A TIGHT BALANCING ACT: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSITY HEADS (Heads of School and Heads of Department)

This paper draws on the responses of 134 Heads of School and Heads of Department who were part of a larger study of 513 Australian higher education leaders. Heads of School / Department are at the centre of complex relational interfaces comprising faculty, students, central administration, and external entities and support agencies. While such experiences are not necessarily unique to Heads, the analysis suggests that they do perhaps experience these challenges in more intense and explicit ways than many other managers, as they have to ‘manage’ both up and down. Many of the Heads perceived taking on this position was a backward rather than forward career step in the development of an academic career. However, the analysis also suggested that this group of leaders are critical to change efforts in higher education but are often the forgotten middle leaders. Their learning for leadership is done on-the-job and mostly adhoc. Feedback on the results from the large-scale survey was sought through workshops with over 500 higher education leaders across Australia and internationally. According to this feedback, studies like this one that set out to identify the experiences of ‘fellow travellers’ are helpful to leaders in a range of ways. It helped them, (a) realise that their experiences of leadership are not necessarily idiosyncratic; (b) identify the perceived connections, overlaps and differences between different formal leadership positions; (c) identify and understand conditions that may aid and thwart effective practices. These issues have important implications for succession thinking and practice in higher education. The research team are currently producing a prototype online leadership development tool for trial by university leaders early in 2009. INTRODUCTION In 2004, Geoff Scott (2004) noted in his keynote address to the Australian Universities Quality Forum on effective change management that the motto for higher education leadership now must be: “Good ideas with no ideas on how to implement them are wasted ideas”. Failed change in higher education has costs—not just economically but strategically, socially and psychologically. When enthusiastic university staff commit to a change project and that project fails, they take the scars of that experience with them. Students and the country receive no benefit from failed change. Institutions that take on an essential reform project that founders suffer a loss of reputation and, in the current climate, this can lead to a loss of income and, as a further consequence, closure of courses, schools or faculties with an associated risk of redundancies. Sitting in the midst of this challenging and rapidly shifting environment are university leaders. The key focus of this paper is on the responses of 134 Heads of School / Department who were part of a larger study of 513 Australian higher education leaders. The study, ‘Learning Leaders in Times of Change’, was funded by Australia’s Carrick Institute for Learning & Teaching in Higher Education and identified the capabilities that characterise effective academic leaders in a range of roles. BERA 3-6 September 2008 1 This paper begins with an overview of the study and the characteristics of Heads. It then identifies and critiques what Heads from the study said about their daily realities, influences challenges and the most/least satisfying aspects of this role; what Heads identified as the capabilities they see as being most important for effective performance; and what supports they perceive as providing the most/least assistance in developing these capabilities. Collectively, these analyses highlighted some key implications for the preparation and ongoing development of this group of leaders in higher education. OVERVIEW OF ‘LEARNING LEADERS IN TIMES OF CHANGE’ Focus of the study The study explored and identified productive ways to address the issues and challenges for various leaders in higher education. The approach has been to build upon a decade of studying professional capability, development and change leadership in a range of contexts—most recently in a study of more than 300 effective leaders in Australian school education (Scott, 2003). The aims of the study were to: • profile academic leaders and their roles; • clarify what ‘leadership’ means in an academic context; • illuminate the daily realities, influences, challenges and most/least satisfying aspects of the wide range of learning and teaching roles in our universities; • identify the perceived markers of effective performance in each role; • identify the capabilities that leaders see as being most important for effective performance; • identify the forms of support that may be of most/least assistance in developing these capabilities; • determine key similarities and differences between roles; and • compare the study’s findings with the existing literature on higher education leadership and the outcomes of similar studies in other educational contexts. The focus was primarily on formal leadership roles in learning and teaching in our universities. The specific roles studiedwere: Deputy Vice-Chancellor; Pro ViceChancellor(PVC) (Learning and Teaching); Dean; Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching); Head of School/Department; Head of Program; and Director (Learning and Teaching). Some of these roles focus almost exclusively on learning and teaching (e.g. the relatively recent roles of PVC [Learning and Teaching] and A/Dean [Learning and Teaching]). Other, more long standing roles like Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Dean, Head of School or Head of Department focus not only on learning and teaching but often on research, engagement and a range of budget and staff performance matters. Some leadership roles (e.g. PVC or Director of Learning and Teaching) have a pan-university scope; others (e.g. Dean or Head of School) are more focused on particular portfolio responsibilities of the institution. In Australia, while the title of ‘Head of School/Department’ is common across institutions, in practice the role and associated levels of authority and responsibility has been found to vary considerably between institutions (e.g. Smith, 2005). The variations of such roles present particular challenges for identifying the characteristics of leaders, their work and learning needs. Any analysis, therefore, must be mindful of the potential differences as well as commonalities that may exist within the one leadership position. BERA 3-6 September 2008 2 A partnership The project has been delivered through a two-year partnership between the University of Western Sydney, UWS (Professor Geoff Scott and Kim Johnson), Australian Council for Educational Research, ACER (Dr Hamish Coates and Michelle Anderson) and senior colleagues from 20 Australian universities under the guidance of a National Steering Committee chaired by Professor Peter Booth, Senior DVC at The University of Technology, Sydney, and Chair of the Universities Australia DVC (A)’s group. Methodology The study undertook an extensive international literature review, an online survey, and a series of national and international sector feedback workshops that tested the veracity of the results and identified their key implications. An overview of the report’s content can be found in Appendix One. A copy of the report, including details of the methodology, can be found at: Australian Learning and Teacher Council (ALTC) formerly CARRICK Institute http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/siteadmin/public/grants_leadership_uws_acer_sum mary_june08.pdf http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/siteadmin/public/grants_leadership_uws_acer_finalr eport_june08.pdf Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/UWSACER_CarrickLeadershipReport.pdf The systematic use of sector-wide feedback on the results is comparatively distinctive and is an approach that is recommended for use in subsequent studies. It has ensured that the results are both valid and owned by those well positioned to action them, and that the key recommendations made in the report are authentic. BERA 3-6 September 2008 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS OF SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS Leader demographics Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of those leaders who identified as being a Head of School or Head of Department. Most of this group is male, between 46 and 55 years of age, has a background in the humanities or in health. Most of the responding Heads worked at sandstone universities, and the fewest at technology institutions. Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the Head of School / Department sample Characteristic n % Your sex Female 40 29.9 Male 94 70.1 Your age Under 36 1 0.7 36 45 16 11.9 46 55 70 52.2 56 65 45 33.6 Over 65 2 1.5 Main disciplinary background Agriculture and Environmental Studies 7 5.2 Education 12 9.0 Engineering and Technology 8 6.0 Health 32 23.9 Information Tec ology 7 5.2 hn Law 4 3.0 Management and Commerce 12 9.0 Natural and Physical Sciences 17 12.7 Society and Culture 35 26.1 University type Sandstone 44 32.8 Regional 32 23.9 Technology 9 6.7 Innovative 27 20.1 New Generation 22 16.4 The location and configuration of higher education institutions were highlighted as particular challenges for some Heads. Numerically, the responses highlighting these challenges were not significant. However, these Heads articulated that working in a remote higher education location and/or the complexity of communication and coordination across multi-campus sites was not conducive to trying to establish productive working relationships with colleagues. For Heads in these contexts leadership capabilities, such as interpersonal and diagnostic, are not just useful to have but critical to effect ive practice. BERA 3-6 September 2008 4 Current position Table 2 indicates that most of the 134 Heads were new to this position or in the first few years of service. Overall, the high numbers of direct reports suggest that Heads carry a wide portfolio of responsibilities. A number of the Heads appear to aspire to the position of Dean. But most Heads from the study had no intention of applying for another position. What cannot be assumed fr this analysis is that Heads intend to stay in their current position. As the years in current role suggests, very few remain in their current role beyond seven years. In turn, this has i of meaningful induction and ongoing professional learning opportunities for these groups of leaders in higher education (see section on learning for leadership later). Researchers for some studies question the quality and timing of professional learning for Heads, suggesting that the only preparation available to prospective leaders is after their appointment (e.g. Montez, 2003). This issue is not unique to higher education, but evident from recent international reviews of improving school leadership (Anderson et al, 2008). Table 2: Characteristics of Heads’ current position om mplications for the provision Characteristic n % Years in current role Under one yea 20 15.2 r 1 3 years 60 45.5 4 6 years 33 25.0 7 10 years 10 7.6 More than 10 years 9 6.8 Staff who report directly to you 1 5 3 2.3 6 10 6 4.5 11 20 30 22.6 21 50 69 51.9 More than 50 25 18.8 Intend to apply for another position No current intention 88 57.5 VC 1 0.7 DVC 2 1.3 PVC 12 7.8 Dean 24 15.7 Associate Dean 8 5.2 Assistant Dean 2 1.3 Head of Sc Head of Department 14 9.2 hool -Program Head -Program Co-ordinator 2 1.3 The number of years Heads have he their positions does appear to influence how they perceive the focus of their work. Our analysis suggests that leaders who have held the role for between one to six years tend to place a fairly even emphasis on different aspects of their work. However, leaders who report holding their roles for seven to ten years place a notably greater emphasis on networking. From udy, Heads who have held positions for more than ten years report lower levels of involvement than their colleagues in all aspects of their work besides networking. ld