Introduction
What we’ve seen … is this need [to] be agile and really responding to what is happening, straight now, but at the same time be someone who is looking ahead, at the same time as somebody who has that emotional intelligence to deal with not only their student population who is changing dramatically, but the needs of our staff and our whole pedagogy is changing? What do leaders need to do? How do they need to act? How do they need to be? (University Dean/Head of School, cited in Watermeyer et al. Reference Watermeyer, Bolden, Knight and Holm2022: 27)
The landscape of global higher education has transformed since COVID-19 and continues to experience significant turbulence and change. The preceding quote, captured during an online focus group with Deans and Heads of School from a range of institutions and countries, highlights the complexities and uncertainties facing the sector. In the post-pandemic world, university leaders do not simply need to deliver excellence in teaching, research and external engagement, they are expected to fundamentally reframe the nature and purpose(s) of such activities and to help build individual and collective capacity – both within and beyond their institutions – to achieve this.
In the 1960s, the US Army College coined the term ‘VUCA’ to convey the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world that emerged following the height of the Cold War period, as old rivalries and alliances morphed into something far more dynamic and unpredictable. Since the 2000s, this phrase has been applied to business and organizations (e.g. Elkington et al. Reference Elkington, van der Steege, Glick-Smith and Moss Breen2017; Johansen Reference Johansen2017) as it became clear how the interconnected and interdependent nature of global markets could trigger rapid and unexpected changes. In the post-pandemic world (and arguably for considerably longer) this phrase has also come to characterize the world of higher education. The ruptures and transformations caused by COVID-19 have been rapidly followed by other seismic shifts, including the widescale roll-out of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI); the accelerating impacts of climate change; wars in Ukraine and the Middle East; funding crises; and rising political populism. Each of these is hugely destabilizing, posing significant ethical and practical dilemmas and challenges for higher education. To quote the old aphorism, often (mis)attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, ‘the only constant is change’.
In this article, we turn our attention to issues of both continuity and change to consider the implications of a rapidly transforming world for leadership and management in higher education. In particular, we explore what this means for the recruitment and development of university leaders and the discontinuities and disconnects that must be navigated and traversed in order to effectively engage and represent the interests of a diverse, and often divided, workforce whilst responding to the shifting demands and expectations of myriad stakeholders.
To reflect and address the complexities of leadership pathways in higher education – and their implications for recruitment and development – we employ two complementary theoretical perspectives. First, we examine the leadership pipeline; second, we draw on institutional logics in higher education. The need for both theoretical frameworks to capture complexity is illustrated in case vignettes from a study of leadership transitions, disconnections and logic misalignments in a Danish university. In the discussion, we interpret the findings and conclude with implications for policy, practice and leadership recruitment and development. The article contributes to the literature by providing an ecosystems perspective on higher-education leadership. It emphasizes that understanding the complex leadership pathways in a rapidly evolving higher-education sector requires both clear strategic support for role transitions and proactive engagement with the competing logics and identities that leaders and managers must navigate to function effectively.
The Leadership Pipeline in Higher Education
The notion of the ‘leadership pipeline’ was popularized by Charan et al. (Reference Charan, Drotter and Noel2001), who highlighted the various ‘passages’ that leaders must traverse as they progress to senior-level roles. The main premise was to suggest that this is not a linear trajectory, with leaders incrementally acquiring the skills and experience to operate in roles with greater levels of responsibility, but instead is a journey characterized by discontinuities in the nature and function(s) of leadership. In the third edition of their book (Charan et al. Reference Charan, Drotter, Jonasen and Noel2024), they outlined six stages to the leadership pipeline: leading self, leading others, leading leaders, leading a function, leading a business and leading an enterprise. Between each of these stages is a ‘passage’, where leaders need to transform how they operate, which, according to Charan and colleagues, requires a fundamental shift in work values, time application and skills. The key premise of the ‘leadership pipeline’ is that people progress to senior leadership roles via a series of distinct stages and that to successfully move from one stage to another requires them to navigate some potentially quite challenging ‘passages’. The primary implication is that organizations should map the key leadership stages and passages and ensure that appropriate development opportunities are in place at each transition point.
