名古屋高等教育研究 第 19 号 （2019）

Professional Development and Training
for Academic Leadership:
Between Managerialism and Collegiality
Maria SLOWEY*＜Abstract＞
The issue of academic leadership in contemporary higher
education is gaining increasing attention as universities and otherhigher education institutions are looked to by governments to meet avariety of public policy objectives−educational, economic and social.
This requires both rapid and coherent responses from insti-tutions.
The state is not the only stakeholder: students, civic society,employers, professional bodies and academic disciplines all have aninterest in the shape and operation of contemporary higher education.
Taken together these create a complex environment of competing
demands on the university and those charged with managing theseinteractions and subsequent implementation processes.
As educational institutional it might be expected that universities
would be well placed to support those appointed (or elected) toleadership positions at middle and senior levels through substantive
and relevant training and professional development. But is thisnecessarily the case? Focusing mainly on developments in Europe,
this paper draws on relevant literature to explore the situation inpractice. It addresses the challenges of balancing ‘efficiency’ withmaintenance of collegiality and efforts towards greater inclusivenessand diversity in the composition of academic leadership, withparticular attention to the continuing under-representation of womenat senior levels.

Professor, Higher Education Research Centre, Dublin City University(Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education, Nagoya
University)235

Too often higher education researchers (and practitioners and policy-makers)
seek explanations for change within what may be termed an ‘internal’framework−in other words, the pressures for change that emerge from within
the higher education system. But at least as much emphasis needs to be put on‘external’ explanations… Larger changes are taking place in wider society, theeconomy and culture that make change in higher education inevitable. The
world ‘out there’ is changing; so must higher education. (Peter Scott 2015: 44)

1．Introduction
The theme of leadership in higher education is gaining increasing
attention worldwide (Marhsall 2017, McCaffery 2019). Many factors
underlie this trend of which two can be identified as being of particularimportance. First, there is a perceived need for universities and otherhigher education institutions to be able to respond to competing
expectations and demands from diverse stakeholders in a strategic way−that is, acting as institutions rather than loose collections of academic
departments and units.1) Second, as higher education becomes the focus ofattention for different aspects of public policy, there is increasing use ofearmarked(dedicated)

fundingasamechanism

throughwhich

governments seek to ‘steer’ supposedly autonomous institutions towards
certain kinds of behaviour−for example, greater industry collaboration,
regional development, research, innovation in teaching and learning andwidening access. A coherent institutional ‘voice’ is required to manage
these interactions and the subsequent decision making, implementation
and accountability processes.
These developments have given rise to a considerable body of literature
over the last three decades or so investigating the impact of neo-liberalpolicies and new public management in higher education and the resultant
emphasis on ‘strategic’ academic management issues relating toresourcing, staffing and planning (Henkel 2000, Ferlie et al. 2007). The
generic features of the new public management approach as summarized
by Pollitt (2003) include: a shift in management systems from inputs andprocesses towards outputs and outcomes; increasing measurement andquantification; performance indicators and explicit standards (hence away

236

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershipfrom trust in professionals and experts); more specialized, and autonomous
organizational forms rather than large, multi-purpose, hierarchicalministries or departments; increasing out-sourcing and use of contracts; awidespread deployment of market-type mechanisms for the delivery of
public services; an emphasis on service quality and a consumer orientation,
redefining citizen-users of public services as ‘consumers’ (and potentiallyalso, by logical extension, students as consumers); blurring boundaries
between the public sector, the market and the voluntary sector; and, shifts
in value priorities away from universalism, equity, security and resilience
towards efficiency and individualism (Pollitt 2003: 27-8). These policy shifts
carry significant repercussions for higher education which are wellana-lyzed for different global regions by, for example, Marginson andConsidine (2000) Middlehurst (2004) Deem et al. (2007) Marginson (2011)
Schuetze and Alvarez Mendiola (2012) Teixeira et al. (2016) and Yamamoto(2018).
Such developments inevitably place considerable demands on those
occupying leadership roles at various levels in higher education
institutions−from Presidents and other members of senior management
teams, to ‘middle’ level academic managers such as Deans, Heads ofDepartments and Programme Leaders.2)
As educational institutions with a core mission to promote learning anddevelopment of high levels skills across a wide range of professional areas,
it might be expected that universities should be well placed to provide
training and professional development to assist those appointed (orelected) to leadership positions to best address the challenges they face.
But to what extent is this the situation in practice? There does appear tobe an increasing emphasis on professional development for academic staff
in relation to their research and teaching functions (Slowey et al. 2014) but
to what extent does this also apply to academics as they take on leadershiproles? Surely we might expect that, as McCaffery (2019) argues, leaders inhigher education should be equipped to bring the same professionalism in
the way ‘we lead and manage people as we do towards our teaching andresearch’ (McCaffery 2019: 6).
Before proceeding to discussing leadership at various levels, two prior

237

questions need to be addressed. In a situation in which universities are
increasingly buffeted by, on the one hand,the steering policies of national
governments, and, on the other, market forces, to what extent does
academic leadership actually matter? Is it not, to use a nautical metaphor,a case of ‘steady as she goes’−as long as the ship rides the waves, andsurvives, is this not the primary objective and in itself a ‘successful’outcome? The thrust of the argument in this paper is that more than mere
survival is required if universities are to deliver their core missionsotherwise they may be in danger of becoming empty shells, losing theactual meaning of their core missions and potentially becoming ‘zombie
institutions’ (Bauman 2000).
Thus, the discussion here is based on the view that, yes, leadership does
indeed matter. At the core of the mission of universities that are thriving−rather than ‘zombie’−institutions lie forms of teaching, research andcivic engagement that are committed to the independent pursuit ofknowledge and learning from critical, evidence based positions. In a
European context, this mission largely draws on enlightenment principles
espoused in the nineteenth century by, for example, Wilhelm von
Humboldt and Charles Henry Newman−and variously updated for thetwenty-first century (de Vries and Slowey 2012).
As one extensive exploration of management and leadership in higher
education concludes…good leadership, can over time provide the conditions in which teaching andresearch can flourish, just as, more usually, poor management can undermine

teaching and research and precipitate institutional decline. (Shattock 2010: 1,
Emphasis added)

