International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Critical Thinking for Global Challenges [1 ed.] 1138564346, 9781138564343

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
List of contributors
Series editors introduction
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
Part 1: Global leadership and critical thinking in higher education
1 Introduction • Jill Jameson
2 Leadership and critical thinking: oxymoron and a feasible utopia • Ronald Barnett
3 Critical thinking in leadership: leading change in complex contexts • Francia Kinchington
Part 2: International case studies on leadership in higher education
4 Europe: Spain: Spaces of hope: democratic leadership in a workers’ cooperative university in Spain • Rebecca Boden
5 The United Kingdom: England: collaboration and collegiality in university leadership • Rob Cuthbert
6 The United States: leadership in US public research universities: design-based strategies and academic organisation • Jarrett B. Warshaw
7 South America: Colombia: a case study of leadership and transformation in the City of Medellin • Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie
8 Europe: Estonia: critical leadership thinking in intrapreneurship education in Europe: the case of Estonia • Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna
9 Europe: Ukraine: the crisis of Ukrainian higher education reform: moving towards a trauma informed understanding • Nataliya L. Rumyantseva, Olena I. Logvynenko and Elena V. Chilina
10 Australia: global challenges and the role of diversity and feminism in critical university leadership • Jill Blackmore
Part 3: Conclusion
11 Global leadership insights on critical and creative thinking: reflecting on the research of Professor N. J. Adler, McGill University, Canada • Jill Jameson
12 Conclusion: critical leadership thinking for global challenges • Jill Jameson
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Professor Jameson’s experience ensures that a steady hand steers us through the important topic of her new book. Her own academic standing has enabled her to create an excellent book with other senior academics and leaders who share her worldwide reputation. The outcome is an important and rigorous investigation of the criticality of the being of leadership in higher education from an international perspective. It is well structured, paced and stimulating. It illuminates and helps us understand what is being done and what still needs to be done to ensure the integrity of the university. If we pay heed and learn from the messages then we should be prepared for at least the next couple of crises in higher education! Paul Gibbs, Professor and Researcher, Centre for Education Research and Scholarship (CERS), Middlesex University, UK The crucial importance of leadership in organizational performance is well documented in fields as diverse as politics, sports, business, and education. Leadership in higher education is particularly interesting because often those chosen to lead universities are selected based on their personal scholarship and professional standing rather than any demonstrated leadership ability. Professor Jameson’s central argument about the importance of critical leadership thinking in meeting new global challenges is well illustrated through international case studies by a carefully selected team of chapter authors. This book makes an important and useful contribution to higher education leaders seeking to up their game. David W. Chapman, Distinguished International Professor (Emeritus), University of Minnesota, USA

International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education

There is an increasing pressure for leading universities to perform well in competitive global and national ranking systems. International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education studies the complexity involved in the development and upkeep of good higher education provision. Without taking anything about leadership, management, governance, administration, authority or power for granted, this book draws together international case studies relating to specific instances of leadership to analyse how they relate to critical thinking and global challenges in higher education. Using a selection of global case studies, this book explores: • The extent to which critical thinking on global challenges is employed by higher education leaders, • The potential for an increase in the role of critical thinking in leadership, • The creative potential for critical leadership thinking to transform institutions and communities, • The essential attributes of critical thinking: namely, cognitive, affective and social dimensions, and • The possibility for critical thinking to contribute to the global public common good by encouraging enhanced research, teaching and public service excellence. Responding to the ever-increasing demands of the higher education climate, International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education is a vital resource for anyone occupying leadership positions in higher education institutions and any researchers or students looking to explore the landscape of critical thinking. Jill Jameson is Professor of Education and Chair/Director of the Centre for Leadership and Enterprise at the University of Greenwich, UK, and a Visiting Fellow (2018) and current Associate of Lucy Cavendish College and the Cambridge Educational Dialogue Research (CEDiR) Group, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK.

International Studies in Higher Education Series Editors: David Palfreyman, OxCHEPS Ted Tapper, OxCHEPS Scott Thomas, University of Vermont, USA

The central purpose of this Series is to see how different national and regional systems of higher education are responding to widely shared pressures for change. The most significant of these are: rapid expansion; reducing public funding; the increasing influence of market and global forces; and the widespread political desire to integrate higher education more closely into the wider needs of society and, more especially, the demands of the economic structure. The Series will commence with an international overview of structural change in systems of higher education. It will then proceed to examine on a global front the change process in terms of topics that are both traditional (for example, institutional management and system governance) and emerging (for example, the growing influence of international organizations and the blending of academic and professional roles). At its conclusion the Series will have presented, through an international perspective, both a composite overview of contemporary systems of higher education, along with the competing interpretations of the process of change. Titles in the series: Access and Expansion Post-Massification Opportunities and Barriers to Further Growth in Higher Education Participation Edited by Ben Jongbloed and Hans Vossensteyn Organizing Academic Work in Higher Education Teaching, Learning and Identities Edited by Liudvika Leisyte and Uwe Wilkesmann Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education Understanding the Influence and Impact of Rankings on Higher Education, Policy and Society Edited by Ellen Hazelkorn Towards the Private Funding of Higher Education Ideological and Political Struggles Edited by David Palfreyman, Ted Tapper and Scott L. Thomas The Changing Face of Higher Education Is There a Crisis in the Humanities? Edited by Dennis A. Ahlburg International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education Critical Thinking for Global Challenges Edited by Jill Jameson

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ International-Studies-in-Higher-Education/book-series/ISHE

International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education Critical Thinking for Global Challenges

Edited by Jill Jameson

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Jill Jameson; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jill Jameson to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Jameson, Jill, editor. Title: International perspectives on leadership in higher education: critical thinking for global challenges / edited by Jill Jameson. Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019002236 | ISBN 9781138564343 (hardback) | ISBN 9781315122410 (ebk.) Subjects: LCSH: Universities and colleges—Administration. | Educational leadership—Cross-cultural studies. Classification: LCC LB2341 .I583 2020 | DDC 378.1/01—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019002236 ISBN: 978-1-138-56434-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-12241-0 (ebk) Typeset in Minion by codeMantra

DR CELIA JAMESON ROSE (1948–2016) In loving memory of my sister Celia, MRCP Physician/GP, always an exemplar of ‘critical being’ in medicine.

Contents

List of figures List of tables List of contributors Series editors introduction Preface Acknowledgements List of abbreviations PART 1

xi xii xiii xix xxii xxx xxxi

Global leadership and critical thinking in higher education

1

1 Introduction

2

PROFESSOR JILL JAMESON

2 Leadership and critical thinking: oxymoron and a feasible utopia

20

PROFESSOR RONALD BARNETT

3 Critical thinking in leadership: leading change in complex contexts

31

FRANCIA KINCHINGTON

PART 2

International case studies on leadership in higher education

45

4 Europe: Spain: Spaces of hope: democratic leadership in a workers’ cooperative university in Spain

46

PROFESSOR REBECCA BODEN

5 The United Kingdom: England: collaboration and collegiality in university leadership

58

PROFESSOR ROB CUTHBERT

ix

x  • Contents 6 The United States: leadership in US public research universities: design-based strategies and academic organisation

69

PROFESSOR JARRETT B. WARSHAW

7 South America: Colombia: a case study of leadership and transformation in the City of Medellin

91

PROFESSOR ROBIN MIDDLEHURST AND DR TOM KENNIE

8 Europe: Estonia: critical leadership thinking in intrapreneurship education in Europe: the case of Estonia

103

MART KIKAS AND PROFESSOR OLAV AARNA

9 Europe: Ukraine: the crisis of Ukrainian higher education reform: moving towards a trauma informed understanding

114

DR NATALIYA L. RUMYANTSEVA, PROFESSOR OLENA I. LOGVYNENKO AND ELENA V. CHILINA

10 Australia: global challenges and the role of diversity and feminism in critical university leadership

130

PROFESSOR JILL BLACKMORE

PART 3

Conclusion

151

11 Global leadership insights on critical and creative thinking: reflecting on the research of Professor N. J. Adler, McGill University, Canada

152

PROFESSOR JILL JAMESON

12 Conclusion: critical leadership thinking for global challenges

166

PROFESSOR JILL JAMESON

Bibliography Index

173 191

Figures

3.1

3.2 4.1

The organisational iceberg (Hellreigel, Slocum and Woodman 1998). From Hellriegel / Slocum / Woodman. Organizational Behavior, 10E. © 2004 South-Western, a part of Cengage, Inc. Reproduced by ­permission. www.­cengage.com/permissions The expanded organisational iceberg (Kinchington, 2004) The cooperative principles

35 36 51

xi

Table

6.1

xii

Percent of research participants, by academic rank and gender 78

Contributors

Professor Olav Aarna was born on 4 November 1942 in Tallinn, Estonia. He received an MSc in Electrical Engineering, a PhD in Chemical Engineering and a DSc in Engineering Cybernetics. Most of his professional life (1966–2000), he has been a lecturer and Professor in Control Engineering at Tallinn University of Technology and the Rector of this University from 1991 to 2000. Since 2000 his major employer has been Estonian Business School, where he has served as Rector, Vice-rector for Research and Professor. During the period 2003 to 2007 he was the member of Estonian parliament (Riigikogu), chairing the committee for education, research, culture and sports affairs. During 2008–2014 he served as CEO of the Estonian Qualifications Authority (Kutsekoda). His experience and competence in higher education governance, management and quality assurance, and in developing national qualifications systems, has been the reason for inviting him as an international expert and project partner to contribute to the development of these spheres in many countries in the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe. Professor Nancy J. Adler  is Professor of Organizational Behaviour and S.  ­Bronfman Chair in Management, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill ­University, Montreal. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Management, the Academy of International Business and the Royal Society of Canada, recognised as a distinguished university professor, teacher and researcher in Canada. She is also a visual artist and has been an artist-in-residence at The Banff Centre. Her paintings and monotype prints are held in private collections worldwide. Dr Adler conducts research and consults on global leadership and cross-cultural management. She has authored more than 125 articles, produced 3 films and published 10 books and edited volumes. She consults to private corporations and government organisations on projects worldwide. She has held the Citicorp Visiting Doctoral Professorship at the University of Hong Kong and taught executive seminars at Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD) in France, Oxford University in England and Bocconi University in Italy. She received McGill University’s first

xiii

xiv  • Contributors Distinguished Teaching Award in Management, one of only a few professors to receive it a second time. Honouring her as one of Canada’s top university professors, she was named as a 3M (3M Company) Teaching Fellow. She has also received the Prix du Quebec, Doctor Honoris Causa from Slovenia’s International Executive Development Centre (IEDC) Bled School of Management, The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and numerous other global awards for her world-leading research in leadership artistry. Professor Ronald Barnett is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education, University College London Institute of Education. He has produced over 30 books on the philosophy of higher education, his latest sole-authored work being his idea of the university: The Ecological University: A Feasible Utopia. His books have been translated into several languages, and many have won prizes. He has been described as ‘one of the most eloquent defenders of the university of reason’. He is the inaugural recipient of the European Higher Education Society (EAIR) Award for ‘Outstanding Contribution to Higher Education Research, Policy and Practice’ and has been an invited keynote speaker in 40 countries. Ronald’s book Higher Education: A Critical Business (1997) and his work with Martin Davies on critical thinking as ‘critical being’ (2015) inspired the proposal for this book. Jill Blackmore, AM, is Alfred Deakin Professor in the Faculty of Arts and E ­ ducation at Deakin University, Founding Director of the Centre for Research in Educational Futures and Innovation and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Her research interests include feminist perspectives, globalisation, education policy and governance; international and intercultural education; educational restructuring, leadership and organisational change; spatial redesign and innovative pedagogies; and teachers’ and academics’ work – all with a focus on equity. Recent higher education research has focussed on disengagement with and lack of diversity in leadership, international education and graduate employability. Her research has focussed in particular on the re/constitution of the social relations of gender in the early 21st century. Publications include J. Blackmore (2016) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership: Nancy Fraser. Routledge; Blackmore, J. Sanchez, M. and Sawers, N. (eds) (2017) Globalised Re/gendering of the Academy and Leadership, Routledge. Arber, R; and Blackmore, J and V ­ ongalis, -Macrow, A. (eds) (2014) Mobile teachers and curriculum in international schooling. Rotterdam: Sense. Professor Rebecca Boden has a PhD in public administration and has worked as both a senior tax inspector and an accounting and management academic in business schools in the United Kingdom. She is currently Research Director of the New Social Research Programme at the Tampere University, Finland. Before joining the Tampere University, she was Professor of Critical Management at Roehampton University Business School. Her research primarily focusses on the financing and management of higher education, on which she takes a critical stance. Rebecca is an experienced doctoral supervisor and, most recently, was a principal partner on a Marie Curie Sklodowska ITN programme UNIKE (International Training Network Programme for Universities in the Knowledge Economy) ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7874-2440

