Process to practice: The evolving role of the academic middle manager in English further education colleges

Introduction

The purpose and scope of the English further education (FE) sector can be hard to define, especially given the fluid nature of policy in the area (Randle and Brady, 1997 ; Spenceley, 2007). Yet when you dig below the surface, what emerges is a sector that is viewed as both resilient and responsive (Daley et al., 2015). This sector may be defined in England as encompassing ‘…any study taken after the age of 16 that is not part of higher education (that is, not taken as part of an undergraduate or post-graduate degree)’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS], 2016: 5). The majority of learners will study at one of 280 FE colleges ¹ and be part of an area that has a budget of around £10 billion (BIS, 2016). The sector has changed considerably in the past 25 years. The primacy of the economic imperative (Hyland and Merrill, 2003) which was at the heart of the incorporation of colleges in 1992 changed the fundamental nature of FE. This has been defined as the belief in ‘…the efficacy of the free market’ (Simmons, 2008b: 429) and is characterized by neo-liberalist principles of free enterprise, free market and the measurement of success in quantitative terms (Simmons, 2008a). The impact of neo-liberalism on education has meant that the freedom of the individual organization to pursue their own aims and objectives has been accentuated (Mahony and Weiner, 2017), leading to a focus on competition and the achievement of key performance indicators as well as an increasing input from external stakeholders such as employers (Gleeson et al., 2015) – a process that can be likened to managerial positivism (Walby, 2003). This, in turn, has led to a significant change in role for those charged with leading and managing within the sector. This change has meant that the production of quantitative data to prove that targets have been achieved has become a key focus for the middle manager, whilst the educational imperative has declined in perceived importance (Avis et al., 2003). Whilst acknowledging the definition given earlier, defining the sector can prove troublesome. Jameson (2013: 15) described the sector as the ‘yes…but, and sector’, as any attempt to define it was fraught with difficulty and was likely to meet a counterargument. It is important to note at this stage that, whilst recognizing the diversity and complexity of the sector, this article focuses on colleges offering FE in England.

The study focused specifically on middle managers, a group whose needs have been neglected in the past (Briggs, 2006). In part, this can be linked to the lack of agency middle leaders often have within their role (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011, confirm that this is not confined to the FE sector), but it is also related to the downplaying of the importance of the position. The increased culture of metrics and performativity that Simmons (2008b) described has tended to reduce the role less to one that has a transformative element (Busher and Harris, 1999) and more to one which is focused on process and outcome. This downplaying of the role has started to be addressed with the recent Education and Training Foundation report clearly articulating the needs of middle managers (ETF, 2018), and an increase in research into the needs and composition of this group (Corbett, 2017; Dennis et al., 2017; Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2018a), but the focus on metrics is still the predominant factor that influences the lives of those within the sector. The ETF report stressed the desire middle managers have for leadership training but also the dearth of this in the past (ETF, 2018), a fact that suggests that there has been little change since Briggs looked at the group.

Middle managers are a diverse group of people situated in the organization between senior managers and teaching staff (Busher et al., 2007) who have accountability for a specific area of delegated responsibility (Turner, 2007). This group have moved beyond their traditional role as the ‘ideological buffer between senior leaders and lecturers through which market reform is filtered in the FE workplace’ (Gleeson and Shain, 1999: 462) to one which requires them to co-ordinate a multitude of tasks whilst being held accountable for the performance of their department. Incorporation, the rise of neo-liberalism and managerialism, numerous reorganizations and constant policy initiatives have created a job that epitomizes the concept of ‘managing under pressure’ (Drodge, 2002: 27). The declining financial health of the FE sector and the recent programme of Government-led area reviews (O’Leary, 2016) has resulted in an increase in the number of mergers across the sector, where two colleges join together for financial or quality reasons. In their work on FE college governance, Hill et al. (2016: 79) identify ten key challenges which they consider to be ‘significant, substantial, simultaneous and synergistic’ relating to the turbulent nature of the FE sector, the need to secure improvements in learner outcomes, and the cost of resourcing provision. In addition, employer-led reforms require managers to liaise and network across a wide range of stakeholders.

It has been suggested (ETF, 2018; Greatbatch and Tate, 2018) that, in order to tackle these challenges, the sector needs to build leadership capacity. This could include providing middle management with the opportunity for them to participate in the strategic processes and leadership of the organization (Greatbatch and Tate, 2018). This approach has been endorsed by the introduction of a leadership qualification aimed at raising leadership capability and capacity (ETF, 2018) as well as the specific focus on middle management in the ETF’s most recent report (ETF, 2018).