This gives rise to a secondary question: what level of leadership is
important? At the risk of straining the metaphor, does success rest withthe captain of the ship? Or, in large, complex organizations with long
traditions of academic autonomy and collegial decision-making processes,
are other levels of leadership not also crucial in achieving successful
outcomes? If leadership does matter and matters at a variety of levels,then we face an issue which predates all the ‘how to manage’ books. To

238

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership

what extent does ‘good’ leadership derive from innate, personal qualities?
Or, rather, in socially constructed roles such as university academic
leaders, to what extent can high quality professional development andtraining enhance the capability of individuals, with diverse backgrounds
and skills, to develop their own effective and inclusive approaches?
My interest in this topic is partly stimulated by my experience of thechallenges involved in academic leadership roles at middle and senior
management levels in three universities in Ireland (Dublin City University),
Scotland (Glasgow University) and England (Northumbria University).
Receiving little more management training than a few one day sessions, I
became curious as to how other academics prepared themselves−if at all−to take on similar roles. To explore these issues further this paper draws
on relevant higher education research literature and two qualitative
studies with which I was involved some twenty years apart − onecomprised a series of case studies of middle level academic managers in
British universities (Slowey 1995) and, more recently, an analysis ofstrategies adopted by institutional leaders in a selection of Irish higher
education institutions as they grappled with the effects of the economic
crash of 2008 (Pritchard and Slowey 2017).
The following discussion is organized in three parts. Issues of university
leadership, and leadership development cannot be viewed in isolation fromthe wider social, political and economic context of contemporary higher
education. Consequently, the first part provides an overview of key
aspects of this wider environment which are important if we are tounderstand the complex nature of the demands placed on academic
leadership, especially at senior and middle levels. While this discussion
draws primarily on European traditions and experiences, many common
forces can be discerned in other global regions − including Japan −although, of course, the ways in which these forces play out are subject tointerpretation and mediation at national levels reflecting historical,
cultural, political and economic factors.
The second part highlights the issues facing institutional leaders inconcrete terms. The case of Ireland is used to illustrate these challenges asuniversity senior leaders grappled with the impact of the global financial239

crisis of 2008. The third part shifts the focus to middle level academic
managers−their roles and the support which they do, or do not, receive tohelp equip them for their responsibilities. Finally, in the concluding partthe potential benefits of achieving greater diversity in the composition ofsenior university leadership is raised − specifically, the continuing
under-representation of women.
1.1

The Context: Global Factors Impacting on Higher Education
Institutions

Universities are social institutions located in dynamic interaction withthe societies of which they are a part. Also, despite major developments ine-learning and the like, they are geographically located in particularurban/regional environments, with all the distinctiveness of economic,
cultural and historic conditions this implies. A university based, forexample, in the city of Dublin, Ireland will be different in many ways to auniversity based, for example in Nagoya, Japan−in terms of historicalbackground, local economy, forms of partnerships, networks, disciplinary
conventions, recruitment, promotion strategies, student profiles and thelike. Yet, at another level, the impact of globalization means such
universities face many challenges in common as a result of growing
uniformity and homogeneity at the level of public policy − a trend
described

as‘isomorphism’(Meyeretal.

2007).

The

role

of

inter-governmental bodies such as the OECD, the World Bank and theEuropean Union, are important here as ‘carriers’ of global ideologies which,while mediated at national levels, exert a strong influence through funding
leavers and policy agenda setting.
The case of OECD is particularly interesting as it does not havesubstantial financial resources at its disposal. It comprises thirty-six
Member countries which ‘span the globe, from North and South America
to Europe and Asia-Pacific. They include many of the world’s mostadvanced countries but also emerging countries like Mexico, Chile andTurkey’ (OECD 2018). The OECD also works closely with emerging
economies such as the People’s Republic of China, India and Brazil anddeveloping economies in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

240

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership

The OECD exerts influence through its reputation and various
mechanisms

including:

agendasetting;

international

peer

review;

generation of large-scale data sets; and widespread dissemination of
results. Leaving aside the question as to whether the consequences areintended or unintended, the actual effect of these expert discourses andcomparative strategies, is that similar answers are imposed in quite
different national environments (Nóvoa 2002: 144). This tendency towards
similar policy solutions which have the appearance of being ‘common
sense’ is exemplified by the case of Ireland where a detailed examinationof OECD reviews of education (including higher education) over several
decades found that that whereas previously the OECD tended to focus onstates individually, taking account of histories and idiosyncrasies, the more
recent tendency was to compare states with each other against

standardized criteria (Clancy 2015).
While a counter narrative is to be found to this analysis of growing
global homogeneity in higher education, common trends and pressures canbe discerned which carry consequent implications for leadership at alllevels. Five key factors are summarized here in Figure 1.
State

Civic society

Economic requirements
Social cohesion and equality
Regional development
Knowledge transfer
Research rankings etc.

Community organisations
Environmental groups
Public intellectuals
Women’s groups
NGOs etc.

Academic disciplines
Disciplinary knowledge
Disciplinary power(‘academic tribes andterritories’)

Students
School leavers (full-time, initial HE)
Part-time adult learners
Continuing professional development etc.

Employers
Changing skill requirements
Updating and retraining
Professional accreditation etc.

Source: Author’s own diagram. The phrase ‘academic tribes and territories’ refers to work ofBecher and Trowler (2001).

