Keywords

Introduction

The higher education sector and specifically postgraduate education are facing different demands from all its stakeholders – government, industry, and students (Mok 2003; Angell et al. 2008; Ladyshewsky and Taplin 2013; Vilkinas and Cartan 2015). Governments have responded in a number of ways to global and technological challenges, which have driven the need for a more highly trained workforce. One such way has been the growth of postgraduate education in higher education institutions (HEIs) which has as a central objective the education of: “highly skilled citizens and professionals able to address the specific issues of their national contexts as part of a wider globalised society” (Kearney 2008, p. 4). The changes in economic power, including the BRIC economies, and recognition of the need for training human capital have resulted in a large increase in demand for higher education (UNESCO, p. 9), particularly postgraduate education (Eggins 2008, p. 15).

A key asset for development of economies is the creation of high-quality human capital needed for knowledge-based economies; and postgraduate education plays an essential role in this process (Eggins, p. 15). HEIs have seen a sharp increase in numbers of graduate students and diversification of both content and delivery methods. As postgraduate education: “constitutes a particular investment – whether personal or national – in human capital” (Kearney 2008, p. 4), it is important that consideration be given to student expectations.

Postgraduate Student Expectations

The culture of higher education institutions has changed over the last decades, and it is now no longer possible to consider the customer base of HEIs in the traditional light of previous decades (Floyd and Dimmock 2011). These challenges have also impacted on the role of postgraduate education as consumers of these services look to these qualifications to assist in their professional careers (Adams et al. 2006) and build research capabilities and for financial gain (Alam et al. 2013).

Angell et al. (2008, p. 237) argue for a customer-led rather than a product-led approach to postgraduate education so that postgraduate education providers establish a: “deeper understanding of the nature of the service that they provide.” Caution though needs to be applied in not treating students as customers: “who are passively receiving service, instead of partners who are actively participating in the learning process” (Chung Sea Law 2010, p. 257).

Providers of postgraduate education need to consider the competitive nature of attracting students. In making the decision to select a HEI, students factor in evidence of service quality. According to a study by Angell et al. (2008, p. 247), student expectations include skilled and engaging faculty and regular access to teaching staff. Gardner’s (2009, p. 106) study suggested a number of departmental issues which impact postgraduate students’ perception of service quality including:

  • Poor quality advisors

  • Faculty attrition

  • Departmental politics.

There are also reported concerns over the attrition rate of postgraduate students (Gardner 2009; Linden et al. 2013; Brill et al. 2014). The head of department (HoD) role is of significant relevance in contributing to the quality of postgraduate education as well as the student experience and hence retention of students. In addition to the need to consider the student experience, another key change which has dominated the contemporary academic management environment (Davis 2017) is that of managerialism.

Managerialism

Managerialism is defined as the process of adoption of private sector management tools within public sector organizations (Brunetto 2001). Managerialism, enforced by government and university funding bodies (Deem 2004; Winter 2009), is a key force impacting on the way HEIs are now operating (Erwee et al. 2002; Meyer 2002; Nickson 2014; Rindfleish 2003). Managerialism in HEIs has been well documented (Deem 2004; Erwee et al. 2002; Meyer 2002; Teelkan 2012; Davis 2017) with complex historical, political, and social antecedents accounting for managerialism in different parts of the world (Rindfleish 2003). Managerialism has had a profound impact on western HEIs over the past decade (Nickson 2014; Santiago et al. 2006) with a developing tension between traditional forms of governance [collegiality] and new forms of governance [corporatism] (Crebert 2000; Mercer 2009; Mok 2003; Preston and Price 2012).

Preston and Price (2012, p. 410) contend that: “practices of managerialism often sit uncomfortably amidst the more traditional values of academia.” While there is an argument that managerialism in: “the right proportion and in the right context” may be useful in universities (Teelken 2012, p. 272), others suggest that it has eroded collegiality and altered the institutional culture (Weinberg and Graham-Smith 2012; Davis 2017).

As the public sector: “hallmarks of cost-effectiveness and doing more with less were transferred into the higher education sector” (Crebert 2000, p. 73) in Australia, a significant impact has been felt on the academic culture, planning and administration, measurement of output and productivity, and accountability (Winter and Sarros 2002).