Contributors  •  xv Elena Chilina is an Integrative Therapist and a Clinical Supervisor. ­Ukrainianborn, London-based professional, Elena’s passion is to support people who have experienced trauma to find their way into healthier and more peaceful lives in a variety of cultural contexts, so they can achieve their full potential. Elena became aware of human suffering at an early age. Ukrainian history, literature, music and fairy tales are full of people’s sorrows. When people experience trauma, their lives can be turned upside down; when people experience intergenerational trauma, they might not even know why they feel despondent and why they cannot enjoy life or trust others around them. In her private practice, Elena works with individuals and groups. She supervises counsellors within the drugs and alcohol addiction field. Her educational background includes a Foundation Degree in Counselling from The Open University, a Diploma in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) from Lambeth College, a Diploma in Therapeutic Counselling from The Therapeutic Alliance, and a Certificate in Clinical Supervision from Re-Vision and the Foundation Course in Group Analysis from Institute of Group Analysis (IGA). Professor Rob Cuthbert is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management with 20  years of senior management experience as Dean, Deputy Vice Chancellor and ­Acting Vice Chancellor. He has worked in universities, colleges and government agencies worldwide as a manager, academic, consultant and policy analyst, and been a keynote speaker at national and international conferences on management and policy, teaching and learning, and widening participation. His publications include six books and many articles and reports on HE policy, management, teaching and learning. He initiated marketing approaches which led to major changes in further education (FE) and higher education (HE) management practice, and helped create a management information system used by over 300 UK institutions. Rob was Chair of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) in ­2002–2003 and editor of Higher Education Review ([http://www. highereducationreview.com)]www.highereducationreview.com) 2012–2015. An SRHE Fellow, he edits SRHE News (www.srhe.ac.uk) and the SRHE Blog (https:// srheblog.com/category/srhe-news-blog/) and leads the consultancy partnership Practical Academics. Professor Jill Jameson  is Professor of Education and Chair/Director, Centre for ­Leadership and Enterprise, Faculty of Education and Health, University of Greenwich; a ­Visiting Fellow (2018) and Associate (2018–21) of Lucy Cavendish College, ­Cambridge; and associate member, Cambridge Educational Dialogues Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Chair of the Society for Research into Higher Education (2012–17), Convenor for the Educational ­Technology SIG (2014-current) and Post-Compulsory and Lifelong Learning SIG (2012–14), British Educational Research Association, Jill has published widely on leadership, trust and values in higher and post-compulsory education, communities of practice and educational technology. She is Guest Editor of five special editions (2006; 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2018) of the British Journal of Educational Technology, author of Leadership in Post-Compulsory Education: Inspiring Leaders

xvi  • Contributors of the Future (2006) and editor of this volume on leadership and critical thinking in the ­OXCHEPs Series: International Studies on Higher Education. ORCID ID: https:// orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-8078 Dr Tom Kennie is a Founding Director of Ranmore (www.ranmore.co.uk), where he specialises in senior-level leadership development in higher education. Over the past 20 years he has worked with over 150 higher education institutions in the United Kingdom and increasingly globally. His work encompasses group work typically associated with top team development, work on strategy development and delivery as well as structured development programmes. He also works on a one-to-one basis through his ‘conversations with a purpose’ approach. This tends to again be with members of senior leadership teams and increasingly with new Vice Chancellors. He is also the creator of the Innovation Laboratory for Higher Education (www.i-lab-he.org), a framework designed to foster organisational innovation in universities. He was the founding Programme Director of the UK Top Management Programme (TMP), a leadership development programme for members of senior leadership teams in universities which he ran (with Professor Robin Middlehurst) for 13 years. He is now Programme Director of the International Association of Universities (IAU) ‘Leading Globally Engaged Universities’ programme. He is also an Honorary Senior Fellow at the LH Martin Institute at the University of Melbourne and a member of the External Reference Group for the 21st Century Lab at the University of Lincoln (www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/ researchatlincoln/21stcenturylab/) Mart Kikas  is an experienced innovation coach guiding teams to design, test and launch new growth engines. His academic work includes lecturer and researcher at Estonian Business School, and visiting lecturer at Ternopil Business School (Ukraine) and Porto Business School (Portugal). He graduated from BI ­Norwegian Business School in 2000 (MBA, Strategy and Leadership) and the ­University of Tartu in 1993 (MA, Sociology). He is currently a PhD candidate at Estonian Business School. He has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur and manager. He has worked as VP Business Development in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Area Manager Finland and Baltics at Aspiro AB, as Advisor to the CEO at Estonian Development Fund and as Deputy Director General at Estonian Migration and Citizenship Board. He has also worked in two banks on marketing and electronic banking. Mart Kikas has founded and managed several consulting, publishing and advertising companies. Francia Kinchington is an independent educational consultant and editor with expertise in leading change, development and training in both higher education and schools’ sectors. She was a principal lecturer at the University of Greenwich for 25 years, leading Doctoral and Master’s programmes in education and health, and has been involved in a range of European and international education and leadership projects, most recently in Sweden, Norway and Ukraine. She is an experienced doctoral examiner and supervisor with over 23 completions in the fields of leadership, education, psychology and health. Francia’s expertise includes leadership,

Contributors  •  xvii management, counselling, student guidance and psychological assessment. Her recent publications include Revealing the Inner World of Traumatized Children: An Attachment-Informed Model for Assessing Emotional Needs and Treatment (2017) with Christine Bradley. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-001-9374-4719 Professor Olena I. Logvynenko  is a dotsent at the Department of Theory and History of State at the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences, Ukraine. A  lawyer by training, Olena has served as a Professor and a Head of Department in several Ukrainian institutions over the last 14 years. A prolific researcher, she concentrates on the issues of women’s rights, children’s right and broader human rights from the contemporary and historical points of view. She is now extending her interests into the area of higher education studies in Ukraine as it offers plenty of opportunities for exploration of human rights issues. Professor Robin Middlehurst is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education at Kingston University, London; a Senior Associate of Ranmore Consulting; and a Contributing Editor to the policy blog, Wonkhe, on ‘Higher Education Futures’. Robin joined Kingston University in 2007 as Professor of Higher Education; she had previously been at the University of Surrey for nine years, and between 2004 and 2007, she was Director of the Quality Enhancement Group of the Higher Education Quality Council (now the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). From 2004, she was seconded part-time to the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education as Director, Strategy, Research and International. Her research interests include higher education leadership, governance and management; quality assurance and enhancement; and internationalisation in higher education. Robin has served on the governing boards of several universities and is currently on the Advisory Board of the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education and the Council of the British Accreditation Council. She was awarded a Fellowship of the Society for Research into Higher Education in 2009. Dr Nataliya L. Rumyantseva’s academic background straddles educational experiences in Ukraine (BA), the United States (MA and PhD) and the United ­ ­Kingdom, where she currently works as a senior lecturer at the University of  Greenwich, London. She is interested in understanding the role of human emotions, group dynamics, history and ethics in enabling or hindering sustainable leadership development and capacity building. Nataliya is passionate about finding ways to engage deeper human potential in the context of organisational leadership and leadership development. She has worked as a capacity building consultant in Kazakhstan and Ukraine on projects funded by the US Department of State and the European Commission. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9795-2590 Professor Jarrett B. Warshaw is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership & Research Methodology at Florida Atlantic University. His research focusses on post-secondary organisation, finance and policy, with an emphasis on understanding how colleges and universities change and adapt in relation to their external environments. Publications from his research have appeared in the Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Education and Work, Journal of

xviii  • Contributors Higher Education Policy and Management and Economic Development Quarterly, and in edited volumes. He is a past recipient of the Innovation Scholarship Award from the Center for Innovative Higher Education at the University of Minnesota. ­Professor Warshaw holds a PhD in Higher Education from the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia, where he has been a Presidential Fellow of the Graduate School. He also holds an M.S.Ed. in College Student Personnel from Bucknell University and a BA in English from Skidmore College. ORCID ID:0000-0003-0378-0180

Series editors introduction

Series Editors’ introduction to the Jameson volume: International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Critical Thinking for Global Challenges This is the final volume in the Series ‘International Studies in Higher Education’ that will appear under the Series editorship of Palfreyman, Tapper and Thomas. As Series editors we would like to thank all the editors of the individual volumes as well as all the authors of the many individual chapters. Presented here in chronological order, the first book in the Series was published in 2008. Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Role of Elite Institutions, edited by David Palfreyman and Ted Tapper International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education: Alternative Frameworks for Coordination, edited by Jeroen Huisman International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally?, edited by Roberta Malee Bassett and Alma Maldonado-Maldonado Academic and Professional Identities in Higher Education: The Challenges of a Diversifying Workforce, edited by Celia Whitchurch and George Gordon Cross-border Partnerships in Higher Education: Strategies and Issues, edited by Robin Sakamoto and David Chapman International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble, edited by Melissa S. Anderson and Nicholas H. Steneck Accountability in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Trust and Power, edited by Bjorn Stensaker and Lee Harvey The Engaged University: International Perspectives on Civic Engagement, authored by David Watson, Robert Hollister, Susan E. Stroud, and Elizabeth Babcock xix

xx  •  Series editors introduction Universities and the Public Sphere: Knowledge Creation and State Building in the Era of Globalization, edited by Brian Pusser, Ken Kempner, Simon Marginson, and Imanol Ordorika The Future University: Ideas and Possibilities, edited by Ronald Barnett Universities in the Knowledge Economy: Higher Education Organisation and Global Change, edited by Paul Temple Tribes and Territories in the 21st-Century, Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, edited by Paul Trowler, Murray Saunders and V ­ eronica Bamber Universities and Regional Development: A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions, edited by Rómulo Pinheiro, Paul Benneworth and Glen A. Jones The Global Student Experience: An International and Comparative Analysis, ­edited by Camille B. Kandiko and Mark Weyers Student Financing of Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Donald Heller and Claire Callender Enhancing Quality in Higher Education: International Perspectives, edited by Ray Land and George Gordon The Physical University: Contours of Space and Place in Higher Education, edited by Paul Temple Affirmative Action Matters: Creating Opportunities for Students Around the World, edited by Laura Dudley Jenkins and Michele S. Moses Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education: Emerging Perspectives on Institutional Transformation, edited by Daryl Smith International Trends in University Governance: Autonomy, Self-Government and the Distribution of Authority, edited by Michael Shattock Access and Expansion Post-Massification: Opportunities and Barriers to Further Growth in Higher Education Participation, edited by Ben Jongbloed and Hans Vossensteyn Organizing Academic Work in Higher Education: Teaching, Learning and Identities, edited by Liudvika Leisyte and Uwe Wilkesmann Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education: Understanding the Influence and Impact of Rankings on Higher Education, Policy and Society, edited by Ellen Hazelkorn Towards the Private Funding of Higher Education: Ideological and Political Struggles, edited by David Palfreyman, Ted Tapper and Scott L. Thomas The Changing Face of Higher Education: Is There a Crisis in the Humanities?, edited by Dennis A. Ahlburg

Series editors introduction  •  xxi International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Critical Thinking for Global Challenges, edited by Jill Jameson This volume brings together a particularly distinguished array of contributors and is truly international in its scope, incorporating case studies in institutional change drawn from every continent. It embraces a particular cause, arguing that higher education institutions need to continue to be governed collegially and retain their commitment to sustaining critical thinking. It believes that both are widely under threat, thanks mainly to the intervention of hostile government action that is prepared to harness quasi-state apparatuses to undermine both collegial governance and critical thinking as the primary purpose of higher education. We may also want to point to the tardiness of past and current academics, along with their institutional bases, for their weakness in resisting this parlous state of affairs. However, as the chapters in this volume illustrate, within many higher education systems there is still much to be celebrated – collegiality survives, and institutions remain as a base for critical thinking. Palfreyman, Tapper and Thomas

Preface

Leadership in higher education, seen from a critical perspective, is something of a conundrum: a fuzzy, multi-referential, ever-changingly ambiguous concept. Like Schrödinger’s cat, it can be intuited paradoxically either or both to exist and/or not before the box of evidence is opened. Around 3,000 definitions after researchers first attempted to hold down and define the elusive entity called ‘leadership’, we are not that much closer to agreeing what it is, though some well-regarded definitions have persisted that clearly articulate how leadership in general (Bass, 1985; Burns, 2005, Bryman et al., 2011) and how leadership in higher education are conceptualised and practised (Fullan and Scott, 2009; Bryman, 2007). Yet, as critical leadership researchers Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) have suggested, evidence about leadership tends to do a ‘disappearing act’ when rigorously examined. To add the complex mosaic of ‘critical thinking’ into this fluid enigma that is leadership in higher education would seem an absurdity, like trying to pin down clouds of unknowingness while simultaneously setting them free. So, to solve this paradoxical dilemma of identifying what leadership might be, from a critical viewpoint, Alvesson and Sveningsson (ibid.: 380) ‘suggest that the possible existence of leadership—as behaviour, meanings, identity, and discourse—should be critically studied, not be taken for granted’. Hence this book, without taking anything about leadership, management, governance, administration, authority or power for granted, attempts to begin the task of gathering up some international casestudy evidence of specific instances of leadership in a close look at its operations as they relate, or do not relate, to critical thinking and global challenges in higher education, in selected studies from around the world. As Barnett notes in Chapter 2 of this volume, some pessimistic higher education academics might regard the conjunction of ‘leadership and critical thinking’ to be an oxymoron. To those of a functionalist, positivist, realist or naïvely optimistic mindset, however, it might seem logical that the operations of critical thinking in higher education would find their best, most natural, expression in its leadership. We might say, ideally, that this was a simple matter: that, yes, of course, critical thinking in higher education leadership definitively exists (‘What’s the problem?’ xxii