Figure 1

Competing Demands on Contemporary Higher Education

241

In the top left quadrant lies the role of the state and public policy.
Higher education has come to be viewed as having a significant role toplay in the achievement of a range of policy objectives−such as skill
formation, economic development, R&D, innovation, regional development
policies, internationalization and equality of opportunity−consequently,
different wings of national Governments have developed an interest inseeking to steer universities in particular directions. As these directions
do not necessarily cohere with one another universities are faced withcompeting policy demands. Additionally, as will be discussed further
below, this attempt to shape the behaviour of higher education in recent
times is often accompanied by a reduction in core budgets and/or ‘top
slicing’ of financing to support targeted activities.
In the top right quadrant lies the role of civic society. Operationalized indifferent ways, this represents the social responsibility or public functionof higher education − as, for example, articulated through university
engagement with various interest groups and social movements.
In the bottom right quadrant are employers and professional bodies
which, in different ways, have a strong interest in the skills and knowledge(generic and specific) acquired by graduates through their university
experience.
In the bottom left quadrant are, arguably, the most important
stakeholders: students. It is important to include here not only ‘traditional
students, who enter directly from school on a fulltime basis, but also theincreasing number who are lifelong learners of various categories,
including part-time learners, adult students and those engaged incontinuous professional development.
Overarching these four quadrants, lies the central role of the academic
disciplines. This dimension not only relates to where knowledge is
generated, but also − for good or bad − reflects power differentials
characteristic of ‘academic tribes and territories’ (Becher and Trowler
2001) and provides the foundations for research rankings and highly
influential national and international ‘league tables’.
Taken together, the interaction of these forces on contemporary higher
education places significant pressures on university leadership−at all

242

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershiplevels. The quality of leadership displayed by those at senior levels canplay a crucial role in shaping institutional responses. In some European
countries there is a trend towards ‘strong’ Presidents and senior
management teams which have more in common with the US model ofleadership, than the traditional collegial European model. In a classic
analysis of the historical origins of the US ‘strong’ President Martin Trow
(1985, reprinted 2010) suggests that it…arose out of the weakness of the academic profession in America thoroughout
most of our history in conjunction with the tradition of non-involvement byfederal government in education generally and higher education in particular.
(443)

Widely regarded as one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the field of higher
education research it has been pointed out that Trow perhaps
demonstrated…little sympathy for the European combination of a more positive appreciationof the ‘visible hand’ of governments and a higher mistrust of strong university
leadership, and remained suspicious of the elitist views of academics in the elite
sector. (Teichler 2010: 88)

Included in this European context has been the traditional role of the
President as being one who is elected by his (usually) or her (rarely) peers,and for a time limited period of office. This was a fiercely defended right,
and, as von Lüde (2018) points out, disputes over this right… to elect the rector or the warden are among the most prominent ‘battlefields’of modern university constitutions and these, too, have their origin in early
university history. In its early days the Jagiellonian University in Kraków began
to follow the model of the Italian universities of Bologna and Padua, wherestudents had the right to elect the rector. Later (〜1400) the pattern of the
University of Paris was adopted where the rector was elected by the professors
only. (von Lüde 2015: 152)

More recently however, for reasons previously mentioned, there has
been a marked change of culture evident in European higher education−strongly influenced by the Bologna Process and ambitions for the243development of the European Higher Education Area (EU 2018, Scott 2012).
A new form of the institutional logic of managerialism is, arguably, turning
universities into ‘organizational actors’. For example, to take the case ofGermany, for centuries…research in German universities was driven by individual researchers’
ingenious ideas. The notion of organizational actorhood of the university now
transforms the inner mechanisms of a formerly collegial governance system.
The implementation of governance principles of a ‘New Managerialism’,adopted from profit-oriented companies, including target and performance
agreements, altered decision making. (von Lüde 2015: 157)

Much of this critique of the changing shape and governance ofuniversities arises from within the wider academic community. So, how
are these issues viewed from the ‘top’ from senior leaders themselves?
The next part, explores challenges from the vantage point of senior
university leaders, and their perceptions of the challenges they faced, as
illustrated by the case of Irish institutions of higher education as they
sought to deal with the effect of a national economic crisis following thebanking crash of 2008.
1.2

Challenges Facing Contemporary University Leadership:
The Case of Ireland

The economic crash of 2008 triggered a global economic crisis withdisastrous results for many countries, including also, to greater and lesser
extents, institutions of higher education. The case of Ireland is illustrative.
As it is a small, open economy, the impact of the banking collapse wassudden and dramatic as the economy went from ‘boom to bust’ in a very
short space of time. Large sections of society suffered greatly throughemigration and unemployment, and collapse in property prices leading tofinancial hardship and even homelessness (Heffernan et al. 2017).
Higher education was not left unscathed. The subsequent situation
facing higher education has been described as a ‘perfect storm’ with thecoming together of three post-crisis factors (Clancy 2015: 245).

244

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership・ An increasing demand for entry from potential students for access tohigher education − some of whom might otherwise have secured
employment.
・ Strong competing demands for support from other areas of public
service − for example, health, unemployment benefits, housing andsupport for small businesses−coupled with a political culture in favourof either no increases, or even reductions, in taxation.
・ The fact that the economic crash had placed family households under
severe financial pressures leaving them challenged to provide financial
support for higher education study.
The scale of the challenge is illustrated in Figure 2 which shows the
rapid decline in funding per student over the period 2007 to 2016.

€12,000

195,000€11,500

190,000
185,000€11,000

180,000€10,500
175,000€10,000
170,000€9,500165,000€9,000160,000€8,500155,000€8,000150,000

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

FTE Students

Income per student

Source: Expert Group on the Future of Higher Education [Ireland] (2015: 5, Figure 2)

Figure 2

State Income per Student in Ireland (2007/8-2015/16)

In the wake of the economic collapse in 2011 A National Strategy forHigher Education in Ireland was published (DES 2011). This presented acase for higher education and research to be viewed as having a central
role to play in a strategy for national recovery, and, consequently that the245sector should be protected from the worst of the budgetary cuts.
Nevertheless, as student numbers increased, per capita allocations
decreased, Presidents and their senior management teams sought togenerate income from other sources− research, commercial activities,
spin-off companies, recruitment of full-fee paying international students,
alumni and philanthropy. In order to elicit information as to how some ofthose who were caught in the eye of this ‘perfect storm’ sought to respondon behalf of their respective institutions, interviews and written
observations were obtained from Presidents and others at senior levels
from a number of higher education institutions (Pritchard and Slowey2017). While not a representative sample, the feedback does offer asnapshot of leadership responses in highly constrained circumstances.3)
Common steps taken to cut back expenditure mentioned by many weresummarized by one respondent as follows:…increased class sizes, larger tutorial groups, and reduced access to one-to-one
interaction with academics; reduced options and subject streams; academics
teaching increasing student numbers (with a consequent impact on researchtime); reduced library purchasing and opening hours; charges for medical
services; reduced support services such as porters, security and building
opening hours.