Whilst the wording and research basis for Charan et al.’s work is primarily aimed at a business audience, there are some clear parallels with higher education. Bolden et al. (Reference Bolden, Petrov and Gosling2008), for example, note an alternation between vertical leadership roles, with a high degree of formal line management and budgetary authority, and horizontal leadership roles, requiring interpersonal influence across institutional boundaries with relatively little formal authority over people and/or resources, at various levels within university hierarchies. A Dean of School/College, for example, may have significant formal authority within his/her domain of activity, whilst a Pro Vice Chancellor (PVC) may have a cross-cutting portfolio with far less formal authority and/or access to resources. How leadership and influence are enacted and received in such roles is likely to be quite different, meaning that progression from Dean to PVC is not simply a case of building on existing skills/capabilities but requires the development of a fundamentally different way of working and relating to others. Preparing and supporting leaders to make such shifts is essential to ensuring a successful transition, yet high levels of attrition, which have accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic (Bothwell Reference Bothwell2024), suggest that this is often not well managed.
The notion of the ‘leaky pipeline’ (Berryman Reference Berryman1983) has been used to highlight the tendency for certain kinds of people to be lost from the leadership pipeline owing to systemic barriers and progression challenges. This is a well-documented issue within higher education, with particularly high attrition rates for females (e.g. Ayyildiz and Banoglu Reference Ayyildiz and Banoglu2024) and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds (e.g. Fransen et al. Reference Fransen, Freeman, Aiyenitaju, Babajide, Denedo, Kator Iorfa and Oyedijo2024). Tackling blockages and/or breaks in the pipeline, it is argued, is essential to ensuring a diverse and experienced pool of candidates yet remains a significant challenge due to the complexities and interdependencies of the underlying issues. Despite significant attempts to eliminate systemic inequality within many parts of the higher-education sector, evidence of progress is fleeting.
In his study of Business School Deans, Amann (Reference Amann2020) highlights several problems with the ‘pipeline’ metaphor in universities and proposes the alternative of a ‘ship canal’ (specifically the Manchester ship canal). This analogy, he suggests, is more suitable given the nonlinear nature of career pathways within this sector, the importance of on-the-job learning, contextual adaptation, short tenures, lack of formal preparation and multiple entry points. Through such a perspective it is possible to imagine a range of routes through which higher-education leaders may travel in order to reach their eventual destination. Instead of ‘passages’, Amann likens the inevitable transition points to working your way through a sequence of ‘locks’, with the ever-present risk of getting stuck and/or ending up at a dead end.
Competing Logics of Higher-education Leadership
Alongside our focus on the leadership pipeline (or ship canal), in this article, we also draw on the notion of competing logics. Winter and Bolden (Reference Winter, Bolden, Billis and Rochester2020), for example, note the inherently ‘hybrid’ nature of higher education, suggesting that universities are ‘“multiple-identity” hybrid organizations made up of competing utilitarian (managerial) and normative (professional) beliefs and value systems that challenge the existence of any unitary, fixed or stable cultural identity’ (Winter and Bolden Reference Winter, Bolden, Billis and Rochester2020: 169).
The relationship between institutional logics and leadership within universities is vividly illustrated in Sewerin and Holmberg’s (Reference Sewerin and Holmberg2017) work, where they describe four ‘rooms’ of higher-education leadership. Within Room 1, senior executives, deans/heads of college/school, professional service managers in HR, finance, estates, etc., and trade union representatives, amongst others, are concerned with ‘Managing the formal organization’. The primary logic by which identity and performance are assessed in this room is a corporate one – concerned with financial projects, metrics and targets and employee relations. In Room 2, deans/directors of teaching and learning, programme/module leaders, student services and others are concerned with ‘Teaching and forming new educational avenues’. The primary logic here is professional, by which insights and interventions are gauged on the basis of relevant professional knowledge/expertise. Room 3 is where deans/directors of research, academic researchers, postgraduate research supervisors and research support staff explore initiatives linked to ‘Advancing your own independent research’. The primary logic here is scholarly, with status and reputation based on academic research profile, publications, grants, projects etc. Finally, Room 4 is focused on ‘Negotiating cross scientific environments’. A market logic dominates here, with deans/directors of knowledge exchange, project coordinators, regional engagement teams and others focused on how best to engage with external stakeholders to drive innovation and impact.
These four rooms, whilst not exclusive or discrete, provide insight into some of the ways in which the work of higher education is framed, communicated and consumed. Furthermore, they imply that who or what is seen as a leader or leadership will depend on the relative focus of the work and the institutional logic(s) by which it is evaluated. A senior leader extolling the need to bring in additional research funding to keep the university running, for example, may be less convincing to research active academics than someone who stresses the scholarly and/or societal significance of their work. Similarly, those with a strong identity as an educator may be sceptical of advice or guidance from people who are seen principally as managers or administrators.
