Embedded in two worlds: The university academic manager’s work,identity and social relations

Abstract

The university academic manager (AM) or head of school/department is typically positioned in a hierarchical world: as a middle manager ‘sandwiched’ between senior management and subordinates. I propose a different framing: the AM cohabits two worlds, the worlds of hierarchy and collegiality respectively. Using an ideal type framework and data based mainly on interviews with 20 AMs, I examine AMs’ tasks, identity and social relations, showing that AMs adopt a dual work identity that is associated with the ‘two worlds’ imagery which explains their orientation towards their tasks and social relations. This interpretation enables a deeper understanding of how AMs enact their role and encourages dialogue about the future of middle-level university management.

Keywords

Academic managers university governance work identity leadership types of organization professions

Introduction

This paper is about academics who manage colleagues in universities. Despite their important and problematic role, these middle-level academic managers (AMs) or heads of school/department (heads) have not been extensively studied. AMs are important because they are expected to execute the organization’s policies; however, their role is problematic because managing may run counter to colleagues’ professional interests. To better understand the AMs’ role, I pose three research questions: first, how do heads perceive their tasks, identity and relations with others at work (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021)? Second, is the conventional hierarchical framework adequate for understanding the AM’s role? And third, if not, is there a more promising alternative? I will argue that although the AM can be positioned as a classic middle manager in a professional (academic) context, this prevailing ‘one world’ hierarchical framework neglects the AM’s role as a collegial representative leader, who temporarily enacts a management role. I demonstrate that AMs are simultaneously embedded in ‘two worlds’, one based on hierarchy and management ideology; the other based on polyarchy and collegiality. This positioning in ‘two worlds’ enables a deeper understanding of how AMs perceive and undertake their role.

I begin with a brief overview of studies focusing mainly on university middle managers. The study’s methodology is then outlined, followed by a report on the study’s research findings on the AM’s tasks, identity and social relations. Using the ‘two worlds’ framework, I discuss these findings and conclude by noting implications for learning and development and future practice.

Overview of the literature and the ‘two worlds’ framework

There are three pertinent streams of literature regarding university AMs;¹ two are concerned with middle management roles, while the third stream focuses on the organization and its socio-political context. Regarding the first stream, higher education scholars use concepts from organization theory to explore changes in the AM role and the effectiveness with which tasks, including leadership, are undertaken (Bryman and Lilly, 2009; Lumby, 2012; Smith, 2002). The second research stream draws on critical social psychology, viewing the AM as both superior and subordinate, exploring questions of identity and role enactment (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021; Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019). Both streams are premised on the ontology of hierarchy, a concept elaborated by scholars in the third stream who use organization theory to examine the structural and cultural characteristics of universities (Burnes et al., 2014; Hellawell and Hancock, 2001).

Positioning academic managers: organizationally, occupationally and socio-politically

Although AMs are uncontroversially located in organizational hierarchies, their occupational and socio-political position are more contentious. Heads report to associate deans or deans of faculties (Smith, 2002, 2005), hereafter referred to, for the sake of simplicity, as senior management. Mainly in response to government policy, universities have been pursuing so-called New Public Management (Christopher, 2012; Clarke and Knights, 2015) strategies that have included changes in authority structures and roles (Devinney and Dowling, 2020: 5–9). The AM’s organizational role has become more complex and demanding (Bryman and Lilley, 2009), being the critical interface between the apex and base of the hierarchy. Direct contact with staff distinguishes the head from other intermediate management positions. The AM is the ‘meat in the sandwich’ (Branson et al., 2016; Lapp and Carr, 2006), constructing her/his identity as both superordinate controlling staff and subordinate being controlled by senior managers (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019). I refer to this view of the AM ‘sandwiched’ in a hierarchy as the ‘one world’ framework.

The head position is typically based on a short-term, renewable contract that is not part of the conventional career track, so there is little incentive to undertake the role. These occupational features discourage formation of a managerial identity. However, if AMs are to manage, they need to find a modus operandi. The ‘two worlds’ perspective – where the AM is embedded in both a hierarchy and an occupational community, expressed institutionally as collegiality – enables role enactment. This is not simply a matter of positioning between senior management and colleagues (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019: 6), but being immersed in two different, yet overlapping perceptions of reality, whose contours are not clearly defined in practice, but can be conceptualized in ideal typical form (see later).

This duality reflects different governance tendencies that derive from socio-political sources. On the one hand, there is long-standing institutional support for collegial forms and values in universities (Lumby, 2012: 5; Rüegg, 1992), including academic autonomy, shared decision-making and social fellowship (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2010: 27–28). On the other hand, universities are regulated by law and management rules. Scholars have made sense of this complexity by proposing hybrid models of organization (see later).

Interrogating the AM role

Tasks

Smith’s (2002) survey of heads in two UK universities showed that ‘paperwork and bureaucracy’, ‘personnel issues’ and ‘meetings’ took up most time (in that order) but did not accord with the significance placed on various issues. In the research-oriented university, heads prioritized ‘governing the department’, ‘personal research/publications’ and ‘managing personnel’. Insufficient authority was seen as a problem. The role had become more managerial and less acceptable to colleagues (Smith, 2002). Preston and Price (2012) observed that heads felt frustrated by their limited power to influence faculty strategy and by colleagues’ suspicion and lack of co-operation. Smith’s (2002) research university department heads reported ‘staff problems’, ‘volume of work’ and ‘meeting deadlines’ (in that order) as the main sources of stress. Heads worked long hours and the work was fragmented, with continual interruptions and issues arising from various sources: senior managers, research directors and teaching leaders, IT managers, and colleagues (Parker, 2004; Smith, 2002).