Most respondents drew attention to how cutbacks meant that many(even most) academic staff were required to teach larger numbers ofstudents as a matter of concern. As the President of one university
expressed it:
The strongest manifestation of alteration [as a result of the crisis] is in thechanging staff: student ratio. Of all the indicators this is the best forinternational comparison.

The same respondent rather wryly quoted a previous President of
Stanford University as saying that the key to achieving university
excellence was easy:
The 3 R’s−resources, resources, resources.

246

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership

For several decades Ireland has had an explicit policy aim to increase
participation rates from students from socio-economically disadvantaged
backgrounds (updated, HEA 2015). A further common theme from
respondents highlighted concerns about the impact of austerity policies on
this widening access objective. As one respondent expressed the issue.
For undergraduate students the recession and budget cuts have meant:increasing student contribution; fewer part-time and summer jobs available;
less money in the home to support students; limited ability to borrow (with acredit squeeze).

Related to this theme, concerns were also expressed about particular
sub-categories of students such as adult returners (those aged over 23 on
entry) ‘second chance’ and part-time lifelong learners.
The impact of the recession has been greater for mature and postgraduate
students. We saw a decline in both these categories in the recession.

Other effects of austerity policies in Ireland included a reduction in realterms pay rates and the introduction by the Government of an emergency
Employment Control Framework leaving, university leaders felt, little orno room for flexibility (even when they generated additional external
income). In one way or another, all respondents expressed frustration at
the lack of opportunity to manage their own resources which, as they saw
it, posed a threat to institutional autonomy. Respondents regarded theGovernment as seeking to micro-manage universities, finding it, as one
international higher education expert expressed it:…extraordinary that the Irish government has imposed these cuts on the one
hand, but on the other has not enabled universities to respond to those cuts in an
optimal way.

This is, of course, a selective view from the senior levels of higher
education institutions. Two contrasting narratives can be anticipated.
First, from Government, along the lines that as the whole country was in afinancial crisis, universities should not be exempt but should be subject tosimilar constraints as other (public) sectors. Second, from mainstream

247

academic staff who may well have viewed cutbacks as emanating ‘top
down’ from senior levels of their institutions.
This issue of how communications from Presidents and senior
management groups are perceived by academic staff was explored in alargescale survey The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) (Locke et al.
2011). Data collected from surveys using a common instrument in eighteencountries−including Ireland and Japan−sought views of academics on
topics such as institutional management, academic decision making, thebalance of research and teaching and the changing nature of their work
(Arimoto 2011). In relation to governance and management, respondents
were asked about the extent to which they agreed or not with a series ofstatements. Most academic staff in the eighteen countries felt they had
authority on academic matters such as choosing new faculty, promotions,
tenure decisions and approving new programmes. Decisions about budget
priorities and selection of key administrators were taken at ‘higher levels’such as Deans and department chairs. However, when asked about theirviews higher level management, across all countries a majority of
respondents did not agree that there is ‘good communication’ between
them and institutional management in relation to decision making
processes. In twelve countries, a majority of respondents felt that the
management style in their institutions was indeed ‘top-down’. This may
perhaps be an indicator of the rise of managerialism with the President orVice-Chancellor as Chief Executive−rather than ‘first among equals’−anddecline in the power of collegial bodies such as academic senates (Shattock2006).
In

Ireland,academicandcurriculum

decisions

are

the

clear

responsibility of academic councils or their equivalent. However, the Irish
universities voluntarily ceded their right to review academic units andquality of teaching to the Irish Universities Quality Board in order tocomply with Bologna Process requirements for independent scrutiny. One
immediate effect of the financial crisis was a Government cost cutting
decision to merge this body with three other related agencies into a single
Quality and Qualifications Ireland with, arguably, further loss of autonomy(Pritchard and Slowey 2017). Overall, perhaps one of the most important248

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershipeffects was the fact that educational decisions were increasingly based on
resourcing rather than academic grounds. This is not to slip into somemythical notion of a ‘golden age’ but, as one senior level respondent
expressed the concerns of many, that the quality of education may be
being eroded, as…there can be no doubt that the cumulative effect of these measures we areforced to adopt will impact on quality.

This reflection on the experience of university leaders in Ireland over aparticular crisis point is not new. An in-depth empirical study of university
leadership in the UK found that…externally imposed changes impel institutions towards a new managerial
agenda, whether individual academic-managers want this or not. But on theother hand, posts such as Head of Department or Deputy Vice-Chancellors are
hardly new to universities. Nevertheless, these posts are taking on a newsignificance as concerns about money, audits and budgets come to the fore, withincumbents wrestling to combine informality with relatively non-hier-archal
ways of organizing academic work through collegiality with new ways of doing
things under a harsher funding and policy regime. (Deem 2003: 59)

Middle level academic leaders/managers such as Deans and Heads ofDepartment carry much of the responsibility of dealing with this ‘harsher’regime as they negotiate between senior management teams and theiracademic colleagues and peers, and it is to this group that attention isturned in the next part.
1.3

The ‘squeezed middle’ ?