The multiple logics that coexist within higher education can give rise to ‘identity schisms’ (Winter Reference Winter2009) linked to tensions and/or disconnects between individual and organizational values (see also Billot Reference Billot2010). Such issues are particularly common amongst those who take on academic leadership and/or management roles and can be incredibility difficult, if not impossible, to resolve. Parker (Reference Parker2004), for example, vividly described the existential tensions of trying to balance his identity as a critical management scholar with that of his newly acquired role of Head of Department. Such issues affect not just the ‘leader’ him-/herself but also those who are in relation with them, as colleague, subordinate, mentor, student and/or friend, to mention just a few.
A distinctive and somewhat unusual characteristic of the higher-education sector is the fact that one’s position on the organizational hierarchy is not necessarily taken as an indicator of academic esteem or influence. Indeed, there is usually an (un)healthy scepticism about the motivations and expertise of those who actively seek promotion into management roles (Oakley and Selwood Reference Oakley and Selwood2010). The twin tracks of academic reputation (generally assessed against factors such as appointment as a professor, publications in high ranked journals, and an international profile as an expert in a particular field) and managerial authority (assessed against formal positions within the organizational hierarchy and/or pay scale) are frequently misaligned. This results in the situation where academics may be reluctant to take on management and leadership responsibilities and, where this is done, it is for a fixed term as an act of academic citizenship. Those who actively pursue a leadership and/or management career pathway may be regarded with scepticism and characterized as ‘failed academics’ who moved into management and administration due to weaknesses as an educator and/or researcher. In response, academic leaders are actively engaged in ‘identity work’ (Sveningsson and Alvesson Reference Sveningsson and Alvesson2003) and may use this to craft narratives to enhance their perceived legitimacy in the eyes of those they seek to influence (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Lewis and Oliver2019).
Whether such views are justified is not the concern of this article; rather, we aim to consider the implications for the recruitment and development of leaders within higher education. We now illustrate these issues through a series of case vignettes from a study of educational leaders within a Danish university.
Case Vignettes
The following vignettes are generated from a research project comprising various data sources (including observations, interviews and audio diaries) collected between August 2022 and March 2024. The project focused on educational leadership, specifically examining how educational leaders outside the managerial line function at universities, including factors that hinder or support these leaders in their success. Fifteen educational leaders participated, all from a larger Danish university, organized through five faculties. Informants were divided into five groups – three from each faculty, selected according to their responsibilities for academic staff from (a) different faculties, (b) different departments and (c) the same department.
The researcher made 51 observations, and the educational leaders recorded audio diaries in accordance with a set of guidelines. Additionally, interviews were conducted with the educational leaders themselves (15), their colleagues (14) and their line managers (13). This article draws on interview evidence as it represents different organizational perspectives and thereby captures some of the inherent complexities of leadership. By adopting this approach, we aim to mitigate the risk of oversimplifying and provide a more nuanced understanding of a multifaceted field.
All informants participated voluntarily, with their responses anonymized, following an institutionally approved ethics protocol. In the following extracts, educational leaders will be referred to by a capital letter from A to O, while their colleagues and managers will be denoted by C and M, respectively. Within transcripts, the letter ‘I’ is used to denote the interviewer.
Leadership Transitions
Leadership transitions can be critical periods, where prior perceptions and experiences may need to be reframed in relation to future expectations and responsibilities. Because expectations act as a focal point – reducing uncertainty and providing stability and direction (Luhmann Reference Luhmann2000) – moving from one role to another can significantly impact how individuals perceive objectives, time and relationships, as well as how decisions are handled. The following empirical examples illuminate the complexities and challenges of leadership transitions.
C: Yes, the educational leaders have a crucial role. It is he or she who represents us upwards. And it is also he or she who must bring it downwards. I was just about to say that, if we speak hierarchically. So, I think that […] it is entirely legitimate for us not to share the same interests necessarily, and that the educational leader is not necessarily a representative of the teachers. Well, the study leaders are leaders. And not necessarily such a personnel manager in that way, but more […] someone who must make it understandable what is happening across levels and among students and teachers. So, I think that an educational leader who sees himself or herself as a representative for teachers will not do the job well. Because we must ensure […] that students are also heard, and we also take into account the administration responsible for managing our teaching. (Colleague to Informant E)
This statement emphasizes the need for educational leaders to transition from typical collegiality, without becoming managers per se. This highlights the need to represent and engage a range of stakeholders who may have different priorities and objectives. It also resonates with the idea of balancing competing institutional logics and the need to help (re)frame understandings to align with what needs to be accomplished.