Leadership

Senior managers expect heads to influence their colleagues’ behaviour and manage the school’s resources efficiently. Heads valued autonomy and attainment of personal priorities but they lacked power. Their loyalty was suspect as AMs identified more with their occupation than the organization. These factors suggest a preference for covert leadership (Mintzberg, 1998), characterized by leaders embodying professional norms and promoting collegiality and scholarship (Bryman and Lilley, 2009: 336). Other more complex, tentative positions have been posited (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021), consistent with Lumby’s (2012: 12) conclusion that academic attitudes to leadership are ambivalent and contradictory. Bryman and Lilley’s (2009) study showed that although there was little agreement on attributes contributing to leadership effectiveness, heads agreed on characteristics associated with ineffectiveness; in particular, ‘lack of trust or integrity’, ‘not consulting with colleagues’ and ‘ignoring problems’ (Bryman and Lilley, 2009: 336). These three attributes are the antithesis of collegial norms.

Adoption of the role, emotions and identity

Academics take on the head or associate dean role for a variety of reasons (Pepper and Giles, 2015), sometimes when they feel an especially strong need to align personal and institutional values (Floyd, 2012). Many heads accept the role out of a sense of duty or because it is their turn (Bryman and Lilley, 2009). Although the recruitment process differs, the head is typically appointed by, or with the support of senior managers and the active consent of colleagues (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019; Smith, 2002).

Regarding emotions, heads display mixed feelings about the role, although negative feelings are more frequently reported. Frustration and stress arise in response to lack of power, excessive senior management job demands (Preston and Price, 2012; Smith, 2002) and limited colleague support, especially in difficulties resolving personnel problems (Bryman and Lilley, 2009). Heads may also feel strongly compromised, having to undertake some managerial tasks considered morally questionable (e.g. discontinuing pedagogically valuable courses). As Parker (2004: 55) remarked: ‘I often have deep doubts about what I do, and what I may become, but they are not so bad that I must stop’. Heads care about school members, especially junior colleagues, who they attempt to protect from ‘bureaucracy’ (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019 as discussed below). Finally, heads also report feelings of satisfaction, especially when they have sufficient power and legitimacy. Strong satisfaction is reported when heads achieve personal goals related to enhancement of the school or its individual members (Parker, 2004). Pepper and Giles (2015: 46) refer to ‘make[ing] a difference for others’, a phrase that includes assisting colleagues, improving learning and research and contributing to strategy and managing resources.

How heads perceive their role depends on their work identity. Winter (2009) distinguished between the ‘academic manager’, whose values are congruent with the university’s managerial culture, and the ‘managed academic’, whose professional values are incongruent with managerial values, implying a disconnect between the head and senior management. Gerdje and Alvesson’s (2019) research on heads and other intermediate-level managers in four UK business schools reveals a three-fold conceptualization of heads’ work identity: the ‘umbrella carrier’, the ‘performance driver’ and the ‘impotent’. The most common identity, the ‘umbrella carrier’, identifies with so-called subordinates, seeking to protect school members from various distractions and interruptions. The umbrella metaphor refers mainly to protecting subordinates, but also serves to shield AMs against incorporation into management and from criticism by subordinates. In contrast, the ‘performance driver’, like Winter’s (2009) ‘academic manager’, identifies with management, embracing management’s pursuit of higher subordinate productivity. The ‘impotent’ identity disavows identification with management or subordinates, resulting in a perceived incapacity to influence either group (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019: 17).

Social relations at work

Relations with senior managers may be cordial or tense depending on the extent and nature of pressures. Being vulnerable to senior managers’ control over resources, heads cultivate business-like relationships which may include tacit resistance (see Harding et al., 2014). The head’s role as policy communicator and implementer evokes suspicion among colleagues who feel powerless to influence strategic decisions and who lack a coherent, counter-veiling ideology to resist management (Alvesson and Spicer, 2016; Kallio et al., 2016). As Branson et al. (2016) note, heads have little to offer colleagues in exchange for their support. They must persuade colleagues that it is in their interest to support efforts at limiting the potential adverse effects of university policies. Heads’ relationship with colleagues is therefore complex, conditional and challenging. Being disinclined to share problems with senior managers or colleagues, heads may look to fellow heads for advice, emotional support and on-going learning (Branson et al., 2016).

Situating the AM within the ‘two worlds’ of professional collegiality (PC) and managed bureaucracy (MB)

AMs work in universities that differ in size, structure and culture within and between societies (Enders, 2015; Lumby, 2012). Organizational forms resembling the PC ideal type preceded MB historically and were expected by Max Weber to be superseded by the more efficient bureaucratic type (Waters, 1989). However, Weber did not foresee the growth of science-based professions that resist bureaucracy and prefer collegial practices that protect members from external control (Waters, 1989). Organizational change has revealed tensions between old and new organizational forms, encouraging the development of analytical models (Alajoutsijarvi and Kettunen, 2016; McNay, 1995), some of which distinguish between collegial and managerial types of organization. For example, Bruckman and Carvalho (2018) claim that the managerial type is based on bureaucratic and managerial principles while the collegial type embodies principles of autonomy, participative decision-making and collective responsibility, although formalization of rules can introduce bureaucratization to this ideal type (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014; Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016; Tapper and Palfreyman, 2010). Universities in western countries, including the UK and Australia, are characterized as hybrid in form, combining elements of managerial and collegial values, structures and practices (Burnes et al., 2014; Christopher, 2012), with tensions between these cultures varying between and within universities. In order to better understand the AM’s organizational imagery and action, Table 1 builds on this literature by summarizing the two ideal types along seven relevant organizational dimensions.

Table 1.

Two ideal types of organization.