Among many other influences, managerialism has thus contributed to a process of converting professionals to managers (Brunetto 2001). Heads of department have not escaped this process, and there is now an expectation that HoDs will demonstrate a wide range of management and leadership skills (Stratford 2012) in carrying out their role.

In consideration, then, of the issues of managerialism, the wider external trends of technology and the increase in student demand and expectations, there are serious challenges facing leadership in HEIs including:

  • Renewing/upskilling faculty over the next decade

  • Creating a culture of innovation

  • Developing international strategies to strengthen national knowledge bases (UNESCO, p. 9).

Clearly these issues impact all levels of leadership; however, the role of the head of department is a vital part of postgraduate education leadership at HEIs. The role and identified managerial leadership competencies needed to address these challenges will be explored in this chapter with particular reference to research conducted in Kerala, India, considering 36 heads of department across six varied HEIs offering postgraduate education (Crosthwaite 2010).

Role of Heads of Department

Bryman (2007, p. 694) suggests that the department is a crucial unit of analysis in HEIs and that it is: “the chief springboard for the organisation’s main teaching and research activities”. The role of the HoD (Bryman 2007; Hancock and Hellawell 2003) has been described as having distinctive challenges: “trying to juggle teaching, research and administration” (Mercer 2009, p. 350) as well as tension in dealing with both senior management and academics and the impact of managerialism (Santiago et al. 2006). Heads of departments in higher educational institutions play a pivotal role in building the organization’s culture (Edgar and Geare 2010), providing academic leadership, and ethically managing their departments (Crosthwaite and Erwee 2014; Erwee et al. 2002; Temple and Ylitalo 2009).

Deem’s (2004) study identified difficulties with the HoD role including increasing student numbers, managing the dual demands of teaching and research, high workloads for HoDs and their staff, dealing with difficult people, a general shortage of resources, and budget issues. The HoD role has been described as one of managing conflicts and tensions and balancing conflicting demands (Henkel 2000). In doing so the HoD has to balance: “between change (vision and inspiration) and stability (planning and control) walking… a fine line, seeking both constructive debate, and consensus” (Kallenberg 2007, p. 24). According to Henkel (2000), these conflicting demands fall into three categories:

  • Academic versus administrative work

  • Dealing with external demands and crises versus acting strategically

  • Developing individuals versus managing change in the department.

What perhaps is most concerning is that the role of the HoD has changed not because there has been any deliberate consideration and review of the role, rather because of the challenges being faced by HEIs (Jackson 1999; Qualter and Willis 2012).

Lack of Role Clarity

The lack of role clarity of the HoD has been noted by a number of researchers (Crosthwaite and Erwee 2014; Preston and Price 2012). The absence of position descriptions for all 36 HoDs in 6 HEIs in Kerala, India, was identified by Crosthwaite (2010) as a factor in the HoDs’ lack of role clarity and is consistent with both Henkel (2000) and Thompson and Harrison (2002) in identifying a lack of understanding of the role of the HoD.

Santiago et al.’s (2006, p. 243) study in Portuguese universities suggested that HoDs suffered from various degrees of: “ambiguity, contradiction and conflictedness.” Henkel (2000, p. 249) summarized the position of academic managers as having a “wide range of meanings for individuals, depending upon their own existing academic identities and their institutional environment.” Thompson and Harrison (2002) found there was no clear understanding or consensus between HoDs, deans, and staff on the role of the HoD.

To provide some clarity, Hancock and Hellawell (2003) suggest that the HoD’s role could be described as that of an academic middle manager. Kallenberg (2007, p. 22) argues that an academic middle manager has to manage several positions, processes, and interests and:

  • is the linking pin between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ processes, and

  • has to find a balance between the teaching staff and the administrators, between education and research, and finally, between hierarchy and collegiality.

Indeed, Nguyen (2012) suggests that the role needs to develop into one of a professional academic manager. Further there is a recognized need for the HoD to support the senior managers in the HEI (Preston and Price 2012) in implementing the identified changes that are needed as the organization seeks to identify and implement strategies to meet the current challenges facing the higher education sector.

