View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Management and Leadership in the Contemporary University

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Management and Leadership in the Contemporary University
Language: English
Authors: Yielder, Jill, Codling, Andrew
Source: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Nov 2004 26(3):315-328.
Availability: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2004
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Higher Education, Educational Administration, Administrators, Governance, Leadership Responsibility, Leadership Qualities, Professional Education, Foreign Countries, Vocational Education
ISSN: 1360-080X
Abstract: This paper proposes a model of leadership within tertiary education based on research into expertise and institutional distinctiveness. It builds on two contrasting styles of institutional development. Firstly, in the traditional university (higher education) sector, promotion to senior management positions has tended to be based on academic prowess, largely relating to research capability. The result is senior academic leaders who may not be well suited to line or operational management. By contrast, in the traditional polytechnic (vocational education and training) sector, promotion to leadership positions has tended to be based more on perceived managerial qualities, and the resultant leaders may be more inclined to be good managers without displaying overt academic leadership. A model of shared academic management and leadership focused on departmental/school level, based on research into the nature of professional expertise, is therefore proposed which brings together the strengths of both of the above styles. This model develops the responsibilities of both the academic leader and the operational manager and explores their symbiotic relationship. The performance of associated administrative functions is also considered in regards to the overlap between the administration occurring in these roles and that of designated office administrators. The implications of this model on organisation structure and culture and on staff promotion and career development are also addressed. The application of this model to contemporary tertiary institutions that focus on vocational and professional education as a point of distinctiveness in a competitive tertiary education market is also explored. In particular, the potential advantages of this model for dual sector institutions which bring together the strengths of the higher education and the vocational education and training sectors are discussed.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 25
Entry Date: 2005
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=QXL7LP4FDBGFA38Q
Accession Number: EJ681055
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHpouWcxj9C5xM3kys4l-MBAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJkZ-44MHrWyiSvhFgIBEICBmnepwRI29rMNollgL33cgJ05rRUjANOQh52qfrbLzxDvTUxTjzc2mF6WqEjER9NQYeKBSfg5p4DVVZ6VbTYOfeQPP8egKSBB-Qlc9TK97xEH-2EvS9rQUBBblDiQFY4wSZzD1z2gIGsbvzwUz9HrkKhwIJUY9XMCKuSvJDv7B_wVt7EW2yCMTm9OpZYvC8ttfohtg-96RwDLGD0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0015636774;0v101nov.04;2019Mar25.13:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0015636774-1">Management and Leadership in the Contemporary University. </title> <sbt id="AN0015636774-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>This paper proposes a model of leadership within tertiary education based on research into expertise and institutional distinctiveness. It builds on two contrasting styles of institutional development. Firstly, in the traditional university (higher education) sector, promotion to senior management positions has tended to be based on academic prowess, largely relating to research capability. The result is senior academic leaders who may not be well suited to line or operational management. By contrast, in the traditional polytechnic (vocational education and training) sector, promotion to leadership positions has tended to be based more on perceived managerial qualities, and the resultant leaders may be more inclined to be good managers without displaying overt academic leadership. A model of shared academic management and leadership focused on departmental/school level, based on research into the nature of professional expertise, is therefore proposed which brings together the strengths of both of the above styles. This model develops the responsibilities of both the academic leader and the operational manager and explores their symbiotic relationship. The performance of associated administrative functions is also considered in regards to the overlap between the administration occurring in these roles and that of designated office administrators. The implications of this model on organisation structure and culture and on staff promotion and career development are also addressed. The application of this model to contemporary tertiary institutions that focus on vocational and professional education as a point of distinctiveness in a competitive tertiary education market is also explored. In particular, the potential advantages of this model for dual sector institutions which bring together the strengths of the higher education and the vocational education and training sectors are discussed.</p> <p>The management and leadership of tertiary education institutions have been the subject of increasing uncertainty as institutions have grappled with the profound external changes that influence the way they function (Meek & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]) The collegial approach of the traditional post‐war university has given way to the corporate management influences of the last twenty years. Advocates of the former decry the influence of the latter, and vice versa. This article examines some of the notions of academic management and leadership in tertiary education institutions that have contributed to this tension. In particular it discusses the current context of change within tertiary education and how leadership and management are incorporated within both traditional and post‐modern universities and polytechnics. It then proposes a new model of shared leadership, illustrated at the school or departmental level. This model builds on the strengths of current approaches while attempting to minimise identified dysfunctions.</p> <hd id="AN0015636774-3">Part One: Contextual influences</hd> <p>Universities have undergone profound change in their recent history, to the extent that it could be argued that they now have very little in common with their twelfth‐century ancestors. The transition from elite to mass higher education after the Second World War has been central to this change as an international phenomenon driven by demographic, social and economic pressures.