Organizational dimension	Professional collegiality (PC)	Managerial bureaucracy (MB)
Key values as sources of norms	Freedom from state and corporate control regarding staff selection, research and teaching; cross- disciplinary debate; inclusivity based on peer standards; occupational solidarity; participation in decision-making	Organizational effectiveness defined by strategy in response to key stakeholders: government, firms and students.^a Operational efficiency; loyalty to superordinates
Structure	Autonomous, federal with dispersed power	Limited autonomy from the state; power concentrated in CEO equivalent and board
Authority	Specialized knowledge, peer debate and social practices that encourage solidarity	State- and management-derived rules. Positions based on qualifications and experience
Governance logic	Polyarchal; decision-making by consensus between professionals	Hierarchical; decision-making by superordinates
Norm/rule creation and enforcement process	Emerge from peer interaction, institutionalized in accreditation organizations and enforced by collegiate bodies subject to peer review	Mainly decision-making by senior management (internal rules) and the state (legislation)
Type of leadership	Covert type, articulating collegial values and norms, and servant type, using resourcing and support to realize institutional and individual member interests	Transactional or transformational, providing resources and strategy for realization of organization’s norms, rules and objectives
Member behaviour	Creative and collaborative knowledge creation and dissemination	Task completion according to management expectations and rules

^a The MB type accommodates different goals and means that encompass various management agendas.

Two dimensions in Table 1 – norm/rule creation and leadership – deserve elaboration. PC norms are generated by academic workers’ values, some of which are more strongly shared (e.g. individual autonomy) than others (e.g. occupational solidarity). Norms are institutionalized in the decisions and rules of various committees, some of which are recognized by the state (e.g. degree accreditation) while others are tacitly accepted by society (e.g. student assessment). MB norms are established by senior management (e.g. research support and class sizes) although the state strongly influences the extent and use of university finances, including academics’ pay and employment conditions. Regarding leadership, the PC type is associated with key elements of covert (Mintzberg, 1998) and servant type leadership (Greenleaf, 2002). The former reinforces academic values and encourages institutional participation by staff and students, while the latter contributes to developing staff and student capabilities. In contrast, the MB type is associated with transactional leadership – i.e. combining rewards and penalties to encourage employee performance including the notion of student-customer – or transformational leadership that is visionary and inspirational, encouraging university employees to embrace change (Odumeru and Ogbonna, 2013).

Several observations about the relationship between the typology and usage by AMs are noteworthy. First, AMs’ familiarity with this typology varies. Specific elements of these ideal types are likely to inform their thinking and behaviour. This applies particularly to the PC type, which is not part of everyday discourse, despite collegiality being ‘an extraordinarily resilient idea’ (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014: 158). Second, AMs experience the university differently: as variable mixtures of these forms, depending on societal location and history, funding, research intensity, disciplinary specialization and size (Burnes et al., 2014; Christopher, 2012; Enders, 2015). Third, because ideal types accentuate particular characteristics, some features (e.g. gender or ethnic equity) of inclusivity (PC value) valued by some AMs remain implicit. Finally, by accentuating differences, overlaps between the ideal types are understated (Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016). For example, both ideal types value the university’s cultural and scientific contribution to society. In sum, shaped by their work identities and rooted in their employment as academics, AMs inhabit two imaginary worlds of varying coherence, assisting us to interpret their attitudes and behaviour.

Methodology

An extreme case design, including theoretical sampling, was adopted to reveal the anticipated tensions in doing AM work (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Respondents were drawn from schools/departments in business schools (university faculties) where AMs were, with few exceptions, more familiar with management techniques and organization than their counterparts in other faculties. Interviews were supplemented by data on strategy, structure, staff status, qualifications and achievements drawn from university and business school websites. Threats to data validity were addressed by triangulating interview and archival findings (Yin, 2011: 81–82) through feedback provided by AMs and six professors who had been AMs in Australian and/or UK business schools.

Interviews were conducted in six research-oriented Australian and UK universities (details below). To minimize disciplinary bias, AMs were chosen randomly from lists of heads available on these business school (faculty) websites. AMs were distributed as follows: five from management; three from accounting; two from economics; three from finance; and seven from other schools/departments including information systems and marketing. Ten of the 17 schools/departments employed 21 to 39 full-time academic staff while most of the remaining schools/departments (seven) had 40 or more staff. Twelve AMs were male and eight were female. Most (17) of the 20 interviewees were 40 years old or more and senior in rank. Professors comprised 16 of the 20 AMs.

The number of interviews was decided when additional interviews were judged to yield few new insights. Twenty heads were interviewed, 18 of whom were current (2019) incumbents at six business schools (faculties). Pseudonyms denote current (H1–H17) and previous (XH1–XH3) heads. Interviews were conversational in form, with questions focusing broadly on their role, identity and social relations. Following university ethics clearance, I sought interviews with the AMs, assuring them of confidentiality and institutional anonymity and explaining the purpose of the research. Questions were semi-structured, inviting elaboration and exploration. Interviews of between one and one and a half hours were conducted in person or via Skype. These were audio taped and subsequently transcribed.

Interviewees’ opinions, statements and incidents were grouped using NVivo 12 software according to interviewees’ responses to specific questions (categories). Further coding made it possible to identify major and minor themes within the codes (sub-categories) which were subsequently analysed according to axial codes, prompting consideration of relationships between the main types of opinion, statement and incident. Biographical and institutional data, referred to earlier, formed part of the analytical process which included each AM interview being read in its entirety to obtain a holistic perspective and engagement with the relevant literature, searching for comparable findings and explanations. This process helped to generate the typology that enables a more convincing interpretation of how AMs perceive and enact their role.

Findings

In this section I examine how heads are appointed, their objectives, sources of disquiet and satisfaction and their social relations with senior managers, colleagues and peers. I show that heads identify primarily as academics rather than as managers, arguing that this is key to understanding how they interpret their role.

