higher learning

As I approach a new role as a senior academic manager I’ve been reflecting upon my time spent as an academic developer within a previous higher education institution. In particular I have been considering what academic leadership means to me. This article is my opportunity to share that reflection.

As I approach my new role as a manager, I notice a change in my thinking. I have to consider the size of the new challenges and think about how I can coordinate and delegate the tasks required to initiate changes in practice. I am resigned to the fact that these activities will take time. I need to win over new colleagues, and chase the progress of numerous projects. I will probably have to describe how the projects are conducted, so that they harmonise with my way of working. But I’m looking forward with a new-found invigoration. The challenges are achievable and energising, the prospects are enticing and enthusing.

I was thrust into the world of academic development during 2007 by applying for a Teaching Fellow secondment. As most new occupations unfold, there is much about the role that is unanticipated. The experience of this job was no different. There were responsibilities that were difficult to comprehend, and only two years to ‘achieve results’.

As the figure-head for the HEFCE Research Informed Teaching initiative, for a Faculty that contains Art and Design, Computing, Engineering and the Sciences, I had two senior managers, and no staff to line manage. There was the prospect of not being able to achieve anything tangible and I was beginning to understand why other, similar roles appeared to produce very little in terms of long-lasting change.

One of my managers was quite keen on output and impact, since he was being measured in that way. My other manager was primarily interested in exploring ways of working and establishing a set of principles to work to. This was confusing. I had the apparent responsibility to report improvements within the Faculty resulting from my appointment. Although I could foresee activities that would demonstrate that positive change had taken place, I had no time to physically manage the change required.

I attribute the shift in my thinking to an improved understanding of what academic leadership means. My understanding (whilst still maturing) has developed as a result of being scholarly, but primarily it has come about through my experiences as an academic developer. What has been particularly interesting for me has been the way I have been encouraged to re-frame my view of academic development experiences, in a way that has provided scenarios for me to explore in a scholarly way. I have identified four key characteristics that have directly contributed to my own understanding of the leadership role:

1. Exposure to first-hand experience of being led - Understanding traits of leadership and observing leadership practice at close quarters. Seeing what happens as a result of this practice and being critical about being led, improving my ability to recognise leadership behaviours in others.
2. The creation of space in my work plan and the devotion of time to reflect - My teaching workload was reduced by a nominal 20%, arguably insufficient time to do anything of any worth in a Faculty of 3000 students. But by adopting the approach of changing the world - or more importantly, changing the Faculty - one mind at a time, somehow my vision became a possibility. My vision was in some sense a translation of somebody else’s, a reflection upon the University perspectives and how they related to operations in my Faculty. But it was also an opportunity for me to reflect and exercise my aspirations, and the realisation that this could take place, the first time in my academic career, became invigorating.
3. Creating a local environment that rejects the tendency to react - (not the quick hit/win as a result of a spreadsheet) and having the faith to wait expectantly for change to emerge (Seel 2010).
4. A chance to network with colleagues in similar positions through a SEDA course - Developing opportunities to empower colleagues with my own supportive behaviour; from listening, assistance with institutional processes, the fostering of new networks or just plain old effective conversation (Haigh 2005).

Early on in the role I attended a conference to try and familiarise myself with the new context I had found myself in. Uncharacteristically I returned with only one idea. I usually come back from conferences with many ideas. This idea, to launch an undergraduate student research journal, seemed the obvious thing to do. It fully supported my vision of staff and students working in a partnership of learning, and would provide sufficient visibility of the transformation that I believed needed to take place.

How my own practice has changed

Looking back I was led both explicitly and autocratically. More often than not however I was led surreptitiously, by being allowed the space to lead myself, whilst also supporting a common vision. As I worked with a Senior Academic member of staff I was cajoled and manoeuvred into position. I felt frustration at being left to ‘join the dots’, but also experienced a deep-seated achievement when I reflected upon progress. The relationship never seemed to be tested, as the implicit trust communicated towards me fostered a communal loyalty to the vision. Ideas were planted in our conversations and mutual support was communicated through others.

So what (did this mean?) for my own practice? My conversations have focus, and I am much more tolerant of their emergent outcomes. Conversation is now a recognised part of mine and others’ development. I sow seeds of ideas through conversation. When we actively concentrate upon the mechanisms of communication, especially those that deliver results, those seeds do germinate. This is not a formal approach to change management, where ideas are ‘cascaded down’ in an impersonal way. It is communication of a personal nature, local and relevant to the particular working context of an individual, where it matters. It is also recognising that some seeds will never sprout shoots. Alternatively growth may be rapid, powerful and wild, and some tolerance of the uncertainty is necessary. But I have realised that the use of values to guide my actions empowers me to rest easier with uncertainty.

On the one hand I have led autocratically when there has been a clear link between practice and policy. This has been particularly prevalent when there have been obvious tasks to complete to achieve an objective. On the other hand I have been content to consult the opinions of those around me, to inform my perspective and support my future leadership activities.

I am not sure that leaders exhibit traits in the way that the management literature describes. This may inform the interpretation of leadership that is required by industry. But I feel that academe is sufficiently different to warrant its own approach. The managerialist approach can serve to quash academic freedom, creativity and innovation. The desire to measure and benchmark the learning and teaching practices of academics can be detrimental to the overall experience of learners and staff.

I am now less concerned with detail; so often it serves to detract from the overall vision, and though it can provide comfort for those who feel content when they are busy, it can literally bury a change initiative. Contrast this with a lithe department that understands the need for quality assurance, but also realises that procedures and policy must be fit for purpose.