</p> <p>Over the last 40 years, both the Australian and New Zealand higher education systems have undergone more growth in participation than had occurred in the previous hundred years. In Australia in 1960 there were around 53,000 students enrolled in higher education institutions; in 2000 this figure had reached 695,485. Similarly in New Zealand, enrolments have increased from 27,300 in 1960 to over 287,400 in 2000.</p> <p>A critical element of this dramatic growth in university participation was the role played by central governments, which embraced and supported this growth and committed increasing total public expenditure to the higher education sector, supplemented by increasing levels of student contribution. Initially this growth was fully funded by central government, but progressively the level of unit funding has decreased as the level of participation has increased. With this increased expenditure went increased central planning, coordination and control, in what was to become a dominant feature of the university systems of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand (McInnes, 1995), and which had a pervasive influence on the evolution of leadership, governance and management within institutions.</p> <p>The 1990s, in particular, were also characterised by the growth of competition and market forces in higher education. Paralleling, and to some extent fuelling this change, was a progressive move towards recognising the private benefits of higher education. These significant developments in higher education have taken place against a state‐institution tug‐of‐war over the fundamental issues of institutional autonomy, academic freedom and accountability. At the same time, a similar trend has occurred within institutions, with increasing tension between collegial and managerial practices on the one hand, and individual academic freedom and personal accountability on the other. There is little argument about the impact of these and other effects of the continuing growth in participation in higher education. According to Shattock:</p> <p>... it remains a fact that in nearly all countries universities are suffering something of an identity crisis under pressures of rapid increases in student numbers, falling unit costs, increasing government control, and some evidence of rising public disenchantment. (Shattock, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>], p. 157)</p> <p>There are several important interrelated consequences for the future of higher education in these trends, all having their origins in the move to mass higher education. First, as participation in higher education increased over the last forty years, so did the size of the government's financial contribution. This has promoted an increase in the requirement for institutional accountability and related central bureaucratic intervention. These effects are interpreted by many as major impediments to academic freedom, which still remains a central tenet of the traditional university <emph>raison d'eˆtre</emph>.</p> <p>Secondly, mass education has promoted a progressive loss of distinctiveness amongst universities. As enrolments increase, and at the same time unit funding falls, the disposable income of universities decreases, creating fewer resources to commit to institutional identity. Major stakeholders such as students and funding agencies may then be less able to readily distinguish one institution from another and, perhaps worse, tend to attribute the faults of one institution to them all. Unfortunately the same does not tend to be true when an individual institution is regarded as outstanding.</p> <p>This loss of distinctiveness has been accentuated by the ideological drive by many Western governments to increase the efficiency of institutions (and therefore reduce the costs to government), through the promotion of a competitive market environment. This competitive market was designed to encourage diversity and student choice. In reality, the reverse has happened in many countries, with market‐driven funding systems actually breeding conformity rather than diversity, as individual institutions all react in the same way to funding system changes.</p> <p>Thirdly, the value of a qualification has tended to diminish as it loses its exclusiveness. Before higher education became so accessible, an undergraduate degree was highly valued, and its recipient had considerable status in society. Today, when such degrees are commonplace, the status of the graduate is lowered, and the value of the degree is diminished in the eyes of employers. As a result, more students are looking to postgraduate qualifications to re‐establish their status and employment edge. Work‐related qualifications in particular, have been raised in academic level, and in the process, institutions offering professional qualifications have assumed more and more of the characteristics of a university. The rapid expansion of non‐university institutions which offer degrees has been a major contributor to this trend.</p> <p>The consequential drive for these non‐university degree‐offering institutions (such as the Australian colleges of advanced education and the polytechnics of the United Kingdom and New Zealand) to seek university status has therefore been in part promoted by the trend of "qualifications creep" at an institutional level. It has become an issue of parity of esteem for these institutions and their non‐university degrees, relative to the established universities, and the most obvious means of eliminating this problem is for these institutions to become universities.</p> <p>Paralleling the growth in participation, and the complementary growth in government funding, there has also been a developmental trend away from institutional independence and "separateness" towards more integrated national systems as governments have sought to establish some control over their growing investment in higher education. While the immediate post‐war university operated with a reasonable degree of institutional independence, and certainly a low level of government interference, that can certainly not be said of the modern university. This is clearly the case in Australia and New Zealand, where the respective governments:</p> <p>... have asserted control over the universities through the dismantling of co‐ordinating authorities, the strategic application of direct and indirect financial steering mechanisms, and the implementation of accountability and quality assurance processes (McInnis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>], p. 40).