K: I don’t know if there are any formal criteria, but I got into the previous course that had the same function as this one, you could say, all the way back in, well, it’s almost 20 years ago, when we started, or when I got in. I returned to the department and was planning to teach, but then I was asked to participate in this course instead. I can’t even remember that. My previous supervisor was also a lecturer on the course at the time, so it must have been that way, I could imagine. And so, he has taught it, you could say, of increasing rank over the years. First, I had some lectures, during which I might have been able to complete theoretical exercises, followed by additional lectures. And then at some point, I became course coordinator for the previous course, I think. Yes, I think I did that too. And so, we changed this to the new course about five to seven years ago or something like that. So, yeah, it’s not something I could say… It’s something I’ve grown into in some way. (Informant K, Educational leader)
This quote highlights the lack of organizational support for transitioning into the role of educational leader and demonstrates how it is largely left to individuals to navigate and learn how to handle the role along the way. It also highlights how people may shift in and out of different roles and responsibilities over time, often requiring a renegotiation of their relationships with colleagues, students and/or other stakeholders.
M: So, the educational leaders, it’s the dean who’s responsible for those appointments. And we’ve had one shift there. There was another educational leader when I arrived, but she had been in the position for many years. […]. There was a lot of tension in this house, and a lot of resistance. […]. And the person had already failed for eight years, because we had been waiting for […] [several] years for this new curriculum, and nothing had happened. And she didn’t really have a following. And people were furious with each other, and old talk, and trench warfare, and everything. And then she had probably been a bit of an active participant in that herself.
[…]. So, I had to say that I wanted, well, it’s a function, and I wanted someone else in the post. But in principle, it’s not me who decides. So, it was something that actually went to the dean, […]. And then it actually also required a bit of persuasion, because I had someone I wanted. And it ended up being this person, because he was definitely the most suitable. […] So, earlier, with the former educational leader, I think it was something like that, they believed that those who failed in their research careers could take it. Because then we’re off the hook. (Manager for Informant I)
There are a number of issues that merit unpacking in this example. First, we see a description of someone who was left to ‘fail’ in her role for many years, something (as noted in the final sentence) that was attributed to her having been inappropriately appointed in the first place. Second, we see that decisions over who gets appointed may lie with those who are not closely involved with, or affected by, the work. In such cases, informal persuasion may be required to influence the decision making of formal position holders. And third, we see evidence of resistance, collusion and inter-group rivalries, which suggests complexity, ambiguity and contestation within academic leadership processes.
Leadership Disconnections
Leadership disconnections emerge when there is a mismatch between organizational expectations and personal experience, reflecting a lack of synchronization between the organizational role and personal levels (Lassen Reference Lassen2024). The following examples illustrate how such disconnections manifest and the impact they can have on the motivation, performance and retention of educational leaders.
I: And is that [research] still the most prestigious? […]
C: It’s funny, because it’s clear that there is something about A and B teams. So, I think you’ll have a hard time finding someone around you when you talk to people and say, ‘Yes, I’ve been an educational leader’… or ‘There’s someone, the one who is now the educational leader, he had a fantastic time with his research, but he couldn’t leave the students alone. He would rather that, so he kissed his research group goodbye, […]. And then he became an educational leader and has been that for 15 years now’. So, I don’t think you’ll find that story anywhere. I don’t think so. It’s more like you’re gradually easing into the soft middle ground, then immersing yourself fully with education. (Colleague to Informant L)
This quote highlights that, despite an institutional rhetoric of education and research being equivalent career pathways, there is a sense that research is perceived as higher status and more rewarding. From this perspective, someone may not choose a career in educational leadership but find themselves drifting into it over time, not least due to the difficulties of sustaining an active research profile alongside such a role. It is also suggested that this may affect how they are perceived by others, undermining their potential influence and authority.
A: […] allocating how many hours are given to something is an employee responsibility that I don’t really have. So, I’m kind of being pushed closer to management than my role actually dictates.
I: So, when you say you’re being pushed closer to management. Is it because they draw more on you, or is it because you’re going to determine the number of hours for some employees?