Taken in the light of requirements for postgraduate education identified by the UNESCO forum (2008, p. 9) and transformations required for effective leadership in HEIs (Gayle et al. 2011) (both outlined in Table 1), then both the role of the HoD and relevant managerial leadership competencies require further investigation and strengthening.

Table 1 Identified global challenges and institutional transformations needed for leadership in postgraduate education (Adapted from UNESCO, p. 9 and Gayle et al. (2011), pp. 19–20)
Full size table

Selection of HoD

The selection process of the HoDs has come under scrutiny. Wolverton et al. (2005) maintain that HEIs exhibit faulty reasoning in selecting HoDs – assuming that being a good faculty member will make the person at least adequate in a managerial leadership role.

While Jackson (1999) reports on election to the position in some universities and a managerial decision in others, Preston and Price (2012) point out selection processes ranging from pressure to step up as no one else wanted to (it being “my turn”) to being asked back from sabbatical early to take on the role. The motivation to serve in a leadership HoD role at HEIs, with no or little extrinsic rewards, may diminish or not be present at all (Hoppe 2003). Indeed, the “reluctant manager” syndrome with HoDs is well documented (Preston and Price 2012). This is in stark contrast to appointments in the corporate sector which are focused on merit. This suggests key issues with motivation and the performance of the role (Crosthwaite and Erwee 2014).

Lack of Managerial and Leadership Competencies (MLCs)

The literature suggests that there is little managerial leadership development to prepare HoDs and other university administrators (Morris and Laipple 2015). Spendlove (2007) contends that the HEIs in his study had little or no organizational strategy for either identifying or developing leadership skills. Insufficiently prepared HoDs can impact on both department and overall effectiveness and may contribute to poor leadership (Potgieter and Coetzee 2010).

Bolton (2000) suggests that as academics move into HoD of department roles, there is a need to develop different skills sets, values, and knowledge. Thompson and Harrison’s (2002) single case study at a UK university identified MLCs needed by HoDs as:

  • Managing resources

  • Managing information

  • Controlling costs and enhancing value

  • Managing people

  • Managing yourself

  • Managing personal emotions and stress.

Stratford (2012) suggested a number of recommendations to improve the role concluding that it be professionalized and that the HoD is better supported. This emphasis on the role of the HoD has led to a renewed interest in the managerial leadership competencies that HoDs need to develop in order to successfully carry out their role (Potgieter and Coetzee 2010).

Managerial Leadership Competencies

From the research discussed above, it appears that there is substantial evidence pointing to the need for HoDs to develop and demonstrate MLCs in order to positively impact on the faculty, department, and more broadly on the provision of postgraduate education . A study conducted by Potgieter and Coetzee (2010) in South Africa demonstrated the practical importance of utilizing management competency frameworks for the identification of training needs of HoDs in the higher education environment. They concluded that every HEI needs to identify the competencies they deem necessary for their HoD development. While authors such as Erwee et al. (2002) and Potgieter and Coetzee (2010) have identified individual frameworks for their respective university, this has required significant resources, and thus it is not always feasible for a specific managerial leadership competency framework to be developed.

The Management Leadership Debate

The lack of a clear definition of leadership compounds the debate between leadership and management, and this has become a point of contention in the management field (English 2005). The argument can perhaps best be summarized as a continuum with innovation and change at one end and stability and order at the other (Yukl and Lepsinger 2005). Yukl and Lepsinger (2005) contend that scholars who have defined the two roles in a narrow way are not necessarily reflecting adequately the literature on management and leadership. They argue that this has resulted in the continuation of the management versus leadership controversy, and they suggest a consideration of this issue in three ways:

  1. (a)

    The first way is to consider the two as co-equal roles, with each being more broadly defined in the literature.

  2. (b)

    The second approach is to retain a relatively narrow definition of leadership and include this as part of management. DuBrin and Dalglish (2003) proposed a similar argument, stressing both are necessary, but leadership is more so, for an organization’s success.

  3. (c)

    The final approach is to identify roles without classifying them as either management or leadership as per the flexible leadership model which considers three key determinants:

    • Efficiency and process reliability

    • Innovation and adaptation

    • Human resources and relations (Yukl and Lepsinger 2005).

