas the recruitment of School/Faculty Managers to workalongside Deans and Heads in the strategic and operationalmanagement of the Faculty/School. Such roles are quitedifferent from the traditional Administrator who was usuallyviewed as an administrative assistant for the Dean/Head andschool management group. The intention is that such staffwill increasingly take on responsibility for the financial andadministrative leadership of the school, freeing up the formalDean/Head to focus, at a more strategic level, on academicleadership. This is quite a change from traditional academicworking arrangements and whilst well received in somequarters has been harder to implement in others (usually

88 Guest, D. and Clinton, M. (2007)

26


with the Dean/Head continuing to behave as before andfailing to delegate much to the School/Faculty Manager).

The approach to the professionalisation of services has alsovaried between institutions, with some pushing stronglyfrom the top and others leaving it more to the discretion ofindividual faculties and/or schools. Despite this, thereremained an expectation of consultation and participatorydecision making amongst academics and the sense that

‘professionalisation’ of academic leadership through theintroduction of senior managers with no academicexperience (rather like the introduction of non-healthcareprofessionals in the NHS) would be both undesirable andunworkable.

5.7 Key pointsFigure 5.3 below represents the main findings from thissection diagrammatically.

Organisational

restructuring

Larger business units

Devolution ofmanagement and

leadership

Balance of vertical and horizontal

leadership

Marketpressures

Changing fundingmechanisms

Shift from ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘collegial’ to ‘corporate’ and‘entrepreneurial’ forms of organisation

Tensionbetween roles(e.g. academicvs manager)

Increasingprofessionalisation

& ‘hybrid’roles

Streamlining ofcommitteestructure

Leadership ofdiscipline

versusinstitution

Alignment throughannual strategic

planning exerciseFormal &informalinfluence

Increasingautonomy &

control ofresources

Greater executive controlat senior & middle

management levels

Strategic differentiation& competition betweenand within universities

Lack of clarityfor cross-cutting

roles

LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES: KEY POINTS

FIGURE 5.3

27

6. TAKING UP A LEADERSHIP ROLE

This section of the report presents findings about individualmotivations, perceived barriers as well as incentives for takingup a leadership role, along with appointment practices andselection criteria for formal leadership roles in the 12universities studied.

6.1 OverviewIn terms of motivations for taking up a leadership role, whilstthese broadly map onto Deem’s89 three tracks (career-route,reluctant-manager and ‘good citizen’), the actual situation isinevitably more complex, with individual motivationschanging over time (e.g. from reluctant manager to career-route as the person finds they enjoy and are good atmanagement and leadership) and often coinciding alongsideone another (e.g. the reluctant-manager being persuaded totake on the role out of the urge to be a good-citizen andconcern over what would happen to the academic unit if theydidn’t). Although many of the cultural and organisationalbarriers remain, there is clear evidence of an increased interestin, and changing attitudes towards, leadership andmanagement in higher education with the majority of formalleaders interviewed enjoying the job they are performingdespite its challenges and increased complexity. Leadershipand management roles such as Dean of Faculty and/or Headof Department are no longer seen as purely ‘operational’ or‘administrative’ and have evolved into something morestrategic and empowering. Despite this, filling the post ofHead of Department was reportedly more difficult thanrecruiting to more senior roles (such as Dean and DVC/PVC).There is an increasing diversity of practice for selecting andappointing formal leaders and manager-academics, withleaders being recruited from within the institution, other HEIsand from outside the higher education sector and posts beingincreasingly advertised externally. Some ‘old’universities havealso introduced permanent leadership roles and the terms ofappointments are also increasingly negotiated on anindividual basis. Academic excellence is no longer the primaryselection criteria, with universities beginning to takeleadership and management capabilities and experience intoconsideration more seriously and becoming more explicitabout it.

6.2 Motivations for taking up a leadership role In 2001, Deem noted three routes into management foracademics. The first was the career track route, where an earlycareer decision is taken to pursue a management role. This was

typical of a minority of respondents, mostly in post-1992universities. The second route was the reluctant managerroute. This was typical of HoDs in the pre-1992 universities,where such roles are usually temporary. The final route waswhat Deem termed the good citizen route, where an individualchooses to take on a more senior management role (e.g. atPVC level), usually at a quite late career stage, in order ‘to givesomething back’ to their institutions. Deem argued that thelast route may be declining, as manager-academic roles nowoccur earlier in careers. Our study, however, has clearly foundchanges and a number of different routes to formal leadershipand management for academics.

6.2.1 The reluctant leader and manager

Within the classic ‘reluctant manager’route in ‘old’universitiesdescribed by Deem90 there was a sense of obligation wheresomeone took on a formal leadership and management rolebecause the faculty, school and/or department needed to beled, rather than because they thought they were the rightperson for the job or had a desire to do it. There was rarelycompetition in ‘old’ universities for deanship/headship roles.Some were persuaded or even coerced into it, whilst otherssaw it as a case of ‘buggins turn’. This practice, however, isincreasingly viewed as unsustainable within universities of alltypes, due to increased mobility of the labour market and therecognised need for effective leadership and attempts arebeing made to pursue a more ‘professional’ approach todevelop institutional leadership at various levels.

Registrar, Pre-1992 University: “The creation of a smallernumber of large units I think is a fairly general trend. Whenyou couple it with vast increases in student numbers over thelast twenty or so years and not so large but significantincreases in staff numbers and financial responsibility,coupled with a viciously increased set of regulations andexpectations on virtually anything you care to name… itproduces an atmosphere where the first amongst equalsHoD buggins turn approach, that characterised certainly thepre-92 University Sector in the mid 80’s, has given way to anappointment of a HoS as a recognised managerial post,perhaps for a fixed term… with an expectation that thatperson is leading the school in a way which would have beenunrecognisable twenty years ago.”

6.2.2 The career-track leader and manager

The career-track route to formal leadership is still stronglyevident in post-1992 universities. In ‘new’ universities in oursample the interviewees generally perceived formal

89 Deem, R. (2001) 90 Deem, R. (2001)

28


leadership and management roles as attractive. The reasonsfor this included the organisational culture in ‘new’universities,which was perceived to be less negative about managerialismthan in ‘old’ universities, having permanent leadership andmanagement roles and seeing them as a clear careerprogression, being interested in and enjoying management,seeking a higher salary and recognition. Semi-formal roles atthe faculty/departmental level (e.g. Deputy Dean/Head,Subject Leaders, Heads of Undergraduate/PostgraduateStudies) in ‘new’universities were often seen by academics asan opportunity for leadership experience/development and aroute to more formal leadership roles and in some universitiesautomatically lead to a Principal or Senior Lectureship. Incontrast to some of the ‘old’ universities, the Dean and Headroles in ‘new’universities bear tangible financial benefits andare clearly defined.

The career-track route to headship and deanship was alsoclearly evident in pre-1992 universities. From the very start oftheir career, academics pursuing this route (usually of youngerage) seek roles on committees or take up leadership tasks andresponsibilities even before having a formally recognisedleadership role within the institution. These intervieweesreported that they had always been interested in academicmanagement, wanted to be involved in university politics,found performing their administrative duties (e.g. Head ofResearch, Course Leader, Principal Investigator, etc.) at thefaculty/departmental level enjoyable, liked interacting withsenior people, and wanted to move to a more seniormanagement level.

Staff developers in ‘old’ universities also noted that a newbreed of academics who want to develop a more rounded setof skills is emerging. These people are not only interested indeveloping their research and teaching skills but increasinglyseek support for developing their leadership andmanagement expertise. With the introduction of thePerformance and Development Review (PDR) process whichcovers performance in three domains (research, teaching andadministration), the number of career-track manager-academics is most likely to increase as academics willincreasingly recognise leadership and management as anintegral part of their job and regard such functions as centralto their progression opportunities. A high level of interest in,and recruitment to, programmes such as the Institute ofEducation MBA in higher education and LeadershipFoundation HoD courses also bears testament to the changein attitudes towards formal leadership and management.

6.2.3 From the reluctant to career leader and manager

The majority of interviewees reported that they came intoformal leadership roles almost by ‘default’, which could beviewed in most cases, at least initially, as a ‘reluctant manager’route. With time, however, despite their initial reluctance totake on the role, the majority also found they enjoyedperforming a leadership role and found it both challengingand rewarding. Some discovered (occasionally to theirsurprise) that they were very good at it. Whilst in ‘new’universities everyone who takes up a formal leadership rolecan from that moment on be considered to be a de factocareer leader and manager, our findings indicate that even in‘old’ universities, given the opportunity, about 90% ofinterviewees at the Dean and Head level would prefer toprogress up the formal leadership and management ladder,either within their own or another institution, rather thanreturning to being a ‘pure’academic after their term in office.This change of opinion indicates a shift in individuals’identities, whilst in post, from the reluctant to careermanager. Indeed, a few interviewees have moved from pre-1992 to post-1992 universities to take up permanentheadships/deanships after their stints as Deans/Heads in ‘old’universities. Others have got a taste of being a Dean/Headand have progressed along the management route at ahigher level within their own universities.

In addition to reported changing attitudes to leadershipand management in general, there are many other reasonswhy a formal leadership and management route may beperceived to be a more attractive option among leaders andmanager-academics in ‘old’ universities than that of goingback to being a ‘pure’ academic. Line-managing andbudget-holding Deans and Heads expressed many positiveaspects of the job and reported that despite their rolesbecoming more complex, challenging and demandingthey, nevertheless, enjoyed it, primarily because of thepower and responsibility now afforded to this level (seeSection 5). In the words of respondents, the roles haveevolved into something more strategic and important, withincreased decision-making on strategic, management andfinancial issues, promoting and influencing their discipline,facilitating the work of colleagues, student affairs, internaland external communication, ‘third-stream’ activities, staffdevelopment, and many more besides. The tasks whichDeans and Heads need to perform now are clearly beyondconventional academic stewardship and require more thana ‘great researcher figurehead’or ‘gifted amateur’.

29

HoS Pre-1992 University: “I should say the reason I amdoing this job is because I enjoy doing it. There has to be acompetitive advantage, in a sense that I am a perfectly good[academic], but I am not better than a lot of the other people,but I am probably better at doing this (HoS role) than most ofthe other people. I get satisfaction out of it, I feel other peopleappreciate me a lot. My colleagues are very good to me andare very supportive. I feel most people are very backing ofwhat I am doing and are happy that I am doing it. I get a lotof pleasure and enjoy many of the activities. I also think I amnot somebody who believes this is a more difficult task thanresearch, it’s just different. I don’t claim that I am doingsomething, which is superior to what a lot of other people aredoing. I am just doing it, because I am reasonably good atdoing it. I enjoy doing it, whereas most people would hate it,so I will do it.”

Dean and Head roles were reported to have become moreempowered, with greater opportunities to influence theoverall direction of the university. As managerial power isvery much tied to budget-holding positions within theuniversity, some interviewees were quite frank in saying that they enjoyed the power and influence thedeanship/headship gives them. Also, with the introductionof professional managers working alongside Deans/Heads inmost institutions, they were able to concentrate more efforton strategic and longer-term priorities than on day-to-dayrunning of their faculties/ departments.

Due to the demands and challenges of their roles, Deans andHeads found they had little time to spend on research and,sooner or later, were faced with the decision of pursuing amanagement or research career. Some decided on amanagement career because they perceived their researchprofile to have been diminished to such an extent (especiallywith an increased term of deanship/headship) that even asabbatical period would be insufficient to catch up. Othersbecame disillusioned about ever reaching (or returning to)‘world-class’ research status or were discouraged by thecurrent performance-orientated climate associated with theResearch Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the fiercecompetition for grants. In these cases they often preferred tofacilitate the research of others rather than themselves bytaking up a more senior leadership role. This suggests thatpolarisation between academic and formal leadership andmanagement work is increasing and, as a result, the poolfrom which to draw formal leadership roles further down theinstitution may have become smaller. This finding has major

implications for current and future leadership developmentactivities and succession planning (see Section 9).

DVC, Post-1992 University: “It was unconscious in a sense. Iwas a very good teacher and researcher and I wanted thingsdone differently. I wanted to acquire a greater level ofinfluence so I could change things and one way was to leadthe subject group. From there you appreciate that the leadersin power and influence are not necessarily there and maybeif you look after a department you’ll have more input. It hasalways been wanting to have influence that has driven me.At each stage people have said that my research is over andthey see very clearly leadership as a badge that you’re not agood researcher and actually I am. I don’t accept thatparadigm. For me it was unconscious. I didn’t understand theuniversity hierarchies or anything like that but I did want toprogress my career and have a greater degree of influence.”

6.2.4 Damage rectifiers and limiters

In our study we found quite a number of manager-academicswho claimed to have taken on the role because they believedthat they could do a better job than their predecessor and/orother nominated candidates and by doing so would rectify orlimit damage to their faculty/department. They reportedexperiences of bad leadership and management and it wasthis that made them think about stepping in. These peopleoften reported that they had not considered becoming aformal leader and manager-academic at an earlier stage oftheir career and frequently took significant persuasion fromtheir colleagues and superiors prior to agreeing to do the role,but once in post did not hesitate to take a proactive stance.

It could be argued that this account may simply be ajustification that disguises self-ambition and downplays athirst for power and influence. Nevertheless, the motivationsreported by these people included taking their disciplines,faculties and departments forward, and supporting their staffand students by creating a positive environment for achievingsuccess in research, teaching, learning and ‘third stream’activities. The rhetoric, or justification, for engagement wastherefore one of social benefit rather than personal gain.Within this, the catalyst for action was generally a desire to minimise the impact of poor and negativeleadership/management rather than to promote self-interest.

6.2.5 From emergent to formal leader

The route to formal academic leadership positions, particularlythose of HoS/HoD was often via emergent leadership at a

lower level. This emergent engagement with leadershipeventually resulted in an individual being singled out for amore formal leadership role. For instance, a professor in thescience department with a research group of post-doctoralresearchers and PhD students, and a team of technicians, hasto demonstrate leadership which, whilst different from thatrequired of a Dean/HoD, may well be taken as evidence oftheir ability to adapt to such roles.

Leaders of research groups who demonstrate strong informalleadership skills are often nominated by their colleagues forformal university leadership roles and hence the two types of leadership meet together. Likewise attendance oncommittees and working groups indicates a desire to beinvolved in the wider operation of the university and offersopportunities to network and interact with senior colleaguesfrom across the institution.

The route to such leadership could possibly be described as‘servant leadership’which:

“Begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve…then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. He orshe is sharply different from the person who is leader first,perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual powerdrive or to acquire material possessions.” 91

The motivation comes from an academic or professionalinterest that results in one accumulating formal responsibilitiesrather than a desire for formal recognition and responsibility.

VC, Post-1992 University: “I spent the rest of my time workingmy way up through [University X] but I never saw it as a careerpath, and I think most of my fellow VCs would say the samething. I joined universities as an academic – a researcher andteacher – and that’s what I remained for a long time… Due toa number of circumstances that were really only marginally todo with me I found myself elected to a Dean of School positionquite early on in my career. I completed that term of office andthen went back and took some research leave and re-established myself as a researcher and teacher. Then anotherset of circumstances came up and so I signed on for a secondterm. At the end of that the VC asked me to become one of hisPVCs. I served one term as PVC and then went on leave. I went[abroad] to work in a university for a year and the VC asked meto come back as DVC at the end of my period of leave, which iswhat I did. I did that for three or four years and then started

looking for VC positions. I was headhunted into this one. So thesynopsis of my career is there were several forks in the road andchoices made along the way but no grand design. I think ifyou’d asked me when I joined the profession I would have saidI’d hope to end up as a professor of my subject.”

6.2.6 External manager route

Whilst the majority of formal academic leaders emerge fromwithin faculties/departments there are also leaders andmanager-academics recruited from outside the highereducation sector92. In a few institutions in our sample, therehave been recent appointments to deanship and headship(but not limited to it) from the private and public sectors. Theseindividuals, who have had leadership and managementexperience elsewhere, reported taking up leadership roles inhigher education for a new challenge or exciting careerchange. The areas for which external appointments usuallyhappen are of particular strategic importance and/or arevocationally oriented.

The discussion in this section does not suggest that these arethe only routes and motivations for people taking up formalleadership and management roles in higher education. Theroutes and motivations are probably as diverse as the numberof people seeking formal roles, but nevertheless, these routesand motivations were most frequently identified by theinterviewees. Motivations can also vary depending on thenature of the role (e.g. line-managing and budget-holdingDean/Head as opposed to semi-formal Dean/Head or line-managing DVC/PVC as opposed to cross-cutting andcoordinating DVC/PVC) and with time.

The transition between different motivations and careerroutes is represented diagrammatically in Figure 6.1.

6.3 Recruitment and selection Getting appointment to leadership and managementpositions within HEIs right at every level is crucial because itcan influence the strategic direction and continued success ofthe institution. Many HEIs have now developed their ownguidelines and procedures for recruitment and selection,which differ by institutional level because of the nature andrequirements of the role, procedures and available candidates.To avoid overlap with two other Leadership Foundation-funded projects the discussion in this section focuses onmanager-academics rather than professional managersand/or the role of VC/Principal93.

30


91 Greenleaf, R. (1970)92 The challenges facing, leaders/managers coming from outside the higher education

sector is the subject of a Leadership Foundation-funded project by M. Harper. Details can

be found at www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects

93 For more details on the changing nature of ‘professional’managerial roles in UK higher

education see Whitchurch, C. (2006a, 2006b); and on the role of VCs in UK higher

education see Breakwell, G. (2006). Details can be found at

www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects

3194 Raddon, A. (2006)

6.3.1 Recruiting and appointing middle-level academic

leaders

Despite increasing interest and a shift in attitudes towardsleadership and management in the universities visited, it wasreported that academics in general remain a challenginggroup to engage. The barriers identified by the intervieweesand previous research are arguably less significant in ‘new’universities where, as noted above, formal leadershippositions are clearly seen as career progression and a realalternative to research careers:

1. Limited interest: Within ‘old’ universities there was aperception amongst interviewees of limited interest, atleast initially, in management and administration foracademics. This view supports conclusions drawn byRaddon94 regarding the value academics place onteaching, research and administration. Raddon foundthat research and teaching are clearly seen as highly-valued activities and, despite the challenges of theseroles, both represent enjoyable aspects of being anacademic. Administration, on the other hand, did notexcite respondents but was nevertheless considered tobe important for the everyday functioning of theuniversity and an activity that had to be undertaken. Themajority of Raddon’s respondents however would, bychoice, avoid administrative roles, even where theythought they were good at it. This may partly explain whyDeans and Heads may find it difficult to fill semi-formal

leadership roles such as Deputy Dean, Deputy Head,Head of Research, Head of Undergraduate/PostgraduateStudies, etc. at the faculty, school and/or departmentallevel. Our study has found that these semi-formal rolesare often conceived of as primarily ‘administrative’,although there are clearly variations across institutions.

2. Pool of candidates: Another difficulty related to aninsufficient ‘pool’of appropriate candidates, particularlywhen recruiting to headship. In the current climateHeads of School/Department have to run mini- (or insome cases quite large, multi-million pound) operations,be good managers of people, good managers offinances, good internal and external communicators,offer academic and strategic leadership and haveinnovative ideas. Usually the pool from which futureHeads are drawn within departments are academics withsemi-formal leadership roles, but the gap between asemi-formal role and that of a Head has widened to suchan extent that even the most appropriate candidatesmay feel unprepared for the challenges the role presents.Therefore, there is an increasing need to offerdevelopment and support to people prior to taking upheadship, not only whilst in it. All of the universities in oursample have introduced initiatives to address thesedevelopment needs and they are discussed in greaterdetail in Section 9.

Reluctant leader

Career leader

‘Good citizen’leader

Damage limiting leader

Emergent leader

External leader

Other

Head of Dean of DVC/ VC/

Department Faculty PVC Principal

ROUTES TO AND MOTIVATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT FOR ACADEMICS

FIGURE 6.1

3. Rotational roles: Even though some ‘old’ universities inour sample have started recruiting to permanentleadership posts, most headships remain rotational andof a limited duration. They may not, therefore, always beseen as a career progression or promotion opportunitymany academics would like to pursue, especially as in therotational system it can be difficult for manager-academics to return to research intensive careers, notleast due to the loss of research profile during their termin office. Some academics even saw it as a step back fortheir career. With rotating headships some academicswere concerned about upsetting or causing friction withcolleagues by taking tough or unpopular decisions whilstin post and facing the consequences when returning tobeing a ‘pure’academic. This fear can inhibit the desire toengage effectively with tough and/or controversialdecisions.

4. Impact on research: Another barrier, according tointerviewees, is the detrimental effect headship has onresearch. This is pertinent for all academics, but especiallyso for early- and late-entry academics who want todevelop their research for academic promotionpurposes, where the career path is relatively clear, andthere is a strong pressure to have their researchpublished in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, spending 3 to5 years as Head whilst simultaneously trying to developone’s research portfolio is not seen as an attractive optionfor many, and may be seen as an undesirable interferenceand distraction from one’s research and academic career.It was widely felt that provision of a Research Assistant(RA) would help alleviate this situation but that for such

an allowance to be tenable within a devolved budgetarysystem this allocation should be made from centraluniversity or faculty level. It is very difficult for a HoS/HoDto issue their own mandate for the recruitment of an RApaid for out of departmental funds.

5. Limited recognition and incentives for taking upheadships were reported as a barrier in a number ofuniversities. In half of the universities in our sample (all‘old’), non-budget holding HoDs were not formallyrecognised within the organisational managementstructure and the role did not bear any financial reward.In these institutions, they were seen as informal leaders,coordinating departmental activities rather than line-managing although their responsibilities clearly includedHR elements (e.g. performance review). A line-managingand budget-holding HoD role, although formallyrecognised, bore only limited financial and otherincentives with pay increments being discontinued insome instances once an outgoing Head had servedhis/her term. Interviewees commented that formallyrecognising all Heads and offering them a better financialreward might raise the status of these leaders andperhaps make the roles more desirable. Despite this,however, most Heads interviewed reported that financialmotivation was not a significant factor in their decision totake on the role.