A: Yes, I would say that’s the main issue, with me, setting hours for some employees. […] when we reach the point of negotiating the detailed planning and how this framework should be filled, I find myself a bit, ah, I actually think that I am outside my area of competence. (Informant A, educational leader)
This quote highlights the ways in which institutions can push academic leaders into activities beyond their scope of responsibility and/or expertise. With reference to Sewerin and Holmberg’s (Reference Sewerin and Holmberg2017) framework, we can see the pressure for educational leaders to operate in Room 1 (Managing the formal organization) rather than Room 2 (Teaching and forming new educational avenues), which may lead them (and others) to question their competence and credibility.
M: Well, recruitment is tough. […]. It’s primarily research results. Because you emerge into an incredibly competitive environment. […]. Because you can be a good teacher, but if you can’t attract external funding… […] And we don’t exactly hide it when we hire people, that you may not have extensive teaching experience, but you will need to develop it. And that’s something we’ll help you with.
I: That’s not the gatekeeper, though. It’s the research?
M: Exactly. And I know we’re meant to pay close attention to teaching when we’re hiring, but it’s no use having an incredibly talented teacher if they’re not capable of conducting research. And you can only do that if you’re competitive.
I: So, would you say that taking on the role of course coordinator might limit the time available for research? Or do you expect the same output regardless?
M: That’s a really good question, because it’s all about balance. And when we talk about someone like K, who’s been extremely active in teaching, I might well take the time to say: ‘You’re a really talented researcher. Just be careful. Don’t take on the entire teaching load. There has to be space for other things as well’.
I: So you’re trying to strike a balance so they also get a fair chance to make their mark in research, because that mustn’t be missed.
M: Exactly, because it might be that someone is really interested in teaching, and they throw themselves into it because they find it absolutely fascinating. And perhaps also as a way to avoid the research part, by planning such elaborate teaching that they barely have any resources left for research. (Manager for Informant K)
In this extended extract, we see how the tensions between education and research play out within recruitment and promotion. Whilst good educational leadership is an essential requirement for the institution, it continues to be given far less status and value than research. The manager, reflecting on the implications for Informant K, highlights the importance of balance and the need to sustain an active research career, even if this is not your natural area of expertise or if you are given very little support. From a leadership pipeline perspective, we can see people being held back or blocked in their ambitions to progress along an educational leadership pathway by lack of time for research.
Logic Misalignment
Misalignment between different institutional logics can create tensions between academic values and institutional priorities if the latter are believed to erode academic autonomy (Luhmann Reference Luhmann2016). The following examples illustrate how such misalignments may be experienced in practice.
C: […] I also think it’s appropriate that the educational leader is a professor. Because it takes an insane amount of time. So, it can actually be a career hindrance to take on that role.
I: […] So, is it actually something that sets you back in terms of your career? In terms of recognition and…?
C: Well, it’s a bit difficult to say. Because you can receive recognition from your colleagues. But you don’t get a professorship from… Professorship assessments don’t take into account what you do as an educational leader. […] So, if you have ambitions of advancing in the academic hierarchy or career ladder, then I would say that you shouldn’t become an educational leader until you’ve achieved the goals you’re aiming for. (Colleague to Informant E)
This quote highlights a misalignment between academic and organizational progression pathways. According to the respondent, appointment as a professor has little to do with your reputation as an educational leader. Pursuing educational leadership roles before securing the role of professor can be seen as a barrier to career progression and/or promotion. This illustrates the issue of the ‘leaky pipeline’, where the progression of motivated and experienced individuals may be blocked by entrenched structural and cultural barriers. Given the requirements for sustaining a research trajectory, this may also help explain systemic inequalities whereby those who have taken a break for maternity and childcare, for example, find themselves siloed into educational leadership roles that offer little opportunity for promotion.
G: […]. But it’s hard to recruit people, so…
I: Yes. And why do you think that is?
G: Well, I think it’s because it’s rumoured that it takes a lot of time. And partly, that’s the administrative part you must be happy about. And there just aren’t many of our teachers who are happy about that. (Informant G, educational leader)
This quote illustrates the challenges in recruiting people for educational leadership roles. The scale of the administrative load is seen as unappealing for many, even if they may have the potential to be a skilled and influential leader. Here we see the conflation of academic management with academic leadership (Bolden et al. Reference Bolden, Gosling, O’Brien, Peters, Ryan and Haslam2012) and the resultant consequence for many to see such roles as unattractive.