Management or leadership?

The use of language is crucial when trying to describe the functions of management and leadership in further education. Whilst recent studies in the secondary sector focus on middle leaders (Farchi and Tubin, 2018; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell, 2014), many within the FE sector still use the term ‘middle manager’. The word ‘leader’ has many positive connotations (Northouse, 2017), and is seen as something which creates aspirations rather than referring to the maintenance of processes that confirm the current situation (Bush et al., 2010). There is often an inculcated assumption in education that strong leadership is a positive within the sector (Yukl, 2002), a fact recognized by the transition in the language used to describe those in charge from educational management to educational leadership under previous governments. Perhaps because of this, there is some evidence to suggest that the word ‘leadership’ is used to describe functions that might traditionally be described as ‘management’ duties. Yukl (2002) noted how the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, whilst Bush et al. (2010) and others (Hoyle and Wallace, 2005; Page, 2013) stress that the semantic difference is often an artificial one. In their ethnographic study of leadership in post-compulsory education, Iszatt-White et al. (2011: 84) presented the ‘mundane features’ of leadership work, suggesting that leadership can be hard to distinguish from other kinds of managerial work. Whilst true, the counterargument, presented by Connolly et al. (2017), that leadership should only refer to those parts of the job where those holding these posts influence the actions of others, is the definition that is most common amongst writers, and it is that influence that differentiates leadership tasks from management tasks (Fertig and James, 2016). Bush et al. (2010) confirm this by describing leadership as when a person exerts influence in order to achieve a certain goal. This links to Yukl’s (2002) description of the importance of influence when leading, and also with Northouse’s (2017) view that a key role of the leader is to ensure that there was a common view from employees.

The interchangeable use of the two terms has not helped the process of distinguishing between them within FE (Gunter, 2004), and indeed in many cases people fulfilling the middle-management role are unsure how to label it (Gunter, 2004). For guidance, many people look to the description given to them by the organization and, when asked to define their role, they quote their job title (Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2018b). This view is supported by Mullins (2016), who found that individuals generally seek to behave in a manner consistent with the way the role is defined, and thus great care is needed to ensure that what is being said does not merely mirror the words of the organization.

The role of the middle manager

Middle managers work in a diverse range of settings within the sector, and perhaps because of this Briggs (2007) found that there appeared to be little uniformity in how they perceived and enacted their role. This could be due not only to the environment in which they work, but also the culture and their own interpretation of the role. Where the managers’ main responsibility concerns curriculum, these are designated as academic roles as opposed to support functions within colleges. These academic roles are responsible for curriculum design, delivery and resourcing, although they may not necessarily involve teaching. In many cases the role has moved away from a focus on pedagogical issues towards managerial and administrative tasks (Briggs, 2005). However, despite this shift, they remain responsible for the student experience within their areas, from initial recruitment through to achievement and everything in between. The role will include designing and delivering the curriculum within parameters set both externally and internally, and they will be held accountable for performance through measures such as retention but also though feedback, for example from student surveys.

Busher and Harris (1999) identified four key dimensions to the role, and the balance between these elements helps to explain the nature of the job. The fluid and often ephemeral environment within which FE exists means that the balance between the dimensions differs between managers, but as a group they help us understand the role. The first category is ‘bridging and brokering’, which refers to transactional leadership. This can be vital for middle managers as they enact the plans of the senior managers. It emphasizes the human side of the job, although it also stresses that the end goal is to implement something that has been decided at a senior level. This is supported by both Briggs (2005) and Corbett (2017), who described how academic middle managers are responsible for translating policy into practice. It is clear from the literature (Earley, 1998; Glover et al., 1998) that many interpret their role as one of implementing strategy rather than creating it. This view is reinforced by Evans (2007), who demonstrated that much of the training received by middle managers focused on technical rather than leadership issues, or, to put it another way, process rather than people. This focus on the process side of things contradicts the reason many managers originally came into the role. Much of the research suggests that middle-managers’ motivation was to help students and to develop the curriculum within their specialized subject – an area that will have an increased importance in the future – with the proposed new Ofsted framework for the sector looking to focus on the substance of education and a broad curriculum.