Figure 6.2 summarises the discussion of barriers to taking up amiddle level academic leadership role as identified in theinterviews.

32


HoD/HoS posts are most difficult to fill in ‘old’universities

• Initial limited interest in leadership and management

• Insufficient ‘pool’of developed people and people feeling unprepared

• Rotating nature of roles

• Negative effect on research

• Limited recognition and incentives

BARRIERS TO TAKING UP A MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP ROLE

FIGURE 6.2

3395 Universities UK (2004)

Despite these barriers, the role of both line-managing/budget-holding as well as informal/coordinating Heads canbe a truly influential role within the institution and, as such,offers incumbents the opportunity to leverage significantchange and influence within their disciplines and across theinstitution. Thus, it should be noted that whilst these barriersmay still exist, our study also found clear changes in howleadership and leadership roles are beginning to be perceived.

Heads in both ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities in most casesemerged from within the department. The practice ofacademic election by the vote of a particular constituency wasretained only in one university in our sample whilst in the rest,headships had become appointed posts following anomination. This does not mean however that academicswere not consulted; in nearly all cases senior managementsought ‘soundings’ from departments as to appropriateinternal candidates for such roles.

Until recently, there was rarely much real internal competitionfor headship roles with usually one, or at best two, candidatesand for this very reason, universities often had to compromisewhen appointing internally and to select someone notnecessarily for their leadership skills or qualities but becausethey were the only one willing to do the job and acceptable totheir academic peers. This practice is now changing, withuniversities increasingly advertising headship posts bothinternally and externally.

Usually external recruitment for headships happens whenthere is clearly no one internal willing to do the job or deemedto be able to command the support of the department inquestion; there is a perceived deep-rooted crisis in adepartment in terms of relationships among the staff (whichthe externally appointed Head may not be aware of untilhe/she takes up the role); there is a plan to introduce apermanent or executive headship in an ‘old’university or theareas are of particular strategic importance to the institution;or major change, restructuring or reorganisation is planned.Whilst external appointments to headship are currently not auniversal practice across all departments in the sampleinstitutions, the intention in the majority of them appears tobe moving towards more external recruitment and selection.

Due to the increased complexity of the job, many universitiesnow prefer to draw from the widest possible pool of potentialcandidates and appoint the best possible person for the job byadvertising headships externally. This does not necessarily

mean that there is no one appropriate internally to do the job,but the prevailing view is that having internal candidatescompete with external ones can raise the status and credibilityof Heads as leaders. This is reported to be especially true incases where the internal candidate is appointed through openrecruitment and selection as the process is perceived to befairer and more equal. However, our study has also uncoveredan extreme case where appointment of an external candidatein competition with internal ones in a department perceivedto be in crisis led to more confrontations and conflicts. To avoidcases such as this therefore it seems important to set outclearly the job and person specifications which underpin theappointment process, offer constructive feedback to eachunsuccessful candidate, and discuss what support anddevelopment the institution is prepared to offer to theunsuccessful internal candidate to prepare for a similar role inthe future95.

A number of ‘old’and ‘new’institutions visited have appointedHeads who have already held a similar position in a differentuniversity. This may be taken as an attempt to minimise risk byappointing somebody who has already clearly acquiredleadership and management experience and has a trackrecord of being able to do the job well. The fact that externalcandidates who have had formal leadership and managementexperience at headship level apply for a comparable post in adifferent university also serves as evidence of a strongeremergence of career-track manager-academics andindividuals potentially reaching a ‘glass ceiling’ at a youngerage in their own institutions.

Furthermore, external candidates for headship are not onlydrawn from other HEIs but also from the private and otherpublic sectors. Senior institutional managers reported that byappointing people from outside the higher education sectorthey wish to further encourage change, facilitate innovationand entrepreneurial activities within their institutions.

The terms of appointment to headship in ‘old’universities arebecoming more diverse and increasingly negotiated on anindividual basis with some appointments becomingpermanent and others remaining fixed-term. In the ‘old’universities visited for this study permanent Heads arenormally recruited for large-size strategically importantschools/departments with large budgets and large numbersof staff and students and in many cases, but not exclusively, inmore vocationally oriented areas (e.g. Health). As for fixed-term rotational headships there is a move in universities not to

impose a standard duration and each individual case is open to consultation. Although there are clearly variations across universities, the duration of a fixed-term rotational headship has generally increased.

As for semi-formal leadership roles (Deputy Dean, Deputy Head, Head of Research, Head of Undergraduate/Postgraduate Studies, etc.), our findings are similar to those ofBarrett and Barrett96, as whilst in some of our casesinterviewees reported that academics generally try to avoidsuch responsibilities (particularly in ‘old’universities), in othersan awareness of promotion prospects made staff more willingto take them on. Also, in most cases semi-formal leadershipand management responsibilities are offset by lighterteaching loads97.

6.3.2 Recruiting and appointing senior- level academic

leaders

Compared to headships, filling more senior academicleadership positions such as those of Dean of Faculty/School,DVC/PVC or their equivalent presents less difficulty in theuniversities visited:

1. Pool of candidates: One of the main reasons of why it isnot so difficult to recruit to senior roles is that a smallernumber of them is required. There is already a pool ofleaders and manager-academics with a proven track-record of leadership and management at the faculty anddepartmental levels, who may wish to move on toleadership and management at a more senior level eitherwithin their own or another institution.

2. Research profile: Many academics who decide tobecome a Dean, DVC/PVC or equivalent often have awell-established research profile and are under lesspressure to keep up high research productivity. They canafford to spend less time on it and still maintain theirreputation. In a number of institutions senior manager-

academics maintained a certain level of research; thisgenerally occurred where they were still embeddedwithin their school or department, had professionalmanagerial support, were given research support viatheir own RA and did not have significant teaching loadsto contend with. In such instances, Deans and DVCs/PVCsseemed happy to have found a balance between theirrole as an academic and as a manager.

3. Career progression: More senior leadership roles mayalso be seen as more appealing as they can clearly beregarded as a career progression. Interestingly, it was feltthat some senior roles, particularly cross-cutting andcoordinating Deans and DVCs/PVCs may actually be lessdemanding than those of Head of School/Department asthey have less direct financial and line-managingresponsibility and clearer lines of accountability.

4. Clarity of purpose: Some Heads of School/Departmentfelt that leadership roles at the senior level are lesschallenging because there is generally less conflict ofinterests than at the middle level. Deans and DVCs/PVCs(or their equivalents) are clearly part of the senioruniversity management structure and their responsibilityfor a wide range of disciplines may reduce emotionalcommitment to colleagues within the same subject area.Furthermore, such senior leaders are unlikely to findthemselves ‘squeezed’ between allegiance to theiracademic colleagues and the central university in theway that many Heads feel they are.

5. Recognition and reward: Senior leadership roles tend tobe clearly defined and formally recognised within theorganisational management structure and bear tangiblefinancial rewards. As a number of universities have putsenior leaders in an entirely different pay range, thefinancial incentives may also play some part in fillingsenior positions without much difficulty.

34


96 Barrett, P. and Barrett, L. (2007) 97 For more details on the management of academic workloads see Barrett, P. and Barrett,

L. (2007). Details can be found at www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects

Senior posts (Dean, DVC/PVC or their equivalent) less difficult to fill than headships

• Limited number required

• Existing pool of leaders with proven track record of leadership and established research

• Career progression

• Some senior roles perceived to be less demanding with less conflict of interests than at the middle level

• Formal recognition and financial rewards

TAKING UP A SENIOR LEADERSHIP ROLE

FIGURE 6.3

35

98 For more details on the roles and careers of professional managers see Whitchurch, C.

(2006a, 2006b) 99 On the role of VCs see Breakwell, G. (2006). Details can be found at

www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects

100 Universities UK (2004)101 Universities UK (2004) p23102 Universities UK, (2004) p12

The discussion in this section can be summarised as in Figure 6.3. Whereas, in previous decades, Deans and DVCs/PVCs in mostolder institutions were typically elected or appointed internally,now appointments are both internal and external. Only in theminority of institutions in our sample were all DVCs/PVCsexclusively drawn from within the institution. As noted in Section5.6, the Registrar/Secretary and Directors of central functionaldepartments (e.g. Finance, HR, IT and marketing) are mainlyrecruited externally from within the higher education sector,industry, or the public sector98.

As with Heads selected externally the sample universitiesincreasingly appoint to most senior leadership posts externalcandidates who have held the same or comparable position inanother institution or organisation, placing high expectations onthe person’s ability to repeat their success in the new context. Thisis also true in the case of institutional heads99.

A Guide to Best Practice on appointing senior managers inhigher education published by Universities UK100 devotes asection to advantages and disadvantages of internal andexternal appointments, which resonate with our researchfindings. Although the guide focuses on senior managers, its keypoints are also relevant to our earlier discussion on recruitmentand appointment to middle-level posts101.

The key potential advantages of limiting appointments tointernal candidates relate to the ability of an institution to:

• Map out career paths and development opportunities for staff

• Capitalise on the institutional knowledge of thecandidates

• Build expertise internally

• Benefit from the valuable role that internally appointedDeans, DVCs/PVCs or equivalent can perform in bridgingthe gap between central management and Heads ofSchool/Department.

The key potential advantages of extending recruitmentexternally, on the other hand, can include:

• Drawing from a wider pool of candidates

• Drawing on a broader variety of expertise and experience

• Promoting greater diversity and equality within theorganisation.

It is clear that potential advantages of internal recruitmentcan also be potential disadvantages of external recruitmentand vice-versa. This is the reason why the majority of HEIs inour sample have moved from primarily internalappointments to the posts of Dean and DVC/PVC (orequivalent) to both internally and externally advertised fixed-term and permanent posts.

The increase in external appointments has also led to anextensive use of search consultants when recruiting andappointing to leadership and management posts. Their use isno longer limited to the most senior posts (Dean, DVC/PVC,VC/Principal), a number of universities now use searchconsultants when recruiting people to middle-level leadershiproles and even professorships, particularly when they provehard to fill or are of particular strategic importance. Theinterviewees noted that even when there are externaladvertisements in the national/international press or on theinternet, candidates are most likely to apply when approacheddirectly. The intention expressed by many universities is toextend the use of search consultants more widely to middle-level leadership and management positions. The benefits ofusing search consultants may include reaching a wider pool ofcandidates, drawing on independent recruitment andselection expertise, and reducing the administrative and stafftime burden on the institution102.

Appointing to fixed-term rotating and permanent posts ofDean and DVC/PVC (or equivalent) can have both positiveand negative implications. Again, although the discussionhere is about appointments to more senior roles, many of thepoints raised are also clearly pertinent for middle-levelleadership posts. Fixed-term rotating appointments canappeal to a wider group of individuals who may wish theirremit to cover broader leadership and management activitiesfor a limited period (at least to try it out initially) and followingthat, individuals can feel free to return to more traditionalacademic work should they so desire. On the other hand, if auniversity finds someone who is really good and effective as aleader and manager-academic it can be disadvantageous notto capitalise on their leadership expertise over a longer term.Moreover, as many interviewees pointed out, with rotatingappointments after people have learned the job in the firstyear, have become quite good at it in the second year, by thethird year they often have to get ready to step down.Universities are increasingly coming to realise that there is apressing need for succession planning (see Section 9).

Having permanent leadership and management posts, onthe other hand, means that leadership development can beabout helping people develop business and shape the fabricof the institution, changing their personal styles andtechniques as the context in which they operate changes.Leadership development can be more long-term with staffdevelopers getting to know formal leaders better throughoutthe years and building relationships rather than having acontinuous job of developing new people for rotating roles.

In all institutions visited, the VC/Principal has enormous scope inhow he/she distributes leadership within his/her team at anyparticular time. To retain the best internal people and/or appointthe best external candidates, the VC/Principal will often reviewportfolios and re-organise the senior leadership team to meetthe specific demands, preferences and set of skills and expertiseof the successful candidates. For instance, DVC/PVC roles oftenchange and are negotiated depending on individual careeraspirations, policy context, institutional priorities, strategy, newexpectations and demands. For these reasons across sampleinstitutions, there is enormous diversity of role at DVC/PVC levelas well as in the composition of top team structures103.

From the interviews it is clear that many academics who havechosen a career track as a manager-academic are not simplyinterested in progression to any senior role, but are veryspecific in identifying what institutional area they would liketo lead at the higher level and, as noted in Section 5, the rolesthey identify do not always fall neatly within the existinguniversity management structure. Since the fieldwork wascompleted, for instance, in at least one institution in oursample a new senior post in an area that one of theinterviewees identified as wishing to have in the future hasbeen created to exactly match his particular interest, skills andexpertise, and this is not an isolated example.

It is impossible in the discussion presented here to cover allthe peculiarities, complexities and nuances that exist acrossthe 12 sample HEIs. It is important however to note that thenature of leadership roles in universities varies significantlybetween those that are line-managing and budget-holdingand those that bear cross-cutting and coordinatingresponsibilities.

6.4 Selection criteria The interviewees highlighted that academic excellence whichtypically means being excellent at research and/or teaching waspreviously the primary, if not the sole, criterion for selecting an individual for a formal leadership position, but a recent

development in a number of universities in our sample is theintroduction of a competency framework for the selection anddevelopment of formal leaders. Such frameworks are notnecessarily about defining a set of competencies and skills per se, but about standards, expectations, performance and behaviours expected of formal leaders.

To make the process of appointments clearer and moretransparent a number of universities in our sample havedeveloped Competency Frameworks for Heads of Departmentand other professional and academic leaders that clearlyindicate expectations about leadership and managementability. These frameworks are used as a benchmark againstwhich to measure institutional leadership capacity, to selectand appoint new leaders, assess future leadership potential,and to design and implement leadership and managementdevelopment provision. They highlight the growingsignificance attributed to the role of middle manager-academics in shaping, influencing and implementinguniversity strategy and, in each case, cover a range of skills andabilities broadly aligned to the ‘Four C Leadership’model usedby the Leadership Foundation’s Top Management Programme(TMP) 360° feedback process as outlined below.

1. Credibility: the interviewees talked a great deal about theimportance of earning the respect of colleagues to be successfulas a leader at all levels. Crucial to gaining this respect, especiallywhen asking colleagues to improve their own practice, appearsto be credibility, which comes from a variety of sources,including:

• Credibility (but not necessarily excellence) as an academic,who continues to do research, publish and teach

• Credibility as an expert in a professional field in caseswhere leaders are drawn from outside the highereducation sector to lead more vocationally orientedareas in HEIs or professional services

• Credibility as a leader displaying a genuine interest in adiverse range of academic disciplines especially in caseswhere various discipline-based departments are mergedto form larger units

• Credibility as a believer in seeing a leadership role as agenuine opportunity to make a difference and work hardon behalf of department/school/university

• Credibility as a leader who takes the right, courageousand, sometimes, unpopular decisions rather than theeasy ones and sees beyond immediate priorities todevelop a long-term view of the department/school/university’s future.

36


103 For more details on composition of top team structures in UK higher education see Kennie, T. and Woodfield, S. (2007); and on the changing nature of DVC/PVC roles see Smith, D. et al (2007).

Details can be found at www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects

37

2. Capability: the criteria on capability relate to strategic vision,planning and organising in a wide range of areas, including:

• Capability to see and contribute to the ‘big picture’, be strategically focused and identify opportunities for enhancing the reputation of department/faculty/university by seeing beyond the internal context

• Capability to identify and effectively manage complexproblems and issues relating to research, teaching andthird stream activities

• Capability to manage finances and resources and identify opportunities for enhancing financial security of department/school/university

• Capability to clarify competing priorities by focusingindividual and team energies on what matters most

• Capability to take responsibility and control to ensure that individual/department/faculty/university’sobjectives are met.

3. Character: the criteria for character and personality of a leaderare seen by the interviewees as being just as important ascredibility and capability. The criteria identified by theinterviewees include:

• Integrity: this relates to a leader giving his/her full respectto others, regardless of their status or standing, treatingall staff fairly and equally and with dignity and acting as apersonal role model of the leadership behaviours

• Distinctiveness: this characteristic relates to a leaderbringing a real sense of energy, passion and excitementto the workplace in order to create a stimulatingenvironment for people to think creatively and use theirabilities and imagination to develop and implement newideas that add value to the organisation

• Exceptional interpersonal and communication skills:these are very important for a leader to build andmaintain good working relationships with his/her colleagues at all levels, create a positive workenvironment, listen genuinely to colleagues’views beforemaking his/her mind up, discuss openly the difficultissues staff may face, recognise and understand otherpeople’s emotions, tackle the problems of under-performance and resolve conflict situations

• Resilience: this concerns the ability of a leader to bounceback in the face of setbacks and remain positive byputting his/her personal feelings to one side, especially ininterpersonally charged situations. This is perhaps moreimportant at the HoD level where obstacles encountered

in the role are numerous and complex and come fromcriticism, negative feedback from disgruntled colleaguesand demands of the job

• Personal style: this characteristic relates to a leader beingflexible and adapting his/her personal style andapproach easily to respond to the demands of differentcontexts, situations and audiences (academic andmanagerial staff, university leaders and managers,students and other stakeholders).

4. Career tactics: This relates to a mix of self-managementattributes and managing organisational politics to advance one’sagenda and objectives, including:

• Having ambition to progress: the interviewees noted thatbeing asked to be a formal leader was a sign of recognitionand respect. It is flattering and makes people feel goodabout their achievements. As noted above, after being aDean/Head, the majority of academics interviewed havean ambition to progress on a formal leadership andmanagement route. Also, a number of DVCs/PVCsexpressed their desire to become a VC in the future. Themajority of VCs interviewed said that they had honest andopen conversations with their Deans/DVCs/PVCs as totheir leadership career aspirations and provided supportand guidance in their development

• Coming to the role at the right time: a question oftenasked when selecting a leader concerns the time in one’scareer, i.e. whether the time is right for an individual tobecome a formal leader. In the build-up to the next RAEthis was particularly important for research stars whomuniversities often felt reluctant to charge with formalleadership and management responsibilities in order notto affect their research productivity

• Managing time effectively: all interviewees noted thatone of the major problems for formal leaders is findingtime to do a whole myriad of tasks and activities that aleadership role requires. There is a need for leadersexcellent self-management skills and an ability toprioritise and manage their time effectively

• Managing change: Formal leaders need to demonstrate agood understanding of changing policies and objectives, recognise the need for change for department/faculty/university and communicate the benefits of change to others. They also need to prepare and supportothers during periods of change and understand how to achieve change within and through people.

This list is certainly not exhaustive and each leadershipappointment is decided on an individual basis. The UniversitiesUK Guide stipulates that ‘in order to ensure that the best personis appointed it is essential to set out clearly the roles andresponsibilities associated with the post (job specification) aswell as the skills, qualifications, experience and attributes beingsought in the new post holder (person specification)’104.

Some HR directors and staff developers were less convincedthat explicit competency frameworks would work in theirorganisations, whilst others used an institutional leadershipand management strategy or list of skills and areas, althoughnot closely defined, to guide the selection process andleadership development. However, a few were in the process

or planned to define clear standards setting out necessaryskills and associated behaviours. Since such a framework canbe a delicate and contentious issue in the academic context,however, developing and implementing any formalframework of this sort will require wider universityconsultation and discussion with current leaders andmanagers. One staff developer suggested that theLeadership Foundation should drive standards aroundleadership and management in HEIs in the same way as theHigher Education Academy has produced its professionalstandards for teaching.

6.5 Key points The key findings from this section are summarised in Figure 6.4.

38


104 Universities UK (2004) p13

Three typical routes to leadership and management (fromDeem, 2001)

Reluctant manager initially, especially in ‘old’universities

Limited interest in leadership and management owing tocultural and organisational barriers

Deanship and headship as ‘operational’and ‘administrative’, asteward

Amateur leaders and manager-academics

HoDs, Deans, DVCs/PVCs usually emerge from within theinstitution

Only rotating leadership roles (in ‘old’universities)

Typically standardised approach to fixed-term rotatingleadership roles

Typically appointing leaders and manager-academics new toa particular role

Defined roles and portfolios for DVCs/PVCs

Search consultants used only for senior management posts,particularly VC/Principal

Academic excellence as the primary selection criteria

Great diversity of routes to and motivations for leadership andmanagement

Career manager over time due to enjoyment of the role, power,research pressures

Despite barriers, increased interest in leadership andmanagement roles

Deanship and headship is more strategic and empowering, aleader

Need to ‘professionalise’ leaders and manager-academics

The posts are increasingly advertised externally. Enormousdiversity and flux at DVC/PVC level

A mixture of fixed-term rotating and permanent leadershiproles

Individual approach and terms to fixed-term appointments

Increasingly appointing leaders and manager-academics whohave had comparable role in another HEI or organisation

More fluid roles, negotiated on individual basis due to context,priorities, strategy, career tactics and to retain/recruit the best leaders

Search consultants used for both senior as well as middlelevels. Intention to use search consultants more extensively

Selecting on ‘Four C Leadership Higher Education’includingcredibility, capability, character and career tactics

FROM TO

TAKING UP A LEADERSHIP ROLE: KEY POINTS

FIGURE 6.4

39105 MacBeath, J. et al (2004)

7. SHARING LEADERSHIP

This section of the report presents findings about thedistribution of leadership within the 12 universities studiedand perceptions of leadership as a shared/collective activity.