Becoming a head

Heads are appointed for a fixed term of less than five years on a renewable basis. On average, heads occupied their position for 2.8 years (median 2.5 years; range 0.25 to 8 years), most for a single term. Only four heads had been reappointed. Heads preferred not to seek promotion into a senior management role. Only four of the 20 heads indicated any interest in pursuing this career option. As noted earlier, interviewees were mainly professors. They had experience in administration: 18 out of 20 heads had held part-time, temporary positions, e.g. as deputy heads, or teaching course leaders. Senior academics became AMs because: ‘It is more or less your obligation. If you are a professor you expect that in some moment in your life you will be head of school’ (H6). Often this was with peer and/or senior management support. Occasionally, senior management lost confidence in an AM, leading to ‘discussions about stepping down’ (XH3) and the head being replaced.

Processes for selecting heads are changing. The traditional procedure is largely informal: senior academics decide with final approval by senior management. For example, a head recounted that: ‘Nobody was terribly keen [to be appointed] because a department of 70 people is bloody enormous, but they [senior colleagues] told the Associate Dean: “[I] am the right person for the [AM] job”’ (H1). Some schools are appointing deputy heads who will subsequently be endorsed to occupy the AM role. The benefits of this process are explained by another AM: ‘We have a good succession plan in the school, so usually the deputy head becomes the head after their term has expired. That’s good preparation, but also you know what to expect when you step into the role’ (H14). Senior managers are seeking more influence in AM appointments by relying on external consultants to identify and encourage suitable candidates. In the following case a head was hired from overseas:

While I was a department head in [country overseas], I received a call from a head hunter representing [named university] saying: ‘We’re looking for a head of school. Are you interested in applying?’ So, I did a little research on the uni, like the rankings etc., and did an interview here and here I am! (H8)

Appointments continue to be made by committees on which senior academics remain influential. Consequently, heads are typically appointed with the mutual consent of senior management and school representatives.

Doing head of school work: reflections on the role

Objectives and sources of dissatisfaction

Heads prefer to implement policies directly related to improving the school or individual members’ careers. In the words of an AM: ‘The role gives me an opportunity to have an impact on not just students but also our research having relevance to society’ (H8). A long-serving head explained that:

My colleagues should be given the opportunity to be the best they can at what they do best.…It must always involve research, teaching and then some commitment to the school or profession. As head of department, I think you have to sort of know where the individual’s strengths and proclivities are and then sort of steer the ship along…(H15)

Some heads emphasize institutional maintenance: ‘I came in with a very vague goal, that we have a school that has been performing very strongly for a very long time…So my first modest goal was not to stuff it up!’ (H9). Another AM concurred: ‘the basic ground rule is that you leave the place no worse than when you went in’ (H5).

A minority of heads prioritize managerial objectives, seeing these as a means to maintaining staff welfare: ‘Our main priorities are recruiting of students and keeping up to our revenue targets. Yeah, that’s [recruitment] an important priority for us. The faculty is dependent on [our school] for generating a good part of its revenue’ (H11).

Heads expect to influence faculty-level decision-making. Often, their expectations went unfulfilled, causing dissatisfaction: ‘I was told by [a senior manager] that they needed someone to provide strategic leadership to the school…The reality was that there was no strategic leadership’ (H3). Similarly, according to a second head: ‘The [AM] job became completely different to what I expected…The faculty and the [university] became so much more top down. So, I didn’t like the job anymore’ (XH2). Dissatisfaction also occurred when heads’ decisions were ignored or countermanded by senior management:

One of the things that I found incredibly frustrating was the university monthly head of school forum where you go and discuss an issue…There was usually a high degree of commonality in the views of the heads of school. Then, the action that was taken would either be the opposite of what was discussed or there would be no further discussion on the issue. (H3)

A second head commented:

Frequently they’d [senior management] ask for my opinion, I’d recommend something and they’d say, ‘No, we’re not going to do that. We’re going to do this instead. Okay’. That thing didn’t work out so then they had to come back and do what I recommended. That happened several times and that was frustrating. (H8)

For some heads, inauthenticity drained motivation:

The leadership here is coming from the VC who is setting the strategy. That is then pushed down to the dean who interprets it for the faculty. Then my job is to align that with what we’re [the school is] doing…If you align, you’ll get resources. If you don’t, you get no support…(H8)

Heads felt compromised by having to oversee the collection and verification of data for purposes they did not believe in:

Tyranny of metrics guides perverse behaviours and gaming. It’s really scary because the university has introduced this dashboard, right…They have asked me to input all our [school members’] publication results…like we’re going to get some sort of social credit score…(H2)

Heads also expressed anxiety at having to meet multiple objectives set by senior management and government:

There is pressure coming from both within the university and from above [government]…Their view is that we regard research as so important that we just do not give enough attention to students. You can’t do that these days. Three-quarters of our income comes from teaching. We have to change our attitude. (H5)

Heads are expected to pursue contradictory goals, sometimes harmful to colleagues. For example, implementing changes based on economic rather than pedagogical criteria:

I had to tell people that their degree programme was closing down. Those meetings were really difficult. So, before I had this extraordinary department meeting, I saw the individuals who were going to be affected one-to-one, and told them what the plans were, and listened to them…(XH3)

From a head point of view, senior managers’ expectations can be ludicrously high:

I have here a very funny [ironic] email from the [dean equivalent]. She gave me one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 points to think about during the summer [holidays]. And then she signs off ‘Happy summer!’ This is not happy summer! (H6)

Not all problems from above come directly from senior management. Some were the product of systems and procedures that required the head’s attention. These were variously described as ‘endless’, ‘draining’ and ‘mind-numbing’. Government higher education initiatives could also be burdensome for heads. Referring to the national student survey associated with the teaching excellence framework, a head observed that: ‘Those pressures get transmitted down and because we did badly [in the survey] over the last two to three years, there’s been a big push to improve the students’ educational experience, whatever that means’…(H5)