It also became evident that those people I involved in my work also had uncertainties, and to an extent they relied on my apparent steadfast approach to see them through. Of course I didn’t always know the outcome, but my tolerance of the uncertainty allowed certain conditions to come into being, permitting real change to take place.

Styles of academic leadership

The secondment has served to reinforce my need for beliefs, since it is easy to get distracted by system failures or projects not going to plan. In such situations it is my reliance on some values that has kept me going. Research Informed Learning and Teaching is an abstract concept, and is seen as too ideological for many. But the understanding that I have developed has enabled me to relate operational activities to strategic aims, giving me the confidence to pursue projects that I believe will contribute towards the cause. Similarly it has allowed me to be selective, so that I do not waver off course.

One of the differences in academia is that whilst some people are happy to be led, they still want to pursue something that interests them. I have achieved more when colleagues were enthused by what was essentially an operational task, when it was judged to give them something of value back - a publication for example. The fact that this also contributed towards the overall aim of creating a more scholarly community of staff and students was in some ways incidental to them, for the moment at least. Unlike a managerial view, I do not see this as a failure; I see it as an investment for future development.

As an organisation the university is extremely conservative. There is much talk of risk-taking, but in actuality my experience is that this is still frowned upon by senior managers. But as a senior manager in a new institution I recognise that taking risks in the classroom and taking risks with developing colleagues need not be reckless. I have experienced positive outcomes from experiments that would not have taken place if I had not provided the support.

The systems of the university are regularly blamed for a whole host of problems and I have and continue to be very critical of their implementation. My work with identical information systems in industry has made me intolerant of deficiencies in the past, since I know that the processes could be executed better. However, since I took the stance to accept the current state, and view the limitations merely as constraints to manoeuvre within, I have been pleasantly surprised with the results. Over the past two years I have cultivated a relationship of trust with the Quality Committee, meaning that my proposed changes now get rubber-stamped rather than debated at length. This was put to the test when my colleagues proposed replacing the Masters Dissertation component with a smaller alternative (15 CATS less). On top of this they were also proposing that the 15,000 word submission be replaced by a reflective portfolio of evidence. The successful ratification of this justified the time I had spent with them supporting and facilitating their discussion.

I see that my role has been multi-faceted, and it has not turned out quite as I would have expected. I understood that the secondmentwould require leadership; it would seem that academic leadership is quite distinct. There is definitely a managerial aspect to the role, in terms of planning and organising the operational activities to support a strategy. There is even a managerial aspect to planning the tactics, upon which to base the operations. But I have clear evidence of achieving change by also leaving people alone, in the sense that a principle has been communicated, but the conditions for that principle to be realised have been coordinated by my interactions with others.

If I am successful at communicating my intention, and I have autonomous individuals who can move other colleagues forward, then there is a much more collegial model of leadership in place than an autocratic, managerialist one. This aspect is probably the most effective in an academic environment where, relatively, most of the academics are empowered more than in industry. It has been challenging balancing the need to manage, against the ‘hands-off’ need to lead, and on reflection I have led more in the last year than 2 years ago. But I do believe that trust is a key motivator, and the trust that has been placed in me has been a lesson in how much it can motivate. My placing trust in others, to do a job, to innovate, to publish or to observe my teaching has proved much more powerful than any line management authority.

Unwittingly I was being led. All the times I was being listened to, suggestions were offered that posed questions for me to consider. Each next conversation was prompted by my own reflection on the previous conversation, together with any ensuing experience that had been attained with my colleagues. The conversations were not always directly with my line manager either. Very often the seed of a conversation was planted with another colleague, who decided to initiate another conversation with me.

I have moved on from seeing Seel’s work as something that appears to be useful, towards having first-hand experience of interpreting it in my various academic contexts.

What is the legacy?

As the initiative formally draws to a close, a variety of other institutional changes are also occurring. Many of these appear to hinder further progress, or even seem to be backward steps. But looking deeper there are new shoots of opportunity. Quality committees that recognise the need for reduced bureaucracy, academic staff initiating mini-development projects of their own choosing and recognition that research and scholarship are key parts of an institutional framework for professional development. The inevitable changes in staff that result from reorganisation create the suitably ‘chaotic’ states that Tosey identifies as ripe for creativity. I can see why such an air can be the catalyst for leadership. A university is such a complicated beast that it is the aggregation of minutiae that gives its direction. The acceptance that such minutiae need not be micro-managed is liberating and empowering.

In essence the key factors of the secondment were being able to create a context that facilitates change taking place, rather than looking for ways to engineer the change.. This does not have to be the whole organisation, faculty or even department to have any recognisable success, though it is feasible that this will come given time. Certainly in two years, departmental changes have been observed. Seel offers some rationale for this, but the result of embracing this is not a set of strategies as such, more a set of values to hold and for others to subscribe to. Not being concerned with all of the detail - but knowing when to take charge and exercise authority to get a single objective fulfilled, is absolutely critical.

Having faith that the facilitation of an environment that can change is more beneficial then any perceived risks. The whole point is to move away from a situation that is shackled by control mechanisms. My acceptance of emergence, and that with time and patience, the right activities will emerge, has supported a way of thinking mindset should enable the support of some of the managerialist agenda, without the excessive managerialist controls. Is this the route forward for academic leaders?

References

Seel, R (2010) Culture and Complexity: New Insights on Organisational Change. HEA. http://tinyurl.com/RichardSeel

Haigh, N (2005) Everyday conversation as a context for professional learning and development. International Journal for Academic Development, Volume 10, Issue 1.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 19th, 2010 at 3:52 pm and is filed under Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.