7.1 OverviewAmongst all interviewees there was a sense that leadershipwas in some way distributed within the university. Thus,both strategic and operational responsibility and influenceare taken at all levels, from top-level strategic initiatives tothe delivery of programmes and bidding for researchfunding. Furthermore, the boundary between academicand support functions appears to be increasingly blurred,with all parties influencing strategic and operationaldirection (although there seems to be more opportunityfor this at junior academic than junior administrativelevels). The level of autonomy for leadership at theschool/department level seems to be closely linked tofinancial control models, with greater power and influencein those institutions where schools/departments are theprimary budget-holding entities and in charge of howsurpluses are spent or invested. Alongside this distributedleadership, however, there is also a clear desire for strongand inspiring leadership from individuals in key roles. Thiscan help give a sense of common purpose and direction,engender a sense of trust and openness, encouragecommunication and dialogue and create an innovative andsupportive culture in which initiatives can flourish. There isa general sense that this leadership should be facilitativeand credible (often determined by prior teaching and/orresearch performance). Despite a degree of resistance to‘managerialism’ per se there is a widespread acceptance ofthe need for a more professional and effectivemanagement and leadership approach that builds on the strengths of the organisation. The inter-connectionbetween distributed and individual leadership can meanthat certain people (even those not in formal leadershiproles – e.g. star researchers) can have a disproportionatelylarge influence within the organisation and stories of theirsuccesses and/or failures constitute a substantial part ofthe narrative fabric of the organisation.

7.2 Perceptions of distributed leadershipIn intention, there was a great degree of support amongst all interviewees for leadership which is shared across theinstitution. It was interesting to note that even though theresearchers deliberately did not provide the interviewees with

a strict definition of the concept of ‘distributed leadership’,there was a considerable degree of commonality in the viewsand perceptions expressed about the idea. The majority ofinterviewees considered that distributed leadership was notjust conceivable within the higher education context, but anecessity – that it is a function that is too complex andimportant to leave to a small group of individuals in formalroles. Despite this, however, analysis of responses revealed anumber of variations in the way in which distributedleadership was being conceived, largely dependent on thecontext, task, structures and personalities of significantindividuals. These classifications broadly match thoseidentified by MacBeath et al105 in schools as indicated below:

1. Formal: devolution of financial and administrativeauthority to schools and/or departments.

2. Pragmatic: negotiating the division of responsibilitiesbetween roles such as VC and DVC or HoS and DeputyHoS (often with one becoming external facing and theother internal facing).

3. Strategic: the appointment of people from outside theuniversity to bring in new skills, knowledge and contacts(particularly in the case of the appointment ofprofessional managers from outside the sector).

4. Incremental: progressive opportunities for experienceand responsibility such as sitting on and chairingcommittees; leading modules, programmes andprojects; serving as a deputy.

5. Opportunistic: people willingly taking on additionalresponsibilities within and outside the university (e.g.heading up project teams; sitting on academic,professional and/or editorial boards; consulting andliaising with business and policy makers).

6. Cultural: leadership is assumed and shared organicallysuch as in the development of a collaborative researchbid.

Whilst recognising these dimensions, however, we gatheredno evidence to imply a continuum or progression from formalto cultural distribution; rather these forms coexist andsupport one another as different manifestations of sharedleadership, for example, formal distribution serving tofacilitate cultural and opportunistic distribution. Leadershipwas generally seen to be distributed but within certainboundaries. It was believed that distribution of leadershipwas formal as well as informal and the form that it took largelydepended on the sphere of activity.

40


Formal distribution of leadership was reported to be mostevident in the general area of governance and management.For instance, when asked about how distributed leadershipworked in practice in their institutions, intervieweesfrequently referred to formal organisational systems andstructures whereby decision-making authority andresponsibility for aspects of university management isdevolved or delegated via formally designated channels.Responsibility for such activities is usually vested in theholders of formal positions (such as Head or Dean) whether ornot they choose to execute the activity alone or incollaboration with others. Formal meetings and committeeswere also seen by many as systematic ways of sharingleadership whereby academics and managers are broughttogether to make joint decisions (even though somescepticism was expressed as to whether or not the true sourceof power fell outside such groups). Because of these formalstructures, it was noted that whilst leadership may at firstseem distributed, in reality there remains significant controlfrom the centre/top of the organisation (the extent varyingbetween institutions).

Although some authors106 argue that delegation anddevolution should not be confused with distributedleadership because they imply individual, top-down ratherthan collective, bottom-up influence, we found that thesewere by far the most frequently cited mechanisms throughwhich leadership is shared within universities. In terms ofdevolution, the location of financial control (i.e. budgetholders) was widely viewed as the most important, if notdecisive, feature in the distribution of leadership. Thus, whilstit may often be the case that administration and workload aredevolved rather than power and authority, financialdevolution to the school/departmental level is central to theempowerment of HoSs/HoDs and financial transparency is akey factor in the development of an entrepreneurial culture.In effect, without devolution of financial control it is unlikelythat a culture of shared or ‘distributed’leadership will flourish– it would appear that collaborative behaviour is correlatedwith collaborative access to resources.

Remaining with MacBeath et al’s107 model, the area whereleadership is most likely to be ‘cultural’, where academicswillingly take the initiative to lead and where leadership isassumed rather than given, is research. The opportunities tolead in this area are numerous; in research, academics whoare not necessarily in formal leadership or managementpositions, lead by their academic credibility and enthusiasm

and anyone who is willing and able to carry out the initiativecan do so (rather than relying on a designated post-holder).Leadership in this area was represented by the intervieweesas spontaneous, opportunistic and dispersed rather thanformally devolved. This raises the question of whether such abottom-up approach to leadership could be utilised more widely in other areas (such as teaching orbusiness/community engagement) and if not, why not.Whilst part of the answer clearly lies within the organisationalprocesses and personal dispositions, our findings would leadus to believe that another significant dimension is that of‘social identity’108. It would appear that within the field ofresearch, at least, it is possible for academics to take onmanagerial responsibilities without sensing a tensionbetween their identities as an ‘academic’ (i.e. member of apeer group allied to a specific discipline) and as a ‘manager’or‘leader’(i.e. member of a group with responsibilities allied to aspecific organisation and the achievement of particular tasks).By contrast, the accounts of holders of more formalorganisational posts, such as Head/Dean, would indicate thatat times there is a marked tension between these two roleswhere one is torn between allegiance to one’s academiccolleagues (the discipline) and the broader university(organisation). Within our own study, such tensions weremost evident during a period of industrial action where HoSswere expected to address organisational concerns aboutexam marking whilst also facing the same concerns as theircolleagues about pay and working conditions for academicstaff.

HoS, Pre-1992 University: “I had to resign [from the Union].It got to a point where my position was just untenable. Icouldn’t be seen in their eyes to be undermining mycolleagues, which is effectively what I was having to dotrying to protect the students. I found the situation justsimply untenable so I publicly told them I was resigning, andhave done so. That was much more liberating then because Ifelt freer to take actions that I felt as a HoS I have to take.”

7.3 Processes of distributed leadershipIn terms of the processes of distributed leadership within aparticular level, in most universities members of theSenior/Middle Management Team have well-definedportfolios and responsibilities, and in this sense, the formalresponsibilities are perceived to be distributed among theteam members. As for promoting and trying to achieve‘concertive action’109, a number of Senior Management Teamsin universities in our sample reported that they have been

106 e.g. Knight, P.T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001); Lumby, J. (2003); Harris, A. (2003)107 MacBeath, J. et al (2004)

108 Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979); Hogg, M.A. (2001); Haslam, S.A. (2004)109 Gronn, P. (2002)

41

trying to develop a ‘team leadership’ approach at thecentre/top with the explicit intent of providing a role modelthat can be cascaded to other parts of the organisation,although the extent to which this happens, or affects howHeads of School/Department conduct their activities, is hardto verify.

Whilst team members may be conscious of being part of ateam some may decide to opt out when it does not suit them.One senior university leader, for example, commented thatwhen responsibilities and portfolios are tightly defined it maybe problematic to get ownership from everybody in the teamas when one individual is responsible for a particular area andpromotes a certain vision for that area, it may be seen to behis/her vision only and not that of the group. In this sense,when responsibilities are strongly segmented there wasreported to be a tendency for people to start building rivalriesand a ‘silo-approach’ to management. The contrast to thiswould be the Senior Management Team in another university,where the responsibilities amongst senior team members are‘fuzzy’and not tightly defined thus allowing the VC and his/herteam to be engaged in every single activity and to obtain abroader understanding of what is happening throughout theuniversity. Responsibilities are delegated rather thanpermanently devolved depending on the context, situationand project (with roles and responsibilities remaining clear butchanging). Developing a vision for a particular area becomesthe responsibility of the whole team rather than oneindividual. Thus, it would seem that, building a well-functioning top team is one of the ways to embed distributedleadership in practice.

A similar interpretation of distributed leadership is evident in astudy of UK VCs in which Bargh et al110 argue that at this level:

“Leadership, if it is to be successfully accomplished, canrarely be a solitary activity and involves the constantinteraction with colleagues in the pursuit of a ‘shared’vision of reality consistent with broader institutional goals.”

The authors suggest that setting strategic direction andvision for the university can not be a simple case of seniorleaders acting alone but requires working together withsenior managers and others in the pursuit of a commonpurpose for their universities.

Whilst senior university managers may formally devolveleadership to lower levels of the organisation, whetherdistribution penetrates below the HoS or HoD level depends

largely on the leadership style of the head of that unit. Whilstthe majority of HoSs and HoDs in our study did not feelreluctant to push distribution further down theschool/department, several Heads did find it quite difficult to‘let go’ of certain elements of their control, power andresponsibility to other members within their units. SomeHeads find it difficult to have sufficient trust in others and notto be ‘hands-on’and in control as, even when they distributesome of their authority and responsibility, it is ultimately theywho are held accountable. Others thought that academicsshould be protected from undertaking anything other thantheir primary job of research and teaching or were uncertainabout what powers and responsibilities to give to staff belowthe HoS and HoD level. In contrast, some HoSs were reluctantto relinquish responsibilities to professional managers/administrators (e.g. School Managers) appointed to workalongside them, although the majority welcomed it as an opportunity to concentrate more effort on strategicleadership and research.

Whilst there is support for a distributed style of leadership,the majority of interviewees also mentioned the need forhaving a formal leader and leadership team who can providea clear vision and direction. Having ‘inspirational’ and‘visionary’ leadership at the top, in the words of manyinterviewees, is as important as cultivating a collectiveleadership approach. It is interesting to note here that theinterviews still indicate the alignment with ‘traditional’depictions of leadership. One HoS, for example, said: “wehave very exciting and visionary people at the senior leveland in turn it means that we stretch ourselves”. Clear visionand direction coming from a formal leader or senior teamwas seen as one of the main pre-requisites for distributedleadership to work in practice. It gives people confidence toexplore new opportunities because they are given directionby the vision that these leaders are setting and effectively‘authorised’to engage in such activities. However, there stillneeds to be open and genuine consultation and discussionof where the university is going, with the inspirationalleader(s) acting as a physical embodiment of the vision/purpose of the organisation, rather like Howell andShamir’s111 representation of ‘socialised’charismatic leadership.

The view of distributed leadership as complementary ratherthan an alternative to traditional hierarchical/individualleadership is echoed in similar research conducted in thefurther education sector whereby it was concluded thatthere is a preference for a ‘blended leadership’ approach that combines elements of both forms.

110 Bargh, C. et al (2000) p92 111 Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005)

42


“Many further education staff prefer a leadership approachthat combines specific elements from both distributed andhierarchical perspectives which are often viewed ascompeting and opposing polarities within the literature.Repeatedly, respondents have expressed a preference foraspects of both traditional, hierarchical leadership(structure, clarity and organisation) and contemporarydistributed leadership (team-work, communication andshared responsibility).”112

7.4 Benefits and challenges of distributed leadership Gronn113 expresses a concern that as distributed leadershipbecomes a preferred approach to leadership in organisations,attention to the potential benefits and disadvantages may beneglected. We therefore asked the interviewees in our sampleabout what they saw as the main benefits and challenges ofthis approach.

With regards to benefits, interviewees generally believed thata well managed distributed approach to leadership can bringmany benefits to the academic/professional unit andultimately the university. These benefits are closely connectedand one often cannot happen without the other. What follows is certainly not an exhaustive list, as the benefits ofdistributed leadership would depend on the particularorganisational culture and context, but these four benefitswere most frequently cited by our interviewees.

1. Responsiveness: it was argued that by distributingleadership to lower levels of the organisation, decision-making becomes more responsive and ‘in-tune’ to theneeds and expectations of both customers (students,business, etc.) and staff. Furthermore, as greaterresponsibility and accountability is devolved, increasingownership and consideration is given to issues affectingschools and departments.

2. Transparency: another benefit reported by intervieweeshas been an increase in financial transparency whereby itis far clearer how income is earned and spent. Such a shiftis seen as central to enhancing levels of innovation andentrepreneurship within schools and departments sothat those responsible can reap the benefit of their work.

3. Convenience: distributed leadership is also said to bring‘managerial convenience’. As noted above, over recentyears, universities have become much more complex asorganisations and their activities more varied anddiverse. For this reason, distributed leadership offers ameans for sharing the burden of responsibility.

4. Teamwork: distributed leadership can also facilitatebetter teamwork and relationships between academics

and professional managers/administrators. From adistributed perspective, it is not only academics who areinvolved in decision-making but all staff groups acrossthe institution. It can also enhance communicationthroughout the organisation as interaction stops beingonly top-down and occurs in all directions (vertical andhorizontal).

With regard to challenges and disadvantages, in the view ofthose institutional leaders who were interviewed, distributedleadership should not present many problems provided thatit is managed well and in a transparent way. With regard tothe potential disadvantages, however, the following pointswere raised:

1. Fragmentation: most frequently cited was the potentialfor the creation of ‘silos’, with different parts of theuniversity going in their own direction. Without anoverarching organisational structure, shared vision that isactively communicated and enacted by the centre, andcoherent and integrated organisational procedures,distributed leadership may result in faculties, schools,departments and/or individuals doing completelydifferent things, so leading to fragmentation of theuniversity.

2. Lack of role clarity: distributed leadership may also resultin a lack of clarity over division of roles and createopportunities for confusion and competition. Thissituation in our sample universities tended to be moststrongly felt for cross-cutting roles at the university,faculty or school level. Thus, for example, there may beconfusion over the relative roles and responsibilities ofthe PVC for Research (university-level), Dean of Research(faculty-level) and Head of Research (school-level). Roleambiguity was particularly keenly experienced inuniversities where financial management was devolvedto the school/departmental level, in which case facultyand university level roles (especially PVC/Dean) heldsignificantly less budgetary and line-managementresponsibility than HoSs/HoDs. In this case, althoughnominal lines of accountability run between theHoS/HoD and VC via the PVC/Dean there is ampleopportunity to bypass this and, in effect, cut thePVC/Dean out of the loop. Whilst flexibility and opennessof roles may support distributed leadership, there is thepotential for this to become disruptive.

3. Slow decision-making: as distributed leadership impliesthat more people should be involved in the leadershipprocess, decision making in the organisation may slow

112 Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006a) 10 – initial emphasis 113 Gronn, P. (2002)

43

down. Partly for this reason, it was sometimes arguedthat senior managers may use distributed leadership asmere rhetoric, whilst continuing to make decisions in afairly top-down manner.

4. Variations in individual capability: distributed leadershipmay also underestimate individual differences in ability,leading to unrealistic expectations of performance andthe risk of leadership failures where people fail to take onresponsibility/ownership and/or perform poorly.

Interestingly, these benefits and challenges imply asomewhat ‘managerialist’ (top-down) approach to thedistribution of leadership whereby organisational impactsdominate the discourse. Whilst this is perhaps unsurprising,given the fact that all interviewees were holders of formalmanagement roles, it gives strong clues as to how thediscourse is being framed within the higher education arena.This is particularly true of the potential disadvantagesidentified. Thus, rather than fragmentation, advocates of the‘concertive action’ approach would argue that distributedleadership should lead to greater cohesion and a sense ofcommon purpose; rather than lack of clarity, individualsshould be better enabled to negotiate and agree their roles soas to minimise overlap and maximise personal fit; rather thanslowing down decision making, such an approach shouldenable decisions to be made more rapidly, at the point ofcontact rather than further up the hierarchy; and with regardsto capability, distributed leadership should assume adifferentiation rather than commonality of expertise, drawingon individual strengths rather than depending solely onformal ‘leaders’.

7.5 Distributed leadership in practice It has been discussed how, during the course of our interviews,analysis and interpretation, we noticed a number of cleartensions within university leadership and some clear pressurepoints where this is most strongly experienced (particularly atthe HoS/HoD level). Furthermore, we noticed a large numberof descriptions of leadership in higher education that appear toarise largely from these tensions and challenges and themanner in which leadership is distributed across theorganisation. These descriptions offer competing accounts tomanagerially-led ‘devolved’ leadership or emergent andcollective ‘dispersed’leadership. A selection of these is outlinedbelow and offers an alternative, perhaps more ‘realistic’,description of leadership practice in higher education.

1. Dislocated: top-down and bottom-up systems do notmatch up; leadership does not occur where it is needed.

For example, weakened central leadership wherebudgets are devolved to schools or faculties that make itdifficult to initiate and sustain institution-wide initiativessuch as corporate branding and IT.

2. Disconnected: different parts of the institution pulling indifferent directions; lack of consistent/coherentdirection/vision; competing agendas. For example,formation of a ‘silo mentality’ within schools withdevolved budgets pursuing their own objectives, notaligned with (or even counter to) the overall universitymission and objectives.

3. Disengaged: staff disengage from managementprocesses; may be disenfranchised, disenchanted,disinterested; leadership seen as unappealing,unrewarding or unnecessary. For example, leadershipviewed as administration/bureaucracy rather thanstrategic and inter-personal.

4. Dissipated: leadership is too broadly diffused acrossgroups with little accountability or responsibility forimplementing decisions and actions. This was a frequentcriticism of the committee structure, described as a‘washing machine’where decisions go round and roundremaining unresolved and disowned.

5. Distant: leadership is felt to be removed from theoperational level of the organisation; inaccessible,imposed; not necessarily ‘in our best interests’. Forexample, decisions taken at senior management leveland imposed with limited consultation. This situationseems to be amplified where senior managers arephysically removed from academic departments.

6. Dysfunctional: leadership fails to achieve its intentions;results in unexpected/undesirable outcomes;misalignment of performance measures. For example,negative reaction to performance review and appraisalprocess by senior academic staff; performance measuresdriving individual rather than team behaviour; riskaversion and dysfunctional systems arising from failuresof senior leadership.

Such descriptions seem more aligned with the livedexperience of managers and academics in UK universities.They reflect the frustrations at where leadership is felt to beinappropriate or ineffective and also point to the complexitiesand multiple interpretations of leadership in highereducation. The quotes overleaf give an explicit account of such tensions within one university, revealing theperspectives of three leaders at different levels. Thus, we see

VC: “I’m a strong believer in devolved responsibility andputting accountability and responsibility where itmatters… You can run an institution like this by commandand control, but not for very long before it breaks down.The trick isn’t to devolve the responsibility, but to get itaccepted, especially when times are hard and it’s difficult toget people to share in the responsibility of making toughdecisions… One of the most difficult things a VC has to dois to balance the business of central direction and controlwith devolving responsibility, and getting that balanceright. I suspect some of the Deans here would say thebalance is tipped slightly too far towards devolvedresponsibility and not enough towards strong centralleadership. They would, however, only agree with that if thecentral leadership was in the direction that they wanted togo in. If it wasn’t in the direction they wanted to go in Iexpect they’d argue the reverse. I think that exemplifies thedifficulty of getting the balance right, and it’s a constanttrade-off. Resource allocation in the university reflects thatbecause it’s about how much you distribute to the schoolsthat earn the money and how much you retain centrally tofund new initiatives and programmes and things like that.That is a constant juggling act for a VC in a university andit’s more difficult to do that in a university than in manyother sorts of organisations because our reputation doesn’tdepend on a particular product, it depends on all theindividual staff and they have to be empowered to developthat reputation and share it with the university… Thereputation depends on everybody and I think that’s thefundamental reason why it has to be based on devolvedresponsibility and trust.”

PVC: “The point about leadership and my perception of it isthat I think it’s quite dislocated, and I think that goes back tothe difficulties that they had. The previous VC has left hismark on this institution. On my first day here I went to see theDeputy VC to say hello. I was in his office for two hours andwhat happened was deeply ingrained and he was quitebitter about it. I think he’d been PVC at the time and he’d livedthrough it all and it had obviously scarred him. Universitieshave long memories and I think that has influenced howthings are set up here. There is a good example of a leader inthe VC, who I think is very impressive, but I don’t think thestructures affect clear lines of communication or decision-making. The university presents itself at one level as verydevolved, so its budget is based on a devolved method andthe Deans in schools are perceived at one level to have a lot of autonomy. But because they’re not engaged in decision-making at the higher level, they’re also slightlydisenfranchised from the corporate side of the university.”

HoS: “The school is very much led in a consensual fashion,but the university isn’t. The leadership style of the university isnon-consensual, hierarchical and bureaucratic. It doesn’tbuild consensus and it’s largely insensitive and distant. Someof them are really nice people and if they came down from onhigh and talked to people every now and then I think they’dget on a lot better and build a better consensus. They don’tknow, or appear to want to understand sometimes, andthat’s very sad. It’s a huge distinguishing difference betweenthe two and it’s partly why I’m quite happy here. I’m sort ofshielded by the Dean from that next level and I don’t really want to be open to it; I think I’d rather stay shielded.”

44


the VC grappling with the tensions of devolution andcentralised control, having preference for a devolved modelbut recognising that this might be perceived as lack ofclarity/direction by people lower down the organisation. ThePVC acknowledges these tensions and the endeavours of theVC to address them but recognises that formal communicationand decision-making structures within the university remainlargely influenced by the legacy of a previous VC and this, inturn, shapes how the Senior Management Team is perceived.And the HoS paints the picture of a major division betweenleadership within the school and the wider university, with theDean acting as a gatekeeper or shield.