M: Well, I lead by explaining the situation and giving my perspective on how things work. So, I hope I interpret things correctly. But that’s what I do. I try to explain the reality of how all of this is organised. Sometimes it’s frustrating for me, too. And I don’t know who’s responsible. […]. The kind of work we do is teaching and research. The research, to some extent, is not even a factor. It’s like 40% that doesn’t, let’s say, matter from that point of view. So, where things count is at the 60% level, which is administration and teaching. However, in courses where, for example, there’s a lot of coordination, which we have a lot of in our department, we’re always told that there’s no working time for coordination. […]. You’re not getting time for coordinating officially.
I: Okay.
M: So, I can make examples. We have a lot of multi-teacher courses. We don’t get time to contact the other teachers, making sure it’s okay for their timetable. Often, we have teachers also from outside. So, all of that takes time. I don’t know exactly how much time it takes. But the hours that we get are for the actual teaching that we do and not for the coordination. (Manager for Informant B)
In this final extract, the manager explains how she, too, has difficulties understanding the rationale by which time and responsibilities are allocated, and the challenges of legitimizing this to colleagues. It also highlights the invisible labour of educational leadership (Staudt Willet and He Reference Staudt Willet and He2024), whereby coordination is an essential part of the role but does not receive any workload allocation. These responsibilities are therefore likely to eat into research time, which is much less tightly monitored, hence further eroding the potential for educational leaders to sustain the necessary levels of research activity expected for promotion.
Discussion
The case vignettes provide rich insights into the nature of passages and transitions within educational leadership in higher education. The first set of examples considers leadership transitions, indicating (1) the challenges of balancing competing institutional logics, priorities and role identities; (2) the lack of institutional support for role transitions and the longitudinal and non-linear nature of such changes; and (3) the potential for people to be recruited and left to ‘fail’ based on misaligned logics and priorities. The second set of examples concerns leadership disconnections, highlighting the tensions between teaching and research with (1) research being attributed higher status, yet hard to sustain alongside a substantive educational leadership role; (2) a tendency for leaders, appointed on the basis of their educational expertise, being pushed to operate in management spaces that are beyond their area of comfort or competence; and (3) systemic blocks and barriers to career development and promotion. The third set of examples on logic misalignment illustrates (1) the ‘leaky pipeline’ and the attrition of leaders who are not aligned with a traditional research trajectory; (2) the associated challenges in motivating and incentivizing people to take on educational leadership roles; and (3) systemic imbalances of workload allocation for certain roles and activities.
Together, these examples paint a complex and nuanced picture of recruitment and development in academic leadership roles. Whilst the notion of leadership passages or transition points is clearly relevant, the pipeline metaphor (Charan et al. Reference Charan, Drotter and Noel2001, Reference Charan, Drotter, Jonasen and Noel2024) seems too linear and sequential to capture the complexity of routes and the frequent absence of clear or smooth transitions. Amann’s (Reference Amann2020) alternative analogy of a ship canal, while addressing some of the limitations of the pipeline metaphor, still follows a rather too structural and mechanistic approach to capture the complex, contested and multidimensional nature of leadership and management logics and pathways within higher education.
In considering alternative metaphors, we sought to combine the concept of competing logics or ‘rooms’ (Sewerin and Holmberg Reference Sewerin and Holmberg2017) of higher education, and the potential for people to enter and move between roles and functional areas through a variety of routes. We also sought to capture the collective (Bolden et al. Reference Bolden, Petrov and Gosling2008), hybrid (Winter and Bolden Reference Winter, Bolden, Billis and Rochester2020) and changing (Watermeyer et al. Reference Watermeyer, Bolden, Knight and Holm2022) nature of university leadership. Our proposed model takes an ecosystems perspective, as shown in Figure 1.
Higher-education ecosystem model.
Figure 1 maps out the ecosystem of leadership and management in higher education, showing several key domains, each characterized by different logics, stakeholders and priorities. At the centre are the core functions of higher education (Baecker Reference Baecker2010), with teaching aimed at students/learners, research targeting academic/scholarly communities and administration reflecting leadership, managerial and other administrative work. Whilst these may be well-established, the ways in which they are enacted and interpreted are shaped by a range of internal and external factors, as illustrated by the two outer circles. The interactions between these areas are dynamic and interdependent, as indicated by the dotted lines.
The internal context reflects a range of factors that shape and are shaped by both the core functions of the university and the external context.
-
• Strategy & policy reflects institutional practices and priorities designed to secure strategic advantage and adaptation to a shifting environment. Strategic thinking and political astuteness are key behaviours associated with the logics valued and promoted in this domain.