Pressures from below appear to be especially stressful for heads, particularly regarding staff performance. A common complaint was that ‘some cases take a huge amount of time and become redefined from being performance management issues to problems of disability and health’ (H5). Performance management issues may sometimes be concentrated among strongly research-focused colleagues:

The issue starts when people who think that they are doing great in research, are actually not doing great and they’re not doing much in other dimensions. Then it becomes an issue, and it is a bit of a challenge to explain to people that that’s not sustainable. Then they start to rebel and yeah, that’s a challenge. (H14)

Contrasting her preferred role as academic leader with that of manager, a third head offered the following opinion:

I like supporting and mentoring people to advance their careers but what I really dislike is having to deal with people who are not performing well when apart from a bit of common sense you actually don’t have the professional training to do this. (H4)

Apart from persuasion – and at some universities, recommendations to reduce performance-related pay – heads claimed that invoking disciplinary procedures was time-consuming, stressful and rarely successful. Anxiety is magnified where heads are required to address conflicts between factions or disciplinary groups. Following such an incident, a head recounted that: ‘The behaviour of some of my former colleagues obviously pissed me off…It’s been incredibly stressful, negotiating with colleagues’ (H5). Sometimes senior management inadvertently precipitate intra-school conflict:

One that gave me most grief was where we went through a university-imposed strategy review. Colleagues with different approaches to [the discipline] hold different views of their work. But irreparable damage was done by what some colleagues said about others’ work. (H15)

Although burnout is a potential health issue, heads sought to alleviate the problem by curtailing their research activity, delegating work to colleagues in a management team, or engaging in non-work activities.

Work satisfaction

Heads’ work satisfaction is associated with the achievements of their school or its individual members. Hiring can improve a school’s research and teaching and is a process that heads can influence. Indeed, hiring was a major source of AMs’ satisfaction. For example, ‘getting this department out of its own incestuous sort of perpetuation by good hiring has given me a lot of satisfaction’ (H15). A second head recalled ‘beating [another leading university] to a senior professor that everyone wanted to hire and she decided to join our school. That was very satisfying’ (XH1).

Heads expressed pride when their school or individual members received peer recognition, even though they played a minimal role in the process. For example, a particular school had established relatively high performance standards. According to the head:

You would naturally expect that the people who came from the US and top schools in Europe would be the ones to hit the publication target. No. As it turned out, it was the local group who carried the school for the first two or three years. That was very surprising! Amazing really! (XH1)

Heads were especially pleased when staff succeeded in being promoted. For example: ‘I’ve had a number of people who have gotten promotion. It takes a lot of work but it feels very good’ (H7).

Leadership

Heads’ espoused particular PC ideal type values – colleague participation in decision-making and polyarchal governance – favouring a covert, servant type leadership style:

So, I believe in the necessity of trying to make everyone feel they are an important part of the process of decision-making. We do this by having several committees and a head advisory committee which usually decides in line with the views of the school. (H10)

Proactivity was regarded as appropriate in interpreting and communicating university policies and in assisting junior academics:

Leadership is about providing an opportunity for the people working for you. Ensuring that people are getting the right support and mentoring their development to build their careers. So, when I think of myself from a leadership perspective then I think about the junior people. Also, I think it’s about providing direction from a strategic perspective and doing that in a collaborative way. (H3)

Reflecting on their leadership role, most heads referred to it as a learning experience:

I think I am much more efficient. Also, I take things less seriously, less personally. I was very innocent and naive about all student-facing matters. So, I learned a lot about that…You learn a lot about yourself too, what kind of things you’re good at and what kind of things you’re not good at. (H7)

Social relations with senior managers, colleagues and peers

Heads depend on senior managers for resources while senior managers rely on heads for effectively implementing policies. Consequently, despite conflicts over power sharing, most relationships are outwardly civil and sometimes friendly. According to H13, ‘[the associate dean] is not a micromanager. He is happy to leave us [the school] alone’ while H8 commented: ‘I report to the associate dean…She’s been very supportive…She is more involved in more of the processes than what I’m used to [at another business school] but she’s been easy to work with’ (H8). Some relationships between heads and senior managers are tense because of a senior manager’s perceptions that a school is performing unsatisfactorily, resulting in stronger management control: ‘They [senior management] think that we [the school] are a dysfunctional bunch and so must be tightly controlled. Nothing annoys academics more than when they want to control us’ (H9). Relationships may vary over time on account of changes in management or changes in perceptions arising from changes in the institutional context:

The new associate dean said to me: ‘Look, I’ve come here to make strategic changes in this place. I don’t want to be involved in operational details’. So he basically cut me off from going to him and escalating operational issues. (H12)

Heads acknowledged that occupying the AM position placed them in a different relationship with colleagues. One where ‘we’ becomes ‘they’ and camaraderie is replaced by gentle mockery, innuendo (Parker, 2004) and influencing behaviour. Being vested with authority, heads are viewed as potential power wielders: ‘You do get treated differently…It’s about power. In my discipline, academics get paid a market loading which can be a large part of their salary, and I am on that committee’ (H13). A second head reflected: ‘I don’t think you can be a manager and be everyone’s mate…I think I have a relationship with 99% of the people, where, if there’s something they want to talk about, they’ll come talk to me about it’ (H17).

Cautiously friendly relations with colleagues may co-exist with antagonism: ‘I would say that professional services staff treated me with enormous respect and were fantastic. Some colleagues also did, but others, they really didn’t’ (XH3). A second head explained how he avoided conflict with antagonistic colleagues: ‘I knew who the problem folk were and I don’t think I had any bust-ups with anybody. I kind of sort of knew who needed a little bit more love and attention’ (H1).