Thus, the image of leadership appears very different fromwhere one stands within the organisation. This is not just an

issue of poor communication, but more fundamentally linkedto differences of identity, preferences and dynamics of powerand social influence. Furthermore, within the particularinstitution described here these tensions did not necessarilyhave adverse effects on organisational performance, on thecontrary, of the 12 universities visited during our research thisone seemed to have a particularly strong culture, happy andsatisfied staff, and sense of place and purpose as a highereducation provider within the local, national andinternational environment. Concepts of leadership therefore,whilst inherently contested, were at least actively debatedand explored. The processes of social construction necessarily reveal competing and conflicting accounts ofleadership but at least provide a discursive space in whichdifferent actors can engage with one another.

Competing perspectives on leadership in a post-1992 university

45114 Gronn, P. (2002) 115 MacBeath, J. et al (2004)

To this extent, ‘distributed leadership’perhaps offers an idealto which the organisation and its members can aspire; analternative to the lived experience of dislocation,disconnection, disengagement, dissipation, distance anddysfunctionality. Indeed, the opposites of these descriptionsseem much closer to Gronn’s114 notion of ‘concertive action’than any of MacBeath et al’s115 forms of distributed leadershipor the accounts gathered during our own research. Thus, in

their descriptions of the negative experiences of leadershipinterviewees appear to be calling for leadership that islocated, connected, engaged, clear/in-focus, close/in-touchand functional/beneficial.

7.6 Key points Figure 7.1 represents the main findings from this sectiondiagrammatically.

Distributed/shared leadership

Forms

Form taken depends on nature of task,organisational structures/processes &

personal preferences

Benefits Challenges Experiences

Formal

Pragmatic

Strategic

Incremental

Opportunistic

Cultural

Responsiveness

Transparency

Convenience

Teamwork

Fragmentation

Lack of role clarity

Slow decision-making

Individual capability

Dislocated

Disconnected

Disengaged

Dissipated

Distant

Dysfunctional

Leadership may beformally ‘devolved’orinformally ‘dispersed’

Leadership in highereducation is shared but

within constraints

Complements rather thanreplaces individual/

hierarchical leadership

Ability to act is stronglylinked to control of/access

to resources

Leadership in higher education requires a combination of both shared and hierarchical

leadership. To this extent ‘distributed leadership’may be more powerful as a rhetoricaldevice than as an accurate description of leadership practice

SHARING LEADERSHIP: KEY POINTS

FIGURE 7.1

46


8. FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

This section of the report presents findings about futureleadership trends and challenges within the 12 universitiesstudied.

8.1 OverviewIt was widely acknowledged that the higher education sectorin the UK is undergoing a considerable period of change.Within the sector as a whole some of the main challengesinclude: changes in funding, competition over research profile,shifting demographics, and increasing regulation and scrutiny.Many of these issues are interconnected, such as theintroduction of student fees in England as a response todeclining central funding leading to greater competitionbetween institutions, increasing emphasis on developing adistinct and desirable university ‘brand’, and greaterexpectations from students and other stakeholders. All in all,the challenges faced by the sector are placing greaterdemands on institutions and senior figures within them,greater visibility and accountability and increasing emphasison the importance of effective management and leadershipprocesses.

The response of sample universities to these challenges differin respect of their strategic priorities and market orientation,pointing towards a greater diversification and segmentationthan may have existed before within the sector. Particularareas in which universities may specialise include greateremphasis on vocational/applied programmes; increasingpost-graduate provision (especially executive and/orcontinuing adult education); primary focus on teaching orresearch; emphasis on local versus national/internationalengagement; multi/interdisciplinarity.

8.2 The changing nature and context of higher education

Throughout the interviews, respondents frequentlycommented on the changing nature of the higher educationsector and the challenges this poses to HEIs. Towards the endof the interview they were also given the opportunity toidentify future trends and challenges for the sector.

Broadly, the findings match the 15 key strategic challengesidentified by the Leadership Foundation in 2004116 whichinclude: expansion of student numbers, wideningparticipation, HR issues, IT/e-learning, resources and estates development, governance, sustainability and social/

cultural agendas, funding/fees, market positioning/’brand’, competition/collaboration, enhancing the studentexperience, research, internationalisation, business/regional/community links, and embedding equality and diversityacross all activities. A recent report by the Advanced Instituteof Management Research also points to a declining number ofpeople looking for careers in academia and, in particular, thosewith a long-term career plan within the UK117.

Within our own study, attention was particularly drawn to thefollowing factors:

1. Changing student demographic: the planned growth in student numbers across the UK will involve attractinglarger proportions of non-traditional undergraduatestudents. Most HEIs are looking for significant growth in post-graduate students, a greater number ofinternational students and widening participation toincorporate more students from minority and under-represented social groups. This will result in greaterdiversity of the student population including age, race,prior-experience, social and cultural background, andEnglish language. Together these will pose newchallenges and demands on academic and support staff.

2. Customer focus: with the pressure to increase studentnumbers, along with rising and differential fee structures,student recruitment will become increasinglycompetitive. HEIs will need to develop distinctive andattractive ‘brands’and become more ‘customer focused’in their engagement both with students and withbusiness and enterprise. The variable fee structureintroduced across England in 2006 is already having aneffect on the relative incomes of different universities andtheir ability to attract and retain quality academic andmanagerial/administrative staff. The delay in theintroduction of student fees in Scotland and Wales is, atleast temporarily, leading to an increase in local studentnumbers but may ultimately be hard to sustain becauseof differing earning capacity between universitiescharging fees and those not.

3. Professionalisation of services: the two trendshighlighted above place increasing importance onprofessional and support services within universities(including catering, accommodation, estates, studentadministration, IT services, etc.). In this competitive andcustomer-centric environment the quality of non-academic provision becomes a central dimension ofcompetitive advantage and hence the profile of suchfunctions is becoming enhanced. There is a general trend

116 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (2004) 117 Ivory, C. et al (2007)

47

across universities to ‘professionalise’ these servicesthrough the recruitment and development of skilledcommercial managers and to include representativeswithin senior university management meetings. This isresulting in a ‘blurring’ of academic and administrativefunctions in certain areas.

4. Political engagement: increasing governmentintervention in terms of regulation, legislation, audit andfinancing of higher education means that leadershipwithin the sector is becoming increasingly politicised.Senior higher education leaders are now more activethan ever before in high-level political debate about thefuture of the sector and recognise the need to be more‘political’ in what they do. From our own research itwould appear that HEIs in Scotland and Wales are closerand more actively engaged in national policy debatesdue to their level of access to senior politicians and theirrelative significance in the national economy than istypical for those in England.

5. Research orientation: the 2008 RAE is having a majoreffect on the research strategy of universities. Thepressure to achieve a good rating is higher than everwithin research-intensive universities, especially giventhe anticipated reduction in government researchfunding for lower-rated institutions. This has led to highacademic mobility and turnover in the period leading upto the RAE; increasing efforts within institutions to retaingood academic staff and to shed poor performingindividuals, groups and departments; and a tendency foracademic staff to focus on research outputs andproposals rather than other aspects of the academic role(including leadership and management). Increasingly,institutions have had to specify a clear research strategyand, where it is anticipated that they will not performhighly in the 2008 RAE, identify alternative sources ofresearch funding and/or focus greater strategic attentionon teaching and/or community engagement.

6. Internationalisation and regionalisation: with theincreasing competition for student numbers, universitiesin our sample are focusing particularly on their profilewithin the international and regional arenas. In theformer instance, some universities are developingoverseas campuses and strategic alliances with overseaspartners, whilst in the latter, they are growing theirregional market through community, business and otherinitiatives within their local regions.

7. Interdisciplinarity: in terms of growth of new teachingand research initiatives much of the emphasis is being

placed on inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches. Moretraditional subject areas are increasingly being held toaccount for their own profits and loss, thus endangeringsubjects such as chemistry and classics that areexpensive to run and/or attract low student numbers.

8. Vocationalisation: alongside interdisciplinarity thereappears to be a growth in subjects and activities thathave a more vocational dimension. Thus, ‘employabilityskills’ are a key part of most current programmes andthere is an increasing interest in industrial placementsand projects.

The 12 universities we studied are responding in varying waysto these pressures, each selecting strategic areas ofspecialisation. The chosen approach will depend on a widerange of contextual factors including areas of strength,weakness and strategic advantage. Key considerationshowever tend to cover the following factors:

1. Location: universities located within or near large urbanconurbations tend to be pursuing widening participationand community outreach agendas more actively thanothers. This is in part to do with maximising the locally-available client population; engaging with the greaterethnic mix within such areas; and responding toincreased regional competition between HEIs. Thevariations between political and funding structuresacross countries and to a lesser extent regions (e.g.opportunity to attract European Structural FundsObjective 1 funding) of the UK is also an integral part ofthe context of higher education.

2. Disciplinary mix: the mix of subjects within a universityalso influences its ability to engage with certain agendas.The presence of a Business School, for example, greatlyenhances an HEI’s capacity to engage with the businesscommunity; the presence of a Medical/Dental Schoolgreatly enhances research and student fundingopportunities, whilst introducing the necessity to work inpartnership with professional bodies such as the NHS; anEnglish Language Centre can increase opportunities forrecruiting and retaining overseas students; and access tosporting/cultural facilities influences a university’scapacity to become a cultural or social centre.

3. Strategic alliances: the UK higher education sector isextremely competitive. In order to enhance their profile,a number of institutions have established strategicalliances with other HEIs both within the UK andoverseas. The remit and purpose of such alliances variesgreatly, from broad networks (such as the Russell and

48


1994 groups) that act as forums for communication andexchange of information about research and as policypressure groups; to regional alliances seeking to enhancecapacity and collaboration within a specific geographicarea; to closer alliances between specific institutions,including sharing students, facilities, staff andaccreditation of degrees.

4. Commercial alliances: many institutions are also lookingto develop commercial alliances with organisationsoutside the higher education sector through activitiessuch as continuing professional development (CPD), in-house customised provision; student placements,regional/national centres of excellence, etc. The aims ofsuch initiatives may include increasing student numbers,collaborative funding of research (especially in fields suchas engineering), and/or enhancing student employability(through placements and commercial experience). Theycan also offer development opportunities for staff such assecondments and advisory roles.

5. Additional campuses: several universities in our sampleare also considering/have established additionalcampuses in alternative locations both within andbeyond the UK. These frequently involve theestablishment of overseas campuses to increasepresence on an international stage. Whilst such venturescan be successful and become a fundamental part of theuniversity’s business growth strategy they are alsorelatively high risk both in terms of financing as well asacademic quality and strategic direction. Within our ownsample at least one university had backed down from amajor overseas development due to resistance fromacademic staff from across the institution. Anotheruniversity in our sample had set up an additional campusin a nearby town/city to increase its presence within the region and consolidate its position in wideningparticipation and community engagement.

Each of these factors is strongly related but central to therecognition of strategic advantage and institutional purpose.Indeed, one thing that is clear from our research in 12 differentinstitutions is the efforts that each is making to recognise itsown particular areas of strength and potential, recognisingstrategic priorities for development, and endeavouring tocommunicate this to staff, students and other stakeholders ina meaningful way.

8.3 Development challengesAt a conference on ‘Sustaining Excellence in HigherEducation’118 Professor David Eastwood, chief executive ofHefce identified the following five main changes affecting thesector: introduction of variable fees in 2006; independentreview of higher education funding reforms in 2009; increasingand widening participation; employer engagement; andensuring excellence across higher education within nationalsystems of public funding. Ewart Wooldridge, chief executive of the Leadership Foundation, went on to identify five main leadership development challenges for the sector: tackling change strategically; succession planning/talentmanagement/ diversity; ‘professionalisation’; strengtheningteams; and handling partnership.

Each of these points relates well to our own research, withparticular challenges including:

1. Diversity: enhancing the representation of women, blackand ethnic minority groups at senior levels withinuniversity management.

2. Succession: identifying, motivating and developing newacademic leaders.

3. Career pathway: creating a desirable and realistic career route for academic and other universitymanagers/leaders.

4. Hybrid management: developing closer links betweenacademic and professional managers/leaders.

5. Balancing priorities: balancing competing prioritiessuch as research, teaching, management responsibilitiesand employer engagement to provide a more realisticand desirable workload.

6. Integration: integrating HR, development, recruitment,assessment and other systems to provide a coherent andconsistent approach across the university.

7. Brand: developing and maintaining a coherent,attractive and evolving brand/image for the university inthe face of increasingly influential and vocal stakeholdergroups both within and outside the organisation (e.g. market rankings, student blogs, mass media, etc.).

Some of these issues will be explored further in Section 9 onleadership development within the sample HEIs.

8.4 Key pointsThe key points from this section are presented in Figure 8.1.

118 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, 9th January 2007

Location Disciplinary mix Strategic alliances Commercial alliances

49

Changing nature and context of HE

Strategic differentiation

Development challenges

Changing studentdemographic

Politicalengagement

Research/teachingorientation

Vocationalisation &employer engagement

Customer focus Professionalisationof services

Internationalisation &regionalisation

Inter-disciplinarity

Additional campuses

Diversity Succession Career pathway Hybridmanagement

Balancingpriorities

Integration Brand

FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES: KEY POINTS

FIGURE 8.1

50


9. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION

This section of the report presents findings and experiencesof leadership development within the 12 universities studied. Whilst many of these findings are drawn from the interviews, they are supplemented by input from workshops with members of Staff Development Units (SDUs) anddocumentary evidence from the sample institutions.

9.1 OverviewSenior leaders within the sample universities clearly seeleadership development as an area of high priority andrecognise its vital role in the long-term future and success oftheir organisations. This is also evidenced by the fact that themajority of institutions are either developing or havedeveloped a clear policy framework to guide the institutionalstrategy and approach to leadership development.

As noted earlier in this report, a gradual shift in attitudes toleadership in higher education is taking place and whilst notevery member of the university community necessarilysubscribes to leadership from its managerial angle (asopposed to a more traditional ‘collegial’approach) and leadingfrom a corporate/business perspective, there is evidence of anincreasing awareness of the need for leadership and dialogueabout how to improve it. This is happening not simply becauseuniversities are becoming more managerial, but is alsounderpinned by greater recognition of the impact of effectiveleadership and management on improving the way theuniversity and its constituent parts function and betterunderstanding of the nature of and need for change and itspotential benefits, however hard it might be. Parallel to and/oras a consequence of this shift there is greater appreciation ofthe need to enhance leadership development provision andstrengthen leadership by providing leaders and managers atvarious institutional levels with development, guidance andsupport.

9.2 Current practiceAll universities in our sample have some form of in-houseleadership development provision. Often this has beenintroduced as part of Investors in People (IIP) accreditation andin response to the internal and external environment. TheHefce ‘Rewarding and Developing Staff in higher education’initiative launched in 2001 and Leadership Foundationinitiatives such as Fellowships, Small Development Projects,Development Centres and the Change Academy (run in

collaboration with the HEA) however have also given great impetus and had a positive impact on leadershipdevelopment provision and practice in higher education. Inthe past six years all 12 universities visited for this study havesignificantly increased and broadened their leadershipdevelopment activities and have become more innovative intheir approach to developing institutional leadershippotential.

9.2.1 From generic to bespoke development

There is evidence of a gradual shift from generic centrally-delivered programmes (often classroom-based) to morebespoke, individualised and integrated activities. In thisregard, SDUs are changing from a directive and prescriptiveapproach to leadership development to a more consultative,facilitative, coordinating, advisory and supportive role. In otherwords, they are moving away from putting everybodythrough the centrally-run modules (the ‘sheep-dip’approach)to a more holistic approach where people do not just gothrough a series of classes but are offered a wide range ofprovision they can pick and choose from and by doing soshape their individual development in partnership with staffdevelopers.

The shift to a more bespoke and individualised leadershipdevelopment approach is the consequence of a number ofchanges in higher education, including:

1. Diversity of experience: As discussed in Section 6, routesto academic leadership and management as well as theprofessional backgrounds of leaders have become muchmore diverse than before, with people taking upleadership roles at different stages of their universitycareers and having different sets of skills and experiencesto draw on. Different people therefore need differentlevels of provision and support. Whilst technical contentrelating to organisational strategy, budgeting andaspects of HR may continue to be delivered centrallyother aspects of development, relating particularly to‘softer’skills or changing perceptions of leadership needto take account of previous experience.

2. Diversity of roles: Section 6 also highlighted that theterms and conditions of appointments to formalleadership positions in ‘old’ universities have becomeincreasingly varied, with some formal leaders andmanager-academics now being appointed topermanent or executive roles as in ‘new’ universities,whilst others (within the same institution) continuing tobe appointed on a rotating basis. In addition, the term in

51

office of rotating leadership roles may vary within thesame university. This means that the pace ofdevelopment as well as current and future developmentneeds of leaders and manager-academics in comparableroles will inevitably differ.

3. Devolution of authority: The devolution ofresponsibilities and functions relating to strategy,planning, budgeting, finance and aspects of HR from thetop/centre to lower organisational levels, discussed inSection 5, has led to a need to enhance local leadershipskills and expertise (e.g. Deans/HoDs, DeputyDeans/HoDs, Heads of Research, Heads ofUndergraduate/Postgraduate Studies, Course Leaders,etc.). This devolution, coupled with the centrality ofdiscipline to academic identity and loyalty to theiracademic units, has increased demand for bespoke andtailor-made development from individual faculties anddepartments. Indeed, the majority of interviewees held astrong view that the nature of discipline, culture andhistory of a particular faculty/department, its age andsize had an impact on how academics perceiveleadership. Bespoke development was reported toaddress these differences better than genericprogrammes.

Thus, the increasing diversity of leaders and manager-academics, variety of entry routes to leadership andmanagement, terms and conditions of service, and devolutionof organisational responsibilities have made it very difficult, ifnot impossible, for generic central programmes to meetindividual development needs. One can predict with certaintythat with the ever-increasing organisational complexity and allit entails, the work of staff developers in providing coherent,institutionally and strategically linked, and yet flexible andrelevant, development opportunities will become morechallenging and complex. Many examples of good practicecan be found in the universities visited for this study and wewill highlight these where appropriate.

9.2.2 Types of provision

Although all 12 universities have their own distinctiveapproach to leadership development in terms of diversity ofprovision, the organisational level(s) for which it is offered andthe forms it takes, four broad types of provision do emerge:

1. Generic programmes with some leadership andmanagement component. These are usually stand-alone,centrally delivered modules/sessions aimed at a broaduniversity population and may include sessions on

institutional strategy, legislation and procedures,managing self and others, managing time effectively,leading teams, etc.

2. Bespoke development for specific cross-institutional

groups of leaders and managers (e.g. SeniorManagement Group; Deans of Faculties/Heads ofDepartments, Heads of Functional Departments, etc.)with a strong leadership and management focus,combining both group and individual learning anddevelopment.

3. Bespoke development for specific academic or

professional units comprising a series of facilitatedevents and sessions built around the collective needs andrequirements of a particular school, department, facultyor professional service.

4. Individually tailored development for individuals fromacross the organisation that may involve job-shadowing,secondments, mentoring and coaching. These activitiesmay be offered independently or as part of a formalleadership development programme.

The four types of approach often overlap. For instance, aperson or a group going through a bespoke developmentprogramme may also be able to tap into modules offeredwithin the generic programmes and/or have a coach ormentor. The topics covered usually include:

a. Acquiring technical knowledge and skills (e.g. planningand budgeting, institutional governance and managementstructures, university legislation).

b. Exploration of the external and internal contexts in whichuniversities and their constituent parts operate.

c. Examination of the role of participants as leaders andmanagers and identifying their priorities.

d. Looking at and reflecting on how participants lead otherpeople and enhancing their effectiveness as a leader andmanager.

Programme options may include a wide range of group andindividual activities such as facilitated sessions, events anddiscussions, brainstorming, psychometric profiling, self-study,360° feedback, case-studies, work-based projects, personalreflection, action learning sets, 1:1 coaching and mentoring.Throughout the programme individual and peer support isusually a key element. Delivery of each of these aspects ofleadership development is usually done through a mixture ofin-house and external provision.

52


119 The composition of top management teams varies enormously across the universities visited.

In some universities Deans of faculties are equivalent to DVC/PVC roles and members of the

top management team and therefore undergo development with other members of the VCEG

whereas in others they fall more within the middle-level management group and undergo

development with other Deans and/or Heads and/or other members of their faculties (see 9.2.4)

120 For further details of the TMP and other leadership programmes from the Leadership

Foundation visit www.lfhe.ac.uk

9.2.3 Development for Top Management Teams

Leadership development for the Top Management Team(members of the VC/Principal’s group, which normallyincludes DVCs/PVCs and their equivalent, Registrar/Secretary,Directors of Finance, HR, and IT)119 in the universities visited ishighly variable. Only a minority of institutions visited offer in-house development programmes for this group of leaders,and when doing so would tend to seek external facilitationfrom organisations such as the Institute of Directors (IoD),Ashridge Consulting or Roffey Park Institute. One of the maingoals of internal programmes at this level is to develop aneffective top team (especially if the team is fairly new) andachieve greater levels of collaboration. Within our study onestaff developer in a ‘new’university commented that having abespoke programme for the most senior institutional leaderssent a positive message across the university that they werecommitted to leadership development and learning despitebusy schedules, workload and time pressures and set anexample for leaders at other organisational levels.

All universities in our sample tend to use the LeadershipFoundation Top Management Programme (TMP) fordeveloping senior leaders. Interviewees, who had been on thisprogramme, found it particularly valuable for networking andinteracting with peers from other institutions. A number ofTMP cohorts have found the networking aspect of theprogramme so useful that they have continued to meetinformally after the programme has finished. Other reportedbenefits include an improved understanding of the nationaland international context of higher education; opportunity forpersonal reflection away from the busy work environment;and having thought-provoking and stimulating discussionsand debates around leadership issues, which make peoplethink of themselves as leaders rather than managers. Theprogramme is also valued for its selectivity and the recognitionit affords participants as current or future higher educationleaders (a number of search consultants consult the delegatelist when identifying candidates for senior positions). In manycases, however, concerns were raised by staff developers overthe cost of the programme – indicating that it made a large dentin the leadership development budget of the institution120.

