Middle leadership in higher education: Challenges and opportunities

Abstract

Leadership in higher education is perceived to be increasingly managerial in many contexts. Power is often centralised in a senior leadership team headed by a president or vice chancellor. Departmental leadership may then be seen as primarily a conduit for the implementation of top-down decision-making rather than an opportunity to carve out a distinctive identify linked to the academic and professional norms of subject disciplines. University reputations are based on the collective achievements of their departments, but this may not be reflected in sufficient scope for such middle leaders to define their role or the future of the sub-units they represent. Responsibility without power, for example in respect of financial and staff management, is a recipe for frustration for such academic leaders. As a consequence, being appointed as a department head may be seen as a ‘poisoned chalice’ rather than a reward. Sharon Kruse explores these issues in her study of department chair leadership in the United States. She cites Buller’s (2012: 3) comment that chairing a department in higher education is ‘probably the most important, least appreciated, and toughest administrative position in higher education’. Drawing on 45 interviews with department chairs, she focuses on chairs’ perceptions of their role. Her findings indicate that chairs struggle to balance their approaches to the work, in an unavoidable and often overwhelming political landscape, with limited institutional authority. Greeni Maheshwari and Rakkishore Nayak explore the barriers and enablers to women leadership in Vietnamese higher education. They note that women in Vietnam widely accept their traditionally ascribed roles as housewives and experience challenges when seeking leadership positions. They interviewed 21 people, 19 women and 2 men, working in higher education institutions in Ho Minh City and Hanoi, including senior leaders, middle managers and lecturers. They report that the main barriers to career enhancement were work–life imbalance, subordinates’ perceptions, social networking and personal factors. The enablers were perceived to be family and mentor support, changing mindset of employers, and the potential competency of women leaders. These factors are consistent with international research but understanding these issues in this distinctive context contributes to our understanding of this important and complex phenomenon. Promotion opportunities in higher education may also disadvantage women. Ed Dandalt and Stephane Brutus examine this issue in respect of business schools in Canada. They report that women are under-represented as full professors in Canadian business schools (only 23% are women). They conducted a survey of tenured female faculty in these business schools, followed by the analysis of faculty collective agreements between six universities and faculty unions or professional associations. They conclude that, while there is evidence of gender discrimination, often unconscious rather than overt, this is not the only organisational barrier to the promotion of female faculty in Canadian business schools. Xiaohua Jiang reports on the transformation of a Swiss university, drawing on 22 interviews with university leaders and faculty members. She utilises Kotter’s Organisational Change model Editorial