</p> <p>The new world of information technology has also had a profound effect on the university. It has reduced the university's monopoly on information and knowledge. The post‐war university still retained a virtual monopoly on knowledge creation and preservation, and maintained its self‐proclaimed position as the keeper of the nation's culture and identity. Research was the unquestioned responsibility of the university, and new knowledge was created, tested and passed on by university staff who were intellectual in their approach, set their own curricula and regarded their academic freedom as an unchallengeable right. This has not been sustained in the contemporary university. In the face of large increases in student participation, knowledge is arguably becoming commodified and regulated, curricula standardised, and academic freedom has been reduced. The self‐contained intellectual has become the faculty academic, balancing personal research and teaching objectives with those of the institution, and conforming to externally driven expectations about the quality of his or her performance.</p> <p>These trends have had a profound influence on the way institutions are managed. Central to these changes is the significant shift from collegial to managerial structures. De Boer ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]) and others such as Miller ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]) and Dearlove ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]), note that the collegiate decision processes of the "old" universities no longer meet the needs of a modern institution, and are being replaced by a more corporate management model. Significantly, de Boer notes that this change has not been necessary for the "new" universities (the former polytechnics), which already have a governance structure that could be described as 'managerial' (Dearlove, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). This view is supported by Fulton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]) who suggests that these universities, as former polytechnics, are, by virtue of their history, marked by their strong managerial institutional cultures. This will become a central issue in the development of a leadership model for a dual sector institution.</p> <p>According to Neave and Van Vught ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]), the growth of "managerialism" in higher education institutions is characterised by three key features:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. the increasing influence of external stakeholders, particularly those that exercise influence over institutional income, such as government;</item> <p></p> <item> 2. a strong emphasis on strategic planning at an institutional level; and</item> <p></p> <item> 3. the adoption and adaption of attitudes and techniques characteristic of corporations.</item> </ulist> <p>In this managerial environment, leadership tends to exist as a consequence of hierarchy, and is ascribed to the individual (or small group) at the apex of the hierarchy. This individual (or group) is assumed to set the tone of the organisation and to establish its official objectives. In other words, it could be argued that academic leadership has been subsumed by corporate management practices on the basis of an unchallenged assumption that leadership automatically goes with position in a management hierarchy.</p> <p>It is against this complex background of changes that the notions of management and academic leadership need to be redefined.</p> <hd id="AN0015636774-4">Part Two: Leadership or management?</hd> <p>The concepts of "leadership" and "management" are complex and open to numerous definitions and interpretations (for example, Law & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). Keka¨le ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]) sees them as two complementary aspects or systems of action. According to this author, a loose conceptual distinction is often made between them, where management refers to an orientation towards results and goals, organising tasks and systems, while leadership alludes to an orientation towards human relations and organising people. In an academic context however, leadership and management functions have been closely integrated at departmental or school level. It can be argued that at this level both the academic leadership role and the management role require aspects of "leadership", which in this sense is not something that can be written into a job description as a 'function'. It may be more appropriately regarded as a quality that an individual brings to the position (Belbin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]). In using the term "leader" it is essential to acknowledge the inspirational, galvanising effect that a leader should have. As much as anything, leadership is about creating a vision of what might be, and fostering a culture that supports and can achieve that vision. A leader doesn't have to do it all, but must articulate an inspiring vision that compels others to "buy in".</p> <p>The terms "academic" and "managerial" leadership are therefore ascribed to the fulfilment of different aspects of leading or decision‐making. Both are involved in "providing direction, purposes, visions and goals for the future" (Belbin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>], p. 5), but for different purposes. In the literature, the general outline for a management role in an educational setting is fairly consistent, for example, managing finances, staff, space and resources, plus strategic and operational planning (Ketteridge, Marshall & Fry, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Academic leadership is less well defined. General characteristics are given, such as the responsibility for mission, direction, inspiration, building teamwork and setting an example (Law & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). Specific activities in an academic setting primarily focus on aspects such as responsibility for academic direction and priorities, teaching, scholarship and research, consultation with students (Harman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]), decision‐making about academic programmes, course delivery, content and scheduling ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Authors seem to agree that academic leadership and managerial leadership can be separated out fairly clearly according to context (Kotter, cited in Belbin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). In Law and Glovers' (2002) opinion, leadership, management and administration require different, but overlapping skills, knowledge and abilities. However, on an operative level they are often poorly differentiated. Role confusion and overlap between these roles and also that of administrators, may give rise to conflict of interest, inequities in workload and inappropriately applied expertise. Inevitably this contributes to inefficiencies, diminished job satisfaction and reduced quality of overall "management".