With the dramatic changes which have taken place in higher educationin recent decades it is interesting to take two snapshots of training
concerns of middle managers at two different periods of time. One of myprevious studies (Slowey 1995), highlighted the fact that training needs totake account of the fact that some of those appointed or elected to
middle-management positions, such as Head of Department, Director of a
Research Centre or Dean, do so rather reluctantly, out of a desire or an
obligation to be a ‘good citizen’. Others, more positively, see it as an249

opportunity to shape the future of their respective unit, and many change
their views once in post. However, not only did many also report a lack ofclarity in the requirements of the role to which they were appointed orelected but few had received any formal management training−a phrase
which recurred was that they had to learn the job ‘on the hoof’−
perceived as a handicap which they had to overcome.
An analysis at that time by Tann (1995), highlighted the kinds of issues
raised by this middle level group where advanced training and continuing
professional development might have been of assistance.
・ On taking up their roles they wanted better ‘handover’ periods,
succession planning, briefing, and introduction.
・ Support for strategic planning−heads expressed feeling overwhelmed−even to the point of desperation as ‘they always move the goal posts’.
・ Departmental management teams−many Heads feel uneasy about thelanguage of management, so they seek to ‘manage without appearing to
do so’.
・ Achieving transparency, clear departmental structures and delegation.
・ Motivation−what incentives have Heads at their disposal?
・ Appraisal and staff development-building trust taking time, valuing
feedback.
・ Communication−upwards to senior management.
Overall, Tann concluded that…with the more managerial approach to university management there are
inadequate opportunities for expressing points of view, that the senate has
become a set piece, and that the centre does not wish to hear from middle
managers except through the formal decision-making machinery. There is often
a strong suspicion that all the important decisions have been taken elsewhere.
(Tann 1995: 95)

It is instructive to contrast these findings with more recent work on therole of middle level academic leaders and potential areas for assistance in
the implementation of their roles and responsibilities. A detailed literature
review undertaken by Byman (2008) examined the findings of empiricalstudies in peer reviewed higher education research journals in English

250

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershipover the period 1985-2005 on what makes an ‘effective leader’ at the middle
level. This research review yields a list in which issues of trust,communication

andinclusionfeatureprominently.

Specific

topicsemerging from the studies reviewed included: setting a clear direction forthe department; being considerate; treating academic staff fairly and withintegrity; being trustworthy; allowing the opportunity to participate in key
decisions/ encouraging open discussion; communicating well; acting as arole model; creating a positive/collegial work atmosphere in thedepartment;

advancingthedepartment’s

cause

with

respect

toconstituencies internal and external to the university and being proactivein doing so; providing feedback on performance; securing resources for,and adjusting workloads to, stimulate scholarship and research; making
academic appointments that enhance department’s reputation (Byman
2008).
The challenge remains as to how these features might be translated into
action and specifically into leadership development programmes whichmight support good practice (Meek et al. 2010). Here, Byman cautions
against simplistic competency models, noting that the above aspects ofeffective leader behaviour are very general, and offer limited guidance inrelation to concrete proposals for professional development. Additionally,
as he points out, aspects of departmental leadership effectiveness may
clash. In an academic environment research performance is a key aspectof credibility, but how is this to be obtained, maintained or enhanced while
taking on onerous management roles?
In summary, this middle level of leadership appears to receive little
training of substance and relevance to assist them in the conduct of theirroles. ‘Substance’ and ‘relevance’ are indeed the key matters when it
comes to professional development in general, and, in particular, foracademic staff for whom an enquiring mind and the independent pursuit ofknowledge are central aspects of their disciplinary training.
The concluding section takes up this issue, as well as an importantunderlying challenge of diversity − or, rather, lack thereof − in thecomposition of university leadership.

251

1.4 Concluding Observations:
Leadership Training, Diversity and Inclusion
The discussion in this paper has focused on the challenges facing
leadership at senior and middle levels. In this a key difficulty lies inachieving a balance between on the one hand, a ‘strong steering core’(Clark 1998)−which equips the institution to respond effectively to rapidlychanging external forces−and, on the other, maintenance of a collegial andinclusive approach, which aims beyond mere institutional survival. In
other words, an approach which seeks to protect and, potentially, enhancecore university values such as independent knowledge discovery, highlevel education of students, promotion of critical thinking and wider social
responsibility.
As the development of leadership skills does not take place in a social
vacuum, one important challenge relates to the composition of leadershipteams and the lack of diversity evident at middle and, particularly, senior
university levels. In the case of women, for example, even in countries
women represent half or more of the students in higher education, striking
imbalances persist when it comes to career advancement and participationin academic decision‑making. Across the European Union, for example,
despite significant progress in levels of education achieved, women are
increasingly under-represented as they move up the stages of an academic
career. Thus, at the basic academic grade, the difference stands at c10%,
while at senior grades it reaches c58% (EC 2016).
Here is one important topic for substantive training for leadership andmanagement in higher education in order that issues such as genderequality and unconscious bias are addressed. Figure 3 shows thepercentage of heads of higher education institutions across 23 European
countries at two points in time, 2010 and 2014 (EC 2016). While there issome evidence of progress, on average just one fifth of higher education
leaders are women.

252Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership

60%

2010

2014

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

Luxembourg

FranceCyprusRomania

GreeceNetherlands

Slovakia

Estonia

Germany

Hungary

Czech Republic

PolandIreland

Bulgaria

Average

Italy

Austria

Belgium

Finland

LatviaLithuania

Portugal

Denmark

Sweden0%

Source: Adopted from European Commission (2016) She Figures 2015, derived from Women in
Science database, DG Research and Innovation.