Other external programmes, such as those by leadingbusiness schools, including Harvard and Ashridge, and thosedelivered by the Windsor Leadership Trust and IoD are alsoconsidered but to a lesser extent. As these programmes tendto bring together leaders and managers from various sectors,

the value of such programmes is reported to be gaining anawareness of common issues across organisations and sectors,getting a different perspective, and learning and bringinggood-practice from outside higher education. A number ofinterviewees expressed a view that cross-sector programmesshould gain more prominence especially in an environmentwhere universities are increasingly required to be moreoutward-looking and market sensitive.

Other external initiatives found to be of value (although notnecessarily classified as ‘leadership development’) by theinterviewees included regular events, meetings and networkingwith colleagues from other institutions (especially groups suchas the Russell Group and the 1994 Group, each of which runtheir own programmes for senior managers), and/or regionaland strategic partnerships between two or more institutions.

In addition to formal leadership development, coaching andmentoring are becoming more significant for the TopManagement Team. Although staff developers can offersupport through identifying an appropriate coach and mentorand sourcing appropriate development opportunities, in themajority of cases development of this sort is initiated and setup by the individuals themselves through their informalnetworks as many senior leaders and managers see suchpersonal and professional development interventions as aprivate matter. One ‘old’university in our sample, however, hasmade a large investment in executive-level coaching;developing a bank of external coaches with knowledge andappreciation of the higher education context. The value ofcoaching in this institution is that it is tailored to the preciseneeds of individuals and is also directly linked to universitypriorities and initiatives. It provides opportunities for seniorleaders to discuss confidential and sensitive issues. Thefeedback on this scheme has been reported to have been verypositive and the university is currently measuring its impact.

9.2.4 Development for the middle institutional level

In most cases universities have developed, or are in theprocess of developing, bespoke programmes for middle levelmanagers. Although in most institutions these programmesare optional, there is usually an expectation that newlyappointed leaders and managers will sign up for them. Thefocus of such programmes also varies from technical contentto leadership styles and perceptions. However, the leadershipcomponent of programmes has clearly become moreprominent in all 12 universities.

53

1. Development for Deans/Heads: In the majority of cases,development is provided after Heads take up the role.However a number of universities have recognised the valueof development prior to taking on the role. Wheneverpossible, newly-appointed Heads are offered developmentprior to assuming their formal responsibilities (in addition toshadowing the outgoing Head) but as the process ofappointment can sometimes be quite curtailed (especially inthe case of internal rotating posts) there may be insufficienttime for this. Despite the fact that most universities haveintroduced roles such as a Deputy Dean/Head, partly as amechanism for succession planning, it is not always the casethat the person in that role will succeed the outgoingDean/Head (see below).

Staff developers expressed a desire to have newappointments finalised several months in advance, so thatthere is sufficient time and opportunity for successors tofamiliarise themselves with university procedures, go throughsome formal and informal development, and have a period ofhandover/transition with the previous incumbent. Indeed,new Deans and Heads suggested that an outgoingDean/Head would be the most likely person they would turnto for support and guidance. Newly appointed Deans/Headswho have had an opportunity to job shadow or be mentoredby the outgoing individual before taking over have found suchopportunities to be most beneficial.

Programmes for middle-level university leaders and managersare becoming increasingly participative, interactive andexperiential. The value of such programmes is reported to benetworking, building up rapport and trust with peers at thesame level, having a safe place to go to regularly and discussissues and challenges they face as Deans/Heads, and havingtime and space for reflection. Various aspects of theprogrammes may be organised and delivered either by in-house developers or an external consultant brought in for thepurpose. Respondents indicated that external consultantsshould be of a very high calibre, have a good understanding ofthe higher education context and issues and be familiar withacademic culture. In a number of cases, such as noted for theTMP, programme participants have maintained their networksand continued to meet informally after the programme hasfinished.

A key aspect of development appreciated by middle-levelleaders and manager-academics is an understanding of theinformal as well as formal channels of communication and

influence within institutions. They frequently asked for anunderstanding of university leadership and management ‘as itis’ rather than as how the university might like it to be.Development of relevant technical skills including managingfinances, business planning, IT (such as effective use of emailand electronic diaries), and dealing with poor performance,are also seen as essential aspects of becoming an effectiveleader.

2. Wider management and leadership development: Whilstin some institutions manager-academics and ‘professional’managers mix in middle-level leadership developmentprogrammes, in others there is separate provision for each andwhilst most programmes are for cross-institutional groups,there is not much in the way of ‘vertical slice’ groups fordevelopment (e.g. Senior Management Team together withmiddle level managers). This is partly because eachorganisational level faces somewhat different challenges andcertain forms of development may be more appropriate forthe senior rather than middle level or vice versa. Transparencyand frankness of debate is also found to be easier whereparticipants are of a similar level.

Having said that, several programmes provide opportunitiesfor middle-level leaders and managers to interact with theirmore senior colleagues, but the latter normally act asfacilitators of sessions and rarely as participants alongside themiddle-level leaders. The advantage of having vertical sliceand cross-institutional groups for development is that itmaximises opportunities for cooperation and minimises thepotential for a ‘them and us’ culture. In addition to this, oneuniversity in our sample has gone beyond organisationalboundaries and is running a joint development programmefor academic leaders, who are in cross-cutting leadership rolesbut do not have line-managing or budget responsibilities,with another partner-university. This programme is aboutchallenges they face in their cross-cutting roles and broadlyabout leading strategically.

3. Bespoke programmes for individual faculties and schools:

Such programmes usually mix both academics and functionalgroups and make leadership development more relevant tothe experiences of staff in faculties and departments, becausedetails of such programmes are designed and developed inclose partnership between the teams concerned and staffdevelopers. Staff generally feel greater ‘ownership’ of suchprogrammes and gain more from them because topics to becovered are generated within the faculties and departments

54


themselves. One staff developer in a ‘new’ university, whichhad introduced a bespoke leadership developmentprogramme for individual faculties, reported that holdingcentral programmes did not reach staff and detected thatacademic and functional staff engaged with leadership moreeffectively in their own teams than they did with anydevelopment that was provided centrally. This does not mean,however, that different faculties and departments cannotcome together for development. For instance, in oneuniversity in our sample, several faculties came together forsome of the developmental events and this provided anopportunity for participants to meet and network with theircolleagues from other faculties. The faculties also cametogether for the final joint evaluation event.

4. Developing soft skills: In terms of what middle-level leadersand managers need most in their development, many issuesthe interviewees kept referring back to were issues around HRwhere the ‘soft’ skills were perceived to be most necessary:leading teams effectively, leading and managing change,managing difficult issues around workload, teaching andresearch balance, dealing with difficult colleagues, dealingwith conflict situations, how to manage academicperformance in the absence of any explicit performancecriteria. For many interviewees, leadership development wasnot so much about developing ‘hard’ skills, but aboutdeveloping softer skills or changing self perception. Theuniversities in our sample have used various approaches todeveloping ‘soft’ skills in their leaders and managers. Oneuniversity, for instance, created Leadership DevelopmentGroups as part of the middle-level leadership developmentprogramme for academic leaders to explore leadership issues.Another university invited professional actors to act outvarious scenarios for discussion and reflection by participants.A number of others have used action learning sets to exploredifferent leadership and management styles. Manyinterviewees commented that the more learning anddevelopment moved away from being prescriptive andfocused on technical content the more enjoyable andengaging it became, although others, particularly from the‘hard sciences’ such as engineering and physics, showed apreference for technical content.

5. Mentoring and coaching: mentoring is perceived to be oneof the most effective interventions for developing ‘softer’skills.Although formal mentoring schemes exist in most institutions,in practice the relationships perceived to be most useful tendto be those set up by mentors and mentees themselves.

Mentoring was seen as a very valuable source of guidance andsupport, particularly for talking through challenges,discussing sensitive issues and gaining advice from a moreexperienced colleague. It was also reported to be useful notonly for mentees, but also for mentors as they can learn fromthe relationship and use it to develop their own coaching andfacilitation skills.

Mentoring is also seen as a key process in helping leadersreflect on their practice. One staff developer noted thatmentoring in his university tended to work more successfullywhen it was against a specific requirement rather than whereit was just being freely offered to people. Another university,which retains the salary increase for being a Head ofDepartment after the end of the term of office, expects anoutgoing Head to act as a mentor for a new Head. However, itcould present difficulties as in ‘old’universities the past Headsand Deans are in most cases unavailable because ofsabbaticals they are entitled to after their headship. Therefore,identifying and appointing a new Head or Dean well inadvance becomes important.

Although coaching is not widely available at the middlemanagement level, a number of universities in our sample hadrecently run pilot schemes for this group. Coaching tends to bea shorter-term relationship than mentoring and may provemost valuable for specific staff groups, especially those withother life commitments (e.g. mothers and carers) and atparticular pivotal points in their career (e.g. prior to andimmediately after taking on the role, or during a time ofparticular change or turbulence such as organisationalrestructuring). One female HoD, for instance, mentioned thatcoaching before taking on the role had been particularlyhelpful in persuading her to apply for the post and deciding topursue this career option.

Mentoring and coaching are mostly driven by individualsbeing proactive in taking this opportunity or people settingup their own informal mentoring or coaching through theirown networks. Many programme participants, however, wantto see more formalised mentoring and coaching schemes sothat each person on a programme can have access to amentor or coach if they want. Although SDUs in all universitiesoffer such support they may need to be more explicit about this.

6. External leadership roles: One domain of leadershipdevelopment opportunity that clearly operates within

55

universities is participation in leadership outside/beyond theinstitution. Thus, for example, academics may chaircommittees for Research Councils or professional associations,clinical staff may well have an active role in the running of theNHS Trust, and academics may be involved in organisingnational and international conferences, editorial boards foracademic journals, be engaged in leading community and/orregional initiatives, etc. These are all reported to be excellentarenas in which staff (both from academic and functionalgroups) can gain additional and valuable experience, as well asobtaining useful strategic insights for the wider institution.These can also be part of selection and promotion criteriadiscussed in Section 6. Many interviewees reported thathaving an external leadership experience has been a valuablelearning and development opportunity in itself and hashelped in their internal leadership roles.

7. Development as a driver for diversity: it should be notedthat the issue of diversity in terms of gender imbalance andlow representation of black and ethnic minority groups informal leadership positions within universities has been arecurring theme throughout the data collection stage. Toaddress these issues two universities in our sample introducedmentoring schemes as a deliberate attempt to take positiveaction and help underrepresented groups who do nottypically enter leadership roles. One ‘new’ university with astrong commitment to equality and diversity, for instance,introduced a wider management mentoring programme forfemale and black and ethnic minority managers. All mentorswere drawn from outside the institution, from either public orprivate sectors or from other HEIs. One ‘old’ university isplanning to introduce a mentoring scheme in which womenprofessors mentor their younger or more junior femalecolleagues, particularly in those departments, which have few,if any, women in senior leadership/ management roles. Theidea behind these initiatives is to give under representedgroups the necessary skills and confidence and, perhaps, helpthem change their perception and see themselves as leadersin the future.

8. Impact of development: in terms of individual andorganisational performance, it is difficult to detect what typeof provision is most effective. When asked about the impact ofleadership development on individual and organisationalperformance, the majority of interviewees at differentinstitutional levels saw its impact in terms of guidance andsupport for staff, creating a positive work environment whereresearch and teaching can flourish and where people feel

happy about working rather than performance managementper se or other hard measures or indicators. Effectiveness ofprogrammes depends very much on the individual and theaim of the SDUs is to offer different and diverse models ofdevelopment which may be appropriate and relevant todifferent people.

It is evident from our data that leadership and management inour sample institutions is becoming more ‘professionalised’with more people studying for a general MBA or MBA inhigher education and going through various internal andexternal leadership and management developmentprogrammes. Despite this, the majority suggested that theyhad mainly developed their leadership skills informally and onthe job over a number of years and in more junior rolesthrough taking on leadership and managementresponsibilities, learning from and observing other leadersand managers, networking with peers and taking externalleadership responsibilities. Nevertheless, all intervieweesemphasised the importance of formal development and theoverwhelming view seems to be that a tailored approach toleadership development works much better than genericprogrammes. It is also important to discuss and review theleadership development provision regularly to maintainfreshness and vitality around the programmes and identifyemerging priorities for leadership development.

9.3 Emerging PrioritiesThe 12 universities in our sample are very different andoperate in different contexts. It should be emphasised thatunderstanding the context and challenges it presents toinstitutions and their leaders is very important. However, theiremerging priorities in terms of leadership development aresomewhat similar but take account of specific institutional andwider contexts.

9.3.1 Sustainability of provision

A shift to an individualised, bespoke and tailor-made provisionputs more pressure on resources, both financial and human.Staff developers are aware that after the Hefce Rewarding andDeveloping Staff initiative comes to an end it would be verydifficult to keep investment in leadership development at acomparable level. Another issue relates to HR supportingleadership development as currently a very small team in eachinstitution provides professional and administrative supportto this activity. It is becoming increasingly difficult andchallenging for a small team to offer and support the varietyand range of leadership development initiatives now

56


demanded. Some universities are finding new financialavenues for maintaining and further diversifying leadershipdevelopment provision and this is largely dependent on activesupport from the very top of the organisation.

9.3.2 Integration with HRM

Since leadership development is becoming bespoke andindividualised, staff developers emphasised the pressing needto be more systematic about what individuals’ developmentneeds are. In this regard, the annual PDR process wasconsidered to be a useful tool, but one which has not beenfully utilised when it comes to leadership development. Nearlyall institutions have now introduced a PDR process for all staffcategories but they vary in the extent to which this isformalised, systematic, compulsory and/or linked toleadership development and reward. In the majority ofuniversities, appraisal and performance review existed onlyformally and only in the minority of cases has it beenhappening systematically for many years. In one ‘new’university compulsory appraisal was introduced in 1990 andwas said to have been very beneficial; in this case, the new PDRprocess was just seen as a formalisation of what the universityhad been doing for years. In other universities, appraisal orperformance review was not compulsory and/or was resistedby staff in academic departments. There now seems to berecognition, however, that the PDR process is a necessary andintegral part of university management and is seen as apriority, particularly in light of the recent national pay reviewand Framework Agreement.

Despite variations in institutional approaches to the PDRprocess, the majority cover academic performance in threemain areas: research, teaching, and administrative/managerial(sometimes classified as leadership). The universities visitedare trying to make the PDR process more ‘forward-looking’than the old appraisal system (which was characterised bysome as negative and deficit-orientated), linking it to futureindividual and organisational needs. However, it wasemphasised that, to be successful, this process needs to beintroduced and monitored in a consistent and systematicmanner across the whole university. Currently, in a number oforganisations, there is no commonly accepted institutionalapproach to PDR and wide variations across faculties anddepartments in the extent to which the process is regardedand implemented.

From the perspective of academic staff, the emerging priorityis to make the PDR an effective mechanism through which

they can gain a better understanding of where they need togo in their contribution and to what extent their activities arebroadly in line with the direction and strategy of department,faculty and institution. Staff developers in turn see the need todevelop a process of effectively feeding development needs,identified through the PDR process, to the centre, so that thedata from this process can be collated and used to analysebetter current and future development needs on a university-wide basis. In the context of the shift from central genericprogrammes to individualised and bespoke development, theemerging themes from the PDR data can be used to alignindividual development needs with institutional priorities andlink individual development with institutional strategy andchange.

9.3.3 Succession planning

The annual PDR process can also be used as a mechanism forsuccession planning. Indeed, succession planning is one of themain priorities that interviewees highlighted. The practice inall universities thus far has been the introduction of semi-formal roles such as Deputy Dean/Head partly in response toincreasing organisational complexity but also as a form ofsuccession planning to enable a wider group of people toengage in leadership and management activity beforeentering a more senior leadership position. This does not,however, mean that people in such semi-formal rolesautomatically become Deans or Heads, especially in thecurrent context in which formal leadership posts areincreasingly advertised externally, but having had theopportunity to acquire the sort of skills, experience andcapability to apply for more senior roles and having providedadditional support for the existing Dean or Head they are likelyto be the most obvious internal candidates. The issue ofsuccession planning has also become important owing to alarge number of retiring leaders at the senior level.

Another current approach to succession planning is to offerpotential leaders opportunities to gain the necessaryexperience for more senior roles. Such experience mayinclude chairing committees, managing research grants,representing the university on working groups, and directingresearch and teaching programmes. Indeed, there is noshortage of such opportunities at the faculty/ school level butthese are not always allocated in the most strategic manner(e.g. the ‘usual suspects’ rather than a developmentopportunity). In most instances, however, leaders at all levelsremain on the look-out for aspiring and promising youngacademics and senior lecturers that demonstrate some ability

121 For details of the Leadership Foundation work on succession management see

www.lfhe.ac.uk/supportteam/sm

to lead and manage and will give them leadership andmanagement challenges in the early stages of their careerboth as a means for their development and ‘testing them out’.Such succession planning, however, is invariably rather ad hocand informal.

Attempts are now being made to formalise successionplanning through identifying and developing future leaders.Rather than waiting for leadership talent to emerge of its ownaccord, as has largely been the case in the past, a small numberof universities in our sample have started to addressleadership capability gaps by having a pro-active approach tospotting and nurturing a pool of internal leadership talent sothat the university is better prepared when leadershipvacancies arise. To this end they have developedorganisational support through design and provision ofspecific schemes for those with interest in and potential forleadership. All universities in our sample which had not yetintroduced a formal mechanism for succession planning wereconsidering and/or implementing similar initiatives foraspiring/potential leaders.

In terms of operationalisation of succession planning in one‘old’university it comprises both corporate and local elementsand is intended to represent a partnership approach betweenSDU, Schools/Functional areas and the individuals concerned.Each member of the staff nominated and selected fordeveloping future leaders programme has an in-depthdiscussion regarding their experience, skills, knowledge,abilities, fears, hopes and aspirations in relation to leadership.In the process of this discussion, areas for attention, supportand development and an individual development plan areidentified. The plan is multi-dimensional and demands amultifaceted approach to its implementation, includingcorporate provision via staff development, Department/Functional area based interventions, external provision withinthe sector, professional/discipline based initiatives and otheropportunities. All activities undertaken are monitored andevaluated.

Another ‘old’university has established Development Centreswith the support of the Leadership Foundation121 for spottingand nurturing potential and aspiring leaders, where existingsenior leaders and managers act as observers. There was adiscussion at the university about what it needed of its leadersand whether the sets of skills it had fitted that framework. Thiswas an interesting and challenging initiative for the staffdevelopers and senior managers as they did not initially think

that the scheme, which involves measuring people against aframework and constantly giving them feedback, would fit the university culture and although it is still early days forevaluating the impact of the scheme (two cohorts with a totalof 12 participants have been on the programme), the fact that24 applications were received for six places in the 3rd cohortconfirms our earlier finding that there is a new breed ofacademics in ‘old’ universities, who are interested in formalleadership and may see it as a desirable career route.

Developing future leaders programmes thus give people theopportunity to explore and experience the role and itsdemands and whilst valuable for preparing leaders for formalroles, as often as not they also act as a filter for people whorealise that this is no longer a role they desire. Thus, theprogramme can enable the participants to take a moreinformed decision about taking up a formal leadership role.As one interviewee put it “[investing in someone’sdevelopment] is cheaper than appointing the wrong Head ofSchool for five years”. The programme participants are usuallynominated by their line managers and then selected by apanel. What is not always evident, however, is the criteria andmethods used to judge, select or deselect people withleadership potential and what people’s motivations are forchoosing to be involved in formal university leadership.

After having created a ‘pool’ of internal leadership talent,another priority and challenge for universities relates to theircareer development. Participants who have completed thefuture leadership programme would want to know what isnext in terms of their career, how the university is going torecoup the investment it made in them in terms of time andresources, various activities, support and guidance and how itis going to utilise their skills and knowledge now and in thefuture. This has the potential to become quite a sensitive issuewhen looked at from an equal opportunities perspective,especially as the opportunities for formal leadership arelimited and if there is anticipation of a guarantee of promotionwhen someone leaves, it closes opportunities for other peopleto compete for the role.

This may be a reason behind some universities being lessexplicit about their approach to developing future leaders andhow they advertise this. One university introduced adevelopment programme for senior lecturers, primarily tohelp them with the job, but also with an underlying intentionof building up a body of people who have more developmentin the skills and knowledge that would be needed, for

57

58


instance, to be a Head of Department. Other universities haveintroduced specific development activities for PrincipalInvestigators and/or professional managers, workingalongside academic Deans/Heads, but also implicitly see it asan opportunity to develop future leaders.

The actual text of the Leadership Competency Frameworkdeveloped by one of the sample universities states: ‘whilst thefuture leadership scheme can be set firmly within a successionplanning context, a fundamental principle of the scheme isthe acknowledgement that those people selected may followa development path which ultimately takes them away fromthe faculty/department/functional area/ institution and/or thedisciplines/ professions they currently work in’. Therefore,succession planning should not be seen as simply an internalfunction of growing leaders for a particular institution but asector-wide concern of significance to all UK HEIs. This isprecisely what the Leadership Foundation is currently doingby joining up internal and external succession planningschemes and other leadership development initiatives in acoherent way whereby everyone can feel that there issomething they can tap into that meets their needs in relationto leadership roles.

9.3.4 Partnerships and collaborations

In terms of inter-institutional collaboration, only threeuniversities in our sample run leadership developmentprogrammes in collaboration with other HEIs, but manyidentified partnerships and collaborations as an emergingpriority. Having more inter-institutional collaboration willprovide greater opportunities for participants to meet,network with and learn from colleagues from other HEIs. Oneuniversity in our sample also entered into partnership with anexternal provider to train a team of in-house coaches.