</p> <p>Handy's comment ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]) that contemporary organised society tends toward being over‐managed and under‐led appears to remain relevant, particularly because many academic leaders have gravitated into managerial roles at the expense of any real leadership. Given that when translated into an academic setting, the roles of management and academic leadership can be seen to be quite different, some of the role confusion which occurs is due to job descriptions which incorporate both aspects, requiring an individual to be good at both. While Belbin ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]), amongst others, observes that there are some individuals who combine the necessary traits of academic leader and manager, roles are frequently quite distinct, needing different foci and abilities. It could be considered that combining the two roles, or allowing one to become the other by default or force of circumstances, is not an appropriate way to develop an organisational structure.</p> <p>In the literature on expertise it is quite clear that expertise doesn't translate easily across domains (Yielder, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]). To be an expert for example, in academic leadership, does not mean that that person will have the skills to be good at management and vice versa. Authors such as Rolfe ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]) maintain that management responsibilities dilute expert practitioners' (in this case, academic leaders') abilities to perform effectively as experts in their field. Further, if they attempt to do this there could be difficult conflicts of interest due to financial constraints, which limit their ability to pursue ideal practice (Fulbrook, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Managerial leadership positions in academic institutions reflect organisational hierarchy and are therefore appointments made from above. This aspect of leadership is vested in the position, and as such involves a person being "in" authority. This kind of authority is linked with power or influence. According to Kleinig ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]), a person is said to be in authority "by virtue of holding an office or position within an institutional structure ... it is not the particular person so much as the office or position which is invested with authority" (p. 212). Conversely, academic leadership could be considered to be bestowed from below, and therefore vested in a person because of their expertise and knowledge. As such, this person is "an" authority. As defined by Kleinig ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>], p. 212) "a person is said to be an authority by virtue of the (supposed) extensiveness or intimacy of his/her knowledge ... with respect to some particular field of inquiry or subject‐matter ... relative to a given group or community". One critical problem inherent in the notion of being in a position of authority is that the office holder may in fact lack the knowledge presumed by the office. According to Kleinig, this is often concealed by the institutionalised procedures for producing and identifying them. For example, consider the following extract from research conducted by Anderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>], p. 52):</p> <p>In a University, there are 3 major players: staff, students and management. The staff assesses students' performance, and the students assess staff performance. The management assesses staff performance, but neither the students nor staff gets to assess management performance.</p> <p>Alternatively, a person who is "an" authority, may be promoted to a position of authority for which his/her expertise is inappropriately matched.</p> <p>If management positions are invested with authority and status in an educational institution, academic leaders may be marginalised, leading to a devaluing of the critical teaching‐learning‐research‐practice nexus in education institutions. Academic leaders who carry responsibility for academic development and direction, without authority or status, may experience loss of job satisfaction and disillusionment. Further, there seems to be an inevitable tendency for those identified as having academic leadership positions to inherit increasingly high administrative workloads, largely in response to the significant increase in compliance requirements from internal and external agencies. Administration, in the context of this paper refers to those day‐to‐day operational tasks that underpin organisational policy and strategic goals. With growth in adminstrative demands of this sort, it becomes difficult to achieve an appropriate balance of leadership, teaching and research, which in turn limits the possibility of academic promotion, and hence status in the academic, as opposed to managerial sphere.</p> <p>A further point of tension relates to the "power" that results where managers control the discretionary decisions relating to resources (Freidson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]). If managers do not value and incorporate the expertise of their academic leaders within their management practices, leadership will not be effective. Where institutional hierarchies are conspicuous, as they are in many contemporary higher education institutions, this tension can impede the development of teamwork and the recognition of leadership qualities beyond those bestowed by formal position.