Preface  •  xxiii some functionalist leader-manager theorists might ask) and is unquestionably an important authoritative everyday social influencing process, fluent in the power and agency of its criticality. And yet the literature and practice of leadership in higher education has, from many perspectives, arguably paid insufficient attention to this seemingly straightforward, logically feasible connection, given the ubiquity of ‘critical thinking’ as a foundational concept and essential competency right across academia (Barnett, 1997; 2000; 2015; Davies and Barnett, 2015): a rather unexpected omission, despite the plethora of informative works on related leadership and management concepts (Lemmergaard and Muhr, 2013; Alvesson and Spicer, 2014; King, 2015), and skills such as strategic thinking, systems thinking, innovation and ­problem-solving (e.g. Christensen and Eyring, 2011; Leih and Teece, 2016). Although some studies on related fields of critical thinking and management in higher education have been carried out, these have tended to focus on critical management or leadership education and critical pedagogy for students in university business schools (Dehler, 2009; Jenkins and Cutchens, 2011; Jenkins, 2012) and youth leadership (Ricketts, 2005), while critical management and critical leadership studies (CMS, CLS) literature has tended to have a theoretical, business studies or labour process focus rather than engaging with organisational leadership in higher education (Chen, 2015) or to focus on particular negative and/ or relatively local aspects (Collinson, 2011, 2017; Jameson, 2018; Pelletier et al., 2018). Even in a book interestingly dedicated to the University as a Critical Institution (Deem and Eggins, 2017), leadership is only marginally mentioned in relation to the role of distributed leadership as a form of ‘soft managerialism’, while Chen’s (2009) edited work is focussed more on US academic administration. One of the few works that speaks directly to this volume is by Harter (2013). Harter refers to Rickett’s youth leadership study (2005) and an unpublished dissertation on CT and leadership by Duchesne (1996) to discuss the importance of Socratic wisdom and moral excellence in relation to leadership and critical thinking, though not in relation to higher education leaders. Harter notes the: efforts to inject leadership studies with Socratic wisdom pertaining to the literature on critical thinking. Critical thinking itself is often attributed to Socrates (Paul 1995, p. 39). Ricketts (2005) recently made the case to leadership educators why they should teach prospective leaders critical thinking. He argued that leaders must learn how to engage in this process. Thus, once a leader experiences doubt, there must be some method for working through toward a satisfactory outcome, and critical thinking is one name for that method. Otherwise, a person would be left in puzzlement and might not know where to turn next. In fact, critical thinking will help induce doubt as a part of the method, so you do not take anything for granted. (ibid., p. 163) Building on this earlier work and extending the leadership debate on critical thinking as a set of skills and dispositions into ‘criticality’ as a mindset, critical leadership and management studies as fields of research, critical theory as an

xxiv  • Preface analytical approach and ‘critical being’ as a virtuous way of enacting criticality to benefit the wider environment is also to recognise that these too seem, relatively speaking, to be missing as overtly identified, much-debated phenomena in the practice – and research into institutional practice – of global leadership in higher education. Is there something of an implicit gap, an elision, between leadership and critical thinking in its advanced manifestations as ‘critical being’ in higher education? Possibly these key phenomena are still assumed always to be both ­ever-present and coexistent but are more difficult actually to identify within current senior leadership practices reportedly now leaning heavily, of necessity, by some accounts, towards entrepreneurial managerial approaches to performance objectives in higher education (Shore and Wright, 2017)? If so, why is this the case? If not, why are concepts relating to criticality seemingly taken for granted and not more overtly evident, except in scholarly form in critical leadership and management studies? And in the latter, while numerous works point out many negative features and deficiencies of leadership and management (Collinson, 2011, 2017; Alvesson and Spicer, 2012), is there a lack of direct proactive link with criticality in organisational engagement? This was the debate that began this book. Visibility/invisibility paradox In the relative strangeness of these apparently troubling omissions, thoughtfully critical leadership, as both an individual and a collective phenomenon, differs from the operation of strategic management and administration in higher education, which clearly – and often in sharply instrumentalist neo-managerial controlling ways – definitively exists or not, with a large amount of heavily critical debate about it. However, when thoughtful, critical leadership, particularly of the high-quality, other-serving, deep thinking kind, can be found to exist within positional management and indeed in governance, often linked with excellent academic research (Shattock, 2017a, 2017b), there is a flow, veracity and meaningfulness about its presence that arguably changes and improves everything about higher education institutional functioning. As Gaddis and Foster (2015) observe from their study of global leaders: Because senior leadership drives management practices, leadership ultimately determines the fate of organisations (Hogan, 2007). In other words, when leadership is effective everyone benefits…. Likewise, everyone suffers from ineffective or destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, & ­Skogstad, 2007), which is of concern given research suggesting that between 33 per cent and 61 per cent of leaders act destructively. (Gaddis and Foster, 2015: 25) Effective positional leader-managers who ‘downplay’ their seniority to step back with generosity and allocate discretionary powers to subordinates in an organisational hierarchy in higher education may facilitate the emergence of distributed leadership in a form of beneficial collegial academic power-sharing (Elton, 2008),

Preface  •  xxv challenging ‘heroic’ stereotypes of individual leadership based on only one or more senior authority figures (Clifton, 2017). Yet, simultaneously, leader-led distributed relations in higher education are also facilitated by the high visibility and endorsement of senior leaders (Jones, 2014). This paradox, that leader-managers are perhaps at their most effective when both highly visible and sometimes ‘hands-off ’, as occasion demands, is a key issue in the formation of authentic collaborations in university distributed leadership situations based on trust. Such collaboration fosters participative decision-making in face-to-face situations and is, arguably, further facilitated through the active distribution of a hybrid blend of leadership tasks, authority and roles within a heterarchy when this is feasible and meaningful (Gronn, 2002; Grint, 2005; Bolden et al., 2008, 2009; Elton, 2008; Jameson, 2008; Jones et al., 2012; Bacon, 2014; Choi and Schnurr, 2014; Gornall et al., 2018). This ‘visibility/invisibility paradox’ in leadership is difficult to observe and sometimes seems counter-intuitive (Jameson, 2011, 2014). Hence my fascination with hunting down evidence of excellent leadership of the critically thoughtful ‘post-heroic’ collaborative variety in education – a quest I have engaged in for many years. In furtherance of that quest, this book is particularly interested in identifying the existence of high-quality leadership in international higher education and its overt relationship (or not) with critical thinking of the other-serving, world-leading variety in particular. During my long quest, this book was inspired by the formative work on critical thinking and ‘critical being’ in higher education of Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Martin Davies. While reading one of their publications, I was struck by a somewhat ironic reflection on the aforementioned apparent mismatch between latter-day university management and critical thinking. Paradoxically, it appeared that, while critical thinking had been, for many decades, universally recognised and valued in academia as an essential set of cognitive skills and dispositions across all disciplinary fields of teaching and learning in higher education, it seemed perhaps to be less obviously currently in evidence, particularly in its more advanced manifestations as ‘critical being’ at the top hierarchical levels of leadership and management in universities. It seemed almost as if critical thinking had been for so very long assumed to be a core competency, indeed a virtuoso performance, in senior academic leadership, almost the very foundation and background of their existence, that no one seemed really to have noticed it was gradually fading and slipping away. Was this a flawed or biased assumption derived from my readings of the literature critiquing corporate managerialism and naïve over-celebratory aspects of leadership, or was there a wider truth to this? I had to find out. Given a predominant fascination with leadership as a field of study and practice in education, I began to reflect and explore further, to consider and problematise, the extent to which an apparent neglect of – or putatively necessary fading away of the reflective space and time for – critical thought by senior positional leaders in higher education might, or might not, be in evidence in higher education institutions across the world. And indeed, after further consideration, I continued to observe that there still appeared to be less work than might be expected, explicitly linking the field of critical thinking with global leadership in higher education,

xxvi  • Preface despite the vast number of tangential studies and indications of a growing interest in this field, regarding complexity theory (Elton, 2008), systems theory and related approaches to critical leadership and management studies, in particular. This book was therefore developed in consideration of the strong potential for leaders and leadership processes of and in higher education to further develop and apply existing high levels of academic expertise to more advanced cognitive and self-­ reflective collaborative capabilities to cope with the supercomplexity of the leadership challenges now facing higher education. And, furthermore, to do so in ways that recognised and responded proactively to the ambiguities, contradictions and paradoxical tensions of debates on leadership, management and power (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003; Collinson, 2011, 2017; Ilie and Schnurr, 2017). Dimensions of criticality From those musings arose the idea of proposing to the OXCHEPS Series editors of International Studies in Higher Education that there might be a volume on international leadership in higher education with a focus on critical thinking. As I ­investigated these ideas further, it seemed increasingly necessary to consider the concept of ‘criticality’ not only in relation to ‘critical thinking’ but also from related differing dimensions and points of view in critical leadership studies, critiques of management, critical theory and ‘critical being’. A particular focus on the latter aspect of criticality emerged in relation to the situated nature of the international case studies, which were invited from experts in the field in specific countries. This volume on International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Critical Thinking for Global Challenges was therefore proposed to respond to the complex new demands of the current era in higher education by exploring the existence of and potential for an increase in the role of critical thinking at the three levels of knowledge, self and the world (Barnett, 2015), linked with its creative potential to transform both institutions and communities. Essential attributes of critical thinking include cognitive, affective and social dimensions of criticality applied with a ‘growth’ rather than a ‘fixed’ mindset (Dweck, 2006; Branson et al., 2018), which are profoundly important in facilitating a reshaping of understanding and enabling locally defined problem-solving solutions for global dilemmas. The book explores the potential of a return to increased focus on critical thinking, criticality and reflexivity as overt practices directly linked to higher education leadership, and thereby hopefully also to its role in management and governance, to contribute to the global public common good by encouraging enhanced research, teaching and public service excellence. It argues that critical thinking and criticality in all its dimensions should not be assumed to exist in leadership but that its overt and ever-renewable presence plays a profoundly important role in enabling and nurturing the spaces for developing life-affirming values and cultures in specific contexts and communities. This vital role is amongst those public assets that higher education is ever capable of developing that are essential for human survival, given the increasing challenges of, arguably, too many instances of dysfunctional, passive and ineffective leadership and management responses to

Preface  •  xxvii global problems such as climate change, mass migration, poverty and inequality. The book argues that if higher education is to continue to contribute proactively to communities around the world, its leadership and management needs to reconnect yet again in more innovative, collaborative and influential ways with the profoundly important benefits of ‘critical being’. Such leaders are committed to an ongoing ontological process of learning together with their teams how to envision and enact authentic global higher education leadership co-constructively in the best possible ways, creating an ‘epistemology for uncertainty’ together within an unknown future, applying to this process the qualities of ‘carefulness, thoughtfulness, humility, criticality, receptiveness, resilience, courage and stillness’ (Barnett, 2000, 2004). In this, as Herman and Zaccaro (2014) note, the prosocial expansion of leadership selves to embrace the ‘construct of self-concept complexity’ is ‘central to the performance of global leaders in ways ranging from organizational performance to social and community responsibility’. This is now an urgent imperative in an age of supercomplex ambiguities, in which contributing to a global leadership convergence of multiple dimensions of knowledge-based inquiry will provide essential intellectual, moral, social, emotional and physical nourishment in support of the populations of the world. Professor Jill Jameson London December 2018 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-8078 References Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) Critical Leadership studies: A case for critical performativity. ­Human Relations, 65(3): 367–390. Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2014) Critical perspectives on leadership. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations (pp. 40–56). New York: Oxford University Press. Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003) The great disappearing act: Difficulties in doing “leadership”. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3): 359–381. Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4): 409–422. Barnett, R. (2004) Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3): 247–260. Barnett, R. (2015) A curriculum for critical being. In Davies, M. and Barnett, R. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 63–76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: Collier Macmillan. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2008) Developing collective leadership in higher education. ­London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(2): 257–277. Branson, C.M., Marra, M., Franken, M., and Penney, D. (2018) Leadership in higher education from a transrelational perspective. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Bryman, A. (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review, Studies in Higher Education, 32(6): 693–710.

xxviii  • Preface Bryman, A., Collinson, D.L., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (eds.) (2011) The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage, pp. 179–192. Burns, J.M. (2005) Leadership. Leadership, 1(1): 11–12. Chen, D.-L. (2015) Developing critical thinking through problem-based learning: An action research for a class of media literacy. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at: http://etheses.dur. ac.uk/11204/ [Accessed 4 April 2019]. Chen, S. (Ed.). (2009) Academic administration: A quest for better management and leadership in higher education. New York: Nova Science Publishers Incorporated. Choi, S. and Schnurr, S. (2014) Exploring distributed leadership: Solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team. Discourse Studies, 16(1): 3–24. Christensen, C.M. and Eyring, H. (2011) The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clifton, J. (2017) Taking the (heroic) leader out of leadership. The in situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. In C. Ilie and S. Schnurr (Eds.), Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse (pp. 45–68). Singapore: Springer. Collinson, D. (2011) Critical leadership studies. In A. Bryman, D.L. Collinson, K. Grint, et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 179–192). London: Sage. Collinson, D. (2017) Critical leadership studies: A response to Learmonth and Morrell. Leadership, 13(3): 272–284. Davies, M. and Barnett, R. (2015) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Deem, R. and Eggins, H. (2017) The university as a critical institution? Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Dehler, G.E. (2009) Prospects and possibilities of critical management education: Critical beings and a pedagogy of critical action. Management Learning, 40(1): 31–49. Duchesne, R.E.J. (1996) Critical thinking, developmental learning, and adaptive flexibility in organizational leaders. Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., and Skogstad, A. (2007) Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207–216. Elton, L. (2008) Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3): 224–236. Fullan, M. and Scott, G. (2009) Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Gaddis, B.H. and Foster, J.L. (2015) Meta-analysis of dark side personality characteristics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1): 25–54. Gornall, L., Thomas, B., and Sweetman, L. (Eds.). (2018) Exploring consensual leadership in higher education: Co-operation, collaboration and partnership. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 423–451. Harter, N. (2013) Socrates’ mission against reproachable ignorance: Leaders who refuse to acknowledge their ignorance and instead suppress criticism. In J. Lemmergaard and S.L. Muhr (Eds.), Critical perspectives on leadership: Emotion, toxicity and dysfunction, 154–170. Herman, J.L. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2014) The complex self-concept of the global leader. In J.S. Osland, M. Li, Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Advances in Global Leadership, Volume 8, pp. 93–111). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hogan, R. (2007) Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ilie, C. and Schnurr, S. (2017) Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse. Singapore: Springer. Jameson, J. (2008) Leadership: Professional communities of leadership practice in post-compulsory ­education. Invited Research Report, ESCalate Discussions in Education Series: HEA Subject Centre: Stirling University Jameson, J. (2011) Distributed leadership and the visibility/invisibility paradox in on-line communities. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments. 7(1): pp. 49–71.