Managerial Leadership Competencies Defined

The use of the concept of managerial leadership proposed by Quinn et al. (2003) provides a way forward in the debate about the relationship between management and leadership. It echoes that of Yukl and Lepsinger’s (2005) third approach, and integrates both management and leadership behaviors (Osseo-Asare et al. 2007), both transformational and transactional, so that the range of competencies required for a manager to function in an organization is acknowledged (Quinn et al. 2003). Darling and Nurmi (2009, p. 206) reviewed the literature in relation to the issue of management and leadership and concluded that: “most truly successful individuals in key directive roles in organisations develop a capability to perform both sets of functional responsibilities well.” This is echoed in Osseo-Asare et al.’s (2007) position where managerial leaders are expected to be effective leaders in deciding the right teaching and research quality improvement objectives and, second, be efficient managers in the way resources are utilized to achieve predetermined objectives.

Quinn et al. (2003) provide an integrated approach to an understanding of the roles and competencies needed by managers and leaders in using the term managerial leader. Thus the term being used to reflect the area of management and leadership will be managerial leadership. The definition of managerial leadership is adapted from Quinn et al. (2003) and Hellriegal et al. (2005) to mean:

the ability to integrate opposite and complex roles in order to manage human relation functions, organise, adapt and be productive, in pursuit of the organisation’s goals.

Stuart and Lindsay (1997, p. 28), after considering the literature, propose a definition of competencies as:

integrated sets of behaviours which can be directed towards successful goal achievement within competence domains.

Barber and Tietje (2004, p. 506), in their study, considered the identification of competencies for the purpose of training and development and defined MLCs as:

a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and attitudes that affects a major part of one’s job (a role or responsibility), that correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and that can be improved via training and development.

Hence a definition of managerial leadership competencies, which incorporates a level of commonality, can be adapted from Stuart and Lindsay (1997) and Barber and Tietje (2004) to be:

MLCs are integrated sets of manager behaviours and attributes which can be directed towards successful goal achievement within competence domains in one’s job, to agreed work standards, and that can be improved via training and development.

The next section will explore the identification of managerial leadership competencies through the Competing Values Model and consider how the use of these MLCs may positively impact the capacity of the HoD to work in the complex environment of postgraduate education .

Managerial Leadership Competencies Model

Quinn et al. (2003) have developed a Competing Values Model (CVM) which details eight roles with three competencies each (a total of 24 competencies) that are needed for successful managerial leadership. The CVM has a number of strengths in relation to consideration of MLCs. Firstly, the framework recognizes and integrates four key models of management (Rational Goal Model, Internal Process Model, Human Relations Model, and the Open Systems Model) from the Competing Values Framework of Cameron and Quinn (2006); which is recognized as one of the most influential and extensively used models in the field (Yu andWu 2009). The four models and different organizational culture orientations are depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Quinn et al’s (2015) CVM and organizational orientation Source: Adapted from Quinn et al. (2015, p. 14)

Full size image

The inclusion of the four models within the one Competing Values Model provides a degree of complexity and variety to the model which more correctly reflects the complex environment in which managers act in today’s environment (Quinn et al. 2003). Further, the model demonstrates the tensions existing within organizations (i.e., between flexibility and control and between internal processes and external positioning), thus offering the opportunity to move from an “either or position” to a more inclusive approach in describing organizational culture and also the roles and MLCs needed (Quinn 1988).

In accepting that organizations are complex adaptive systems, then the CVM also reflects the opposing nature of the models which characterizes the position of organizations in the “real world’”(Quinn et al. 2003). Thus, for HoDs to be successful or competent in their role, they need to demonstrate behavioral complexity (Hayes et al. 2000), that is, the capacity to demonstrate MLCs from each of the different models. Lastly, the model’s defined MLCs were determined through an expert panel process, which finally determined the identified 24 competencies from a range of over 250. The roles and models are depicted in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

CVM : incorporating the CVF with associated roles and MLCs (Source Quinn et al. 2003, p. 16)

Full size image

The authors of the CVM argue that the identified competencies are highly consistent with the existing literature on MLCs, quoting publications ranging from the years 1963 to 2000 (Quinn et al. 2003). In an independent review of the literature, Crosthwaite (2010) identified 19 authors who had published in the field of MLCs between 2000 and 2010 with a particular focus on HEIs . This process brings additional rigor to the model as each item was triangulated from a variety of sources from both educational and noneducational settings, as well as both public and private sector studies.