Collaborations with ‘home’faculties/schools/ departments ininternal delivery of programmes are also currently limited.Only a handful of universities in our sample use their ‘home’faculties/departments (e.g. Business School) to develop anddeliver internal leadership development. Whilst institutionalcircumstances differ, the staff developers expressed theirintention of finding better ways of utilising internal expertise.

9.3.5 Additional areas of consideration

Other emerging leadership development priorities/considerations are outlined below.

• Continuing development: As practices of appointmentto formal leadership roles in ‘old’universities are graduallychanging, universities are paying increasing attention to

continuing and ongoing development provision forformal leaders and manager-academics, who are onpermanent and long-term posts. Development is nolonger simply confined to their induction periodimmediately prior or after taking up the role.

• Younger and early-career academics: Alongside researchand teaching, leadership and management is increasinglytaken into consideration for promotion of all academicstaff. To improve promotion opportunities early-careeracademics tend to see their job in a more rounded waythan their more established colleagues. They want toknow what needs to be done in terms of developmentand learning in all three domains and what will increasetheir career opportunities. This will require line-managersand staff developers to meet their individual needs in atimely fashion as they emerge. It may also ensure thatleadership and management is embraced and taken onboard early on in one’s academic career.

• Programme accreditation: Explicit use of leadership and management experience as part of selection andpromotion criteria as well as a requirement for evidenceof leadership and management skills for research grants,may encourage people to seek accredited leadershipdevelopment. With this in mind a number of universitiesin our sample had their in-house programmes endorsedby the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) sothat participants can choose to have an ILM certificate ifthey so wish. Judging from the reaction of the staff-developers from other institutions it is likely that they willpursue a similar approach.

• Career pathways: Another issue that seldom seems to beformally addressed but is, nevertheless, seen as animportant factor in individual motivation to take on aleadership/management role is the planned exit fromleadership roles. This is particularly pertinent in ‘old’universities where there is an expectation that a moderatenumber of formal leaders will return to traditionalacademic roles afterwards. Outgoing Deans and Headsmay well find the transition back to being a ‘pure’academic painful and challenging and in a number ofuniversities this is being addressed by offering ongoingsupport, financial incentives and the opportunity tomentor and offer guidance to new Deans and Heads.

• Performance management: It is not clear whetherleadership development assists with performance, but theview appears to be that performance management willimpact on leadership and management and if people startmanaging performance and seeing it as an important

59

aspect that will create a difference to how they see theirpersonal and professional development. As for formalevaluation mechanisms, they are currently limited in scopeand scale in all sample universities and mainly include endof programme questionnaires, informal discussions andevaluation events. A number of universities, however, arein the process of developing more robust evaluationapproaches to assess the impact of leadershipdevelopment on an individual and organisational scale.

9.4 Key pointsThe main findings presented in this section are summarised inFigure 9.1. This figure shows the changes occurring inleadership development practices and some of the emergingpriorities in relation to leadership development in HEIs. As isclear from the discussion above, not every aspect of change ishappening in every institution visited for this study, but itprovides an overall picture across the sample universities.

Central generic programmes with some leadership andmanagement components

Mainly face-to-face, class based interaction

Prescriptive and content-heavy provision; emphasis on ‘hard’skills

Staff developers as development providers and deliverers

Informal and ad-hoc coaching and mentoring arrangements

Lack of diversity (gender, ethnicity, age, etc.) in formalleadership roles

Appraisal (often negatively received)

Ad hoc and informal succession planning

Developing existing leaders

Providing induction prior to or immediately after taking upthe role

Limited or no support after the end of the term

No formal evaluation of the impact of leadershipdevelopment

Core modules + Bespoke, individualised and tailor-madedevelopment with a strong leadership and management focus

Combination of face-to-face and self-directed and ‘blended’learning

Participative, interactive, experiential and reflectiveprogrammes; more emphasis on ‘soft’skills

Staff developers as consultants, supporters, advisers andfacilitators

Increasing use of formal coaching and mentoring across theorganisation

Leadership development as a vehicle to drive diversity

Linking development with PDR

Formal and systematic succession planning

Identifying and developing future leadership talent & managingcareers

Continuing & ongoing leadership development / careermanagement

Planned exit from rotating leadership roles

Developing more robust mechanisms for evaluation as apriority

FROM TO

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION: KEY POINTS

FIGURE 9.1

60


10. DISCUSSION

In this section of the report we review the main findings fromthe study and what they tell us about the manner in whichleadership is conceived and enacted in UK higher education.

10.1 The distribution of leadership in higher education

Overall, the findings indicate a tendency within UK universitiesto widely distribute leadership. Indeed, there is much to implythat without sharing of responsibilities, accountabilities andresources, the complex, varied and sometimes competingobjectives of HEIs would be unachievable. Despite this,however, all institutions in our sample reported difficulties inachieving an appropriate balance between top-down,bottom-up and lateral processes of communication andinfluence. In effect, there remains a dynamic tension betweenthe need for collegiality and managerialism, individualautonomy and collective engagement, leadership of thediscipline and the institution, academic versus administrativeauthority, informality and formality, inclusivity andprofessionalisation, etc.

Each institution has developed its own particular structures,systems and processes to respond to these challenges – someincrementally over time and others through adaptive ortransformational change. What is evident, however, is that thenature of these structures and how they operate are largelydependent on the holders of formal leadership positions.Thus, for example, the manner in which the VC/Principalstructures the Senior Management Team will be, at least inpart, influenced by his/her personal qualities and preferencesand Deans/Heads will develop management structuresaccording to how they see the role, the resources at theirdisposal, the people they are working with and the policycontext in which they operate.

In endeavouring to interpret the findings on how leadership isshared, recognised and experienced within higher educationwe noticed the dynamic inter-play between five main groupsof factors (individual, social, structural, contextual anddevelopmental) as indicated in Figure 10.1.

Contextual

Structural/

Organisational

SocialIndividual

Systems, processes,practices

Resources, rewards,progression

Personal qualities,experience, role

Personal & professionalidentity, relationship

Policy environment,location, size,disciplinary mix, etc. Social identity, informal

networks, partnerships,alliances

Shared aims, values,purpose, goals

Organisational culture, formalnetworks, communicationchannels, opportunities forengagement

Individual, group andorganisational development;integration with organisationalsystems; career pathway;changing needs and priorities

Develo

pment

Time

DIMENSIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 10.1

61

10.1.1 Structural/organisational

This dimension refers to the organisational environment inwhich leadership occurs. It includes organisational systems,processes and structures, particularly those relating to theallocation and management of budgets and resources, HRM(including PDR, career progression and development), formaland informal communication channels (vertical andhorizontal) and forums for consultation and decision making.Our research has demonstrated, for example, the manner in which devolution of budgetary control, along withtransparency in the allocation of finances, is fundamental inshaping leadership at the school/departmental level. Formalline management and budgetary authority offer additionalsources of power and authority to the post holder that mayhelp them influence their colleagues in different ways – e.g.through the use of reward or coercion122.

The consequences of devolution, however, are likely to beboth beneficial and problematic for the institution as a whole.Thus, whilst devolution of financial and managerial controlmay encourage schools and departments to become morecommercially orientated, it may also lead to fragmentation ofthe organisation and the development of managerial ‘silos’that render cross-organisational initiatives such as branding,sharing resources and interdisciplinary teaching and researchparticularly challenging. Furthermore, devolving formalpower to leaders at lower levels within the organisation maywell disempower managers/leaders at more senior levels.Thus, without direct control over resources, non-budgetmanaging senior roles are left to rely on personal influencealone and may be somewhat powerless in the face ofopposition without recourse to colleagues with such powers.

It thus becomes possible to distinguish at least two types123 ofleader within universities – those with formal hierarchical power(top-down influence) and those relying predominantly on inter-personal influence (horizontal influence). A third type may wellbe those with less formalised roles within the university hierarchybut who, nevertheless, exert a great deal of influence by virtue oftheir control of sought after resources such as research funding,academic reputation, political/social influence beyond theorganisation, and/or a charismatic presence (bottom- up influence). Figure 5.2 in Section 5 represents thisdiagrammatically and indicates how, as people progressthrough an academic management pathway, they may well berequired to alternate between different types of role and formsof influence. This transition poses major developmentalchallenges, implying that the same style and mode ofleadership is not appropriate at all levels within the institution.

In their discussion of ‘distributed leadership’ Spillane et al124

argue that “situation or context does not simply ‘affect’ what[school] leaders do as some sort of independent or inter-dependent variable(s); it is constitutive of leadership practice”.That is to say, the structure (a fundamental element of thesituation or context) is as integral to the practice of leadershipas are leaders and/or followers. This argument is supported byour findings and makes an important contribution to ourunderstanding of leadership in organisations. Thus, whenattempting to identify, develop and/or evaluate leadershipwithin higher education it is essential to consider the structuraldimensions of organisational functioning as well as the humanaspects. Aspects of the physical layout, technologicalinfrastructure, formal systems and procedures, etc. all influencethe manner in which leadership is enacted and perceived.

This is a significant progression from more individualisticconcepts of leadership (including trait, behavioural, situationaland transformational models) but it should still be noted thatstructure is dynamic and changing, not static and fixed. Whilstorganisational structures may affect what leaders, followersand other organisational actors are able to do they are alsoshaped and changed by (and sometimes for) these people.Thus, for example, we have observed ‘pseudo-structures’,introduced following organisational restructuring in order tooffer senior posts to displaced academic or professionalmanagers. We have noted how new roles, such as PVC forPlanning and Resources and hybrid management-academicroles such as Business Development Director, are created forpromising individuals that the organisation wishes to retainand promote but who do not fit easily within pre-existing roles.We have also observed the evolution of structures that restrictopportunities for engagement between different groups (e.g.HoSs or Dean and the VCEG) based on previous personalityclashes or leadership failures. Whilst these may be functionalfor a time, they will most likely deteriorate or becomedysfunctional as post holders and contextual factors change,leading to some of the consequences identified in Section 7.5.

10.1.2 Individual

This dimension refers to individual leaders – their personalqualities, experience and preferences. Our research revealed awide variation in personal styles, motivations and approacheswithin and between universities, ranging from highlyindividualistic (and sometimes idiosyncratic) through to teamand collective approaches to leadership. University leaderswere generally represented as rather colourful characters,each with his or her own personal strengths and weaknesses.Even where leadership was carried out within and across

122 French, J.R.P. and Raven, B.H. (1958); Benfari, R.C. et al (1986)123 These are ‘ideal types’(Weber, M. (1949)) such that in practice it is unlikely that

individuals will fall clearly into any single category

124 Spillane J.P. et al (2004) p20-21

62


groups, someone had invariably been identified to lead or takethe initiative on that activity (to chair a committee, coordinatea working group, direct a course, act as principal investigator,etc.). Despite variations between individuals there was generalconsensus on the need for academic and professionalcredibility, consultation and openness, although the mannerin which these translated into leadership behaviour variedconsiderably. Thus, whilst some depended on charisma orforce of character, others constructed forums or teams forconsultative and collective decision-making.

Despite overwhelming support for a collective leadershipapproach in higher education, a striking finding from ourresearch concerned the expressed need for inspirational orvisionary individuals, particularly in times of change ortransition (or to bring about these). At first this might seemcounter to the principles of distributed or dispersed leadership,yet more often than not complaints were about a lack of clarity,direction or decisiveness rather than the contrary. TheVC/Principal, in particular, was looked to as setting the overalldirection for the organisation, consulting with others buttaking the final decision on strategy him/herself; with a similarperspective often being afforded to Deans and Heads. To thisextent it could be argued that the designated leader needs tobe given the authority to act on behalf of the group, in effect tobe seen to be ‘doing it for us’125 or acting as a ‘socialisedcharismatic leader’126. It may be that if an inspirational leader (notnecessarily in a formal management role) embodies sharedvalues they can act as a focal point for collective endeavour andfacilitate the engagement of others in the leadership process.

Another important aspect relating to personal style regards the use of informal rather than formal channels of

communication and influence. Despite the complexorganisational structures present within universities, manyleaders appear to learn how to navigate and utilise theinformal paths and networks, sometimes totally bypassing orundermining the formal structures. One example of this iswhere discussions are held informally prior to committeemeetings and a decision is effectively reached prior to theformal discussion. Likewise, HoSs or HoDs may choose tobypass Deans or PVCs and go straight to the VC, DVC orRegistrar (only occasionally being redirected to the officialroute), or they might develop their own informal networksand lobby groups to increase their influence.

Finally, as mentioned in the previous section, high profileindividuals with no formal managerial position (such asprofessors, ‘research stars’ or previous holders of rotatingposts) may well have a disproportionately large influencewithin the organisation. A substantial part of the narrativefabric of organisational life within universities (like many otherorganisations) relates to stories of the successes and/or failuresof key individuals – frequently referring to events thatoccurred many years ago and which the vast majority of staffwould no longer remember.

In a review of the literature on effective leadership in highereducation, Alan Bryman127 identified 13 behaviours associatedwith effective leadership (see below). Despite not beingsystematically coded in our own study, these factors fit wellwith our interpretation of findings. Although we are not in aposition to argue a causal relationship between performanceand effectiveness, it is likely that where these aspects areabsent, leadership could be experienced as dysfunctional andmeet with resistance.

125 Haslam, S.A. et al (2001)126 Howell, J.M. & Shamir, B. (2005)

127 Bryman, A. (2007b)128 Bryman, A. (2007b)

1. Clear sense of direction/strategic vision2. Preparing department arrangements to facilitate the direction set3. Being considerate4. Treating academic staff fairly and with integrity5. Being trustworthy and having personal integrity6. Allowing the opportunity to participate in key decisions/encouraging open communication7. Communicating well about the direction the department is going8. Acting as a role model and having credibility9. Creating a positive and collegial work atmosphere in the department10. Advancing the department’s cause with respect to constituencies internal and external to the university and being

proactive in doing so11. Providing feedback on performance12. Providing resources for and adjusting workloads to stimulate scholarship and research13. Making academic appointments that enhance department’s reputation

Aspects of Effective Leader Behaviour in higher education128

63

10.1.3 Social

This dimension concerns the social and relational aspects of organisational life. It incorporates the informal networks,partnerships and alliances; culture or ‘feel’ of the place; and any shared sense of purpose and identity.

Within our own study, the concept of identity seemedintegrally linked to motivations and experiences of leadershipthat are not well captured in behavioural or proceduralaccounts. Identity refers to the multiple, shifting andsometimes conflicting senses of self experienced by universitymanagers/leaders. Thus, for example, academic leaders (evenup to the most senior level) retain the identity of ‘academic’alongside their managerial role and may endeavour to remainactive in research and teaching within their own academicdiscipline. This dual role has the potential to generate difficulttensions such as conflicting allegiances between theinstitution, the discipline and even the research group; andhaving line management and budgetary authority whilst alsoneeding to be seen as an academic colleague and impartialwhen weighing up decisions (particularly in the case ofHoDs/HoSs in rotational posts). A considerable amount of thefieldwork for this study was conducted at the time of the AUTindustrial action in Summer 2006, where Heads of Schools andDepartments were being encouraged by senior managementto ensure that exam papers were issued, sat and assessed,whilst they themselves were members of the union and manyof their immediate academic colleagues were taking actionshort of a strike. For many, this was the first time they had reallyhad their identity as an ‘academic’or ‘manager’tested and, innearly all cases, there was a realisation that their fundamentalallegiance was now to the institution rather than theiracademic peers.

A further identity tension that often revealed itself related toresearch activity. Whilst all academic leaders within research-intensive universities viewed themselves as researchers at thestart of their management career, over a period of time thefocus had shifted to being a facilitator of the research of others.Furthermore, despite an initial resistance to taking on aleadership role, many interviewees found that they enjoyedthe opportunity for influence that it gave them and chose toremain in academic management rather than returning topure academia (thus shifting from ‘reluctant manager’ to‘career manager’ in the terms of Deem129). This introduces alonger-term biographical element to the findings whereby,over the period of one’s career, the research contribution cantransform from active production to facilitation and support.

This dimension of research contribution would seem to be afundamental part of the transition from ‘academic’to ‘leader’yet continues to receive little recognition or reward within thecurrent performance output climate, especially the 2008 RAE.Furthermore, it could be central to reframing academic-management positions in a way that does not undermine theindividual’s academic profile – perhaps one of the maindeterrents for many academics taking on such roles.

Within our study there were also considerable variations in theextent to which academic leaders shared a sense of common‘social identity’ with other managers (both academic andadministrative) within and beyond the institution. In anumber of cases, informal networking opportunities hadarisen for people in similar or connected roles to shareexperiences and ideas and these seemed to be important inthe construction of a sense of belonging to the managementcadre. Haslam130 argues that a shared social identity is essentialfor leadership to occur, but if a HoS/HoD is aligned with theirdiscipline rather than their institution, it is unlikely that he/shewill either want to or be able to rally support in pursuit ofbroader organisational objectives. The same is true ofacademic and administrative functions – if they are perceivedas fundamentally separate and opposed (as ‘in’ and ‘out’groups) then there is unlikely to be much cooperation orconsistency between these categories of staff.

10.1.4 Contextual

The fourth dimension of leadership captured within themodel in Figure 10.1 is ‘contextual’, reflecting the way in whichhigher education leadership is becoming increasinglypoliticised and subject to external pressures. Such trends arenoted throughout the report but most specifically withinSection 8 where we highlight a number of shifts occurringacross the sector, and the manner in which universities areresponding.

At the heart of these changes is an increasing trend towardsgreater commercial and market focus that is putting pressureon traditional bureaucratic and/or collegial forms oforganisation. Similar trends have been noted in the furthereducation sector, where it has been remarked that there is abroad shift from “community to commercialism”131.

In this climate, effective leadership and management, bothwithin and beyond the institution, are increasingly seen as an organisational necessity. Senior university leaders areincreasingly engaged in high-level policy debates at local,

129 Deem, R. (2001)130 Haslam, S.A. (2004)

131 Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006b) p5

64


national and international level and leaders at lower levelswithin the organisation are given greater executive powers.Universities are now regarded as central to the government’sdrive towards the ‘knowledge economy’132.

Within this context, however, there is a danger that economicperformance becomes the overriding priority at the expenseof the wider social contribution of higher education. Thus, asOlssen and Peters argue, the neo-liberal reform of highereducation and increasing marketisation leads to a situationwhereby:

“Education is represented as an input–output systemwhich can be reduced to an economic productionfunction… In addition, new public management inapplying quasi market or private sector microtechniques tothe management of public sector organisations hasreplaced the ‘public service ethic’ whereby organisationswere governed according to norms and values derivedfrom assumptions about the ‘common good’ or ‘publicinterest’ with a new set of contractualist norms and rules.”133

Whilst performance indicators for the sector cover a range of factors including access to higher education, non-completion rates for students, outcomes and efficiencies forlearning and teaching, employment of graduates andresearch outputs134, what staff regard as their primary aimsand motivations for working within the sector are perhapsmore closely associated with social and public value thaneconomic goals.

10.1.5 Developmental

The final dimension in Figure 10.1 refers to the ongoing andchanging developmental needs of individuals, groups andorganisations. Specifically, within this context, there is anoverlap between individual, team and organisationaldevelopment and in order to be effective, interventions mustendeavour to avoid returning changed individuals to anunchanged system or vice-versa. Thus ‘leadershipdevelopment’is necessarily broader than the development ofpeople in leadership positions and organisationaldevelopment must address the human as well as non-humanaspects of the system.

This dimension also draws attention to the temporal aspectsof leadership in organisations – acknowledging that there is atime and a place for particular approaches and that personalengagement with leadership should be regarded within the

wider biographic narrative of the individual (both within andoutside of work). Thus, for example, there are times in aperson’s life when taking on additional leadershipresponsibilities would be unadvisable and other times when itshould be encouraged. Leadership is not a destination forindividuals and organisations - it is an ongoing journey thatrequires adaptation, transformation and change.

10.2 Distributed leadership in higher education: rhetoric and reality

This research set out to explore the manner in whichleadership is perceived, enacted and developed in UK highereducation. Specifically, our aim was to investigate the extentto which leadership in HEIs can be considered to be‘distributed’ and, if so, what is distributed, what are themechanisms by which it is distributed, and what are thebenefits for practice, analysis and/or policy-making? Thisreport will now reflect on the utility of the concept in the lightof what has already been discussed.

Firstly, as a description of leadership practice the concept ofdistributed leadership appears to be of limited value, beingtoo broad and ambiguous to adequately capture thesubtleties and complexities of leadership in higher education.Whilst it is certainly helpful in drawing attention to bottom-upand horizontal forms of influence as well as emergent andcollective forms of engagement, it only gives a partialrepresentation of organisational leadership processes. Thus, atthe very least, we must distinguish between formalendeavours to distribute leadership through delegation anddevolution and the more informal dispersal of leadership,responsibility and accountability based on individual andgroup interests, abilities and motivations. Within much of theliterature135 the notion of ‘distributed leadership’is presented inopposition to hierarchical leadership, yet in fact our data pointto a symbiotic relationship between the two – both in theenactment of leadership and in the expressed preference ofhigher education staff. Collinson and Collinson136 refer to suchan approach as ‘blended leadership’ and challenge thenormative push towards purer forms of distributed leadership.Left unchecked such a distinction may become as misleadingand false a dichotomy as that between ‘leadership’ and‘management’137.