Preface  •  xxix Jameson, J. (2014) Distributed e-leadership and trust: The visibility/invisibility paradox in the ecology of online school communities. Keynote: International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) Annual Conference 2014, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Jameson, J. (2018) Critical corridor talk: Just gossip or stoic resistance? Unrecognised informal Higher Education leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4): 375–389. Jenkins, D. (2012) Global critical leadership: Educating global leaders with critical leadership competencies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2): 95–101. Jenkins, D.M. and Cutchens, A.B. (2011) Leading critically: A grounded theory of applied critical thinking in leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2): 1–21. Jones, S. (2014) Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership, 10(2): 129–141. Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., and Ryland, K. (2012) Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 67–78. King, D. (2015) The possibilities and perils of critical performativity: Learning from four case studies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2): 255–265. Leih, S. and Teece, D. (2016) Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2): 182–210. Lemmergaard, J. and Muhr, S.L. (Eds.). (2013) Critical perspectives on leadership: Emotion, toxicity, and dysfunction. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pelletier, K.L., Kottke, J.L., and Sirotnik, B.W. (2018). The toxic triangle in academia: A case analysis of the emergence and manifestation of toxicity in a public university. Leadership. DOI: 10.1177/1742715018773828 Ricketts, J. (2005) The relationship between leadership development and critical thinking skills, Journal of Leadership Education, 4(2): 27–41. Available at: www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources/ Documents/Conferences/Wilmington/ricketts.pdf [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019]. Shattock, M. (2017a) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: a synoptic view. Working paper 13. London: Centre for Global Higher Education paper series. Shattock, M. (2017b) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: A synoptic view. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(4): 384–395. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (Eds.) (2017) Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Berghan.

Acknowledgements

I thank the President, Fellows and Staff of Lucy Cavendish College, and the F ­ aculty of Education at the University of Cambridge, particularly Alison Vinnicombe, Dr Jane Greatorex, Jo Ryan, Tom Hawker-Dawson and Dr Sara Hennessy, for their kindness and support during my Visiting Fellowship at the college and university in 2018, when most of this book took shape. Grateful thanks to Series Editors David, Ted and Scott; to Sarah Tuckwell and Lisa Font for their kind support in the production of this book; and to all contributing authors who generously gave up large portions of their time to write chapters. Particular thanks to Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Martin Davies for the inspiration for this volume from their work on critical thinking in higher education; to Professor Nancy C. Adler and her colleagues worldwide for their transformatively creative leadership response, enabling me to write a chapter about her work; to Dr Nataliya Rumyantseva for going out of her way so many times to help with the formulation of this book; and to Sudhanshu Palsule for his influential work on leadership and complexity. We acknowledge and thank the authors and publisher for their permission to include, in Chapter 2, Figure 1: The Organisational Iceberg (Hellreigel, Slocum and Woodman 1998), from Hellriegel / Slocum / Woodman. Organizational Behavior, 10E. © 2004 South-Western, a part of Cengage, Inc. The figure is reproduced by kind permission: www.cengage.com/permissions. Finally, special thanks to all the leaders, past, present and still to come, who, with selfless generosity, have helped and will help us all in so many ways, across both higher education and the wider world, sometimes celebrated but often unsung and unnoticed.

xxx

Abbreviations

AM BERA CLS CMS CTM HE HEI HEPI KPIs LFHE OXCHEPs REF SIG SRHE TEF TINA TMP VUCA

Member of the Order of Australia (Australian post-nominal) British Educational Research Association Critical leadership studies Critical management studies Critical thinking movement higher education higher education institution Higher Education Policy Institute Key performance indicators Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies Research Excellence Framework (UK) Special Interest Group Society for Research into Higher Education Teaching Excellence Framework (UK) There is no alternative Top Management Programme for Higher Education (UK) Volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity

xxxi

Part 1

Global leadership and critical thinking in higher education

This introductory section, in three chapters, outlines current reflections on leadership studies and related professional practice in global higher education, and considers the case for increased critical thinking (CT) about changing global challenges in relation to leadership in both theoretical and practical terms. The three chapters consider the theoretical positioning of leadership, CT and change in higher education in the context of the overlapping and distinctive characteristics of ‘leadership’ alongside ‘management’ and ‘authority’ at different levels. The terms ‘criticality’, ‘critical theory’ and ‘critical thinking’ are discussed with reference to global perspectives on leadership in selected national/regional higher education systems. Interactive, multifaceted relationships of ‘leadership’ with and within the authorities of the state, academia and the market are considered. The contributions of ‘critical leadership’ and ‘critical management’ studies and related concepts of neo-managerialism and new public management (NPM) form a backdrop to this debate, alongside sociological views on critical theory and pedagogic CT approaches. The section overall provides an overview of some of the difficulties leaders of and in higher education systems face while developing and applying more advanced cognitive and self-reflective capabilities to cope with the supercomplexities of multiple leadership challenges now facing higher education. The chapter considers the extent to which ‘critical thinking’ has been, as Davies and Barnett (2015) assert, ‘abandoned’ (or not) in higher education corporate leadership and management in favour of managerial approaches, combined (or not) with ­ill-defined, superficially appealing ‘soft skills’. It is argued that there is a need to move beyond any complacency in relying on prior successes and models of leadership of higher education. Global higher education communities must adapt themselves to the pressures and uncertainties facing the university and college sector: the evolution of new forms of highly resilient, stoical problem-solving approaches may be needed at this time.

1

Introduction JILL JAMESON

Background The International Studies in Higher Education series examines major contemporary developments in international higher education. As part of that examination, this book argues that leadership, as well as its relationship to CT, is a vital topic that strongly needs consideration. This is partly in response to a context in which the global rise of managerialism and NPM in higher education has been the subject of concern around the world and partly as a response to a myriad of related global challenges facing universities and colleges (Deem, 1998; Mok, 1999; Deem and Brehony, 2005; Deem, Hillyard, and Reid, 2007; Trowler, 2010; Lea, 2011; O’Mullane, 2011; Ball, 2012; Lorenz, 2012; Teelken, 2012; Lumby, 2018). ‘Leadership’ interactively engages with related fields of knowledge and practice in the distribution of authority and power, and is sometimes confused with these phenomena in problematic ways, whereby ‘leadership’ is overused, over-glamorised and too loosely undifferentiated, becoming everything and nothing at the same time (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Alvesson and Blom, 2018). There is no easy answer to the teasing out of those complex patterns of engagement and no grand one-size-fits-all definition or theory to which we can retreat with relief from this ongoing challenge. The work of attempting to examine this field of knowledge and practice is unfathomably complex, and we need to tread our way carefully. Hence, this book aims to begin to contribute some initial thoughts and findings to the literature, practice and live debate currently considering diverse ways in which ‘leadership’ overlaps with and is also different from ‘management’, ‘governance’, ‘administration’, ‘authority’ and ‘power’ in its relationship with critical thought and action in global higher education contexts. Overall, the book argues that in all contexts, the need for critical leadership thinking in responsive, adaptive and skilful ways is essential to meet new global challenges in higher education.

2

Introduction  •  3 Part One: leadership and critical thinking in higher education Part One introduces the scope of the book’s contributory response to the current debate on leadership studies and professional practice in global higher education. The three chapters in the introductory section consider the general case for increased CT in relation to continuously changing global challenges to higher education within the current ‘age of supercomplexity’ (Barnett, 2000) in both theoretical and practical terms, before moving on in Part Two to consider leadership and CT in more situational depth in specific international case-study contexts. The case-study chapters in various ways define, explore and critique differing historical and contemporary definitions of leadership and CT as practised in institutional, regional, national and international settings, drawing from the considerable history of global initiatives in these fields. In several chapters, the focus of leadership processes discussed relates to institutional leadership at a variety of levels in higher education institutions (HEIs), although that focus expands outwards in other chapters into a consideration of regional, national and global higher education leadership and policymaking in other contexts. Theoretical reflections predominate in some chapters, while empirical work is more the focus of other chapters. The length of chapters also varies, dependent on situation and context. This diversity was welcomed, reflecting the differing countries, disciplinary areas and author perspectives involved. A round-up of observations on leadership and CT arising throughout the book is then brought together into Part Three to form the conclusion and recommendations for further research. Defining ‘leadership’ The book provides a context for and exploration of selected aspects of the overlapping and distinctive characteristics of ‘leadership’ alongside ‘management’, ‘governance’ and ‘administration’ as well as ‘authority’ and ‘power’ at different levels in higher education. At an overview level, one broad definition of ‘leadership’ applied in the conceptualisation of the book is that of Northouse: ‘Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal’ (2004: 3). This definition is built up from the four key elements of leadership identified by Northouse: ‘(1) it is a process; (2) involves influence; (3) occurs in a group context and (4) involves goal attainment’ (Northouse, 2004). This highly generalised, somewhat open-ended definition is sufficiently comprehensive to include numerous locally situated interpretations, as appropriate in the context of the book’s inclusion of international case studies, which are all very different in location and content. However, it is not so broad as to be meaningless, and the book is careful to distinguish also ‘leadership’ from ‘management’ and from ‘group work’, though I do not adopt the hierarchical aspect of the leadership definition put forward by Alvesson and Blom (2018), preferring instead to emphasise the important role of informal, collegial, distributed and collaborative leadership in the specific context of the higher education sector, in which all participants might ideally be either

4  •  Jill Jameson expert critical thinkers already or on their way to achieving at least a basic level of autonomous capability in critical argumentation and analysis (Gosling, Bolden, and Petrov, 2009; Jones, 2014; Clifton, 2017). Alvesson and Blom’s concept of leadership applies to other sectors and in other respects; however, as outlined here: Leadership is about influencing meanings, values and beliefs in a hierarchical (unequal) relation. It is often confused with management. Management is about planning, budgeting, resource allocation, assignment of tasks, control, policy making, hiring/firing, role specifications in the employment contract, not primarily about meanings, ideas and values. (Alvesson and Blom, 2008) The useful distinction here between leadership as an influencing process and management as a coordinated series of organising, planning and controlling functions is helpful, as the book will explore in a range of ways. Throughout, both leadership and management are considered to be essential to the effective functioning of higher education, and I assume that there may be a considerable overlap between the two in the work of positional leader-managers. Aspects of CT, as defined later, are also regarded as essential for both leaders and managers. However, in a rapidly changing higher education environment, this book focusses on multiple dimensions of CT in relation to leadership as particularly vital for the continuing purposeful role of higher education in nurturing sustainable benefits to humanity in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; King and Badham, 2018). This book therefore calls for a renewal of leadership and management mindsets about the need for greater leadership criticality, notably in its higher order manifestations as ‘critical being’ (Barnett, 1997, 2015), to address global challenges. In that wide-ranging call, definitions of leadership from functionalist, interpretivist and critical perspectives are needed (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012), though in this volume the interpretation of leadership tends more towards critical perspectives, as appropriate for the focus of the book. Defining ‘critical thinking’ and related dimensions of criticality The terms ‘critical thinking’, ‘criticality’, ‘critical theory’ and ‘critical being’ in relation to higher education, as defined and modelled by Barnett (1997), (2015), Davies (2015) and Davies and Barnett (2015), inform the text at both subterranean and overt levels throughout, with reference to global perspectives on leadership in selected local, national, regional and country-wide higher education systems. The vast literature on CT in higher education is mainly focussed on the teaching, learning and development of CT skills and dispositions in higher education students, ­ elphi Rewith the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) D port definition of CT (Facione, 1990; Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo, 2001) being amongst the more influential CT models, while there are numerous classificatory schemes, assessment models and training schedules for the development of CT and criticality (Ennis, 1965, 1996; Barnett, 1997; Jenkins and Cutchens, 2011;

