Alan Bryman (2007)
This is the first article I have read on Leadership in Higher Education, something I was pointed towards in my latest formative tutorial. Although this paper is written to be a learning opportunity around leadership in Higher education, I can point out that the research in 2023 is invalid as its very much westernised systems that were analysed when finding this information.
“What styles of or approaches to leadership are associated with effective leadership in higher education?” – extracted from the article.
Is this how simple it is to start a research investigation into an area, that is so complex in higher education? to me the question sets to understand what is happening rather than building a framework to support leadership.
Bryman also writes about leadership found in managerial or administrative roles compared to academics, heads of departments etc. Although using a systematic research tool they were able to eliminate the unnecessary or those that didn’t derive from primary research or secondary analysis of data, this tool allowed the system to be implemented around aims, interpretations and outlined methods of analysis.
The reflective analysis was based on quantitative or qualitative research, that used a cross-sectional design, leadership behaviours and departmental effectiveness. This led to the observations of 3 issues;
1. What is and is not regarded as leadership varies amongst researchers.
2. There are sometimes differences in what is meant by certain terms relating to leadership.
(‘collegiality’ – companionship and cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility).
3. The criteria of effectiveness differ from study to study.
Bryman discovered from their research 13 aspects of leader behaviour to be associated with effectiveness at the departmental level.
1. Clear sense of direction/strategic vision – clear guidance with strategic leadership.
2. Preparing department arrangements to facilitate the direction set – Consideration and initiating structure, goal-directed and getting things done.
3. Being Considerate – This can translate to job satisfaction (among higher-level employees, Bryman does make note, that not so much for low-level employees, technicians?)
4. Treating academic staff fairly and with integrity – unselfishness, fairness, honesty, mutual trust and respect, allows leaders to build and maintain morale.
5. Being trustworthy and having personal integrity – Following through on promises, making sure staff be informed about issues they had a right to know about.
6. Allowing the opportunity to participate in key decisions/encouraging open communication – promoting participative decision-making and structure that supports it.
7. Communicating well about the direction the department is going – Builds productivity around good communication skills and awareness around the future of the department.
8. Acting as a role model and having credibility – To have a good leader, one must come from a credible source or experience. (being a role model, leading by example in teaching and research).
9. Creating a positive and collegial work atmosphere in the department- Social ability and events encourage trust and mutual respect. (Community building).
10. Advancing the department’s cause with respect to the constituencies internal and external to the university and being proactive in doing so – Building the department’s statute within the university and proactively showing pride/participation outside. Being an advocate for the department.
11. Providing feedback on performance – mentoring and constructive feedback, evaluating staff fairly. (YAY PRA’s).
12. Providing resources for and adjusting workloads to stimulate scholarship and research- Sustain a strong research effort, making it a priority, by securing the resources needed to partake in said research.
13. Making academic appointments that enhance the department’s reputation- Popularity contests in the form that good researchers make good researchers in a sign that appointment matters when building teams.
The above is then suggested that it is basically the foundation of a ‘competency-based’ framework for departmental leaders in universities. This model recites that leadership is supported through evidence-based findings/research and is also associated with superior performance. Although cautionary draws out some inferences;
1. These aspects are quite generalised, without concrete actions.
2. Clash of Leadership performance over the need to so credentials of research-focused context and its performance to be a strong researcher. Some find it impossible or even difficult to maintain both roles.
3. Can this framework be utilised across multiple disciplines, the argument is that leadership behaviour that works in one context might not be in another.
4. It points towards a single entity of leadership, without the other ‘leader’ based roles such as course directors, directors of research and committees.
5. The time scale of leadership posts is varied amongst American institutes and British, although can be titled temporarily in both stances.
Bryman states in their conclusion;
“that an issue in higher education institutions is not so much what leaders should do, but more to do with what they should avoid doing. In academic contexts, leadership may sometimes be as significant (if not more significant) for the damage it causes as for the benefits it brings in its wake.”
Although this is my first paper in leadership, I do question a lot of positions, and it’s similar to questions I am having with the rest of academia;
Where are the technical/administrative acknowledgements? This paper dedicates no leadership to these roles, yet we know they exist in higher education institutions.
Overall I did enjoy the insight of reading this, ‘Bryman’ brought a small sense of possibilities to leadership but I do have to question why this article was brought to my attention?
Where is leadership in my discipline? – for me, it’s with Byborre of Amsterdam and a leading textile technology company promoting custom design made-to-order service that is accessible and globally ready. (LINK)