</p> <p>The defining characteristics of the modes of academic and managerial leadership in tertiary education institutions that can be summarised from this discussion are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Characteristics of managerial and academic leadership in tertiary education</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>MODE 1 LEADERSHIP</td><td>MODE 2 LEADERSHIP</td></tr><tr><td>ACADEMIC</td><td>MANAGERIAL</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leader is '<bold>an'</bold> authority, based on</td><td>Leader is '<bold>in</bold>' authority, based on</td></tr><tr><td> • discipline knowledge</td><td> • position in hierarchy</td></tr><tr><td> • experience • peer and professional recognition • personal qualities</td><td> • job responsibilities (e.g. financial management, human resource management, planning)</td></tr><tr><td> • expertise – teaching, research, programme development</td><td> • control (e.g. budgets, resources, accommodation)</td></tr><tr><td> • team acceptance</td><td> • delegated authority</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership context: Collegial</td><td> • power</td></tr><tr><td>Formalisation: bestowed from below</td><td>Leadership context: Corporate</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership is vested in the PERSON because of their personal characteristics, and perceived expertise</td><td>Formalisation: appointed from aboveLeadership is vested in the POSITION, and the person may or may not have the capabilities to exercise this leadership</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>There appears to be a broad correlation between the origins and history of tertiary education institutions and the relative valuing of the elements of management and academic leadership within them. In more traditional universities there is a tendency to promote elements of academic leadership at the expense of management, while post‐modern institutions with a more youthful heritage tend to emphasise the latter at the expense of the former. A professorial role in a traditional university incorporates academic leadership, with management occurring almost incidentally depending on the personal qualities of the professor and administrative staff (Bowen & Shapiro, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]). According to Latchem and Hanna ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]), such universities are "organised anarchies" and essentially incapable of being "planned". However, to some degree this is rationalised because of the difficulty of applying business management to universities in a practical way, given that it "assumes the existence of a clearly identifiable bottom line and close control by supervisory personnel. Neither is a powerful or practical tool in universities" (Bowen & Shapiro, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>], p. 125).</p> <p>According to Harman ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]), the value placed on academic leadership in universities is changing. Over recent years in Australia, universities have moved from a largely collegial, to a much more corporate style of management, paralleling the style characterising non‐university institutions, such as the polytechnics in New Zealand. This stance appears to favour management over academic leadership within a hierarchical structure, with "management teams" primarily consisting of staff holding managerial positions who are not necessarily academic leaders. They consequently apply a business management concept to an academic organisation. The disadvantages of this, as outlined by Harman, include the difficulties that arise when people in senior positions, selected primarily because of their management expertise, are called upon to make judgements about academic direction and priorities. The institution's values and attitudes may be questioned when senior staff identify more with management, as opposed to the academic profession. Harman also notes that staff with a strong academic focus (for example in research and teaching) are less likely to be attracted now to senior positions due to the management focus entailed, which means that there is an increasing "gap" between senior positions and academic values, interests and foci. Likewise, there is an increasing gap between senior managerial staff and their academic colleagues.</p> <p>Harman maintains that if this trend continues, it is likely that an increasing number of senior staff with "less impressive academic records will be heading academic units and will be called on to make academic as well as management decisions. This raises issues about decisions on future academic directions of institutions, and also about the future of the academic profession" (Harman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>], p. 69). In addition, "social relations in faculties and departments seem likely to change, with increased gulfs developing between deans and heads on the one hand, and their colleagues on the other" (Harman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>], p. 69.). Anderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]), in their research into changes in academic work roles in Australian universities, also draw attention to the decline of collegiality which goes with the emergence of corporatisation or bureaucratic control of universities.</p> <p>The emphasis and status placed on either managerial or academic leadership present a genuine dilemma for many modern comprehensive or dual‐sector tertiary institutions, such as the authors' own institution, Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. While Unitec functions essentially as a university, it has its historical roots firmly in the polytechnic sector. Unitec's organisational history is generally regarded as distinctly managerial, but, with its growth into undergraduate and postgraduate degrees over the last ten years, there has come an increasing recognition of the need for overt academic leadership. The challenge to Unitec, and similar "modern" tertiary institutions therefore, is to develop a leadership model which values both management and academic leadership equally and fosters situations for academic leaders, managers and administrators to work effectively as teams. In most institutions this will require conscious behaviour, attitudinal and organisational change.</p> <hd id="AN0015636774-5">Part Three: A leadership model</hd> <p>Given the recent history of tension between management and academic leadership, a new model for leadership in tertiary education must embrace some fundamental principles to overcome the inherent dysfunctions this tension tends to generate. The model proposed is one of role separation and shared leadership, the principles and requirements of which are set out in Table 2. The most fundamental of these is an institutional requirement to clearly demonstrate that academic and managerial leadership are equally valued. This, of course, is easily said, but difficult to achieve in practice. However, without overt mechanisms to effect this principle, institutions will not change from their current largely dysfunctional leadership practices. Table 2 proposes this and six other principles from which a working model of shared leadership could be developed. It also identifies some key operational requirements that might be effected to give each principle some operational reality.