The second element is ‘a transformational dimension’, which is the process of encouraging those working in the organization to adapt creative approaches and continually look for improvements both in themselves and teaching in general. This part of the role is often neglected, owing to the complexity of the role and the issues faced by some managers looking to balance competing demands in organizations that are struggling to cope with the post-incorporation environment (Jameson, 2013). The third role, ‘supervisory management’, might be described as a traditional, process role of a manager, whereas the final role, ‘representative leadership’, requires the manager to represent their department both inside and outside the organization. As can be seen, the majority of the roles identified tend to focus on processes and defined objectives rather than a more holistic view of middle management – a view mirrored when looking at the role of the middle manager outside the education sector (Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2018b).

Methodology

The sample of academic middle managers that has been used for this article came from an online questionnaire of 302 responses within the FE sector. Taking into account the latest figures for employees in the sector (ETF, 2016), this equated to a return of around 15 per cent of total numbers, which is slightly above the expected return for an online questionnaire (Nulty, 2008). Checks were then made to ensure that this was a representative sample for the sector. This took the form of cross-referencing to demographic and location statistics to ensure there were no imbalances.

The questionnaire was sent to all colleges within the FE sector via email, with a follow-up email targeting sectors that were underrepresented in the initial survey. Breaking down the 302 rather more, we find that 208 respondents were female (68% of the total sampled). This is slightly higher than the figures obtained by the Education and Training Foundation in their annual workforce survey (ETF, 2016); however, it does fall into acceptable confidence limits and so can be viewed as representative. A similar pattern was repeated when ethnic origin was investigated, with 280 people answering ‘white’ when asked about their ethnic origin. National figures are difficult to find, with almost 1 in 5 employees failing to answer this question (ETF, 2016); however, when looking at the available information, this does seem to be broadly representative of the sector. All parts of the college sector were represented, with general FE colleges being the most popular place of work (181 responses), followed by sixth-form colleges (57 responses) and land-based colleges (27 responses). This breakdown is very close to the proportions identified by the ETF. Participants were asked about their managerial experience to ensure that a broad cross-section of experience was represented. The average time an academic middle manager had been in post was 3 years, whilst the range was from a few weeks to over 15 years.

In addition to the questionnaire, 32 semi-structured interviews took place with managers in the sector. These were designed to understand the day-to-day jobs of the manager as well as how they perceive their role. A purposive sampling technique was used, with the final demographic breakdown mirroring that of the most recent ETF survey (ETF, 2016); interviewees self-selected themselves via either direct contact or a section in the questionnaire that asked for volunteers.

A thematic approach was taken to the data analysis, with broad themes identified via the questionnaire and then confirmed through analysis of the interviews. Any outlying answers were also looked at to see if the experiences of academic middle managers differed according to the sector they worked within. Owing to the nature of the discussion (which focused on their role, the differences between leadership and management and the support they received) and the topic area, any interviews related to this topic were likely to raise sensitive issues, and so all ethical issues were addressed and research guidelines were followed (BERA, 2011). Voluntary informed consent forms were circulated to participants prior to interview, and signed copies were collected before the interviews took place. Participants were informed about their right to withdraw, and anonymity was maintained throughout, via the use of pseudonyms for each participant.

To further ensure that ethical considerations were taken into account, all data were stored securely, with a password-protected account used. No participants were identified, and interviews took place with volunteers. Participants were given the option to receive a copy of the transcript of their interview. No incentives were offered to participate, and ethical approval was gained via the appropriate university-appointed committee.

A summary of the respondents to the questionnaire has been included in Table 1; more detailed information is available upon request.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of questionnaire respondents

Gender
Female	Male
208	92
Primary place of work
General FE college	Sixth-form college	Land-based college	Other
181	57	27	37
Age
Under 30	30–40	40–50	50+
11	83	123	85
Length of service as a middle manager
Under a year	1–3 years	3–5 years	Over 5 years
34	40	31	197
Teaching commitment
No teaching	Cover teaching	Less than 5 hour per week	5 hours+ per week
49	121	86	46

Findings

There was wide variation in terms of size and scope of department, number of individuals managed and range of provision. There was also a plethora of different titles used, including Head of Area, Team Leader, Course Director, Head of Department and Curriculum Manager. It is interesting to note that whilst ‘Head of’ or ‘Manager’ were commonly used, only one of the participants had the term ‘team leader’ in their job title. This supports findings from the literature that, unlike the compulsory sector where the use of ‘leader’ rather than ‘manager’ is common (Gunter, 2004), ‘middle leadership’ is not a term that is often used in FE (Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2018a).