Strong social ties between peers, i.e. heads in the same faculty, conferred emotional and cognitive benefits: ‘I think what really helped was good collegiality with other heads of school…to have a peer group’ (H4). A second head observed that: ‘The best support came from the other heads of school…Not necessarily that we agreed on how everything should be done, but we agreed on the big picture and we agreed to acknowledge differences across disciplines’ (H3). Most of these relationships developed informally and included learning through discussion, particularly between heads of cognate disciplines:

I think there tends to be a natural clustering around accounting, finance, management, and economics and so yeah I am in touch with these heads…And we would sit together over coffee or lunch sometimes with an agenda of some sort or even without an agenda. We would sometimes also form a coalition to have our concerns expressed. (H15)

Relationships between heads sometimes enabled the formation of new interest groups: ‘I had really great relationships with the other heads of department…We set up this fantastic thing: a women’s heads of department network…We used to go out for drinks with each other’ (XH3).

Heads retained motivation in the role, in part because of peer support but especially because of small successes that touched the work lives of individuals and their department more generally. But with few exceptions, this motivation is not strong enough to encourage a career switch from research and teaching to management. Heads’ overwhelming preference is for academic work (Clarke et al., 2012). This suggests the co-existence of two salient work identities: an academic identity and a managerial identity. In the interviews a large majority of heads claimed that their academic identity is primary and their manager identity is secondary. For example: ‘I don’t see myself as a manager even though the bulk of what I do is that. I see myself as an academic…’ (H1). A second head affirmed that: ‘I am an academic doing a temporary job, mostly managing the younger people. I help them. I lift them up. I’m a weightlifter!’ (H9). However, as illustrated in the following quotation, a small minority were uncertain regarding which identity is more important:

I have a somewhat hybrid identity. I will have some time off to re-establish my research. But it’s hard to say if I would like to go to a more senior management role. It is not clear at the moment, maybe associate dean, research. I need to see how things turn out. (H14)

From the perspective of heads who privilege their academic work identity, occupying the role is a short-term service obligation to colleagues and the university. For a minority, the prospects of a managerial career might strengthen their motivation to realize senior management’s objectives.

Overall, the evidence presented above indicates that the head or AM role is unique among middle managers, being short in duration, independent of the main career track, and not well-rewarded. Although academics share power in selecting heads, senior management are taking more control over the process. This may reinforce the ‘one world’ view of the head’s role, a theme that deserves further study. In addition, heads are required to meet senior management’s objectives and implement relevant processes. Nevertheless, heads seek legitimacy from and remain accountable to colleagues in their department. Many processes are time-consuming and some objectives and associated procedures cause anxiety, particularly where heads are called upon to manage colleagues’ performance. Ensuing motivational problems are rarely addressed by senior management, implying a need for learning, reflection and discussion. Heads nevertheless do realize some of their individual goals, and with assistance from peers, maintain motivation to continue their work. However, their leadership remains largely implicit, relying mainly on persuasion with few opportunities to bestow material or symbolic resources. Hence, the contradiction of heads being increasingly relied upon to implement organizational change, but lacking resources to motivate colleagues to help attain these goals.

Assuming the head role means accepting management responsibilities, a transition that encourages adoption of a management identity alongside a primary academic identity. This dual identity privileging the academic over the managerial permits heads to pursue academic values associated with a professional ideology. I have characterized this ideology as the PC ideal type, which is discussed further below.

Discussion

AM researchers, both past and present, have interpreted heads’ attitudes and behaviour through the ‘one world’ prism of hierarchy, a perspective that understates the AM’s dominant professional orientation (Bryman and Lilly, 2009; Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019; Smith, 2002). Instead, I intend to show how a ‘two worlds’ perspective provides a more insightful interpretation of the findings reported above.

We noted that AMs, who are mainly professors with administrative experience, accept the role for a variety of reasons, but rarely to pursue a management career. Echoing Bryman and Lilley’s (2009: 341) findings, their average tenure is short and most return to an academic role. The common rationales of ‘obligation’ and ‘duty’ are consistent with the notion of servant leadership associated with the PC ideal type. Overall, senior academics show little enthusiasm for the AM role, an attitude that is difficult to explain from a hierarchical perspective, which encourages ascent up a job ladder. From a ‘two worlds’ perspective, becoming an AM is rarely celebrated because AMs perceive themselves as scholars, not managers.

As office holders associated with the PC ideal type, AMs favour policies that benefit their school and individual members, a finding similar to Smith’s (2002), except that contemporary AMs no longer have time to consider personal research and publications as a realistic priority. AMs’ behaviour can usefully be compared with Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) dominant ‘umbrella carrier’. While there were some references to protecting colleagues, especially junior academics, in the present study, AMs more frequently strived to advance school members’ interests. Absent comparable data, the following three reasons are offered as possible explanations for these differences. First, in 2019, when I interviewed the AMs, there was no crisis, financial or otherwise, in the relevant business schools. Consequently, protection was not a strong theme. More challenging conditions may have existed in Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) sample of universities at the time of their study. Second, the protection theme may also have reflected differences in sample composition. The authors’ sample targeted heads who were critical of management (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019: 7) while AMs in my study were randomly selected. Third, the proportion of junior academics in each of the two study samples may have differed. A high proportion would imply an emphasis on protection and vice versa. In the present study, this proportion was low: only 22.3% (121 of 542 full-time academics in this study) were junior academics (lecturers and assistant professors). Gjerde and Alvesson’s sample may have included a higher proportion of junior academics.