Introduction  •  5 Flores et al., 2012; Davies and Barnett, 2015). Informed by the aforementioned works, this book explores selected elements of the following dimensions of CT and criticality as they underpin leadership in higher education: • individual critical thinking skills, argumentation and judgements, including ‘interpretation, analysis, inference, explanation, evaluation, and some element of metacognition or self-regulation’; • criticality dispositions, character and action as ‘critical being’ in relation to ‘knowledge, self, and the world’, including CT, critical reflection, ethical awareness, critical action and creativity; • sociocultural aspects of criticality, including critical pedagogy, critical theory, critical inquiry, critical leadership and management studies. (see Davies and Barnett, 2015 for a fuller exploration and diagram) Exploring ‘leadership and critical thinking’ in higher education In the context of the aforementioned dimensions of criticality, interactive, multifaceted relationships of ‘leadership’ with and within the authorities of institutions, the state and wider society in a global context are considered in a variety of ways throughout the case-study chapters. Variable responses to determine and assess levels of CT, or the lack of it, are discussed. The contributions of ‘critical leadership’ and ‘critical management’ studies, complexity theory, critical reflexivity and design-based thinking to this debate inform the case-study responses, alongside sociological and feminist views on critical theory and pedagogic CT approaches. Underlying this exploration is a recognition of the difficulties facing leaders of and in higher education systems in developing and applying more advanced cognitive and self-reflective capabilities to cope with the supercomplexities of multiple leadership challenges now facing higher education. Throughout, the authors consider the extent to which ‘critical thinking’ has been, as Davies and Barnett (2015) assert, ‘abandoned’ (or not) in HEIs (in the United Kingdom and/or elsewhere) in favour of vaguely conceptualised entrepreneurial approaches, such as ‘teamwork’, ‘leadership’ and ‘communication’, combined (or not) with related ill-defined, superficially appealing ‘soft skills’. It is argued that there is a need to move beyond any complacency in relying on prior successes and models of leadership of higher education. Global higher education communities must adapt themselves to the pressures and uncertainties facing the university and college sector: the evolution of new forms of resilient, stoical problem-solving leadership approaches is needed at this time. Recent significant changes in government policy, funding, quality and research regimes affecting global higher education across many countries are placing university leaders, managers, governors and policymakers under unprecedented pressures to continue to develop effective HEIs in both elite and mass contexts. It is becoming increasingly challenging for universities to meet the ever-growing demands of competitive global and national ranking, policy and governance systems while simultaneously satisfying multiple goals for excellence in research, teaching quality, financial constraints and student satisfaction, managing staff productively

6  •  Jill Jameson and developing new buildings, digital learning curricula, entrepreneurial knowledge exchange and business initiatives (Bleiklie and Kogan, 2007; Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley, 2009). Challenges faced by higher education leadership therefore require recognition of the enormous and accelerating supercomplexities involved in the development and upkeep of good higher education provision. These demands have been exacerbated by the recent rise of political tensions linked to the popularist nationalistic movements, the distrust of elite ‘expert knowledge’, the controversies surrounding ‘fake news’ and the turbulence of competing political tensions across the world in numerous countries but, perhaps most notably in recent years, in the United States, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, South America and Sri Lanka, to name but a few. This volume on International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Critical Thinking for Global Challenges therefore aims to respond to the ongoing ‘supercomplexity’ – the VUCA (Bennis and Nanus, 1985) – of ever-changing demands within the current era by exploring the potential for an increase in the role of CT as ‘critical being’ (Barnett, 1987, 2015; Davies, 2015) in leadership and its creative potential to transform both institutions and communities. Essential attributes of CT, as outlined earlier, include both cognitive and affective dimensions of criticality that are profoundly important in facilitating the reshaping of understanding and enabling locally defined transformative problem-solving responses to global dilemmas. This exploration of an increased role for criticality in higher education leadership aims to contribute to the international public common good by encouraging enhanced research, teaching and public service excellence. The book overall argues that CT, operating with ontological integrity as highly functioning critical and creative ‘being’, engages a profoundly important developmental vision of life-affirming values and cultures in particular contexts and communities. This vital role is amongst those public assets that are essential for human survival, given increasing challenges of arguably dysfunctional leadership and management in response to ‘superwicked’ global problems such as climate change, mass migration, poverty and inequality. Throughout the book, I argue that if higher education is to continue to contribute creatively to communities around the world, its leadership needs to reconnect more proactively with the essential dimensions of ‘critical being’ in a convergence of multiple dimensions of knowledge-based inquiry. This is to respond to the challenge articulated in Barnett’s concept that the role of the university in an age of supercomplexity must now be to lead the world in the creation of an ‘epistemology for living amid uncertainty’ (Barnett, 2000), given the proliferation of endlessly competing and clashing frameworks of knowledge and meaning. I argue that it is only excellent other-serving collaborative leadership functioning in harmony skilfully and fluently as critical and creative being at multiple levels, both formal and informal, that can enable higher education to achieve that profoundly difficult task. Such leadership is not necessarily linked with or tied to any fixed institutional or organisational position or role (Jones, 2014; Clifton, 2017), though it may be so

Introduction  •  7 practised. Such leadership may be an expectation within the duties of top, senior and middle managers and administrators, but it does not necessarily always manifest itself there. It may, but also may not, be present at these formal authority levels. Counter-intuitively, it may be in evidence unexpectedly instead in sometimes uncelebrated ways in the work of informal leaders, such as faculty professors, research team members, lecturers, individual researchers, students and administrative support staff or within voluntary governance appointees, community partners and higher education associates (Ramsden, 1998; Evans, 2018). Wherever and however higher education functions, we may expect that other-serving authentic critically thinking leadership may occur, sometimes within the most unexpected people and processes operating in unpredictable ways. In this volume I explore, therefore, not just leadership within formal positional authority roles but also distributed informal leadership in people and systemic processes across and beyond institutional boundaries at all levels in higher education. Arguably, leadership may operate most effectively in higher education when there is a creative, fluid and meaningful distribution of authority and roles within a harmoniously well-functioning heterarchy (Gronn, 2002; Grint, 2005; Jameson, 2007, 2008; Jameson and McNay, 2007; Bolden, Petrov, and Gosling, 2008, 2009; Elton, 2008; Jameson and Andrews, 2008; Jones et al., 2012; Bacon, 2014; Choi and Schnurr, 2014; Gornall et al., 2018). The book aims to consider the international relevance of: 1 the links, or lack of them, between CT, critical and creative being, and higher education leadership, given the global critique of managerialism; and 2 diverse case-study contexts for higher education leadership as ‘critical being’. First, however, there is a need to consider why the global context is so important at the current time. Part One of the book introduces the rationale for this. Why a book on leadership and critical thinking for global challenges? In the context of the numerous global challenges within higher education, an increasing interest in university leadership has emerged over the last few decades. The reasons for this are multiple. First, humanity’s unceasing interest in powerful influential individuals and processes is as much a persistent feature of higher education as it is a part of any other human social environment: this is unlikely to change any time soon. Second, the global emergence and growth of the leadership development and training industry, largely led by university business and management schools, has stimulated an extraordinary level of fascination with leadership. This is evidenced by the huge number of publications on the subject, none of which, arguably, have ever solved the riddle of what leadership actually is, although some highly cited definitions amongst the 3,000+ on offer have made valiant and notable efforts at convincing explanations about leadership itself

8  •  Jill Jameson (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989; Burns, 2005) and how leadership in higher ­education is conceptualised and practised (Fullan and Scott, 2009; Bryman, 2000, 2007). Third, in comparison with governance, management and administration, all of which are linked closely to a positional role or group of postholders, leadership arguably emerges as a hybrid phenomenon (Bolden, Petrov, and Gosling, 2008, 2009) of relational influence linked both to those occupying positions of authority and to informal leaders without any titles or roles, and, in addition, to ­post-humanist concepts of the complex, indeterminate leadership systems of influence with which staff and students are, consciously or unconsciously, entangled. As one notable leader of a post-compulsory higher education college said to me in an interview about the extraordinarily successful performance of a formerly bleak, scruffy college in a run-down area, describing the link between this and her installation of original sculpture, artworks, music and beautiful environmentally friendly places at the entrance of the college: ‘organisations speak to you’, and ‘leadership is about winning hearts and minds’ (Jameson, 2006). The potential for leadership to speak creatively in multiple persuasively beneficial and impactful ways for public good occurs at many local, national and international levels in higher education. However, popular awareness of and interest in leadership at the global level is perhaps more evident as regards university governance and university leaders rather than higher education leadership per se. In fact, an increased mention of university governance and leaders rather than university managers and governors across millions of global book publications in the English corpus recorded in the Google Books Ngram viewer between 1800–2007 is curiously paralleled by a reverse trend in the opposite direction which indicates much less book publication focus on university leadership and somewhat less interest in university management in comparison with university governance (Michelle et al., 2010). Whereas there seems to be a great deal of attention paid to writing about individual university leaders or groups of leaders, there seems to be less concentration on leadership as a phenomenon. Similar trends occur when using the search term ‘higher education’ instead of ‘university’. At first glance, the aforementioned trends seem to be contradictory, but on closer analysis, they seem to indicate that university and/or higher education governance and management may be regarded as more immediately evident, relevant and powerful as subject content for publications than university/higher education leadership, whereas the opposite would seem to be the case as regards individual leaders, in whom there appears to be a great deal more interest than in individual managers. This large-scale quantitative analysis of cultural trends reflected in book publishing in the huge data set of the English corpus of books digitised by Google is, of course, only one somewhat rough and imperfect indicator of longterm trends in publications about higher education, but the tendency to mention ‘leaders’ rather than ‘leadership’ does seem to point to a possible continuing ‘heroic leadership’ mindset, in which individuals may play a larger role than group, distributed or systemic processes of leadership (Bryman, 2007). There is therefore a continuing need to explore further the role of leadership beyond only that

Introduction  •  9 enacted by individual positional ‘leaders’, to explore this at a variety of levels and in different ways in higher education, and the role of CT, notably as critical being, within this. This book was therefore developed in consideration of the strong potential for leaders and leadership processes of and in higher education to develop and apply more advanced cognitive and self-reflective capabilities to cope with the supercomplexity of the leadership challenges now facing higher education. There seems less research and professional work than might be expected that explicitly links the field of CT with global leadership research and practice in higher education, although there are a vast number of tangential studies and indications of a growing interest in this field. While there are prior studies on ‘global leadership’ in higher education (e.g. Fullan and Scott, 2009), on ‘the problem of leadership’ (Smith and Adams, 2009) on ‘management in higher education’ (Maassen, 2003; Bryman, 2007), an emerging set of publications on ‘critical leadership’ (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012), ‘critical management studies’ (Grey and Willmott, 2005; Spicer, Alvesson and Kärreman, 2009)) and ‘critical thinking in higher education’ (Davies and Barnett, 2015), there appears as yet to be no one full book publication that overtly integrates these areas from different perspectives in international higher education studies, ­although Deem, Hillyard and Reid (2007) and numerous others (Lea, 2011; Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Evans, 2018) have provided an informative series of related studies on critical leadership, governance, management, the ‘hollowing out of universities’ and academic practice. Furthermore, important prior work on the collegial tradition in universities informs a respected model of highly developed CT through research and scholarship (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000; Palfreyman and Tapper, 2008). As Shattock would argue in relation to a strongly performing ­research-intensive culture (2017a, 2017b), CT may well be essential for the effective maintenance of senior academic leadership and institutional autonomy in an increasingly state-driven, managerial, massified and marketised (‘the 3 Ms’, Tapper and Palfreyman, ibid.) higher education system. There is, therefore, a need to reflect on the extent to which ‘critical thinking’ has been, as Davies and Barnett (2015) assert, ‘abandoned’ (or not) in HEIs, including notably in corporate leadership and management, in favour of entrepreneurial and managerial approaches, combined (or not) with ill-defined, superficially appealing ‘soft skills’. Simultaneously, there is a need to move beyond any complacency in relying on prior successes and models of leadership of and within higher education. Global higher education communities must adapt themselves to the pressures and uncertainties facing the university and college sector. There is a need to evolve new forms of resilient, stoical, critically reflective capacities within collective academic leadership to provide ‘an epistemology for uncertainty’ (Barnett, 2000, 2004, 2015). The concept of ‘critical being’ is useful in considering this, as are deeper interpretations of the prosocial determinants of global self-concept complexity (Herman and Zaccaro, 2014) that can enable fluent, capable, beneficent other-serving leadership, the ‘art of the impossible’ in higher education (see Barnett, Chapter 1), to take shape, despite all challenges to the contrary.

