This post explores how structure, culture and governance in post-1992 Universities conspire against innovative and agile leadership.
Most post-1992 Universities have moved from being a Council-owned Polytechnic to a University. Public sector culture and traditions can remain strong, and embedded in structures, policies and practices. For example the management of change procedures and attendance polices may be based on public sector best practice rather than arguably what is required to survive in a competitive market. The Trades Unions have formal representation on the Board of Governors and have formal consultation rights in many policy areas.
Many managers feel that their ability to exercise effective leadership is limited by this public sector legacy which they feel has increasingly less relevance as we move towards a competitive and global market. Certain topics are considered “off limits” and this limits leaders’ abilities to even seek to develop a consensus around aims such as efficiency and outsourcing.
Academic culture demands freedom of action and development of a broad consensus around any planned change. Universities deliver their services to their customers through a team of highly intelligent staff who are largely independent, pro-active, innovating and questioning rather than passive, reactive and blindly following. These characteristics are in turn passed on to their customers, the students, through the teaching process.
All legitimate businesses espouse an ethical approach. However it can be argued that ethics is a dimension of behaviour that is particularly applicable to academics, as enacted in policies and procedures around research ethics.
It would be surprising if these values of consensus, integrity and ethics did not impact on how leadership is both espoused and enacted within the University, through both formal and informal structures and ways of working.
Espoused leadership is therefore consensual, and in practice this is by and large enacted for academic concerns such as course design and delivery. Behaviours such as mutual respect, active listening and integrity are highly valued whether or not applied to leadership.
Consensual leadership is also espoused on the administrative side of the University. Here however, what is enacted is a very varied picture, depending on the structure and culture of a particular area, and the demands of the situation. The public sector legacy often translates into a hierarchical organisational structure that legitimises power and status rather than leadership, and a “command and control” regime that uses rewards and sanctions to drive performance. As a consequence, navigating the mechanics and politics of the organisational structure to access those with resources and decision-making power becomes a necessary skill for leaders at any level.
Universities operate within an external framework defined by various Education and Charities laws and regulations, and by sector-specific regulation covering areas such as funding and quality assurance.
The Board of Governors is the ultimate governing body and it exercises its responsibilities through a series of standing committees, the most important of which is the Academic Board or equivalent. Executive power rests with the Vice Chancellor who exercises his or her responsibilities through an executive team equivalent to a Board of Directors. Both governance and executive arms operate through a hierarchy of committees.
To be effective at a senior level, leaders need a good knowledge of the governance and executive structure, including which committee is responsible for which policy area, the timing and mechanics of committee meetings, how to get items onto the agenda and how to present them in a way that will result in a positive outcome. Skill in producing high quality, technically accurate, credible and focused proposals is required. To achieve this leaders need qualities of attention to detail, perseverance, personal credibility developed through integrity, and the ability to articulate their case in terms that are aligned with the objectives of the committee, project or task-and-finish group. The ability to develop an informal network of contacts that can be called upon to access specialist knowledge and support is extremely useful in helping ensure the effectiveness of the leader.
A consequence of the governance structure is that compliance is held in very high regard. This affects leadership behaviour by inhibiting risk-taking. Considerable resources, time and effort are required to organise, communicate with, comply with and report to this committee structure. Outside the Secretarial function, this largely falls on middle and senior managers. Give limited resources this has the effect of reducing the potential for service delivery and innovation, and by extrapolation the time to demonstrate leadership in these areas.
The combination of heavy governance and the need for transparency, leads to expectations that leaders will behave in a way that is rational rather than intuitive, incremental and not transformational, and bureaucratic rather than agile. This assists with Universities objectives with regards to accountability but arguably limits innovation and the agility to respond rapidly to challenges and opportunities.
A step-change in mind set is required to ensure that post-1992 Universities are fit for purpose in the competitive market. Failure to “wake up and smell the coffee” will result in failed Universities. Embracing a private sector competitive mentality does not have to mean giving up our passion for learning and research, or even social justice. If we fail to adapt, we will have none of these – and we will fail our future students.
Rob's Blog 