AMs complained of limited autonomy, a value central to the PC ideal type. This restricted AMs’ strategies to incremental improvements or simply defending the status quo. Having to prioritize senior management’s requirements above their personal objectives caused frustration. Working contrary to their values and identity sometimes led to perceptions of inauthenticity. Echoing previous research, these findings indicate limited control over work (Preston and Price, 2012), being reactive rather than proactive (Pepper and Giles, 2015) and experiencing conflict between senior management’s priorities and their own (Smith, 2002). However, unlike Smith’s (2002) AMs, who claimed that ‘volume of work’ and ‘meeting deadlines’ were amongst the three main causes of stress, these aspects did not attract the same criticism. Three reasons may account for this difference: most AMs had administrative experience; work was delegated to members of a school management team; and there were sufficient resources for AMs to undertake their role.

Having accepted the position, AMs prioritize school and member interests, in line with collegial values. However, being required to follow senior management directives diverts attention away from pursuing these objectives, leading to frustration and stress. In addition, member participation in polyarchal governance – associated with PC organization – is vitiated in two respects: senior management either do not consult AMs on policy-related decisions; or the latter’s views are disregarded and are excluded from the decision-making process.

Smith (2002) found that ‘personnel issues’ featured as one of three main causes of stress. The present study provides complementary evidence that individual staff problems are often performance-related and are usually confined to a small minority of ‘difficult’ colleagues. Addressing personnel issues places AMs in a hierarchical position over school members, having to endorse and enforce metrics devised mainly by senior management (Kallio et al., 2016). This positioning creates tension among colleagues and contradicts AMs’ notions of fairness based on inclusivity and peer-generated standards that characterize PC values and norms (Knights and Clarke, 2014). A PC approach would emphasize academic development and support, including enforcement of collectively developed norms (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012). More disturbing are conflicts between factions or disciplinary groups. These signify governance failure that is likely to encourage senior management intervention, including AM replacement. Intra-school conflict contradicts the PC value of collegial collaboration, creating a climate detrimental to research and teaching.

By positioning the head as a middle manager vis-a-vis professional workers, it is difficult from a ‘one world’ perspective to explain why AMs identify with ‘subordinates’. Thus, Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019: 16) umbrella carrier identifies with subordinates because ‘[it] allows them [AMs] to uphold a consistent self-view as a collegial academic doing management without becoming a manager or a leader wannabee’. This psychological dissonance coping argument does not do justice to AMs’ dominant identity. A ‘two worlds’ perspective does so by interpreting academics’ entry into the AM role as signalling reluctant or qualified acceptance of a managerial identity. As shown earlier, in undertaking their role, AMs tend to retain their primary identity as academics, adopting a secondary, managerial identity that enables the role to be enacted. This explains Winter’s (2009) ‘managed academic’ whose academic identity dominates the incumbent’s manager identity because AMs subscribe to particular values and norms associated with the PC ideal type. Their most satisfying activities including processes to achieve their ends are characteristic of this organizational type (Parker, 2004; Pepper and Giles, 2014). It is in collegiate, collaborative institutional settings – committees and meetings – that AMs enact PC values and norms (covert leadership) and promote and defend school interests (servant leadership). However, the presence of senior management reminds AMs of a dominating hierarchy whose requirements are facilitated by maintaining a secondary managerial identity. These findings align with Lumby’s (2012) contention that academics eschew quasi-heroic leadership. Contra Bryman and Lilley (2009), AMs do agree on several key principles of good leadership: collegial consultation and transparency and a vigorous pursuit of school and individual member interests.

As noted above, Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) ‘umbrella carrier’ includes elements of covert and servant type leadership but there is little evidence of their ‘performance driver’ and ‘impotent’ manager in the present study. A few AMs preferred inertia, identifying with colleagues and choosing to defend the status quo because change was seen as unnecessary. Similarly, Winter’s (2009) ‘academic manager’, whose managerial identity is dominant, is also an exception.

Relations between AMs and senior managers were mainly civil and sometimes friendly, despite an underlying tension reflecting the presence of collegial values and norms in the shadow of hierarchy. These differences remain subterranean but may surface depending on individuals, schools and the institutional context. These findings are consistent with the wider literature on middle managers which indicates that cooperation with senior managers varies according to position in the hierarchy and resource dependence (Harding et al., 2014). Other reasons include senior managers’ dependence on AMs to maintain stability and implement policy and shared interests in school performance by attracting talented staff, research funds and capable students.

AMs’ relations with most colleagues are cautiously friendly, indicating AMs’ position as colleague and manager (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021: 10). AMs’ authority over colleagues induces caution among school members. AMs must demonstrate their collegial commitment by successfully defending or advancing school members’ interests. With limited discretionary resources, assisting individuals is easier than achieving collective objectives. But this assistance is limited and usually conducted unseen by most school members. Consequently, AMs must also rely on discursive power to allay suspicion and maintain trust among school members (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014). Relations with colleagues require constant attention. Because group membership is conditional, AMs seek temporary affiliation with heads in the same faculty, persons who are likewise embedded in the ‘two worlds’ of collegiality and hierarchy.

Conclusion

Grounded in academia rather than management, AMs favour collegiality, a perspective formalized as the PC ideal type, yet only grasped in fragmented form by most AMs. Nevertheless, these elements influence how AMs respond to hierarchy and enact their role – cautiously and conscientiously, with qualified commitment. AMs mainly manage but they occasionally lead. In doing so they are restricted by their intermediate hierarchical position and by membership of a professional collegiate. They rely more on influence than authority (Bush, 2008). In short, AM embeddedness in the ‘two worlds’ of collegiality and hierarchy provides a superior understanding of AM behaviour than the prevailing ‘one world’, hierarchical perspective, a proposition that may also apply to analogous roles in the further education sector (Corbett, 2017).