10  •  Jill Jameson Global leadership as ‘Critical Being’ in higher education Through the international case studies, this book begins to explore the extent to which cognitive, affective and creative elements of critical thought, self-reflection and related individual and collaboratively critical actions currently shape, or do not shape, leadership influence and decision-making in HEIs, systems and policymaking in global contexts. The book considers the extent to which higher education leadership in different national situations at variable levels engages with or ignores the transformational potential of challenging, rigorous analysis and self-regulatory criticality. Shattock’s views on CT in the governance and leadership of research-intensive cultures (2017a, 2017b) are useful in relation to the unrelenting global pressures and competitive demands facing state-driven, managerial, massified and marketised higher education systems and institutions (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000). Barnett’s (1997) views on CT as ‘critical being’, combining cognitive skills with ‘critical self-reflection’ and ‘critical action’, form a background to Part One, in which Barnett, in Chapter 2, outlines a new ecological vision of a ‘feasible utopia’ for higher education leadership in relation to hopeful potentials for a realistic sense of optimism, despite unrelenting challenges, regarding the practice of CT in leadership. Barnet argues that leadership is an indispensable concept for universities: CT is a necessary component of such leadership, even if such a vision is utopian. University managers faced with the ‘multiplicities’ of contradictory challenges and pressures from both internal and external forces need to embrace a new kind of leadership. In the supercomplexity of uncertainties facing universities, critically thinking leadership of the nuanced, careful, thoughtful, values-oriented kind can still be glimpsed at all levels of universities: in this there is the potential for a feasible utopia. In Chapter 3, Kinchington considers the subterranean cultural elements that affect higher education leadership and management in complex changing contexts. Although change is a feature of all organisations, higher education is particularly susceptible to change as it operates in an increasingly complex environment driven by the dynamic interaction of multiple factors. Kinchington considers why some organisations seem to be successful at leading change, while others are not. The latter organisations derive little positive impact from ongoing changes, being left instead with a legacy of staff insecurity, a silenced majority and an unwillingness to engage in change. Kinchington examines four critical elements that are key to understanding barriers to organisational change. The interrelationship of these elements has a direct impact on the organisation’s capacity to change. Leaders’ reflexivity and their ability to think critically and scrutinise factors beneath the surface of a department or faculty offer a deeper understanding of the institution’s culture to enable sensitive engagement with processes of change. These chapters set the scene for the case studies included in Part Two. Overall, the book is guided by the following important themes.

Introduction  •  11 Key themes The book explores the following key themes: • Critical thinking in leadership to address global challenges: A capacity for CT is one of the cherished attributes of academic freedom in higher education (Barnett, 1997). It is effectively nurtured every day worldwide throughout university and college courses at all levels, across all subject areas, in innumerable ways. Higher education has not succeeded in developing CT when graduates are recognised as deficient in these skills, however. In a survey by Flores et al. (2012), 92 per cent of employers from over 400 US companies rated CT as ‘very important’ for graduates but found that only 27.6 per cent of four-year graduates had excellent skills in this, although good leaders with the capacity for independent critical thought are increasingly essential for current and future workplaces (Flores et al., 2012: 223). Yet, although CT is highly valued by ­employers, paradoxically, some have argued, directly or implicitly (Lea, 2011; Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Davies and Barnett, 2015; Deem, Hillyard and Reid, 2007), that corporate managerial responses to the complexity of mass higher education challenges may be neglecting this essential capacity within higher education itself. Important prior work on the collegial tradition in universities (Elton, 2008; Bacon, 2014) informs a respected model of highly developed CT through research and scholarship (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000; Palfreyman and Tapper, 2008). As noted earlier, Shattock’s insights on strongly performing research-intensive cultures (2017a, 2017b) indicate that CT may be vital for powerfully effective leadership and ­self-governance in global higher education systems that are increasingly state-driven, managerial, massified and marketised (Elton, 2008; Tapper and Palfreyman, ibid.). To explore this, there is a need to examine how leadership is operating in various international case-study contexts and the extent to which CT on global challenges is employed, or not, by higher education leadership, including individual leaders, groups and leadership processes at different levels. • A re-examination of ‘leadership’: At a time when Oxford ­Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2016 was ‘post-truth’, troubling issues relating to autonomy, criticality, values, academic freedom and ‘truth’ in higher education are on the rise. Since the authority of experts has been questioned as never before, there is an increasing need for a clear ­re-examination of perspectives on what ‘leadership’ means in higher education. Who or what is ‘leading’ in this era? It is essential to understand how leadership functions in specific international contexts in higher education, both separately from and in relation to management, governance, accountability and policymaking, to name a few key areas of overlap and confusion.

12  •  Jill Jameson • Increasing challenges to higher education leaders and managers: Recent changes in government policy, funding, quality and research affecting global higher education across many countries are placing university managers, governors, academics and policymakers under unprecedented pressures. Leaders of higher education need to develop and grow effective provision in both elite and mass contexts. The enormous complexity involved in the development and upkeep of good higher education provision means it is becoming ever more challenging for universities and colleges to perform well in competitive global and national ranking systems. Institutions need simultaneously to nurture student achievements, meet stringent research, fund and teach targets, develop international partnerships, manage staff, develop good facilities and foster new business initiatives. • The balance of distributed leadership and management: To meet the demands of complex mass higher education and its relationship to government, centralised, managerial, corporate leader-manager approaches in institutions are seen by some as a necessary replacement for collegial distributed academic leadership. Yet corporate leadership instrumentalist solutions for higher education may not be sufficiently responsive, democratic, ethical and inclusive in drawing on the CT skills of academic experts in HEIs (Lea, 2011). There is therefore a need to examine the ways in which leadership in national/regional contexts is affected by and influences the balance of control between the three forces of the state, market and academic oligarchy (Clark, 1983a, 1983b) in the organisation of universities. This balance of control is identified and interactively maintained in different ways by higher education leaders operating in a variety of systems around the world. Part Two: international case studies The second part of the book is formed of case-study chapters, providing empirical and contextually situated theoretical evidence on the ways in which CT in the leadership of higher education is conceptualised and practised in various international contexts. The authors and contents of these case studies are responding to and shaping fundamental changes occurring in local and regional higher education situations and systems around the world in response to global challenges in variable ways. The case-study chapters discuss leadership responses to situational problems in the context of changes in policy and organisational systems, regulation, marketing and quality as well as funding, teaching and research, student recruitment and policymaking. The chapters identify global examples of leadership, including those in which notable achievements and/or dilemmas have occurred. Given the impossibility of including a case study from every major higher education country and system across the world, the book focusses on specific interesting examples provided by invited experts from within the field. It seemed important to provide case studies from both the global north and the global south; to include case studies from

Introduction  •  13 developed and developing countries and from male and female expert authors from different cultures; to include a range of differing perspectives, both theoretical and empirical; and to highlight uniquely special cases, where possible, alongside the analysis of more mainstream examples. The international case-study chapters are presented in a rough anticlockwise ­spiral around the world, starting with Spain and moving through England, the USA, Colombia, Estonia and Ukraine, and ending with Australia, followed by a fi ­ nal section including reflections on a Canadian case study. Limitations of time and author availability meant that an original hypothetical case-study selection, including the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Africa, the Middle East, China, ­India, Singapore and Japan, was not possible for this volume, although this is highly ­recommended for future research. The case-study chapters collected provide, ­nevertheless, despite any geographical and cultural limitations, a uniquely interesting and rich selection for this initial examination of CT and leadership in higher education in a global context, and all authors are sincerely thanked for their extremely hard work in the scholarly writing and production of these fascinating case-study examples of ­leadership in action. Chapters vary in length, in disciplinary approach, in subject matter and in the inclusion of empirical data or not. As noted earlier, this diversity was welcomed in bringing together a variety of insights and situated perspectives that are country-specific in responding to the supercomplexity of the focus on CT and the global contributions of leadership in higher education. Following the introductory chapters by Professor Ronald Barnett on leadership and CT in Chapter 2, and by Francia Kinchington on critical leadership and the management of change in Chapter 3, in Chapter 4, Professor Rebecca Boden considers the spaces of hope enabled by the democratic leadership of higher education in Mondragon, a workers’ cooperative university in Spain. Boden observes that if governance can be broadly defined as systems for or approaches to ­decision-making, the governance of universities is the means by which decisions are made within them. Exploring the shifting, complex landscape of governing power in UK universities and the ramifications that this has for the nature of the knowledges produced and what they are used for, she suggests, from a critical management perspective, how governing regimes might be beneficially reformed to aid further development of the social role of the university, using her case study of Mondragon as an example. In Chapter 5, Professor Rob Cuthbert considers the case of England in the examination of collaboration and collegiality in university leadership. The global development of mass higher education in recent decades has understandably been combined with increasing demands by government for public accountability linked to performance indicators measured by national and global ranking systems. In some countries, notably England, there has been a consistent focus on an economic perspective. Governments promoting higher education as a regulated market in England (and elsewhere) have framed students as ‘customers’, encouraging alternative providers of higher education to enter the ‘market’. These changes are part of a broader move in public services towards ‘new public management’, which has promoted changes in how universities and colleges are managed and led.

14  •  Jill Jameson These circumstances challenge academic leadership, collegiality and collaboration within and between institutions. Cuthbert critically considers the extent to which academic collaboration and collegiality can still play a role in ­decision-making amongst university leaders in England. Professor Jarrett Warshaw considers the case of higher education leadership in the United States in Chapter 6, providing an examination of design-based strategies and academic organisation in the leadership of public research universities. ­Warshaw’s chapter focusses on the prospects for reconciling the concept and leadership strategies of design with dynamics of academic organisation, applying the theory of academic capitalism to case-study data from four institutions, whose administrators and faculty have developed an array of Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subject-centred organisational innovations (new centres, institutes, schools and departments) by which to advance the scientific research enterprise. Presented here are leadership strategies and perspectives of campus administrators, unit-level leaders and faculty. Results suggest why and how market competition between and within universities can stratify academic organisations and restrict the capacity to envisage and/or enact novel designs. Implications are discussed in the context of the USA and the emerging global trends in this arena. In Chapter 7, Professor Robin Middlehurst and Dr Tom Kennie analyse an evolutionary case of transformation through critical leadership in higher education in the city of Medellin in Colombia, South America. The chapter explores the ways in which the nature of the public purposes that higher education serves is changing, just as expectations of the contributions higher education should make to a range of public purposes are shifting. Such changes have implications for many levels of higher education operations, including the curricula and qualifications offered, staff roles and working conditions, teaching styles and opportunities for students and research agendas. There are also implications for leadership and governance of institutions, and for the contributions of individuals and groups to such leadership. The authors explore these ideas both conceptually, in notions of ‘critical leadership’ and ‘shifting public purposes’, and in practice through a case study of transformational change and leadership taking place in the city of Medellin. In Chapter 8, Mart Kikas and Professor Olav Aarna analyse the case of critical leadership thinking in intrapreneurship education in Estonia. They report that while it is commonly accepted that entrepreneurship is crucial for a country’s global competitiveness, European Union countries, despite consistently high competitiveness rankings, tend to lag behind other developed countries in entrepreneurship indicators. Exploring intrapreneurship as a concept indicating that entrepreneurial competencies are beneficial in any work context, the authors analyse an experience of critical leadership thinking in action, demonstrated by government and HEIs in Estonia in promoting intrapreneurship education for students of all specialities. The series of findings derived from this experience provide new insights for CT about leadership of global intrapreneurship developments in higher education In Chapter 9, Dr Nataliya Rumyantseva, Professor Olena Logvynenko and Elena Chilina consider the case of CT in higher education leadership in Ukraine, offering an original trauma-informed understanding relating to the crisis of higher

Introduction  •  15 education reform. The persistence of the crisis in Ukraine suggests that higher education may be caught in a transformational trap, combining unreflective assumptions about the past and unquestioned agreements with proposed (Western) models of the future. The authors analyse elements of Ukrainian history characterised by oppression and violent exercise of power, with a particular emphasis on the events of Holodomor of 1933 and theories of trans-generational trauma transmission, to propose that current dysfunctions in the higher education sector may be mirroring the events of 1933. The authors invite leaders to reconsider approaches to CT in higher education in the context of trauma-informed understanding. In Chapter 10, Professor Jill Blackmore analyses global challenges in relation to the role of diversity and feminism in critical university leadership in Australia. The Australian higher education system has faced challenges of massification, privatisation and corporatisation which are similar to those experienced in the United Kingdom and selected other countries. Australia has historical strengths in both research-intensive and community-based regional excellence in institutional provision, which has attracted significant numbers of international students. However, an increase in the size and powers of institutional corporate management and the focus on industry collaboration and applied research in Australian universities has reduced the influence of academic leadership in university decision-making and led to increases in academic performance management and workloads. Professor Blackmore considers the paradoxes within this situation, linking the chapter to the emergent field of critical university studies and long-standing feminist research on higher education. She asserts that the role of feminism in CT on global and institutional challenges around what counts as innovation and what is valued in teaching and research in this context is now even more important to enhance the effectiveness of university leadership. Part Three: conclusion In Part Three, Chapters 11 and 12, the editor draws together concluding reflections on global insights on critical and creative leadership thinking from the exploration of leadership in higher education outlined in Parts One and Two. The potential for positive applications of criticality in the global leadership of higher education is considered in the context of the case studies. Chapter 11 considers the example of global cross-cultural leadership expert Professor Nancy J. Adler, Professor of Organizational Behaviour, and S. B ­ ronfman, Chair in Management, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, ­Montreal. Professor Adler’s research is analysed in relation to its combination of ­critical and creative insights on global cross-cultural leadership. The chapter ­highlights selections from her extensive corpus of work with colleagues at McGill and worldwide. The impact of her highly original research extends across the fields of global leadership, organisational behaviour and management, and the role of women in leadership. Adler uniquely interweaves criticality and creativity with profoundly important global action, linking business, enterprising management, the arts and music with leadership.