As can be seen from Table 2, all 24 competencies of the CVM meet the criteria established by Hammons and Murry (1996) of being correlated with a minimum of five different studies. It is important to note that as each author may use different terms in defining each of the competencies, it was a matter of judgment, by the researcher (Thomas and Sireno 1980) as to where the cited competencies were placed against the corresponding MLCs of the CVM.

Table 2 Summary of cited competencies matched to role and competency of the CVM (Source: Crosthwaite 2010)
Full size table

The CVM and MLCS Applied to HoDs in HEIs in Kerala, India

The 24 competencies discussed above were used in a study to identify the required MLCs of heads of department at six HEIs in the state of Kerala, India. Thirty-six HoDs were interviewed across the six HEIs, all of which offered postgraduate education, and asked to identify if the 24 MLCs were important to their role and, if so, in what priority order.

The interviewed HoDs as a group identified all the MLCs from Quinn et al.’s (2003) model as having relevance to their work function. The cross-case analysis identified 11 MLCs (cluster 1) for the role of the HoD that have agreement across all six cases, with a rating of important or higher. A further nine MLCs (cluster 2) were rated on average as important or higher by respondents from five of the six cases and three MLCs (cluster 3) rated as important or higher by respondents in four cases. These competencies are displayed in Table 3. Thus the vast majority (96%) of MLCs were selected by respondents from the majority of cases as important or higher.

Table 3 Selected MLCs by cluster (Source: Crosthwaite 2010)
Full size table

The results from this study suggest a general agreement by the interviewed HoDs in all six cases that 23 MLCs are considered as important or higher (with one competency, managing across functions, identified as somewhat important). Table 4 presents the priority order.

Table 4 All case analysis of CVM competencies by HoDs by ranking and role (Source: Crosthwaite 2010)
Full size table

The findings are supportive of the 24 MLCs contained within the CVM, which have been validated by previous studies (Quinn et al. 2003) and, also, validated in this study, by comparison to 19 other authors (Table 2). The selection of these MLCs is supportive of a number of other studies (Henkel 2000; Thompson and Harrison 2002).

Competencies and Their Associated Roles

All the MLCs in the CVM were selected by respondents indicating that all corresponding roles do have a place in the HoD function; however, there were six roles which were most prevalent. The two roles that were least favored were broker and coordinator. The six roles are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 The dominant roles identified for the HoD (Source: Crosthwaite 2010)
Full size table

This is suggestive that the HoD role, in Kerala HEIs, is a complex and conflicting one (Quinn et al. 2003) requiring the ability to adjust flexibly across a number of roles depending on the organizational context.

Another aspect of the study (Crosthwaite 2010) asked HoDs to identify their organizational culture using an instrument developed from the CVF (Quinn and Spreitzer 1991) designed to measure perceptions of the organizational environment. In order to better understand the relationship between organizational culture and the HoD role, it is helpful to contrast these roles to the relevant organizational culture suggested by the CVM. The director and producer roles are consistent with the prevalent organizational culture across the cases (that of rational culture). The innovator role is also consistent with the development culture described by respondents. The monitor role is related to the hierarchal (internal process) culture. The mentor and facilitator roles correspond with group (human relations) culture, rated by respondents across all cases as the least dominant organizational culture. Thus there is an apparent disconnect between the type of MLCs selected and the associated roles with the description of some of the organizational cultures present in the six cases.

The CVM suggests that a tension exists between the competing values within an organization which is also reflected within HoDs (Quinn 1988). The findings from this study support this position. While a cursory glance at the model would suggest that the dominant culture identified by respondents for the case organization is reflective of similar roles and thus MLCs, the results present a much more complex picture. This complexity does not however contradict the CVM; rather, the CVM can be seen as a way of understanding the complex nature of the organization and the competing values or tensions (Quinn and Spreitzer 1997). The CVM has been useful in determining both MLCs and roles that HoDs feel are important to carrying out their work function effectively. The 24 MLCs as described in the CVM have been shown to have a strong relationship to those identified by HoDs. The relationship postulated by the CVM to the roles, MLCs, and related cultures and models have indicated a clear tension, or competing values, between the dominant cultures in the organization and HoDs’ perception of roles and MLCs.