The span of control varied significantly from departments that numbered only a few members of staff to those that encompassed a multidisciplinary department, but what was common was that the accountability lay with the middle manager, and they were expected to represent and explain performance within their area. The role appears to have moved further away from the classroom, with teaching forming either a small part of the role or there being no requirement to teach. This did not mean, however, that they had lost their focus on the learner, as the learner experience was still their primary focus. Within the interviewees there was often a desire to have more interactivity with learners, a view typified by Barbara’s comment: ‘Teaching gives me credibility and reminds me of why I do this job!’

Despite this wish to be more involved with learners, the maximum number of hours taught by interviewees was 8 hours per week, with half teaching only when covering for absent colleagues. This result seemed to agree with Corbett’s (2017) assertion of a shift away from an education focus to one that involves far less contact with learners. However, they were still focused on ensuring their departments provided interesting and relevant education and training programmes to attract learners and give them the knowledge and skills they needed to progress.

In common with previous studies (Briggs, 2003; Lambert, 2014; Lumby, 2001), the managers appeared reluctant to identify themselves as leaders, preferring instead to see the role as one where management took precedence. This meant their focus was on the operational rather than strategic aspects:

I’m responsible for making sure it works, that’s how I see it. (Phil)

Their roles were broad, and encompassed a wide range of tasks and responsibilities. Murphy and Curtis (2013), researching programme leaders in the HE sector, found that the definition of what the role included was rather vague, leading to the blurring of boundaries in terms of responsibility, and the same was true in the case of the middle managers in this study. In many cases, this caused a lack of role clarity, leading the managers to focus on process and disparate individual tasks.

The actual work of leadership is difficult to define, whereas management can more easily be broken down into a set of activities, and this can lead to a situation where an individual ‘defaults to management’ in terms of their role and identity (Carroll and Levy, 2008: 76). The majority of managers were clear when describing their role:

There are definitely elements of both but, primarily, it’s a manager. (Ruth)

These views were supported by the language used in formally describing the role when appointing new people. This supports the earlier statement that people look to the description given to them by the organization in defining their role (Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2018b).

When participants were questioned further, their answers showed that the line between leadership and management was blurred, with no distinct boundary, and they were seen as linked or blended together. There was evidence that the middle managers were drawing on aspects of both leadership and management on a daily basis to ensure their department was successful. However, many participants found it hard to draw out specific examples of activities which they categorized as leadership, as this was so closely intertwined with their management role. There was also evidence to suggest that in some instances their role was deliberately being categorized as a managerial one, despite elements of leadership being present. The words of Dennis, who was a head of department in a large FE college, showed this to good effect. When asked to describe his job, he first mentioned the paperwork, the need to meet targets, the meetings with senior management and other traditionally managerial process-driven tasks, yet when pressed he talked about new initiatives he had introduced, the ways in which he had empowered his staff, and his vision for the department. Despite this, however, frustrations remained:

The biggest frustration is the lack of autonomy. If I could remove one thing it would be that lack of ability to have freedom in the development without having to go ‘cap in hand’ saying ‘can I do this?’ (Dennis)

This meant that he downplayed his importance and viewed himself as an implementer rather than an influencer.

The focus on the process of management was supported by the managers surveyed who talked about the importance of making sure that things ran smoothly, although others voiced similar frustrations to Dennis and referred to cases whereby they were explicitly told that their job was to complete management rather than leadership tasks:

We were told that you are not going to meet up as a team without senior management there…Which we felt gave quite a strong message to us…that we weren’t necessarily trusted to be professional and come up with our own agenda. (Linda)

The shift towards managerialist positivism (Walby, 2003) was clear in many of the answers. Many managers described their job as a series of objectives that needed to be achieved, and this sometimes created an approach which conjured up images of running on a treadmill, achieving the quantitative-based goals described by Walby (2003) but never actually getting anywhere:

We live and die by rules that are a nonsense and what you have to do is to meet these needs…Our procedures at the college are so well set that in many ways I just have to follow them…in many ways I am just a cog in the machine. (Hubert)

For some there was a frustration that the day-to-day activities of management prevented them from carrying out a leadership role, as shown in the following quotes:

I would love it to be both. At the moment I feel like it is just management due to the sheer volume of work. (Laura)

Despite this reluctance to describe their roles in terms that relate to leadership, managers demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting and developing the individuals in their teams, and showed leadership when doing so. Leading the team was seen as an essential part of ensuring its success, and, as one participant observed, ‘you have to take it seriously because what you say and do has an impact’. This supports the view of Briggs (2001) that for most middle managers leadership is localized within a department. Comments made by the interviewees focused on the importance of maintaining a high profile and being accessible:

Every day I make sure that I put my coat on and go out and meet everyone, I don’t have an agenda or anything it is just about being visible and it gives you credibility. You can also solve a lot of small problems before they become big problems. Oh and it means I can keep an eye on my team…And I suppose they can keep an eye on me! (Annalise)

This practice enabled the managers to engage with staff in a more informal manner as they walked around the organization. Although unstructured, this method of building relationships through face-to-face contact was highly valued by managers, and emerged in their practice as an intuitive response to meeting the needs of the team. Diamond and Spillane (2016) focus on leadership activity to identify the work of leadership and analyse leadership practices within an organization. This approach focuses on interactions that take place between people in the organization. This activity could be viewed as leadership as it comprises opportunities to motivate staff and to communicate the college’s vision and values – practices which Buckner (2008) argues makes leadership more effective.

There is evidence that for some managers the leadership aspects of the role do start to come to the fore, as demonstrated in the words of Susanne, an experienced manager who had worked in FE for many years:

…probably in the past two years it might have gone more into a leadership role than it has done previously and, I think, part of that is my own personal development and growing with experience and, I think, it’s also having confidence to step back and let your team do. (Susanne)

However, throughout the study it was evident that the leadership aspects of their roles were downplayed or even ignored by managers despite their importance in enabling the organization to respond and implement changes in policy and direction. Their comments demonstrated that they were providing direction for their departments through development and delivery of the curriculum, and that they were clearly focused on their vision for both the learners in their area and the organization as a whole.

They supported and developed their teams, motivating them to produce good results, and they spoke about accountability and responsibility for the work and performance of their area – all activities that link with Northouse’s (2017) view of what constitutes leadership. This link with established literature suggests there is agreement with Lumby (2001: 12), who notes that ‘leadership may be embodied in what people do, not what they say’.

Conclusion

The wide variations in how the middle-manager’s role is viewed and enacted within FE adds a level of complexity when drawing out the leadership and management aspects. A change in terminology may encourage individuals to think differently about their role; if, as we believe, role descriptors are part of creating identity, then it may be time to embrace the term ‘middle leader’ within FE. The findings suggest that there is a dichotomy between how managers perceive their role (which is generally aligned with the title given to them by the organization) and what they actually do, which contains clear elements of how leadership is defined by literature. Our findings support Evans’ (2008) view that leadership behaviours of those in the middle are more focused on day-to-day issues and people management. A key part of the role involves drawing together the strategic and operational aspects, and implementing organizational change (Collinson, 2007). To achieve this, they need to encourage and support their team to turn policy into practice; this fits with the view of leadership expressed by Bush et al. (2010) that it is the act of motivating people towards achieving a common goal. Participants in this research clearly articulated how they were doing this, for example by getting out of the office and maintaining a high profile, and, although not structured, this approach to their role was seen as essential.

In the study, managers appear to consider the role definition of leadership – one that they have difficulty in identifying with. This is due to either the pressures of the managerial aspects of the role or the culture of the organization. This leads to a focus on the process elements, in particular the need to complete multiple individual tasks. However, this research suggests that, despite this focus on process, the role has evolved and middle managers are undertaking a range of activities that could be classified as leadership. Viewing leadership as an activity (Diamond and Spillane, 2016) provides a way to analyse the work of the middle managers in this study, as it provides a more comprehensive view of the work undertaken within this complex role. As they grow into their role, in order to survive and then thrive, the transference to a practice-based model represents the chance to become a more successful leader within the organization. We suggest that using ‘practice’ rather than ‘process’ as a descriptor of the role would reframe, identify and bring forward the leadership aspects of what they do, encouraging a focus on a holistic, practice-based approach rather than a succession of process-driven tasks. It could also help to deepen understanding of their contribution to leadership within the wider organization.

What this study has suggested is that a practice-driven model of the approach to the middle-management role could have positive benefits for managers and organizations. It is clear that many middle managers are leaders within their areas. If, as has been suggested, the sector needs to build leadership capacity, it could do this within FE colleges by utilizing the experience and expertise of those in the middle of the organization. This could enable these individuals to play a greater role in addressing the ongoing challenges currently facing the sector. We suggest that, to enable this to happen, more attention needs to be given to middle-management roles and how these are defined.