</p> <p>The principles outlined in Table 2 can best be illustrated by their application to a specific example at Unitec Institute of Technology, which is in the process of a major structural review. Unitec is a dual sector institution with around 10,000 equivalent full time students (EFTS) and 30,000 student enrolments in 2003. Approximately 45% of its EFTS are in certificate and diploma‐level programmes, with the balance of 55% in undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. It is therefore a genuine dual sector institution. Its historical roots are as a trade‐based technical institute, and later as a polytechnic. It has been offering degrees for a little less than half of its 27‐year history.</p> <p>Principles and requirements for a model of shared leadership in tertiary education</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>PRINCIPLES</td><td>REQUIREMENTS</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>The roles and functions of academic leadership and managerial leadership must</td><td>• Parallel career paths for academic leaders and managers</td></tr><tr><td /><td>be equally valued by the institution.</td><td>• Remuneration parity</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Academic leaders and managers must collaborate and work effectively as a team.</td><td>• Parallel representation on key committees and management teams</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>• Shared accountabilities</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>All academic staff in leadership positions</td><td>• Acknowledgement in job descriptions</td></tr><tr><td /><td>must be actively engaged in teaching and/or research.</td><td>• Relevant performance accountability</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Administration should be undertaken by</td><td>• Development of skilled administrators</td></tr><tr><td /><td>competent administrators, not academic and managerial leaders.</td><td>• Administrator career path</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Academic leadership positions should be filled by those who have already achieved</td><td>• Junior academic staff supported to achieve academic seniority</td></tr><tr><td /><td>academic seniority (e.g. Senior Lecturer, Assoc. Prof. or Prof. or equivalent), not used as a stepping stone to academic seniority.</td><td>• Appropriate and clearly defined promotion paths and criteria</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Managerial leadership positions should be filled by those with relevant experience, qualifications and expertise.</td><td>• Management training provided for aspiring managers</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Both academic and managerial leaders must be committed to currency of</td><td>• Tailored internal staff development programmes</td></tr><tr><td /><td>knowledge and expertise relevant to their positions</td><td>• Provision for external benchmarking and networking</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>At Unitec, the academic programme (which generally equates to a qualification such as a bachelor degree), is the central element of the institution around which the academic structure has been developed. Currently each programme has a designated "programme leader" who has become responsible for a very wide range of academic, managerial and administrative activities that support the programme. It is widely recognised by the institution that academic leadership, management and administration have become intertwined in this role to the extent that this critical position is no longer an attractive one for those best able to perform it. This has meant that staff less qualified to fill the role with distinction are being appointed, and little support has been provided for their professional development. The role complexity has also meant that individual staff have developed the position to suit their own attributes and limitations. In some cases this has resulted in overt management with no academic leadership, or a focus on administration without either of the former.</p> <p>A further dysfunction occurs because the traditional management functions of budgeting, staff performance management and resource management are generally the domain of a designated manager, generally with the title of Head of School (or department) or Associate Head of School. Programme leaders, while carrying a high level of responsibility for the academic quality and credibility of the programme for which they are responsible, tend to be left out of relevant decision‐making committees comprising these managers. Thus a status hierarchy is established, and decisions are therefore made on "managerial" grounds rather than on a balanced managerial and academic basis.</p> <p>Applying the principles of a model of shared academic and managerial leadership at a departmental/school level to correct these dysfunctions would result in the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. The focus of a Head of School (department) position as one of strategic direction and overview (of operation, quality and management), with discipline/programme specific management and academic leadership occurring at the next level of the organisational hierarchy.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. The establishment of role clarity between academic leaders and managers, with complementary status and responsibilities. That is, dual roles of academic leadership and management would be established for each discipline. While this could occur at programme level for large programmes, establishing dual roles for all programmes would result in a "top heavy" school or departmental structure.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. The clear separation between academic leadership and administration for programmes, by the appointment of a programme leader who is an established academic leader, and a programme administrator.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. The creation of school management committees which would include the Head of School, academic and managerial leaders, and programme administrators.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. The establishment of an overt career progression against defined standards for academic and managerial leaders, and administrators.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. The management of staff performance would be determined by the leadership team, with formal line management of staff negotiated and distributed between team members. This is acknowledged to be complex. Staff allocation, appointment and management lie within a managerial rather than academic role, however the appointment to and performance of appropriate staff in teaching teams and courses lies inherently in the domain of academic expertise.