-
• Finance & enterprise relates to the running of the institution as a corporate entity. Robust financial management and the capacity to secure additional funding are key behaviours and logics in this area.
-
• Civic engagement refers to the role and impact of the university in civil society. Promoting inclusion, social justice, cultural exchange and knowledge exchange are amongst the key behaviours, values and logics in this domain.
-
• Digital & online relates to how technology is used to facilitate and support new ways of working and engagement amongst staff, students and other stakeholders. Key behaviours and logics in this domain include digital literacy and technological innovation.
-
• Regulation & accreditation refers to the systems and processes implemented to ensure compliance with ethicolegal frameworks such as quality assurance, data protection and research ethics, as well as alignment with rankings, metrics and other performance indices. Key behaviours and logics in this domain relate to professional expertise, legal acumen and risk management.
-
• Campus & place relates to the physical aspects of the university, including estates, location and environmental footprint. Logics and behaviours linked to sustainability, estates management and community liaison are particularly valued in this area.
The external context is represented by means of the widely used PESTLE framework (see, for example, Marmol and Feys Reference Marmol and Feys2015), which identifies six key areas that enable or constrain how institutions operate. This includes political (e.g. higher-education policy), economic (salary levels, inflation, etc.), socio-cultural (demographics, cultural norms and debates, etc.), technological (e.g. emerging technologies), legal (e.g. national laws and regulations) and environmental (environmental legislation, local demographics, etc.) factors. This dimension could be extended to distinguish between key factors at local, national and international levels, which may be aligned or misaligned with one another, thereby adding to the complexities and tensions in leadership and management practice.
The ecosystem model emphasizes that the recruitment and development of leaders in higher education must address, cultivate and explicitly be aware of both the internal conditions and differences as well as the external conditions, powers and logics that influence and penetrate the sector. Although embedded in higher education, the point is that what is used as the primary reference point from both internal and external logics will shape the identity of academic leaders and their perceived legitimacy, expertise and authority in relation to others. From a social identity perspective (Haslam et al. Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011) people are most likely to feel an affiliation to those with whom they share a common identity and to feel most comfortable (at least initially) leading in this domain. Those who have not spent much time and/or demonstrated excellence in a particular area may struggle to create a bond or establish credibility in relation to those who are more firmly embedded in such communities. Transition between one part of the higher-education ecosystem to another may be hampered or blocked by poor access routes, gatekeepers, rites of passage, skills gaps and other factors.
In comparison with the leadership pipeline and related metaphors, the ecosystem model shifts attention from the individual leader’s journey to the wider networks and structures in which they are situated. From this perspective, a leader’s role(s) and identity(ies) is(are) always negotiated and enacted in relation to others. Someone who has built credibility and influence in the sphere of education and/or research, for example, may not have acquired the skills, motivation, or credibility to lead on administrative changes linked to the political, economic or environmental context, where strategic, financial and/or professional logics are considered most important. Developing such capabilities is not simply a case of acquiring new knowledge and skills but is also a process of ‘identity work’, through which they and others develop their sense of self as ‘leader’ (DeRue and Ashford Reference DeRue and Ashford2010; Sveningsson and Alvesson Reference Sveningsson and Alvesson2003) and their capacity to present themselves as a credible authority in relation to particular agendas and audiences (Goffman Reference Goffman1959).
In a synthesis of theory and research on role identity, social identity and identity work, Ibarra et al. (Reference Ibarra, Wittman, Petriglieri, Day and Day2014) define identity work for leaders as ‘the process through which individuals acquire, internalize and validate a leader identity and refine, revise and enact their other identities so as to minimize conflict with the leader identity and maximize group prototypicality’ (p. 289). In considering the implications for leadership progression and development, they highlight the importance of ‘identity workspaces’ (Petriglieri and Petriglieri Reference Petriglieri and Petriglieri2010) where people can work through and experiment with a range of ‘provisional selves’ (Ibarra Reference Ibarra1999) to create a coherent and robust ‘leader’ identity.
Ibarra and colleagues (Reference Ibarra, Wittman, Petriglieri, Day and Day2014: 294) suggest that for an environment to become a productive identity workspace for its members it needs to include (a) ‘viable social defences’ that help individuals to make sense of their place in the world; (b) ‘a sentient community’ to provide ‘clarification, advice, support, feedback, validation and, most important, a felt experience of belonging’; and (c) ‘meaningful rites of passage’ that ‘manage major role transitions within a social system’. Whilst such aspects may be found within leadership development programmes and interventions, many are also embedded within organizational and sector-wide systems and processes in ways that may both support and/or inhibit the (un)successful transition into new roles and domains of leadership. The relevance of such issues is illustrated in the following quote, which highlights the significance of appointment as a professor as a key rite of passage in higher education, without which the influence and authority of senior leaders will be severely constrained.