Figure 3

The Proportion (%) of Female Heads of Higher Education

Institutions in 23 European Countries (2010-2014)

In the case of Ireland, a recent review of gender inequality ininstitutions of higher education undertaken by the Higher Education
Authority showed that while a number of institutions of technology andcolleges had a female President at some point in their history, at the timeof writing no Irish university has ever appointed a woman as President(HEA 2016). In relation to the composition of senior management teams
only two of the seven universities reported having 40% or more women,with a sector average of 32%. Furthermore, it was pointed out that it was
unclear from the data how many of these women were in academic as
opposed to senior administrative roles.
In addition to principles of justice and equality, it is interesting to note
increasing interest from other sectors, such as business, industry andcommerce, in the organizational benefits of more diversity in management
teams (Deloitte 2011). A review of literature to support more engagement
by women at senior levels in the business world identified a number ofapproaches and barriers including: the need for leadership to ensure that253

team members speak up, are heard and encouraged to propose novel ideas;that women should not be made to feel they have to act to ‘like a man’ tobecome a leader; inclusion of women in informal networking activities; andthe establishment of clear career paths taking account of the fact thatwomen tend to carry the main responsibility for childcare and also often
for elderly relatives (Sherbin and Rashid 2017).
There is some evidence that national higher education systems andindividual universities are starting to take active steps to promote greater
gender equality not only from a commitment to fairness and equality, butalso in practical recognition of the potential institutional benefits of greater
diversity In Japan, for example, Nagoya University is one of 10 universities
globally which has been designated as a UN He for She Champion (UN2019) with (Nagoya 2018). In Ireland, it is now a requirement of the national
funding body and research councils that all universities commit to genderequality targets, publish strategies for their achievement within a
specified timeframe, and are assessed on this material and plans for
progress against international criteria developed by the Athena Swan
Charter initiative (Athena Swan 2019). To-date c160 higher education
institutions from Australia, the UK and Ireland have signed up to theprinciples of this Charter which includes an acknowledgement that, as‘academia cannot reach its full potential unless it can benefit from thetalents of all’ charter members commit ‘to advancing gender equality inacademia, in particular, addressing the loss of women across the career
pipeline and the absence of women from senior academic, professional andsupport roles’ and ‘addressing unequal gender representation acrossacademic disciplines and professional and support functions’ (Athena Swan
2018). Following an external peer review process awards can be made atthree levels Bronze, Silver and Gold.
The block at the midcareer stage is highlighted in Athena Swan as
many studies show that, in addition to important policy issues such as
career breaks and childcare, there is a need to address long standing
cultural practices, unconscious bias, the role that ‘prestige’ plays inacademic careers and the extent to which prestige itself is a somewhat
gendered concept in academia (Coate et al. 2015). Many respondents in the254

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershiplatter study felt that men gained access to academic ‘indicators of esteem’
more easily than women such as invitations to give keynote lectures,
editorial positions and the like. Furthermore, many women also had
ambivalent feelings about gaining recognition through prestige, they
understood the importance of status and knew the ‘rules of the game’, butwere sometimes critical of these rules and reluctant to pursue them.
Short term ‘off the shelf’ training clearly cannot equip current andincoming leaders to address the complexity of such challenges in addition
to those of creating and maintaining collegiality in the face of pressures
towards managerialism. It is not surprising that there can be a deal of
skepticism from potential recipients as training and professional
development opportunities that are both relevant and substantive require
serious commitment in time and resources from individuals andinstitutions (Middlehurst 2008, 2012).
Examples of good practice do exist. To take just four of different types
from different parts of the English-speaking world. In the USA, the Centre
for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) at University of California
Berkeley has partnered in the development of an Executive Leadership

Academy (ELA). This five-day program that aims to prepare college anduniversity leaders to guide their institutions in a multicultural and global
environment. ELA promotes key critical thinking skills, leadership, andstrategic planning for higher education officials. In the UK, the Institute of
Education of University College London developed a pioneering MBA in
Higher Education Management while in Ireland, as an example of a more
university specific initiative, Dublin City University introduced a

University Leadership and Management Programme (ULM) which
involves blended learning over four months and is aimed at incoming
heads of both academic and administrative departments. In Australia, the
LH Martin Institute of Melbourne University offers a well-establishedprogramme in Tertiary Education Management.
It is likely to be the most motivated leaders who choose to participate insuch programmes, and it will always be difficult to prove cause and effect.
However, given that other professional areas and sectors invest heavily inthe professional development of senior staff, as educational institutions it is255surely to be expected that universities would lead the way in this regard?
There is here something of a paradox: academics who are dedicated to the
pursuit of knowledge and skill development in their own disciplinary area,
may be somewhat resistant to the idea there is also a need for training andprofessional development in relation to their leadership roles (Middlehurst2004).
Even amongst those who are committed to promoting greater equality,
there can be a tendency to seek quick solutions to with the consequent
danger of complex problems being oversimplified (O’Connor 2014, David
2015). And it is here, as research based institutions, that universities might
be expected to take a lead on developing more sophisticated evidence
based training and development provision in support of inclusive andeffective models of leadership. Leadership (at all levels) matters too muchto be left to ad hoc arrangements. The profiles from international casestudies undertaken by Watson and colleagues (2011) across twenty
universities from the global north to the global south highlights ‘…thepower of individual and collective leadership. They show how individuals
and small groups − of heads of institutions, professors, students andcommunity partners−can make a decisive difference’ (Watson et al. 2011:252). Three of the leadership elements and strategies identified asimportant and effective included in this study.


Vision

Coalition building

Collaboration

This paper commenced with a discussion of the pressures on higher
education and the associated growth of managerialism. However,alternative responses to external challenges are possible. While somepeople may instinctively come to such responses, many of us could benefit
from more structured training to help enhance our knowledge and skills
associated with creative and inclusive management based on evidence
from higher education research and a commitment by universities to thepromotion of lifelong learning (Schuetze and Slowey 2002). As Cuthbert(2011) puts it, it is the job of university managers to seek to shape
institutional narratives to make the ambiguities of external pressures256

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadershipmanageable for faculty, governing bodies and students. However,[I]f they over-use rationalistic analysis, targets and key performance indicatorsas ‘weapons’ to respond to the ‘attacks’ they face, they may reinforce the very
problem which causes the pressure−the inappropriately managerialist framingof evaluation questions. Mechanistic responses which do not sufficiently
acknowledge academic and educational values reproduce externalmanagerialist practices within the institution. (Cuthbert 2011: 138)

The case is made here that relevant, evidence based training has apotentially important role to play in helping higher education leaders,
particularly at middle and senior levels, avoid the danger of suchmechanistic responses−and the ‘group think’ which can be associatedwith uniformity in composition of academic management teams−in orderto develop more inclusive and creative approaches to university leadershipand management.