</item> </ulist> <p>This proposed structure for a shared leadership model by discipline is shown as Table 3.</p> <hd id="AN0015636774-6">Conclusions</hd> <p>This article has focussed on leadership and management at the level of the school or department in a tertiary education institution. Arguably it is in this context that the confusion between academic leadership and management is most prevalent. The broader application of this study to other aspects of university leadership, management and governance is a matter for future development.</p> <p>In summary, the article has outlined the need for a shared model of academic and managerial leadership within tertiary institutions. The model proposed will be refined within the context of Unitec during the restructuring and reorganisation process currently being undertaken. Central to this is the commitment to quality in both academic and managerial domains within the institution, and to the equal valuing of both. There is also a commitment to being open to searching for a new way of combining the strengths of the modes of leadership emerging from both traditional and conventional universities and polytechnics and reducing current dysfunctions. A shared leadership approach provides a challenge and a new focus for the institution. In the words of Gardner:</p> <p>Proposed structure for a shared leadership model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>ACADEMIC LEADER</td><td>MANAGER</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Associate Prof./Prof. preferable. Minimum Senior Lecturer. Criteria already established for academic leadership</td><td>Masters qualified. Attendance of appropriate management courses for professional development</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Responsibilities</italic></td><td><italic>Responsibilities</italic></td></tr><tr><td>• Teaching and learning</td><td>• Resource management</td></tr><tr><td>• Research – staff and students</td><td>• Budget management</td></tr><tr><td>• Academic elements of programme development</td><td>• Staff allocation, appointment and management</td></tr><tr><td>• Staff academic development ie scholarship, research, PD opportunities</td><td>• Viability/planning aspects of programme development</td></tr><tr><td>• Shared line management of teaching staff</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Personal teaching and research</italic></td><td><italic>Personal teaching and research (if an academic appointment)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Industry liaison</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Advisory, programme and management Committees</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Liaison with programme administrators</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To exercise leadership today, leaders must institutionalize their leadership. The issues are too technical and the pace of change too swift to expect that a leader, no matter how gifted, will be able to solve personally the major problems facing the system over which he or she presides. So we design an institutional system ... The institutional arrangements generally include a leadership team ... No individual has all the skills – and certainly not the time – to carry out all the complex tasks of contemporary leadership. And the team must be chosen for excellence in performance. (Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>], p. 12)</p> <p>This summarises the importance of teamwork, the appropriate aligning of expertise to leadership roles, and the need for excellence, rather than the mediocrity that comes from an inappropriate leadership model.</p> <p>Leadership development is a critical element of organisational growth. Universities are renown for promoting people who demonstrate excellence in one domain (such as teaching or research) into jobs which require experience and skills in quite a different domain (such as people or financial management). While promotion on a basis of potential may well be valid, it is bad practice if no support or training is provided to develop the needed skills, and in their absence it has the potential to generate poor leadership and dysfunction. A shared leadership model doesn't solve this problem, but it does clarify the distinction between the different types of leadership required in an institution, and therefore encourages tailored leadership development that is role‐relevant.</p> <hd id="AN0015636774-7">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0015636774-8"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Correspondence: Postgraduate Health Science Programmes, School of Health & Community Studies, Unitec New Zealand, Private Bag 92 025, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: jyielder@unitec.ac.nz</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0015636774-9"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> AndersonDJohnsonRSahaL(n.d.)Changes in academic workRetrieved August 2003 from, <ulink href="http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/otherpub/academic%5fwork.htm">http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/otherpub/academic%5fwork.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> BelbinR1997Changing the way we workOxford: Butterworth Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> BowenWShapiroH(Eds)1998Universities and their leadershipNew Jersey: Princeton University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> De BoerH1996Changing institutional governance structuresInMaassenPVan VughtF(Eds.), Inside academia. New challenges for the academic profession8396Utrecht, The Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> DearloveJ1998The deadly dull issue of university administration? Good governance, managerialism, and organising academic workHigher Education Policy115979</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> UltonO1997Differentiation and diversity in a newly unitary system: The case of the UKInMeedVGoedegeburreORinneR(Eds.)The mockers and the mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education163187Oxford: Pergamon Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> FreidsonE1987Professionalism, empowerment and decision‐makingPosition paper written for the National Education Association. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from, http://itsa.ucst.edu.∼elliott/Professionalism_Empowerme.