Finally, four implications for learning and development and future practice are worth noting. First, the AM role needs to be more widely understood by academics and managers in the context of the ‘two worlds’ framework. Second, following discussion and agreement among these and other stakeholders (adjunct and technical staff and students), principles could be established for future practice. Third, clear role expectations would then need to be developed. These would be based on a legal contract of employment and a psychological contract of engagement. Fourth and finally, the currently under-utilized knowledge and capabilities of experienced AMs would be leveraged to promote peer-related communities of practice (Wenger, 2004), providing tools for more effective school leadership and management.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Prof. Mats Alvesson and Prof. Susan Gjerde for sharing their interview protocol and for discussions on the topic of academic managers. In addition, the author benefitted from comments on a previous draft by participants at the Organization Theory Seminar, UNSW Business School in September 2020.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Stephen J Frenkel

Notes

References

Alajoutsijärvi

Kettunen

(2016) The ‘Dean’s Squeeze’ revisited: a contextual approach. Journal of Management Development 35: 326–340.

Alvesson

Gjerde

(2021) Meddling in the middle: the middle manager yo-yo on a constant move. In: Jazer

(ed.) The Connecting Leader: Serving Concurrently as a Leader and a Follower. USA: Information Age Publishing.

Alvesson

Spicer

(2016) (Un)Conditional surrender? Why do professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management 29(1): 29–45.

Beresford

Michels

(2014) Embedding change through the entrepreneurial role of middle managers in the UK further education sector. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 19(2): 147–164.

Branson

Franken

Penney

(2016) Middle leadership in higher education: a relational analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1): 128–145.

Bruckman

Carvalho

(2018) Understanding change in higher education: an archetypal approach. Higher Education 76: 629–647.

Bryman

Lilley

(2009) Leadership researchers on leadership in higher education. Leadership 5(3): 331–346.

Burnes

Wend

Byrt

(2014) The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education 39(6): 905–926.

Bush

(2008) From management to leadership. Educational Management & Leadership 36(2): 271–288.

10.

Christopher

(2012) Tension between corporate and collegial cultures of Australian public universities: the current status. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23(7–8): 556–571.

11.

Clarke

Knights

(2015) Careering through academia: securing identities or engaging ethical subjectivities? Human Relations 68(12): 1865–1888.

12.

Clarke

Knights

Jarvis

(2012) A labour of love? Academics in business schools. Scandinavian Journal of Management 28(1): 5–15.

13.

Corbett

(2017) From teacher to manager: expectations and challenge in the further education sector. A relationship model. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 22(2): 208–220.

14.

Devinney

Dowling

(2020) The Strategies of Australia’s Universities: Revise & Resubmit. Australia: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Eisenhardt

Graebner

(2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 25–32.

16.

Enders

(2015) Higher education management. In: Wright

(ed.) International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, vol. 10, 845–848.

17.

Floyd

(2012) Turning points: the personal and professional circumstances that lead academics to become middle managers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(2): 272–284.

18.

Gjerde

Alvesson

(2019) Sandwiched: exploring role and identity of middle managers in the genuine middle. Human Relations 73(1): 124–151.

19.

Greenleaf

(2002) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Paulist Press.

20.

Harding

Lee

Ford

(2014) Who is ‘the middle manager’? Human Relations 67(10): 1213–1237.

21.

Hellawell

Hancock

(2001) A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research Papers in Education 16(2): 183–197.

22.

Kallio

Teinari

(2016) Ethos at stake: performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations 69(3): 685–709.

23.

Kligyte

Barrie

(2014) Collegiality: leading us into fantasy – the paradoxical resilience of collegiality in academic leadership. Higher Education R & D 33(1): 157–169.

24.

Knights

Clarke

(2014) It’s a bittersweet symphony, this life: fragile academic selves and insecure identities at work. Organization Studies 35(3): 335–357.

25.

Lapp

Carr

(2006) To have to halve to have: ‘being’ in the middle in changing time’s space. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(5): 655–687.

26.

Lumby

(2012) Leading organizational culture: issues of power and equity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(5): 576–591.

27.

McNay

(1995) From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise: the changing culture of universities. In: Schuller

(ed.) The Changing University? Buckingham: SRHE & OU Press, 105–115.

28.

Mintzberg

(1998) Covert leadership: notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business Review 76: 140–148.

29.

Odumeru

Ogbonna

(2013) Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research 2(2): 355–361.

30.

Parker

(2004) Being manager: or the werewolf looks anxiously in the mirror, checking for unusual facial hair. Management Learning 35(1): 45–59.

31.

Pepper

Giles

(2015) Leading in middle management in higher education. Management in Education 29(2): 46–52.

32.

Preston

Price

(2012) ‘I see it as a phase: I don’t see it as the future’: academics as managers in a United Kingdom university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34(4): 409–419.

33.

Rüegg

(1992) Foreword. The university as a European institution. In: De Ridder-Symoens

Rüegg

(eds) A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, XIX–XX.

34.

Sahlin

Eriksson-Zetterquist

(2016) Collegiality in modern universities – the composition of governance ideals and practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 2–3: 336–340.

35.

Smith

(2002) The role of the university head of department – survey of two British universities. Educational Management and Administration 30(3): 293–312.

36.

Smith

(2005) Departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities: a case of diversity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 33(4): 449–464.

37.

Tapper

Palfreyman

(2010) Collegiality: the core elements. In: Palfreyman

Tapper

(eds) The Collegial Tradition in the Age of Mass Higher Education. Netherlands: Springer, 18–37; chap. 2.

38.

Ter Bogt

Scapens

(2012) Performance management in universities: effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review 21(3): 451–497.

39.

Waters

(1989) Collegiality, bureaucratization, and professionalization: a Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology 94(5): 945–972.

40.

Wenger

(2004) Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Available at: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf (accessed 15 May 2021).

41.

Winter

(2009) Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(2): 121–131.

42.

Wolstencraft

Lloyd

(2019) Process to practice: the evolving role of the academic middle manager in English further education colleges. Management in Education 33(3): 118–125.

43.

Yin

(2011) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York/London: The Guilford Press.