16  •  Jill Jameson Overall, the concluding section in Chapter 12 analyses the extent to which CT  in leadership across different national and regional contexts enables higher education to contribute in renewed ways to the common good. This is notably in relation to its leadership role for ‘critical being’ in response to the supercomplex challenges humanity is facing. Positive and negative critical perspectives of and on leadership in international higher education are analysed in relation to the global challenges facing complex higher education systems. This section also outlines recommendations for international leadership of and within higher education. The concluding comments consider whether increased criticality in leadership may contribute to the global public common good by encouraging enhanced research, teaching and public service excellence. Finally, I argue that an open, diverse approach to CT and criticality as ‘critical being’ plays a profoundly important role in supporting the development of life-affirming values and cultures in specific contexts and communities. As noted in several sections of the book, this vital role is amongst those public assets that are essential for human survival, given the increasing challenges of arguably dysfunctional leadership in response to global issues such as climate change, mass migration, poverty and inequality. If higher education is to continue to contribute proactively to communities around the world, its leadership needs to reconnect with notions of ‘critical being’ and creativity that are open to wide, local transformative definition in diverse contexts. Critical perspectives of and on leadership in international higher education explored throughout the book are drawn together in outlining future potentials for research, teaching and knowledge exchange. References Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., and Rumbley, L. E. (2009) Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO. Alvesson, M. and Blom, M. (2018) Beyond leadership and followership. Working with a variety of modes of organizing. Organizational Dynamics. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.12.001 Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3): 367–390. Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Ball, S. J. (2012) Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1): 17–28. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4): 409–422. Barnett, R. (2004) Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3): 247–260. Barnett, R. (2015) A curriculum for critical being. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 63–76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Collier Macmillan. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Row. Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy, 20(4): 477–493. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2008) Developing collective leadership in higher education. ­London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Introduction  •  17 Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(2): 257–277. Bryman, A. (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6): 693–710. Burns, J. M. (2005) Leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 11–12. Choi, S. and Schnurr, S. (2014) Exploring distributed leadership: Solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team. Discourse Studies (16): 3–24. Clark, B. R. (1983a) The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983. Clark, B. R. (1983b) The contradictions of change in academic systems. Higher Education, 12(1): 101–116. Clifton, J. (2017) Taking the (Heroic) leader out of leadership. The In Situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. In C. Ilie and S. Schnurr (Eds.), Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse (pp. 1–24). Singapore: Springer. Cribb, A. and Gewirtz, S. (2013) The hollowed-out university? A critical analysis of changing institutional and academic norms in UK higher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(3): 338–350. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2012.717188 Davies, M. (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M. B. Pauslen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–92). Cham: Springer. Davies, M. and Barnett, R. (2015) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Deem, R. (1998) ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1): 47–70. Deem, R. and Brehony, K. J. (2005) Management as ideology: The case of ‘New Managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reid, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism. Oxford: OUP. Elton, L. (2008) Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3): 224–236. Ennis, R. H. (1962) A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1): 81–111. Ennis, R. H. (1996) Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2 & 3): 165–182. Evans, L. (2018) Professors as academic leaders. London: Bloomsbury. Facione, P. A. (1990) Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for the purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., and Giancarlo, C. A. F. (2001) California critical thinking disposition inventory: CCTDI. CA: California Academic Press. Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C., and Harding, H. (2012) Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates; implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2): 212–230. Fullan, M. and Scott, G. (2009) Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Gornall, L., Thomas, B., and Sweetman, L. (Eds.) (2018) Exploring consensual leadership in higher education: Co-operation, collaboration and partnership. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gosling, J., Bolden, R., and Petrov, G. (2009)s Distributed leadership in higher education: What does it accomplish? Leadership, 5(3), 299–310. Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2005) Critical management studies: A reader. Oxford: OUP. Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 423–451. Herman, J. L. and Zaccaro, S. J. (2014) The complex self-concept of the global leader. In J.S. Osland, M. Li, and Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Advances in global leadership, Volume 8) (pp. 93–111). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

18  •  Jill Jameson Jameson, J. (2006) Leadership in post-compulsory education. London: David Fulton, Taylor and Francis. Jameson, J. (2007) Investigating collaborative leadership for communities of practice in learning and skills. Research Report, Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), Lancaster University. Jameson, J. (2008) Leadership: Professional communities of leadership practice in post-compulsory education. Invited Research Report, ESCalate Discussions in Education Series: HEA Subject Centre: Stirling University. Jameson, J. and Andrews, M. (2008) Trust and leadership. Research Report. Lancaster University: CEL. Jameson, J. and McNay, I. (2007) The ultimate leadership and management handbook. London: Continuum International Publications Essential FE Toolkit Series (Series Ed.) J. Jameson. Jenkins, D. M. and Cutchens, A. B. (2011) Leading critically: A grounded theory of applied critical thinking in leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2): 1–21. Jones, S. (2014) Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership, 10(2): 129–141. Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., and Ryland, K. (2012) Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 67–78. King, E. and Badham, R. (2018, in press) Leadership in uncertainty. Organizational Dynamics, DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.005 Lorenz, C. (2012) “If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance?” Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3): 599–629. Lumby, J. (2018) Leadership and power in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1458221 Maassen, P. (2003) Shifts in governance arrangements. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, and I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? Higher education dynamics, Volume 3. ­Dordrecht: Springer. Michel, J., Shen, Y. K, Aiden, A. P, Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Brockman, W., The Google Books Team, ­Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., and Aiden, E. L. (2010) Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science ­(Published online ahead of print: 12/16/2010). Mok, K. H. (1999) The cost of managerialism: The implications for the ‘McDonaldisation’ of higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1): 117–127. Northouse, P. G. (2004) Leadership theory and practice (third edition). London: Sage. O’Mullane, M. (2011) University Leadership: Approaches, formation and challenges in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Palfreyman, D. and Tapper, T. (2008) Structuring mass higher education: The role of elite institutions. Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer. Ramsden, P. (1998) Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge. Shattock, M. (2017a) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: A synoptic view. Working paper 13. London: Centre for Global Higher Education paper series. Shattock, M. (2017b) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: A synoptic view. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(4): 384–395. Smith, D. N. and Adams, J. (2009) Governance and the autonomous university: Changing institutional leadership in UK and Australian higher education, Chapter 15. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives on the governance of higher education: Alternative frameworks for coordination (pp. 252–270). New York: Routledge. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., and Kärreman, D. (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4): 537–560. Tapper, T. and Palfreyman, D. (2000) Oxford and the decline of the collegiate tradition. Abingdon, Oxon: Woburn Press.

Introduction  •  19 Teelken, C. (2012) Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3): 271–90. Trowler, P. (2010) UK higher education: Captured by new managerialist ideology? In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, and T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (197–211). Dordrecht: Springer. Yukl, G. (1989) Leadership in organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

2

Leadership and critical thinking Oxymoron and a feasible utopia RONALD BARNETT

Introduction For those of an unduly pessimistic disposition, it might seem that, much like ‘military intelligence’ and (in the United Kingdom) ‘Brexit wisdom’, the juxtaposition of ‘leadership’ and ‘critical thinking’ represents something of an oxymoron. There are certainly grounds for such pessimism, but it is not the case that I wish to make here. To the contrary, I shall argue that for universities at least, leadership is an indispensable concept and that it can only properly be filled out by drawing on the idea of critical thinking. Critical thinking is a necessary component of institutional leadership, even if there is a utopian strain in such a thought. A worldly set of compulsions Across the world, there are compelling forces at work, which are acting on universities. The increasing presence of markets, the ubiquity of the digital age, concerns about the financing of higher education, the power of world rankings, changing audit regimes, drives towards research while heeding heightened claims from students and expectations for visible ‘impact’ on the wider economy: all of these press simultaneously upon institutions of higher education. Universities are caught in a vice-like grip, the prongs of which are several and which press in from multiple and competing directions. But these are only the manifestations of deeper and, thereby, inescapable forces. Terms such as neoliberalism, cognitive capitalism, knowledge economy, academic capitalism, post-capitalism, globalisation and, indeed, the ‘digital age’ serve as markers of a near-invisible but yet a tsunami of subterranean forces at work, to which universities are subject. Such a complexity of forces brings in its wake yet other matters to which universities cannot be immune. These include matters of institutional identity and positioning, multi-culturality (in the wake of global movements of both students and academics), changing institutional cultures, institutional management, governance and teaching arrangements and pedagogies.

20

Leadership and critical thinking  •  21 This list of forces and matters that press upon universities more or less worldwide and across nations both rich and poor is, of course, far from exhaustive. Multiple and competing clienteles find ways of expressing their expectations or grievances (such that universities are accused of not sufficiently reaching out to different constituencies), universities are expected to find ways of ‘transferring’ their hard-won knowledge out into society and they are required to demonstrate that they are playing their part in improving life changes for the least advantaged. In short, the large global and national forces that bear in upon universities are diminishing the envelope in which universities make decisions about their futures. This is not to imply that there is a uniformity in the situation of each university. To the contrary, each university finds itself in its own set of predicaments that have to be heeded, if not explicitly addressed. This adds to managerial pressures. Since each university has its own assembly of resources – finance, disciplines, staff, students and reputation (not least through its position in national and world-wide league tables) – the forces at large present a particular pattern of challenges in each case. Universities will both learn from and compete with each other, but each will have to make its own decisions in the light of its reading of the combination of its resources and possibilities in the wake of the challenges and forces bearing in on it. And it is justifiable if, in making those decisions, each institution may sense that it has rather little room for manoeuvre. It is important to note just how onerous the set of constraints that now befall universities may be. In some jurisdictions today, institutional leaders may be incarcerated by the state, if they are deemed to have fallen out of line in some way. Less dramatically, income streams may be withdrawn intentionally, or may simply fall away (where, for instance, a university has unduly assumed a supply of students from a distant country would continue, come what may). Or the university may s­ uddenly experience reputational damage in the light of a non-too-positive ­evaluation in an institutional audit. Or a university might find itself disparaged in the national or even worldwide news, a dispute having erupted over the n ­ on-platforming of a ­controversial speaker on campus. And these days, in an internet era, not just news but images can encircle the world more or less instantaneously. Amid such a panoply of world and national forces, which seemingly act as a set of compulsions, it is understandable if, in its decision-making, a TINA m ­ entality emerges. The feeling arises simply that ‘there is no alternative’. A u ­ niversity in any moment is more or less compelled to act as it does. Nineteenth- and even early ­twentieth-century talk of ‘institutional autonomy’ is symptomatic of an era long past. A university may wish to feel that it enjoys autonomy – and the rector’s speeches on graduation day may assume just that – but in reality, its ­decision-making is ­simply a matter of conducting its ‘environment-scanning’ and its ‘risk-analysis’ and then computing the action that brings least disadvantage. In the next 20 years or so, as the use of big data, robots and artificial intelligence grows, much of this ‘rational decision-making’ will be deputed to machines; some of it, of course, is already being made in just that way.

22  •  Ronald Barnett The falling away of leadership Against the background of the picture just painted, it is understandable if the need for leadership falls away. Notwithstanding the presence and even the emergence of bodies such as the United Kingdom’s Leadership Foundation, the concept of leadership in this milieu must dwindle and has done so. What has been sought are expert managers. After all, on the analysis offered here, what has to be assured in the first place is simply that of keeping the institutional ship afloat. Certainly, that task has widened. When it became evident that states could no longer bear the sole – and often could not even bear the main – burden of financing universities, the call went up for those who were adept not just at managing but also at ­widening a university’s income streams. An eye to the bottom line was not enough. Costs throughout had to be scrutinised, but so too opportunities had to be ferreted out in identifying and securing new sources of income. It was not unknown, in this dispensation, for university vice chancellors and presidents to be appointed either from the ranks of professors of accounting or from the external world of finance or business. Lately, however, as the very wide pool of forces and dilemmas coming the way of universities has been more recognised, so a much wider ‘skill-set’ has been sought. University managers are now expected to be able to identify and successfully juggle competing internal and external forces, both material and expressive. And so the call goes up for new kinds of university leaders. Now leaders have to be able to handle multiple sets of ‘stakeholders’; not just have an eye to but be able to comfortably negotiate the political sphere; form an ambitious corporate strategy ‘going forward’, perhaps even over the next 20 years; present a scheme for climbing the league tables so as to visibly become a ‘world-class university’; show ‘excellence’ in every domain of the university’s activities; and show a high level of responsiveness to students who have their own heightening expectations of the university – and to do all that while generating, say, a 3% surplus on the balance sheet. In short, the university leader of today, in many jurisdictions around the world, has to be able – to draw on a term from Deleuze and Guattari (2007) – profitably to move the university forward amid ‘multiplicities’. And the multiplicities multiply, now including financial profitability, reputation, esteem, epistemological creativity, global reach, institutional competition and customer (i.e. student) confidence but widening rapidly to include internet challenges (of big data), political accountability, ideological turbulence (e.g. over ‘free speech’) and culture wars. There is now no end to this turbulence. Universities are caught in swirling currents. The image of the rhizome, made famous by Deleuze and Guattari (2007), even with its intimations of a continuously haphazard interlocking, criss-crossing, tangled and non-rule governed growth, has to be put aside. Now, as I have suggested elsewhere (Barnett, 2013), the university is much more like a squid, albeit in fast-moving waters: it is a fluid object, itself an assembly of heterogeneous parts, and moving in a liquid space (Bauman, 2006). Sometimes it is buffeted, sometimes it can just demonstrate its propensities for its own movement (its own ‘agency’ (cf List and Pettit, 2011; Archer and Maccarini, 2013)). It can encircle the globe