As an analytical framework for looking at leadership practice,the concept of distributed leadership is more promising. Asnoted above, it draws attention to influence and agencybeyond that within the formal hierarchical structure. Its

132 Leitch, S. (2006)133 Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005) p324134 Hefce (1999)

135 e.g. Gronn, P. (2002); Harris, A. (2003); Woods, P.A. et al (2004)136 Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006a)137 Mintzberg, H. (2004)

65

fundamental value in this respect, however, is to drawattention to the wider environment of leadership – thesystems, processes and structures (both formal and informal)in which leadership practice occurs. Thus, for example, themanner in which budgets and resources are allocated, thephysical layout of buildings, formal and informal channels forcommunication and participation, and performanceappraisal, recognition and reward processes, are allfundamental elements of leadership practice. To this extentwe need to direct attention to the non-human as well as thehuman aspects of organisational life. Structure andenvironment is not something static and unchanging buthighly dynamic and integrally linked to the human elementsof the system. Thus, organisational structures both influence,and are influenced by, the manner in which varyingorganisational actors interact. Furthermore, there is asignificant temporal dimension to this. Our work supports thenotion of leadership as a long-term and contextuallyembedded process138 and encourages consideration of thechanging motivations and actions of individuals over thecourse of their lifetime. Representations of leadership typicallyfocus on outputs whilst neglecting the precursors and longerterm consequences of leadership behaviour.

As a normative prescription of leadership practice in highereducation the notion of ‘distributed leadership’ should betreated with caution. Given the changing nature of the sector,whereby collegial and bureaucratic structures are giving wayto corporate and enterprise cultures139, distributed leadershipappears to offer a powerful normative framework thatembodies both concepts of collegiality and managerialismthat may be appealing to academic leaders. Thus, distributedleadership may be seen as a bridge between top-down andbottom-up decision making processes that is more flexibleand responsive than the traditional committee structure, butwhich evades the professionalisation of management rolesthat has crept into other sectors such as the NHS. Despite this,however, there is a serious danger that distributed leadershipmay lead to a one sided perspective that could ultimatelyhamper organisational effectiveness. As indicated earlier, theoppositional tone of much of the literature paints distributedleadership as a successor, rather than complement, totraditional hierarchical leadership which may mask theunderlying nature of power and influence withinorganisations. This also provides less, rather than more, clarityon the differences and similarities between roles across theorganisation (e.g. cross-cutting roles such as PVC versushierarchical roles such as VC or HoS) and on how the holders of

such roles can best be supported and developed. As Pearceargues:

“The issue is not vertical leadership or shared leadership.Rather the issues are: (1) When is leadership mostappropriately shared? (2) How does one develop sharedleadership? And (3) how does one utilise both vertical andshared leadership to leverage the capabilities of knowledgeworkers? It is only by addressing these issues head on thatorganisations will move toward a more appropriate modelof leadership in the age of knowledge work.” 140

Most of all, however, our research leads us to conclude thatthe notion of ‘distributed leadership’ is most powerful as arhetorical device141 . In this respect, the notion of distributedleadership could be used to help construct social identitiesthat bring together notions such as ‘academic’and ‘manager’so that, for example, management is seen as an integralelement of being a good academic or ‘management’ isreframed as ‘leadership’, rendering it more appealing tothose resistant to managerial connotations. However,distributed leadership may also be used by those in positionsof real power to disguise power differentials – offering theillusion of consultation and participation whilst obscuringthe mechanisms by which decisions are reached andresources distributed. Such a ‘shadow side’ to distributedleadership is particularly concerning when considered in thecurrent environment in which most UK universities arerationalising (if not eliminating) their main formalisedmechanisms for bottom-up influence and decision-making –i.e. the committee structure. Does ‘distributed leadership’just offer an empty rhetoric of engagement where greaterpowers are being divested to smaller groups of people?Salaman142 gives a warning based on past lessons:

“Although the current cult of leadership may seem (andindeed present itself) in marked contrast, even opposition,to management (hence the need for definitions to clarifythe differences between the two), in functional terms theyare remarkably similar in that both offer to resolve thefailures of organisation by avoiding and individualisingthem.”

It would appear therefore, that distributed leadership isultimately a political concept. Interpretations are invariablyshaped by the stance of the perceiver – born of anideological commitment to the collective or an instrumentalcommitment to performance and power. It is undoubtedly a

138 Hosking, D.M. (1988); Wood, M. (2005)139 McNay, I. (1999)140 Pearce, C.L. (2004) p55

141 Grint, K. (2000)142 Salaman, G. (2004) p77

66


concept deserving further investigation and considerationbut ultimately one that is more complex and controversialthan may at first appear. What remains clear, however, is thatdistributed leadership is not a successor to individualleadership in higher education, removing the need forformal leaders and structures, but rather something that

might reside alongside individual leadership. At best it is arhetorical term to legitimise drawing upon the capabilitiesand motivations of a far wider range of constituents andbetter aligning leadership with the collective interests oforganisational members. Whether or not this happens, itwould seem, remains largely a political contest.

67

11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This final section of the report highlights conclusions andrecommendations for university leaders and policy makers aswell as development priorities for the sector. In line with theoverall structure of the report these have been groupedunder five sections: structural/organisational, individual,social, contextual and developmental. An additional sectionon further research has also been included.

Structural/organisational

1. There is a widespread recognition of the importance ofeffective leadership and management in all of theuniversities studied. In addition to hierarchical or top-down leadership, however, our findings reveal thesignificance of bottom-up and horizontal leadership.HEIs are thus advised to review their leadership strategyto ensure that it facilitates and enables multiple forms ofengagement including informal, emergent andhorizontal leadership.

2. All of the institutions in our sample have recentlyundergone a significant period of restructuring. Ourfindings imply that many institutions would now beadvised to consider a period of consolidation rather thancontinued change – to draw on and embed existingknowledge and expertise rather than endeavouring toresolve organisational challenges through continuedstructural redesign. Whilst restructuring may be a keypart of the change process, the establishment of sharedpurpose, identity and social capital is largely a bottom-upprocess requiring dialogue, the development ofrelationships and collective ownership.

3. Our research indicates that leadership at the faculty,school and departmental levels is strongly linked toaccess to resources, specifically control of the budget and especially how any surpluses are utilised. Werecommend, therefore, that when devolvingresponsibility attention is paid to the devolution offinancial and line management control. Particularconsideration should be given to the possibleimplications for organisational fragmentation and thedisempowerment of leaders at more senior levels withinthe institution.

4. Where the proceeds of activities (such as teaching and research) are returned to originating schools/departments, rather than retained within a central pot,

it can facilitate a more entrepreneurial culture. A risk,however, is the duplication of roles and responsibilitiesacross the institution and the creation of organisationalsystems and structures that increase internalcompetition and inhibit inter-disciplinary collaboration.These risks can be mitigated by encouraging a sense ofcommon professional identity amongst people insimilar roles in different parts of the university – e.g.amongst HoSs, School Managers, Deans, etc.

5. Our findings point towards a professionalisation ofmanagement and leadership in higher education andacknowledge the increasing significance of professionalmanagers working alongside academics and support staffto progress the academic mission of institutions. Formalcareer structures, status and reward for these groupsshould be enhanced and special effort made to improvethe appreciation of this contribution amongst academics.

6. Across universities in our sample there is an increasingtendency to merge/cluster schools and departments –partly due to a perceived lack of sufficiently skilledleaders to take on the increasingly complex anddemanding roles of Head, or a wish to reduce thecomplexity of line-management responsibilities at the university centre. The role of Head of School/Department is thus likely to become more trans-disciplinary and people will increasingly be expected tomanage disciplines other than their own. This will requirea reframing of the criteria of ‘academic credibility’, perhapsaway from research excellence in a particular field tobroader managerial and professional expertise. Such aprocess could be facilitated by the Leadership Foundation(and/or similar bodies) in helping to articulate alternativeforms of ‘excellence’in higher education.

7. The manner in which individual, group andorganisational performance is assessed and rewarded isfundamental to how leadership is enacted in universities (like all organisations) and conflictingpolicies/procedures are likely to give rise to dysfunctionalbehaviour. Thus, for example, performance related payfor individuals may undermine collaboration andteamwork, and the current RAE climate may driveacademics to disengage from non-RAE rated activities(including teaching, management and ‘third stream’activities). The post-RAE environment may provideopportunities to recognise more diverse forms ofcontribution and efforts should be taken to acknowledgethe value of these across institutions.

68


8. Within institutions the Annual Strategic Planning Exerciseis one of the main mechanisms for achieving alignmentbetween department, faculty and institutional strategies.It also offers an important channel for bottom-up as wellas top-down influence. As such, it is recommended thatthis process is conducted carefully and looks at purposeand direction as well as financial business plans.Furthermore, it may be worth extending the process toother aspects of organisational strategy including HR,leadership development, Information Services andBuildings and Estates to ensure integration andconsistency of approach across all parts of the institution.

9. Our findings highlight the importance of a clear andcompelling direction to be communicated from the topof the organisation, whilst also offering genuineopportunities for consultation and participation. It isimportant, therefore, that a broad cross-section ofrepresentatives is involved in key strategic decisionmaking groups and that senior leaders are visible,approachable and perceived to have a genuine empathywith the concerns of academic and professional staff.

10. Core to increasing engagement with leadership andmanagement in higher education is the creation of aculture in which such activities are regarded as integral toacademic work. Highlighting the central role of effectiveleadership and management in ensuring high-qualityresearch, teaching and third stream activity is therefore amajor priority for the sector so that it is embraced ratherthan rejected by academics. A key element of this shiftwill include a clearer mapping of academic progressionpathways and associated activities and responsibilities.

Individual

1. Although this study focused on formal leadership andmanagement roles in higher education it was clearlyevident that in order to conduct their work theseindividuals are highly dependent on others in ‘semi-formal’ roles, such as Director of Research, ProgrammeDirector and Principal Investigator. Whilst such roles maynot be formally recognised and rewarded by theinstitution they play a vital role in organisationalleadership and may well become formal leaders of thefuture. Universities would, therefore, be well advised toacknowledge the contribution of such roles and findways of recognising and rewarding such individuals (andgroups) wherever possible.

2. Within many of the institutions in our sample there is amisalignment between measures of individual and

institutional performance. This is particularly true foracademics in research-intensive universities whereindividuals are recognised for research performance (asdetermined through peer-reviewed publications) overand above other aspects of their role (such asinstitutional leadership, pastoral care of students andemployer engagement). In such cases, academic leadersreport that the provision of a personal research assistantassists in maintaining their research performancealongside their managerial duties, but in order tolegitimise this investment the provision needs to bemade from higher up the organisation. Manyinstitutions are also finding a robust annual PDR processan effective means of better aligning individual andorganisational objectives, however, ultimately, toaddress this issue universities may need to work moreclosely with policy makers in ensuring that nationalmeasures do not compete with organisational andindividual aspirations.

3. Our research has clearly indicated the continuing andevolving developmental needs of individuals in bothformal and informal leadership roles. Universities areadvised to proactively plan and manage the careers oftheir staff, offering a clear progression path anddevelopment opportunities throughout their time inthe organisation. Furthermore, in the light of the findingthat the vast majority of university leaders would like tocontinue in a formal leadership position, despite aninitial reluctance to take on the role, there should becontinued opportunities for these people to discusstheir career aspirations with senior colleagues.

4. One way of better utilising knowledge and experiencewithin the institution is to assign previous post-holders(such as Head of School) as mentors to in-comingcandidates. Many institutions already do this, usuallycontinuing to offer a salary increment to past postholders in return for engagement in such activities.

5. One of the most significant findings from this research,relates to the changing nature of leadership roles aspeople progress through the institution. In particular itwas noted that sources of power vary between linemanaging and non line-managing roles. Such a situationcan give rise to role conflict, lack of clarity and difficultiesin leveraging influence, especially for cross-cutting/horizontal roles. These differences need to be formallyacknowledged and taken into account when preparingand selecting individuals for these roles.

69

Social

1. A significant feature of leadership in higher education isthe team or committee approach. Within universities,strategic and operational decisions are inevitably takenand implemented by groups and, despite variations inroles and responsibilities, the primary emphasis is onparticipation and consensus. Nevertheless, there is avalue in ensuring transparency of decision-makingprocesses and maintaining clear lines of accountability.In order for team leadership to be effective, evidencefrom the sector highlights the importance of anominated team leader ‘authorised’ to work for thecollective interests of the group.

2. Leadership in universities is viewed as widely distributed.Strategic responsibility and operational control arefrequently devolved and require the active engagementof a large constituency. There are also ampleopportunities for people lower down the hierarchy toinnovate and influence direction within their part of theorganisation. The challenge, however, remains theinterface between top-down, bottom-up and horizontalleadership. Universities are advised to consider how theycan better nurture and maximise the effects of emergentand collective leadership. Care needs to be taken to avoidespousing the rhetoric of ‘distributed leadership’ butoperating in a traditional hierarchical manner.

3. Our research has highlighted the significance of personaland professional identities in the construction anduptake of leadership roles. Of particular importance is thesense of a shared ‘social identity’ between leaders andthose they are expected to lead and follow. Difficultiesarise where identities give rise to conflicting loyalties andcommitments (e.g. to the institution versus the academic discipline; one’s academic colleagues or ‘university management’). To this extent, universities areencouraged to consider how they can offer opportunitiesfor leaders and managers to discuss and explore rolesand identities and develop peer support networksbetween people at similar levels (e.g. HoS, HoD). Whilstformal structures and forums for communication may bepart of the solution, findings from this study imply that‘identity work’143 is frequently facilitated through informalchannels such as email groups, social gatherings(lunches, drinks, etc.) and the opportunity for people toget to know one another as individuals. The learning setscreated during leadership development interventionsare another useful source of such networks and shouldbe encouraged, wherever possible, to continue beyondthe end of the intervention.

Contextual

1. Leadership in higher education is strongly influenced bythe broader social and political context. Overall, the UKModernisation Agenda is pushing universities to becomemore commercially-orientated and market-sensitive.This is associated with a gradual shift from bureaucraticand collegial forms of organisation towards moreentrepreneurial and corporate models144. Brand isbecoming increasingly important and universities aretailoring their provision to better meet student demandand expectations. Within this context, however, it isimportant that universities do not lose sight of their corepurpose as educational institutions and disengage staffwho are committed to broader public service values.Where a shift in value set is required this needs to bedone with sensitivity and the active engagement of awide range of stakeholders both within and beyond theinstitution. Furthermore, as issues affecting the sector asa whole it is advisable that universities, perhaps viabodies such as the Leadership Foundation, Russell and1994 Groups, find ways of actively influencing thecontinuing political debate such that a positive andsustainable future is mapped out for the sector.

2. Within the transforming higher education sector it islikely that universities will become increasinglyspecialised in terms of activity, subject areas and clientgroups (especially post-2008 RAE). Within our research,universities already show evidence of focusing on theparticular opportunities offered by their legacy, locationand disciplinary mix, and are increasingly looking to buildon this through strategic and commercial alliances.Internationalisation, a further priority for all institutions,was being pursued not just through increasedrecruitment of overseas students but also through the establishment of overseas campuses and/orinternational partnerships. In this climate, universities areencouraged to identify and clearly express their specificstrengths and areas for development priorities. Whenviewing policy and performance across the sector as awhole it will become increasingly important to recogniseindividual differences between institutions.

3. Demographic changes and the drive to increaseparticipation in higher education in the UK is leading todiversification of the student population (including age,ethnicity, social background and prior education). In theface of such changes universities may need to reviewexisting policies and procedures (including entryqualifications and student support) as well as howdiversification of the student body is reflected in staff

143 Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) 144 McNay, I. (1995)

70


recruitment and promotion. In particular, within all of theuniversities in our sample there is little in the way ofgender and ethnic diversity at the senior levels. Toaddress this balance, institutions will increasingly need totake account of the barriers to taking on such roles andconsider the implementation of flexible workingpractices and personal support for under-representedstaff groups.

4. Alongside the diversification of the student body, it isargued that students are becoming more selective in theinstitutions they choose to go to and the services onoffer. This process has been accelerated in England bythe introduction of tuition fees and the raising or removalof the cap is likely to increase this further. Competitionbetween universities is increasingly not just on teachingand learning issues but also lifestyle choices (for staff aswell as students). As a consequence effective brandingand promotion is becoming essential for universities inorder to ensure student recruitment as well as attractinghigh-profile research-academics in the run up to the 2008RAE. At the same time, European HEIs are beginning tooffer courses in English, yet retain considerable statefunding: it is now possible for UK students to undertake afully-funded degree in Scandinavia or Germany, inEnglish. These competitive pressures on what hastraditionally been considered a captive ‘home’market willcall for aggressive responses and significant changeswithin UK HEIs.

5. The main challenges facing academic leaders in highereducation are, in many respects, the same as those facingUK public sector in general, i.e. “doing more with less”. Theconsequence is a need to engage with a broader range ofstakeholder groups and respond to increasing external and internal pressures. The life of the contemporary UKacademic is a long way removed from the traditional imageof the “ivory tower” and stress-related illness is becomingincreasingly common. Universities and policy makerswould be advised to consider the potential detrimentaleffect of future changes and directives to ensure that thissituation does not deteriorate to the extent to whichpeople no longer choose to work within the sector. Withinthis, leadership development offers an important forum forsharing concerns and reconfiguring the manner in whichhigher education leadership operates.

6. As the UK higher education sector becomes more diverseand subject to increasing pressures there is a gravedanger of fragmentation. Collaboration betweenuniversities remains largely informal to the extent that

they operate as autonomous organisations and can pickand choose when and whether to collaborate. In thisenvironment there is substantial requirement for animpartial body to provide sector-wide representationand to take a broader perspective on strategic challengesand priorities. Due to their restricted membership theRussell and 1994 Groups are not well placed to play thisrole (despite being an important voice for specific partsof the sector), however, organisations such as theLeadership Foundation, Universities UK and Guild-HEwould be well placed to represent the interests of thesector as a whole. It is thus recommended thatLeadership Foundation continues to drive the nationalagenda for leadership and management in highereducation.

Developmental

1. The project identified a clear need and support in UKuniversities for ongoing internal and external leadershipdevelopment and a gradual shift to a more bespoke,tailor-made and individualised approach with a widerrange of developmental activities on offer. Severalinstitutions in England were able to introduce dramaticchange through the Hefce Rewarding and DevelopingStaff initiative, leaving institutions from other parts of theUK at a disadvantage in this respect. In order to establishappropriate leadership development provision withininstitutions financial support at national and regionallevels is clearly advantageous and we would recommendgreater funding provision at this level. With the shift topersonalised bespoke provision, however, we would alsoadvise organisations to remain aware of the potential forthe creation of “silos” in leadership development and bealert to the need of linking individual with organisationaldevelopment priorities.

2. The project also highlighted barriers to taking up a formal leadership role and some of the personal and professional tensions academics may face when engaging with leadership, management and development. Leadership and managementprogrammes/initiatives should be designed in ways thatare sensitive to structural, organisational and culturalissues, take into account individual backgrounds, skillsand experiences and, wherever possible, engage thelearning community at the design stage. Since manyinternal programmes/initiatives are delivered by externalproviders it is important that they should be perceived tobe relevant for the higher education context and theproviders deemed to be “credible”by participants.

71

3. Much of the evidence on the effectiveness of leadership development highlights the need for an integrated approach that aligns individual, group andorganisational perspectives. To this extent, leadershipdevelopment should not just be regarded as thedevelopment of “leaders” but a broader organisationaldevelopment intervention. To this end, there is a need tofind ways for a close engagement and cooperationbetween HR departments and SDUs through which acoherent approach to individual and organisationalrecognition, reward and development can be facilitated.Within this process, sharing and exchange of PDR andsimilar data between the different parts of the universitycould be important in identifying current and futuredevelopment needs and aligning these with careerprogression and reward mechanisms.

4. Our findings reveal the value of facilitating dialogueacross the organisation, particularly the opportunity forpeople to engage in debate with senior and juniorcolleagues. It is proposed that all leaders and manager-academics would benefit from increased support andrecognition of their own leadership development andlearning through greater interaction, engagement andinput from the most senior people in the organisation. Itis also beneficial to stimulate cross-sector debatebetween peers from different sectors, and moreopportunities for vertical slice as well as cross-institutional development interventions are advisable. Inaddition, universities should recognise the value ofinformal leadership development including holdingexternal leadership roles, attendance at national andinternational conferences, etc.

5. As support networks were identified as one of the mainbenefits arising from formal development programmes,participants should be encouraged (and supported) tocontinue interacting beyond the end of the programme.This may require some additional resource andfacilitation from programme providers and theinstitution.

6. Succession planning was identified as a major challengeand significant priority within all universities in oursample. Institutions are advised to identify critical rolesand positions within the university when initiating orimproving succession planning and internal talentmanagement processes and develop successionmanagement tools and methodologies for deploymentacross the institution. The Leadership Foundation is wellplaced to provide a forum for sharing experiences and

best practice in succession planning and talentmanagement across the sector as a whole.

7. When designing and delivering leadership developmentan increased diversity of staff in terms of theirbackgrounds and experiences and a wide variety of theirroles, employment terms and conditions should be takeninto account. As polarisation between semi-formal andformal leadership roles is wider now than before,universities are encouraged to offer interim posts (suchas deputy) to support Heads, Deans and other key postholders that would act as an experiential means fordeveloping future leaders.

8. Despite recent investment in leadership development byuniversities and sector agencies our research clearlyidentifies a range of diverse and sometimes competingperspectives on leadership in higher education.Furthermore, few universities have a clearly articulatedleadership and management strategy or framework. Inthis context there is a real danger that investment will notlead to the desired outcomes due to misalignmentbetween leadership development and notions ofleadership capability and performance within theorganisation145. Extensive and robust evaluation ofleadership development is one mechanism forendeavouring to connect development to performanceoutcomes but is rarely implemented in most HEIs. As asource of expertise on this topic the LeadershipFoundation may need to consider providing more activeguidance and support to universities on mechanismsand ways of evaluating internal and external leadershipdevelopment provision developed through research.