Notes
1) The discussion in this paper focuses primarily on leadership in universities
rather than other types of higher education institutions such as polytechnics
and technological institutions which tend to have different traditions andstructures.
2) As leadership titles vary between countries and institutions the following
conventions are used: ‘President’ for heads of institutions, called, for example,‘Rector’ in many European countries, ‘Vice-Chancellor’ in England and‘Principal’ in Scotland; ‘Programme Leader’ for academics withresponsibility undergraduate or postgraduate degrees; ‘Head of Department’for Heads or Chairs of major disciplinary groups or Directors of research
centres; and ‘Dean’ for Heads of larger groupings of academic departments.
3) Quotations are drawn from interviews or written observations reported in
Pritchard and Slowey (2017).

257

References
Arimoto, A, 2011, “Japan: Effects of Changing Governance and Mangement on
the Academic Profession”, W. Locke, W.J. Cummings, and D. Fisher, D. eds.,

Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education: The
Perspectives of the Academy, Dordrecht, Springer, 281-30.
Athena Swan, 2018, web site.
(https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/, 2018.12.20)
Bauman, Z., 2000, Liquid Modernity, Cambridge, Policy Press.
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R., 2001, Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed.,Open University Press.
Bryman, A., 2007, “Effective Leadership in Higher Education: A Literature
Review”, Studies in Higher Education, 32(6): 693-710.
Bruckmuller, S., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F., and Haslam, S. A., 2014, “Beyond the
Glass Ceiling: The Glass Cliff and Its Lessons for Organizational Policy”,

Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1): 202-32.
Clark, B. R., 1998, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational
Pathways of Transformations, Oxford: Elsevier.
Clancy, P., 2015, Irish Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective, Dublin,
Institute of Public Administration.
Coate, K. L., Kandiko Howson, C. B., and de St Croix, T., 2015, Mid-Career

Academic Women: Strategies, Choices and Motivation, London: LeadershipFoundation for Higher Education.
Cuthbert, R., 2011, “Failing the Challenge of Institutional Evaluation: How and
Why Managerialism Flourishes”, M. Saunders, P. Trowler, and V. Bamber,eds, Reconceptualising Evaluation in Higher Education: The Practice Turn,
Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press/McGraw-Hill, 133-6.
David, M., 2015, “Women and Gender Equality in Higher Education?”,
Education Sciences, 5: 10-25.
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education, 2018.12.20)
DCU (Dublin City University), 2019, website.
(https://www.dcu.hr/ulm, 2018.12.20)
Deem, R., 2003, “New Managerialism in UK Universities: Manager-academic
Accounts of Change”, H. Eggins, ed., Globalization and Reform in Higher

Education, SRHE/Open University Press, 55-67.
Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reed, M., 2007, Knowledge, Higher Education and
the New Manageralism, Oxford University Press.

258

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership
Deloitte, 2011, Only Skin Deep? Re-examining the Business Case for Diversity,
Sydney: Deloitte Human Capital Australia.
DES, 2011, National Strategy for Higher Education in Ireland, Dublin:
Department of Education and Science.
De Vries, W. and Slowey, M., 2012, “Between Humboldt and Newman:
Marketization

andGlobalContradictionsinContemporary

Higher

Education”, H. G. Schuetze and G. Alvarez, eds, Higher Education Reform:
Market and the State, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 215-23.
EC, 2016, “She Figures: Research and Innovation 2015”.
(https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/she-figures-2015-gender-in-research-and-innovation, 2018.12.20)
EC, 2018, “2018 Report on Equality between Women and Men in the EU”.
(https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/950dce57-6222-11e8-ab9c-01aa75ed71a1, 2018.12.20)
EU, 2018, “European Higher Education Area and Bologna Process”.
(http://www.ehea.info/, 2018.12.20)
Evans, L., 2016, The Purpose of Professors: Professionalism, Pressures andPerformance, London: The Leadership Foundation.
Expert Group, 2015, “The Role, Value and Scale of Higher Education in Ireland”,
Discussion Paper 2, Dublin: Expert Group on Future Funding for Higher
Education.
Ferlie, E., Musselin,C., and Andresani, G., 2007, “The ‘Steering’ of Higher
Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective”, Higher Education

Looking Forward: Relations between Higher Education and Society,
Brussels: European Science Foundation.
Hazelkorn, E., 2011, Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The

Battle for World-Class Excellence, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heffernan, E., Moore-Cherry, N., and McHale, J., 2017, eds., Debating Austerity,
Crisis, experience, and recovery, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
Henkel, M., 2000, Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education,
London: Jessica Kingsley.
HEA (Higher Education Authority), 2015, “National Access Plan 2015-2019”.
(http://hea.ie/policy/national-access-plan/national-access-plan-2015-2019/,
2018.12.20)
HEA (Higher Education Authority), 2016, “Review of Gender”.
(http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/04/hea̲review̲of̲gender̲equality̲in̲irish̲higher̲education.pdf, 2018.12.20)
HERC (Higher Education Research Centre), Dublin City University, Ireland.

259

(https://www.dcu.ie/herc/index.shtm, 2018.12.20)
Locke, W., Cummings, W. J., and Fisher, D. D., eds., Changing Governance andManagement in Higher Education: The Perspectives of the Academy,
Dordrecht: Spinger.
von Lüde, R., 2015, “Academic Freedom under Pressure: From Collegial
Governance to New Managerialism”, P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, H. G. Schuetze,
and A. Wolter, eds., Higher Education Reform: Looking Back− Looking
Forward, Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang, 151-62.
Marginson, S. and Considine, M., 2000, The Enterprise University: Power,

Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marginson, S., 2011, “Higher Education and Public Good”, Higher Education

Quarterly, 65 (2): 411-33.
Marshall, S., 2016, A Handbook for Leaders in Higher Education, London:
Routledge.
McCaffery, P., 2019, The Higher Education Manager’s Handbook: Effective
Leadership and Management in Universities and Colleges, 3rd ed., London:
Routledge.
Meek, V. L., Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, R., and Carvalho, T.,eds, 2010, The
Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management, Dordrecht:
Springer.
Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Frank, D. J., and Schofer, E., 2007, “Higher
Education as an Institution”, P. J. Gumport, ed., Sociology of Higher