Having discussed the value of identifying the MLCs required for HoDs to be successful in their role, the next section addresses the need for the development of these competencies in HoDs.

Development of HoDs’ Managerial Competencies

The body of research that has looked at the role of the HoD presents a strong case for a changed approach to the selection and development of incumbents. Among the recommendations has been the need for a clear position description, appropriate selection, established orientation, and a development program.

Although a number of issues have been discussed that will enhance the ability to carry out the role of the HoDs, this chapter has focused largely on the need for managerial leadership competencies to be both identified and developed.

Morris and Laipple (2015, p. 242) suggest that there is a false expectation that HoDs will be: “successful in handling the business as well as the people management/development that comes along with these administrative roles without proper mentoring, support, and training.” Managerial leadership development (MLD) assists in increasing productivity and creating organizational change (Terrion 2006). The most prevalent approach to MLD in recent years has been the competency movement (Zenger and Folkman 2003). MLCs provide a useful, measurable tool to use in guiding and assessing MLD (Spendlove 2007). A competency-based approach to the training and development of HoDs has been advocated (Poiteger and Coetzee 2010).

Turning to MLD in the higher education sector (HES), Temple and Ylitalo (2009) maintain that systematic training for managerial leadership in the HES is rare. This is supportive of earlier work of Henkel (2000) whose study of academic identity in 11 UK universities identified that HoDs had no systematic training in the role of becoming an academic manager. Though the HoD position is regarded as key in HEIs, little or no formal training for the job was given to incumbents (Thompson and Harrison 2002).

However, Terrion (2006) points out there is now a much greater push for an emphasis on MLD in HEIs and the development needs of leaders in the academic field. Terrion (2006) reviewed the effectiveness of a 13-module leadership training program at a Canadian university and found that this program had a positive impact on the development and reinforcement of leadership skills. Spendlove (2007) supports a competency-based approach to the training and development of HoDs.

Only three per cent of over 2000 academic leaders surveyed in US national studies from 1990 to 2000 had leadership development programs at their universities (Gmelch 2004). Nguyen (2012) reports on some initiatives in the USA, the American Council on Education; in the UK, the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education; and in Australia, the LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management. All of these demonstrate the emphasis being placed on the development of managerial leadership skills for middle-level academic managers in postgraduate education .

The strength of the CVM model with its relationship between organizational culture, identification of roles, and delineation of 24 managerial leadership competencies offers a robust way forward in constructing a training framework for HoDs to equip them in their leadership managerial role.

Conclusion

Higher educational institutions have complex organizational structures, highly bureaucratic processes, and strong subcultures that can influence heads of departments. Changes to the environment in which HEIs are offering postgraduate education are resulting in the need for HEIs to consider the impact on HEI leadership and management at all levels, including that of department head (Floyd and Dimmock 2011).

To assist HEIs to deal with the complex environments they face in the delivery of postgraduate education, managerial leadership needs to occur at all levels in the organization. The role of the HoDs as a mid-level academic manager has been the focus of many researchers who argue for greater job clarity and a clear identification of managerial leadership competencies.

If, as suggested, HoDs are central to the decisions being made and the implementation of strategic change initiatives, then clearly a greater focus on understanding the role they play, a specific position description, clear selection criteria, support, and management and leadership development needs to take place.

A key focus supported by numerous authors remains the development of managerial leadership competencies. While some authors have reported on individual management and leadership competency frameworks being developed with in individual universities, Crosthwaite and Erwee (2014) focused attention on a robust model that has empirical support in the higher education sector. This model can be usefully applied to HEIs as in the author’s study of six HEIs in the state of Kerala, India. As such the Competing Values Model provides a significant step forward in the identification and development of managerial leadership competencies in the provision of postgraduate education in higher education institutions.