Effective leaders of dual identity organisations should personify and support both identities. University presidents who were never professors (ordained members of the priesthood) will always be considered managers, not leaders. This deficiency should impair their effectiveness during retrenchment when they must be perceived as the champion of the normative as well as the utilitarian values of the organisation. (Albert and Whetten Reference Albert, Whetten, Hatch and Schultz2004: 112)
This quote reinforces the points made within the empirical examples around the potentially adverse effects of taking on a substantial educational leadership role before securing appointment as a professor, which (within the institution studied) is largely determined according to a track record of research rather than teaching and learning. It also highlights the need for leaders to engage with and embody a range of institutional and/or professional logics and values in order to successfully navigate conflict, uncertainty and change.
Conclusion
In this article, we have explored the challenges of navigating discontinuities and disconnects in the recruitment and development of university leaders. We began by considering the rapidly changing nature and context of global higher education and the implications for leaders and managers to reframe and transform perspectives on the nature and purpose(s) of higher education. We then considered the metaphor of the ‘leadership pipeline’ and its potential application to the passages and transitions within academic leadership and management. Next, we introduced the notion of competing ‘logics’ (or ‘rooms’) of university leadership and the implications for how people conceive of the nature and purpose(s) of their work and the basis by which they exert authority and influence. These points were illustrated and elaborated through a series of empirical examples from a study of educational leadership in a Danish university. In the discussion, we drew these points together to provide a higher-education ecosystems model as a way of capturing the hybrid, collective and dynamic nature of leadership in universities and the implications for leadership development and progression. We outlined implications for ‘identity work’ and crafting ‘identity workspaces’ where people can develop, refine and reframe their identity as a ‘leader’ in ways that enable them to traverse competing logics and perspectives of/on higher education.
The ecosystems approach outlined in this article has significant implications for the recruitment and development of higher-education leaders. It could be used to track the routes that people have travelled so far in their careers and the logics and competencies acquired along the way. It could also be used to identify areas where people have less of a track record and to plan ways in which they could be given the opportunity to be exposed to different logics, stakeholders and expertise. It could also be used by those involved in the recruitment of higher-education leaders to assess suitability for particular roles and to identify any alternative logics and/or identities that should be considered. Given the complexities of higher education, however, it should be noted that it will never be possible for a single individual to master all logics and identities represented in Figure 1. Instead, we should pay attention to how distinctive facets of experience can be adapted, developed and applied in other areas. Most importantly, the ecosystems model demonstrates the strong interconnections and interdependencies between different parts of the higher-education landscape. To this extent, we are never operating in a single ‘room’ (Sewerin and Holmberg Reference Sewerin and Holmberg2017) or with a single logic and must therefore remain alert to alternative and competing perspectives. Engagement with the core function of administration (Baecker Reference Baecker2010), for example, cannot be approached solely from a managerial logic. Instead, we should seek to hone the capacity of higher-education leaders to model and enact a more nuanced range of roles and approaches – such as a scholarly or pedagogical approach to addressing financial and/or environmental issues. Herein lies the means for fostering the levels of inclusion, collaboration and resilience required for higher-education institutions, and the leaders within them, to navigate the challenging path(s) ahead.
Richard Bolden is Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England. His teaching and research explore the interface between individual and collective approaches to leadership and leadership development. He has published on topics including distributed, shared and systems leadership; leadership paradoxes and complexity; cross-cultural leadership; and leadership and change in healthcare and higher education. He is Associate Editor of the journal Leadership, Fellow of the International Leadership Association, Visiting Professor at the University of Pretoria and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. His latest book Exploring Leadership: Individual, Organizational and Societal Perspectives, 2nd edition, was published by Oxford University Press in March 2023.
Sanna Lassen is an assistant professor at the Centre for Educational Development at Aarhus University, Denmark. Her ongoing research focuses on educational leadership in higher education, specifically emphasizing leaders outside the managerial line. This research also involves applying research findings to leadership courses, and equipping leaders with the necessary skills to foster collegial collaborations on educational development based on data-informed insights.
Open access