Education: Contributions and their Contexts, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University, 187-221.
Middlehurst, R., 2004, “Changing Internal Governance: A Discussion of
Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities”, Higher

Education Quarterly, 58(4): 258-79.
Middlehurst, R., 2008, “Not Enough Science or Not Enough Learning?:
Exploring the Gaps between Leadership Theory and Practice”, Higher

Education Quarterly, 62(4): 322-39.
Middlehurst, R., 2012, “Investing in Leadership Development: The UK
Experience”, International Higher Education, 67: 16-7.
Nagoya University, 2018, “HeForShe”.
(http://heforshe.provost.nagoya-u.ac.jp, 2018.12.20)
Nóvoa, A., 2002, “Ways of Thinking about Education in Europe”, Nóvoa A. and
Lawn M., eds., Fabricating Europe: The Formation of an Education Space,
Kluwer: Dordrecht, 131-55.

260

Professional Development and Training for Academic Leadership
O’Connor, P., 2014, Management and Gender in Higher Education, Manchester:Manchester University Press.
OECD, 2018, web site.
(http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/, 2018.12.20)
Pritchard, R. and Slowey, M., 2017, “Resilience: A High Price for Survival? The
Impact of Austerity on Irish Higher Education, North ad South”, E.
Heffernan, N. Moore-Cherry, and J. McHale, eds., Debating Austerity in
Ireland: crisis, experience and recovery, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy,
175-203.
Pollitt, C., 2003, The Essential Public Manager, Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Schuetze, H. G. and Alvarez-Mendiola, G., eds, 2012, Higher Education Reform:

Market and the State, Rotterdam. Sense Publishers.
Schuetze, H. G. and Slowey, M., 2002, “Koutou-Kyouiku no Dentou to Aratana
Houkou”, Tokyo: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training,

Koutou-Kyouiku to Syougai-Gakushuu-Sha: Sono Henka ni Kansuru Kakkoku
no Joukyou. (=2000, Higher Education and Lifelong Learners, Buckingham:
SRHE/Open University Press.)
Scott, P., 2012, “Going beyond Bologna: Issues and Themes”, A. Curaj, P. Scott,
L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, eds., European Higher Education at the

Crossroads: Between

theBologna

ProcessandNational

Reforms,

Amsterdam: Springer, 1-14.
Scott, P., 2015, “Mass to Market Higher Education Systems: New Transitions
or False Dawn?”, P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, H. G. Schuetze, and A. Wolter, eds.,

Higher Education Reform: Looking Back − Looking Forward, 2nd ed.,Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang, 40-53.
Shattock, M., 2006, Managing Good Governance in Higher Education,
Basingstoke: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University
Press.
Shattock, M., 2010, Managing Successful Universities, 2nd ed., Maindenhead:Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press.
Sherbin, L. and Rashid, R., 2017, “Diversity doesn’t Work without Inclusion”,
Harvard Business Review.
(https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt-stick-without-inclusion, 2018.12.20)
Slowey, M., ed., 1995, Implementing Change from Within Universities andColleges: 10 Personal Accounts, London: Kogan Page.
Slowey, M. and Kozina, E., and Tan, E., 2014, Voices of Academics in Irish
Higher Education, Dublin: AISHE.

261

Tann, J., 1995, “Managing Transformations in University Departments”, M.
Slowey, ed., Implementing Change from Within Universities and Colleges: 10

Personal Accounts, London: Kogan Page, 85-97.
Teichler, U., 2010, “Introduction to Chapter 2”, M. Burrage, ed., Martin Trow,
Twentieth Century Higher Education: Elite to Mass to Universal, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D., and Amaral, A., eds., Markets in Higher
Education: Rhetoric or Reality?, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Watson, D., Hollister, R. M., Stroud, S. E., and Babcock, E., 2011, The Engaged

University: International Perspectives on Civic Engagement, New York andAbingdon: Routledge.
Zgaga, P., Teichler, U., Schuetze, H. G., and Wolter, A., eds., 2018, Higher

Education Reform: Looking Back−Looking Forward, 2nd ed., Frankfurt am
Main: PeterLang.
Yamamoto, S., 2018, “Universities and Government: How has the Japanese
Ministry of Education Succeeded in Taking Control over University
Governance?: An analysis of Government Strategies and Tactics”, CSHE
Seminar Presentation, Nagoya University, 26 October.

262

アカデミックリーダーの専門性開発と研修−同僚性とマネジリアリズムの狭間で−
マリア・スロウィ*＜要旨＞

今日の高等教育機関は、教育・経済・社会など広い領域の公共政策に沿うことが政府から期待されており、アカデミック・リーダーシッ
プを巡る議論への注目が高まっている。大学はそうした期待に、迅速でありながらも一貫性ある対応を取らなければならない。主要なステークホルダーは政府だけでなく、学生、地域社会、雇用主、専門職団
体、学会なども、高等教育機関のあり方と運営に関心を寄せている。
このことは、大学が矛盾する要求に応えなければならない環境に置かれることを意味し、大学執行部には各ステークホルダーとの調整やそれをふまえた計画の実行が求められる。
大学は教育機関であるから、任命や選挙による選出にかかわらず、
大学執行部の地位を得るまでに、中堅・ベテラン教職員に対して実質的かつ妥当なトレーニングの機会を用意すべきだという考えもあるだろう。しかし、こうした考えはうまくいくだろうか。本稿では、主に欧州での取り組みに注目しながら、現場の状況を詳述した文献を整理する。その上で、同僚性の維持を担保した効率性追求と、大学執行部における多様性の包摂というバランスが、重要な課題であることを論じる。とくに、多様性の包摂では大学の上級職に女性が少ない問題も考察する。

アイルランド ダブリンシティ大学・教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員教授

263