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> FullbrookP1998Advanced practice: The advanced practitioner perspectiveInRolfeGFulbrookP(Eds.)Advanced nursing practice87102Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> GardnerJ2000The nature of leadershipInFullanM(Ed.)The Jossey‐Bass reader on educational leadership312San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HandyC1978The gods of managementLondon: Souvenir Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harman, G. 2002. Academic leaders of corporate managers: Deans and Heads in Australian higher education; 1977 to 1997, Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(2): 53–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keka¨leJ2001Academic leadershipNew York: Nova Science Publishers Inc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> KetteridgeSMarshallSFryH2002The effective academic: A handbook for enhanced academic practiceLondon: Kogan Page Ltd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> KleinigJ1982Philosophical issues in educationBeckenham Kent: Croom Helm Ltd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LatchemCHannaD(Eds.)2001Leadership for 21st century learningLondon: Kogan Page Ltd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LawSGloverD2000Educational leadership and learningBuckingham, England: Open University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McInnisC1995Less control and more vocationalism: The Australian and New Zealand experienceInSchullerT(Ed.)The changing university?Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MillerH1994The management of change in universitiesBuckingham, England: SRHE & The Open University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MeekVLWoodFQ1997Higher education governance and management. An Australian studyCanberra: AGPS</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NeaveGVan VughtF1991Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western EuropeOxford: Pergamon Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD1998Redefining tertiary educationParis: OECD Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RolfeG1996Closing the theory‐practice gap. A new paradigm for nursingOxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann Ltd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shattock, M. 1995. The university of the future, Higher Education Management, 7: 157–164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> YielderJ2001Professional expertise: A model for integration and changeUnpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yielder, J. 2003. Towards an integrated model of expertise in medical imaging: Part I overview and two dimensions of expert practice, Journal of Diagnostic Radiography and Imaging, 5: 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jill Yielder * and Andrew Codling</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ681055
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Management and Leadership in the Contemporary University
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yielder%2C+Jill%22">Yielder, Jill</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Codling%2C+Andrew%22">Codling, Andrew</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Higher+Education+Policy+and+Management%22"><i>Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management</i></searchLink>. Nov 2004 26(3):315-328.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2004
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrators%22">Administrators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Responsibility%22">Leadership Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Qualities%22">Leadership Qualities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Education%22">Professional Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Education%22">Vocational Education</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-080X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper proposes a model of leadership within tertiary education based on research into expertise and institutional distinctiveness. It builds on two contrasting styles of institutional development. Firstly, in the traditional university (higher education) sector, promotion to senior management positions has tended to be based on academic prowess, largely relating to research capability. The result is senior academic leaders who may not be well suited to line or operational management. By contrast, in the traditional polytechnic (vocational education and training) sector, promotion to leadership positions has tended to be based more on perceived managerial qualities, and the resultant leaders may be more inclined to be good managers without displaying overt academic leadership. A model of shared academic management and leadership focused on departmental/school level, based on research into the nature of professional expertise, is therefore proposed which brings together the strengths of both of the above styles. This model develops the responsibilities of both the academic leader and the operational manager and explores their symbiotic relationship. The performance of associated administrative functions is also considered in regards to the overlap between the administration occurring in these roles and that of designated office administrators. The implications of this model on organisation structure and culture and on staff promotion and career development are also addressed. The application of this model to contemporary tertiary institutions that focus on vocational and professional education as a point of distinctiveness in a competitive tertiary education market is also explored. In particular, the potential advantages of this model for dual sector institutions which bring together the strengths of the higher education and the vocational education and training sectors are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 25
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=QXL7LP4FDBGFA38Q" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=QXL7LP4FDBGFA38Q</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ681055
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ681055
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 315
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Governance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Qualities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Management and Leadership in the Contemporary University
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yielder, Jill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Codling, Andrew
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2004
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-080X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
              Type: main
ResultId 1