9. In a small number of the universities visited during thisresearch we noted how leadership development is beingused as a mechanism for promoting diversity andequality in higher education. We would advocate wideruse of such an approach whereby leadershipdevelopment is aligned with other organisationalinitiatives and used as a vehicle for exploring andprogressing organisational values and priorities andpromoting a positive working environment.

Further research

The research documented in this report gives valuableinsights into how leadership is conceived, enacted anddeveloped in higher education. In defining the focus of theresearch, however, some boundaries were drawn up aroundthe sample and questions that limit the possibility ofgeneralising our findings beyond university leaders in formal

145 For a best practice guide to leadership development for organisations see James, K. and Burgoyne, J. (2002)

72


roles. Furthermore, many new questions emerged as ourresearch proceeded, each of which is worthy of furtherinvestigation. Below we highlight a number of key themesthat we believe merit further empirical investigation:

1. Our research has indicated that the work of leadership inhigher education is highly dependent on thecontribution of staff in leadership roles that are onlypartially recognised in formal organisational structures,such as principal investigators, course directors,programme coordinators, marketing managers andpersonal assistants. Individuals in such roles exertsubstantial influence on products, processes andinterfaces of key strategic importance to the institution.Despite this, they are frequently not recognised onorganisational charts nor formally rewarded (ordeveloped) for their contribution. How do people in suchroles perceive and contribute towards leadership of theinstitution? What are the incentives and barriers fortaking on a more active engagement in leadership? Andhow do they shape and inform discourses aboutleadership and strategic direction within theirinstitutions?

2. In a similar manner, our research has revealed howinformal structures and networks (such as HoS forums,teaching and research groups, etc.) influence theoperation of formal institutional systems and processes.Furthermore, the influence of such networks frequentlyspans organisational boundaries and may remain largelyhidden to the institution. What can HEIs do to take betteradvantage of such networks and relationships (oftenreferred to as “social capital”) and gain a clear picture ofthe dynamics of leadership, influence and power acrossthe system?

3. The perspective of distributed leadership points towardsa widening of the boundaries of leadership and who isseen to have a legitimate voice in the leadership,governance and management of organisations. This ismore than idealised ‘consultation’ or ‘collegiality’: withinthe increasingly marketised context of higher educationwhat is the role played by students and other consumersof higher education products and services in the mannerin which universities are run? What are the implications(both positive and negative) of a more ‘customer-focused’approach to leadership in higher education? Weadvocate, as a matter of some urgency, a benchmarkstudy of the readiness of current leaders to face these andother challenges highlighted above.

4. Our research has revealed a broadening of careerpathways and motivations for early-career academicsand administrative/professional managers. A recognitionand awareness of such trends is essential if HEIs are toplan effectively for leadership and managementsuccession at more senior levels. Further research isrequired to clearly map progression pathways for suchindividuals and to draw out the implications for selection,appraisal, reward and development.

5. Likewise, our research has indicated the manner in whichleadership and management roles vary as peopleprogress through the organisation. In particular, weidentify a tendency to alternate between ‘horizontal’andvertical’ leadership roles that require fundamentallydifferent approaches (e.g. DVC vs. HoS). How can highereducation leaders be developed and supported to betterenable them to handle the changing and evolving natureof university leadership roles? Is it possible to identify aset of competencies, capacities and/or developmentalopportunities for different leadership roles within highereducation? And what would a longer-term, biographicview of leadership within universities look like?

6. The findings from our research support the notion thatone’s engagement with and experience of leadership isclosely associated with conceptions of personal,professional and social identity. What are the processes ofidentity formation in universities and what, if anything,can be done to resolve tensions and conflicts betweenmultiple identities? How does leadership development(and related activities) influence identity formation andidentification within HEIs?

7. In our analysis of university structures we identified anumber of differing approaches to the devolution anddistribution of areas of responsibility and accountability(including HR, finances and line management). Ourresearch does not, however, permit a comparison of therelative effectiveness of such approaches in terms oforganisational performance. Further empirical workwould be required in order to highlight any such trends.

8. Another recommendation for further research arisingfrom this project concerns the diversity of academic andprofessional managers and leaders in higher education.The demographic of university leadership remainslargely that of the white, middle-aged man and does notsufficiently represent either the profile of highereducation staff or students now and in the future. To thisextent, research is required to identify the perceptions

73

and experiences of staff in under-represented groups toreveal barriers to engagement in leadership and ways inwhich these could be alleviated.

9. Finally, our research has revealed an increasingly bespokeand personalised approach to leadership developmentin higher education. The variety and complexity posedby such approaches, however, renders effectiveevaluation particularly challenging. Further work is

required to determine appropriate mechanisms foridentifying the impact of different forms of interventionon performance at individual, group and organisationallevels, across a wide range of criteria (financial, academic,social, etc.). Such work should assist individuals andorganisations in the selection of an appropriateleadership development approach and techniques for itsongoing monitoring and evaluation.

74


12. REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (2004) ‘Avoiding repetitive change syndrome’,MIT Sloane Management Review, 45(2), 93-98.

Baldridge, J. V. (1971), Power and Conflict in the University. NewYork: John Wiley.

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G.L. (1978) PolicyMaking and Effective Leadership. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bargh, C., Scott, P. and Smith, D. (1996) Governing Universities:Changing the Culture? Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Barrett, P. and Barrett, L. (2007) The Management of AcademicWorkload: Summary Report, Research and DevelopmentSeries. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992) Process and Structure in HigherEducation, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

Benfari, R.C., Wilkinson, H.E. and Orth, C.D. (1986) ‘Theeffective use of power’, Business Horizons, May/June, 12-16.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P.A. and Harvey, J.A. (2003),Distributed Leadership. Nottingham: National College ofSchool Leadership.

Bennis, W. (1999) ‘The leadership advantage’, Leader to Leader,12, 18-23.

Berdahl, R. (1999) ‘Universities and governments in the 21stcentury: the US experience’. In D. Braun and F-X. Merrien (eds.)Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? AComparative View. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Bolden, R. (2004) What is Leadership?, Leadership South WestResearch Report. University of Exeter, Centre for LeadershipStudies.

Bolden, R. (ed.) (2005) What is Leadership Development?Purpose and Practice, Leadership South West Research Report.University of Exeter, Centre for Leadership Studies.

Bolden, R. (ed.) (2006) Leadership Development in Context,Leadership South West Research Report. University of Exeter,Centre for Leadership Studies.

Braun, D. and Merrien, F-X. (1999) ‘Governance of universitiesand modernisation of the state: analytical aspects’. In D. Braunand F-X Merrien (eds.) Towards a New Model of Governance forUniversities? A Comparative View. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Breakewell, G. (2006) ‘Leadership in education: the case ofVice-Chancellors’, Perspectives, 10(2), 52-58.

Bryman, A. (2007a) Effective Leadership in Higher Education:Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for HigherEducation.

Bryman, A. (2007b) ‘Effective leadership in Higher Education:a literature review’, Studies in Higher Education, forthcoming.

Burgoyne, J., Hirsh, W. and Williams, S. (2004) The Developmentof Management and Leadership Capability and its Contributionto Performance: The Evidence, the Prospects and the ResearchNeed. A review of the evidence based literature and researchfor the Leadership and Management Unit of the Departmentfor Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department for Tradeand Industry (DTI), February.

Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2004) Leadership Development:Evidence and Beliefs. Nottingham: National College for SchoolLeadership. URL: www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7A/88/bush-

school-leadership-full.pdf

Campbell, D., Dardis, G. and Campbell, K. (2003) ‘Enhancingincremental influence: a focused approach to leadershipdevelopment’, Journal of Leadership and OrganizationalStudies, 10(1), 29-44.

Clark, B.R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities:Ogranizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford:Pergamon.

Clark, B.R. (2001) ‘The entrepreneurial university: newfoundations for collegiality, autonomy and achievement’,Higher Education Management, 13(2), 9-24.

Clark, B. (2004) Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities inCase Studies and Concepts. Maidenhead: SRHE and OU Press.

Cohen, M.D. and March, J.C. (1974) Leadership and Ambiguity:the American President. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006a) ‘Blended Leadership’:Employee Perspectives on Effective Leadership in the UK furthereducation sector. Lancaster: Centre for Excellence inLeadership.

Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006b) Leadership Challenges.Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Conger, J.A. (1998) ‘Qualitative research as the cornerstonemethodology for understanding leadership’, LeadershipQuarterly, 9(1), 107-21.

Davies, J. L. (2001) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurial culturesin European universities’, Higher Education Management,13(2), 25-43.

75

Day, D. (2001) ‘Leadership development: a review in context’,Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.

Dearlove, J. (2002) ‘A continuing role for academics: thegovernance of UK universities in the post-Dearing era’, HigherEducation Quarterly, 56(3), 257-75.

Deem, R. (2001) New Managerialism and the Management ofUK Universities, End of Research Report, Grant No.R000237661, ESRC

Engestrom, Y. (1999) ‘Activity theory and individual and socialtransformation’, In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R-L.Punamaki (eds), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

French, J.R.P. and Raven, B.H. (1958) ‘The bases of social power’,In D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power, Institute for SocialResearch, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI.

Gosling, J. (2004), Leadership Development in Management Education. Business Leadership Review, 1(1).URL: www.mbaworld.com/blr

Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003) ‘The education ofpractising managers’, MIT Sloane Management Review, 45(4), 18-22

Greenleaf, R. (1970) Servant as Leader. San Francisco CA:Jossey Bass.

Grint, K. (2000) The Arts of Leadership. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and Possibilities.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: a new architecture forleadership’, Educational Management and Administration,28(3), 317-38.

Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis’,The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423-51.

Guest, D. and Clinton, M. (2007) Human ResourceManagement and University Performance. Final Report.Research and Development Series, London: LeadershipFoundation for Higher Education.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations, 4th edition.London: Penguin Books.

Harris, A. (2003) ‘Teacher leadership as distributed leadership:heresy, fantasy or possibility?’, School Leadership andManagement, 23 (3), 313-24.

Haslam, S. A., Platow, M. J., Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., McGarty,C., Oakes, P. J., Johnson, S., Ryan, M. K. & Veenstra, K. (2001).‘Social identity and the romance of leadership: theimportance of being seen to be 'doing it for us'’, GroupProcesses and Intergroup Relations (Special Issue on ‘Socialidentity processes in organizations’), 4, 191-205.

Haslam, S.A. (2004) Psychology in Organizations: The SocialIdentity Approach 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Hefce (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (1999)Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Bristol: Hefce, URL:www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/PerfInd/

Hefce (2004) Hefce Strategic Plan 2003-2008 (Revised April2004). Bristol: Hefce.

Henkel, M. (1997) ‘Academic values and the university ascorporate enterprise’, Higher Education Quarterly, 51(2), 134-43.

Henkel, M. (2000) Academic Identities and Policy Change inHigher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hogg, M. A. (2001) ‘A social identity theory of leadership’,Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

Hosking, D.M. (1988) ‘Organizing, leadership and skilfulprocess’, Journal of Management Studies, 25(2), 147-66.

Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005) ‘The role of followers in thecharismatic leadership process: relationships and theirconsequences’, Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

Ivory, C., Miskell, P., Neely, A., Shipton, H. and White, A. (2007)The Future of Business School Faculty, February. London:Advanced Institute of Management Research.

James, K. and Burgoyne, J. (2002) Leadership Development:Best practice guide for organisations. London: Centre forExcellence in Management and Leadership. Online atwww.mln.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/best_practice_revised.pdf.

Jones, M. (2003) ‘Achieving excellence: changing paradigms,cultures, entrepreneurship and the role of continuingprofessional development in Science and Engineering’. In G.Williams (ed.) The Enterprising University: Reform, Excellence and Equity. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978) The Social Psychology ofOrganizations. New York: John Wiley.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) ‘The discipline ofteams’, Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-46.

76


Kennie, T. and Woodfield, S. (2007) Top Team Structures in UKHigher Education Institutions, Composition, Challenges, andChanges, Tertiary Education and Management, 13(4), 331-48.

Knight, P.T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001) Departmental Leadership inHigher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Kogan, M. (1999) ‘Academic and administrative interface’. In M.Henkel and B. Little (eds.) Changing Relationships betweenHigher Education and the State. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. (2000) Reforming Higher Education.London: Jessica Kingsley.

Kogan, M. and Marton, S.G. (2000) ‘The State and HigherEducation’. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, and M. Henkel(eds.) Transforming Higher Education. London: JessicaKingsley.

Lapworth, S. (2004) ‘Arresting decline in shared governance:towards a flexible model for academic participation’, HigherEducation Quarterly, 58(4), 299-314.

Leitch, S. (2006) Prosperity for All in the Global Economy – WorldClass Skills: Final Report. URL: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leitch

Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (2004)Introducing the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.Available online at www.lfhe.ac.uk

Lumby, J. (2003) ‘Distributed leadership in colleges: leading ormisleading?’, Educational Management and Administration,31(3), 283-93.

MacBeath, J. (2005) ‘Leadership as distributed: a matter ofpractice’, School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 349-66.

MacBeath, J., Oduro, G. K. T., and Waterhouse, J. (2004)Distributed Leadership in Action: a Study of Current Practice inSchools. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

McNay, I. (1995) ‘From the collegial academy to corporateenterprise: the changing cultures of universities’. In T. Schuller(ed.) The Changing University? Buckingham: SRHE and OUPress.

McNay, I. (1999) ‘Changing cultures in UK Higher Education:the state as corporate market bureaucracy and the emergentacademic enterprise’. In D. Braun and F. Merrien (eds.) Towardsa New Model of Governance for Universities? A ComparativeView. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Middlehurst, R. (1993) Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHEand OU Press.

Middlehurst, R. (1999) ‘New realities for leadership and

governance in Higher Education?’, Tertiary Education andManagement, 5, 307-29.

Middlehurst, R., Garret, R., Pennington, G. and Sibbald, A.(2001) Developing Senior Managers in the Higher EducationSector: A Report. Sheffield: HESDA.

Miller, H. (1995) The Management of Change in Universities.Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1975) ‘The manager's job: folklore and fact’,Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 49-61.

Mintzberg, H. (2004) ‘Enough leadership’, Harvard BusinessReview, November.

Northouse, P.G. (2003) Leadership: Theory and Practice.London: Sage Publications.

Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism, HigherEducation and the knowledge economy: from the freemarket to knowledge capitalism’, Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–45.

Ospina, S. and Sorensen, G.L.J. (2006) ‘A constructionist lenson leadership: charting new territory’. In G.R. Goethals andG.L.J. Sorensen (eds.) The Quest for a General Theory ofLeadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Parry, K.W. (1998) ‘Grounded theory and social process: a newdirection for leadership research’, Leadership Quarterly, 9(1),85-105.

Pearce, C.L. (2004) ‘The future of leadership: combiningvertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work’,Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.

Peterson, M.W. (1995) ‘Images of university structure,governance, and leadership: adaptive strategies for the newenvironment’. In D.D.Dill and B. Sporn (eds.) Emerging Patternsof Social Demand and University Reform: Through a GlassDarkly. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Petrov, G., Bolden, R. and Gosling, J. (2006) DevelopingCollective Leadership in Higher Education: Interim Report for theLeadership Foundation for Higher Education, University ofExeter, July.

Raddon, A. (2006) Drawing the Boundaries in Academic Work:Individual Views and Experiences of Teaching, Research andAdministration, Paper presented at the SRHE AnnualConference, Brighton, UK, 12-14 December.

Raelin, J. (2004) ‘Don’t bother putting leadership into people’,Academy of Management Executive, (18), 131-35.

77

Salaman, G. (2004) ‘Competencies of managers,competencies of leaders’. In J. Storey (ed.) Leadership inOrganisations: Current Issues and Key Trends. London:Routledge.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice ofLearning Company. London: Ramdon House.

Shattock, M. (2002) ‘Rebalancing modern concepts ofuniversity governance’, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), 235-44.

Shattock, M. (2003) Managing Successful Universities.Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Smith, D., Adams, J. and Mount, D. (2007) UK Universities andTheir Executive Officers: the Changing Role of Pro–Vice-Chancellors. Final Report, Leadership Foundation for HigherEducation.

Spillane, J.P. (2004) Distributed Leadership: What’s all theHoopla?Working paper, Northwestern University, Institute forPolicy Research.

Spillane, J.P. (2006) Distributed Leadership. San-Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2004) ‘Towards atheory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective’,Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

Sporn, B. (1999) ‘Towards more adaptive universities: trends ofinstitutional reform in Europe’, Higher Education in Europe,XXIV(1), 23-34.

Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) Managingmanagerial identities: Organizational fragmentation,discourse and identity struggle, Human Relations, 56(10),1163-1193.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979) ‘An integrative theory ofintergroup conflict’, In W.G. Austin and S. Worschel (eds.) TheSocial Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Tricker, R.I. (1984) Corporate Governance. Alderstone: Gower.

Universities UK (2004) Appointing Senior Managers in HigherEducation: a Guide to Best Practice. London: Universities UK.

Weber, M. (1949) Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York:Free Press.

Wheatley, M. (1999) Leadership and the New Science:Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, 2nd edition. San-Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Whitchurch, C. (2004) ‘Administrative managers – a criticallink’, Higher Education Quarterly, 58 (4), 280-98.

Whitchurch, C. (2006a) ‘Who do they think they are? Thechanging identities of professional administrators andmanagers in UK Higher Education’, Journal of Higher EducationPolicy and Management, 28(2), 159-71.

Whitchurch, C. (2006b) Professional Managers in UK HigherEducation: Preparing for Complex Futures. Interim Report,Research and Development Series, London: LeadershipFoundation for Higher Education.

Williams, G. (2003) ‘An honest living or dumbing down?’In G.Williams (ed.) The Enterprising University: Reform, Excellenceand Equity. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

Wood, M. (2005) ‘The fallacy of misplaced leadership’, Journalof Management Studies, 42(6), 1101-21.

Woods, P.A. (2004) ‘Democratic leadership: drawingdistinctions with distributed leadership’, International Journalof Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.

Woods, P.A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J.A., and Wise C. (2004)‘Variabilities and duabilities in distributed leadership: findingsfrom a systematic literature review’, Educational Management,Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 439-57.

Yukl, G.A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, 5th edition.Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

78


13. ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Term

AUT Association of University Teachers (now UCU)

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CPD Continuing Professional Development

DVC Deputy-Vice-Chancellor

Hefce Higher Education Funding Council for England

HEI Higher Education Institution

HERDA Higher Education Regional Development Agency

HoD Head of Department

HoS Head of School

HR Human Resources

HRM Human Resource Management

IIP Investors in People

ILM Institute of Leadership and Management

IoD Institute of Directors

IT Information Technology

LD Leadership development

LEA Local Education Authority

MBA Masters of Business Administration

NHS National Health Service

PDR Performance and Development Review

PVC Pro-Vice-Chancellor

RA Research Assistant

RAE Research Assessment Exercise

SDU Staff Development Unit

SMG Senior Management Group

SMT Senior Management Team

TMP Top Management Programme

(Leadership Foundation for Higher Education)

UCU University and College Union

UK United Kingdom

VC Vice-Chancellor

VCEG Vice-Chancellor/Principal’s Executive Group

79

NOTES

80


NOTES

ABOUT THE CENTRE FOR LEADERSHIP STUDIES

The Centre for Leadership Studies was established in 1997 as a specialist Centre within the School of Business at the University ofExeter. Our mission is to serve as a leading world centre for the advanced study of leadership and leadership development.

Our main activities include a Masters pathway in Leadership Studies, a range of shorter programmes (both open and tailored),leadership consultancy/support and a portfolio of applied and theoretical research.

Our research can be broadly grouped under four themes: personal challenges of leaders; new perspectives on leadership; leadershipdevelopment approaches and impacts; and the relationship between leadership and organisational performance. The specificresearch interests of our faculty span a wide range of topics including leadership in Higher Education; distributed and processperspectives on leadership; leadership for environmental and community sustainability; leading change and continuity; toxicleadership and executive derailment; personal and social identity; leadership and spirituality; multi-cultural leadership; leadershipin the cultural and creative industries; and critical management and leadership education.

We are a regional Centre of Excellence in leadership, partner in international leadership consortia, an advisor on leadershipdevelopment to international corporations and non-governmental organisations and a world-class teaching and research centre.

For further details please visit our website, www.exeter.ac.uk/leadership

BIOGRAPHIES

Richard Bolden

Research Fellow, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

Richard has been a Research Fellow at the Centre for Leadership Studies for over five years, conducting applied studies on leadershipand management in a variety of organisational contexts. His current research explores the interface between individual andcollective approaches to leadership and leadership development and how they contribute towards social change. In addition to hisresearch, Richard teaches on a range of programmes including the MA in Leadership Studies, MBA and CPD scheme. Prior to his workat Exeter, Richard spent a period of time working for a software developer in France and as a researcher at the Institute of WorkPsychology in Sheffield.

Dr Georgy Petrov

Associate Research Fellow, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

Georgy joined the Centre for Leadership Studies in September 2005 to work on the Leadership Foundation for Higher Educationsponsored project on which this report is based. His current work explores leadership and leadership development and issuesrelating to employer engagement with Higher Education. His PhD at the Institute of Education, University of London, focused onreform and transformation in the post-Soviet Russian HE system. While completing this work Georgy was also involved in a numberof joint British-Russian projects aimed at the development of Russian school and university senior/middle managers.

Professor Jonathan Gosling

Director, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter

Jonathan is Professor of Leadership and Director of Executive Education and the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University ofExeter. He has designed and directed development programmes for many companies, especially focusing on international andrapidly changing businesses. His current research looks at how leadership can foster continuity through tough transitions. Jonathanwas co-founder of the International Masters in Practicing Management (IMPM), a collaboration of business schools around the world.

88 Kingsway

London

WC2B 6AA

T 020 7841 2814

F 020 7681 6219

E [email protected]

www.lfhe.ac.uk

ENGAGINGWITHLEADERS IN HIGHEREDUCATION

research and development series...final report richard bolden, georgy petrov and jonathan gosling...

Documents