Leadership and critical thinking  •  23 and insert itself into small crevices, and even travel at speed. But it is subject to the prevailing currents, which themselves are always changing. In all of this, the university leader is now called upon to be at once an impresario, an estate manager, a systems designer, a fantasist (imagining futures for her or his university), an epistemologist, an anthropologist, a politician, a financier and a world traveller (both physically and virtually). Complexity and supercomplexity A popular way of expressing this situation is to suggest that such a leader has to possess ‘complexity skills’. This is, of course, a double nonsense. It is a logical nonsense, as if there are ‘skills’ appropriate to complexity. Complexity denotes an open-endedness to situations (cf Beckett and Hager, 2018), the unforeseen, the clash of systems and an enduring repercussiveness, such that etceterations ­multiply. The institutional leader neither knows what he or she is going to face in the day – even if that was possible – nor could intuit the implications that follow from the events that are going to unfold. The contemporary university is far too networked, in the formal sense deployed by Castells (1997). The university moves in flows of spaces and spaces of flows. The concept of ‘skills’ comes into its own in foreseeable circumstances – as in in the operating theatre, the concert hall, the building site, the kitchen, the laboratory or at the keyboard, or composing an academic paper. It is quite the wrong kind of concept to enlist in a situation of such open-ended complexity. But the idea of complexity skills is a nonsense in another sense. Largely (though not entirely), the kinds of instabilities to which we have been pointing hitherto are systems’ instabilities. They are real and cause institutional and even personal stress. They have an ontological robustness about them. They are the product of often quite massive changes to systems of finance, regulations, markets of various kinds (for instance, housing markets), government decrees, policies and academic disciplines. The university is a kind of machine intersecting with many other machines, each of which is changing in its own way and at its own speed. However, the university leader has to cope with another and an even more intractable kind of complexity. This second order of complexity is that of – as we might term it – a discursive complexity. It is a supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000). Given sufficient resources, such as money, time, staff and management information, the challenges of complexity could at least be mitigated, but the challenges of supercomplexity could not be so managed. Given close attention, the conceptual matters that arise here will generate only further conceptual problems. What is a university? The posing of such a question will quickly lead to a welter of questions, the answers to which could never command a consensus. What might be the responsibilities of the university in the world today? What might be meant by the ‘public’ domain? What should be the relationship between research and teaching? What is it to be a student? And so on and so forth. The conceptual questions multiply. And they take on never-ending layers of conceptual problems, since responses to them bring forth conflicting ideas that bear the imprint of counter-posed and changing discourses.

24  •  Ronald Barnett An awareness of this hinterland of open-ended questions and concepts, which harbour dispute and an infinite array of consequences, as one consideration leads to another, has become a sine qua non of what it is to be a university leader in the twenty-first century. It might be felt, in response, that these are purely ‘philosophical’ matters that need not, in practice, detain the busy leader. But they are of the moment, and bear in on any university today. They stand only just behind any attempt to derive a corporate strategy for an individual university, to reconcile the competing claims of research and teaching, to address the expectations of students and so on. And so the idea that university leaders should acquire complexity skills has to be consigned to the long grass. If it made no sense in regard to matters of complexity, it is entirely out of place in regard to matters of supercomplexity. The double and separate open-endedness of (i) the systems and (ii) the discourses that partly comprise the modern university simply does not present the kind of situation that can be addressed with ‘skills’. Other facets of human being and human order are required. Leadership and management Let us cut to the chase. The concepts of both management and leadership are required in today’s university. However, each has its own sets of meanings, and neither is reducible to the other. Nor is it the case that one takes priority. Leadership without management is empty; management without leadership is blind. It might be ventured, in relation to the analysis so far, that management comes into play in relation to complexity for complexity so described is a matter largely of the presence and interplay of systems, whereas leadership comes into play in relation to supercomplexity for supercomplexity is the presence and interplay of concepts, ideas, discourses and ideologies. Systems – of estate management, finance, student administration and research and teaching management - may be highly complex, but in principle they yield to being understood in a technical way, and so management, understood as the supply of means to ends, can readily have its day here. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of competing concepts and ideas (even: ‘What is a university “leader”?’) cannot lend themselves to managerial disciplines, for none of the large concepts to hand command consensus and together generate only conceptual mayhem (‘How can social justice be squared with an entrepreneurial stance?’ ‘Are research and teaching competing or complementary concepts?’). The most sophisticated systems and the greatest avalanche of big data offer no guide to these matters of conceptual entanglement and dispute. In such ­situations – which abound daily in the life of a contemporary university – it is surely leadership that is called for. In short, if management is the art of the possible, leadership is the art of the impossible. Management may just possibly sort out the systems required to manage the complex institution we call ‘university’, but the demands are so considerable that there is an art to it. Slide rules, data and logic have their limits even there,

Leadership and critical thinking  •  25 not least in dealing with human-based systems. On the other hand, faced with the intractability of competing concepts and ideas, not to mention the (political, ideological, commercial, academic and market) forces that stand behind them, impossible situations present themselves. Here, there will be no way of finding neat resolutions of opposing values held by disparate groups, on and beyond campus. In such an impossible set of situations, leadership will come into its own and will have to demonstrate its capacities for wisdom, in attempting to hold together concepts, ideas and outlooks that simply won’t be reconciled. Leadership and critical thinking Only now can we turn to the substance of this chapter for it is only by this point that we have managed to lay out with any degree of adequacy the context that presents itself here. So far as leadership in higher education is concerned, critical thinking has a much larger part in relation to supercomplexity than in relation to complexity. Indeed, a simple set of formulas presents itself. • Complexity - Systems - Management - Decision-making • Supercomplexity - Conceptual issues - Leadership - Critical thinking The story that is immediately suggestive, accordingly, is as follows. So far as the determination of systems is concerned (financial options, establishment of units, audit strategies, curricula ventures, student accommodation and scholarships, international possibilities, estates development and so on and so forth), what is primarily called for is high level and sophisticated management expertise. This requires judgements of the most sophisticated kind, not least because decisions in relation to any system will affect other systems. This is, as stated, a situation of open-ended complexity. It is not to be disparaged as mere ‘decisionism’; it is, however, not without its own difficulties. The senior management team may call for the most detailed risk-assessment spread-sheet, in which attempts to look ahead and estimate potential risks are made. However, this is largely a fig leaf, cloaking what has to be a matter of delicate judgement in weighing what are ultimately non-calculable actions and their repercussions. So understood, management as a means of coping with complexity is fraught with fragility. No wonder that the senior management team’s agendas grow. Movement has to be fast across the ice here to keep ahead of the cracking and fissures opening behind. In contrast, a different story opens for matters of supercomplexity. Faced with conflicting value options (maximising income and advancing a civic agenda, employing cross-subsidies to allow ‘weaker’ disciplines to flourish or requiring each unit to be self-financing, heeding students’ pleas to non-platform a controversial speaker but also having a care towards free speech on campus), decisions cannot even begin to be reached via spread-sheets and calculations as to demonstrable costs and benefits. However much the officers assisting the senior management team may wish to present these issues in the form of quantities and value-neutral

26  •  Ronald Barnett calculation, such matters are matters of value-orientation. They concern the kind of university that is envisaged. Is it to be one that concerns itself with advancing the public sphere or is it primarily concerned to generate income for itself? Is it one that will give the immediate satisfaction of its students a priority higher than ensuring that the campus is a space of unbridled reason and argument? Is it a university that wishes to maximise its epistemological footprint and do what it can to encourage its disciplines to mingle or is it concerned just to foster those disciplines likely to advance its position in the league tables? Is it a university concerned to advance the well-being of the world or one that is determined maximally to raise its income flows through its patents and spin-off companies? These are value options the responses to which cannot be computed. Indeed, a path through them will be eased if the university in question has a sense of the values by which it wishes to be known and which will inform its stances in the world. These are indications of situations of supercomplexity being present, situations heavily saturated with multiple and conflicting ideas, concepts and perspectives – and even ideologies. These are murky waters. It may be said that it is part of the role and even the responsibility of an effective leadership to be able to live with multiple values. That is self-evidently true in a way. But it depends what is meant by ‘able to live with’. If what is meant is being able to present different stances to different stakeholders, to be one thing one day and another on another day, and to speak with one tongue to one set of stakeholders and another tongue to another set, that way lies a Sartrean ‘bad faith’ (2003/1943). It would be an institution that stood for nothing and possessed no particular identity, and in which leadership – of any depth – had been abandoned. At most, it would be a highly thin leadership, looking this way and that, depending on calculations as to the benefits to the institution. But what of critical thinking? Where in all of this, if at all, might critical thinking gain a purchase? Answers have already been prefigured in the earlier schema. It was suggested, as an initial gambit, that critical thinking is to be associated in particular with situations of supercomplexity – matters of ideas, values, concepts and ideologies – and that it is those that especially call for leadership, as distinct from management. It is in such instances that non-calculable judgements have to be made and priorities set that reflect values and the kind of university that is being reached for. It could be said, certainly, that the other scenario, of decision-making in the face of complexity, of the determination of an intertwined set of systems that configure the university calls too for critical thinking. It is true that in the decision-making of the kind that typically lands in front of the senior management team, evaluations and comparisons are called for. What if so and so? How does option (a) fare in comparison with option (b)? Perhaps no action would be even better. But note the character of this ‘critical thinking’. It is, in the terminology of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, a species of instrumental reason (Held, 1983); or, as Horkheimer (2004) termed it, ‘subjective reason’. It is evaluative, certainly, and to that extent might be

Leadership and critical thinking  •  27 felt to fall within the orbit of critical thinking (which is necessarily evaluative); but it summons up evaluations in order to move from situation (x) to situation (y) in an efficient or cost-beneficial way or in some way that yields some satisfactory result. In contrast, the kind of critical thinking that is characteristically brought into play in situations of supercomplexity is not a kind of means-end instrumental thinking. It is thought that seeks to be in a certain place. It is reasoning that has no end-point as such. It is an expression of a mode of being. It is saying that ‘here we stand: this is this kind of university and this position, this stance, is characteristic of just such a university’. Consider, for example, the question: ‘what is the worth of the humanities?’ It could be approached via the instrumental means-end thinking associated with high-level problem-solving. Income streams associated with the retention of the humanities could be guesstimated, in both research and teaching. But this would be to misunderstand the nature of that problem. For that problem is ultimately one of values, of the value to be accorded to the humanities in society and across the world (cf Small, 2013). The matter of the value of the humanities is not satisfactorily to be addressed by a slide-rule or a spread-sheet approach. This is not to suggest that in matters that are essentially conceptual in their ­character – just what are the humanities? Just how are they to be understood and valued? – that there is no reasoning to be had; that it is a matter of responding automatically in some kind of emotional spasm. On the contrary, and here comes in a crucial matter so far as critical thinking and leadership is concerned. Critical thinking of this kind has layers and layers of depth to it. And, also, unlimited breadth. Here, for instance, the matter of the value of the humanities, if properly pursued, would lead to many kinds of considerations, concerning the worth of knowledge as such, what it is to be human, the nature of disciplines, and the particular character of the humanities and the emotional responses that they call for (Cohen, 2001), then will open out, in time and space, considerations as to how the humanities have evolved, their historical tensions with science, the nature of epistemological cultures and how the humanities have been understood in different societies across the globe. It will be said that contemporary leadership just has no time to entertain such considerations. Decisions have to be made. Is philosophy to be jettisoned? Are modern languages to be saved, or perhaps merged with the business and management faculty? The agendas are heavy and time presses. The senior management team simply cannot enter into the kind of high-level seminar being implied. But note then that what characteristically happens is that the processes of critical reasoning treat such matters as if they could be satisfactorily addressed by means-end ‘critical’ thinking. The subtle and potentially deep reasoning processes of the kind more properly appropriate to situations of supercomplexity – what is a university? What are the humanities? What is it to be a student? What is meant by ‘free speech’? – are not so much abandoned as they are never embarked upon in the first place. It is ‘smart thinking’ that is called for, with definite decisions being made in response to well-defined problems. And so we come to the present situation in which, across the world, to a marked extent – but not entirely – the link between leadership and critical thinking has been virtually severed. Insofar as it can be said that critical thinking is still present

28  •  Ronald Barnett within the leadership of universities, it tends to be critical thinking of the meagre and thin kind associated with means-end instrumental thinking, where solutions to complex matters can at least be glimpsed. One reason for this state of affairs should be acknowledged. It is that meansend thinking seems to possess a certain legitimacy in today’s world. It is a world of instrumental reason, partly because this form of reason seems to possess a solidity to it. Numbers can be drawn on, graphs can be plotted, cost-benefit analyses can be utilised and risks can be calculated. This all produces a sense of secure foundations to the reasoning process, thin and inappropriate as the reasoning may be. We have ended up in a situation, therefore, where the combination of the ideas of leadership and critical thinking has turned out to be something of an oxymoron. Matters of supercomplexity are reduced to matters of mere complexity, where matters calling for values and careful and sensitive considerations and conceptual inquiry are side-stepped and where such judgemental reason is repudiated. A feasible utopia I have been trying to describe and explain a particular tendency within the leadership of the modern university across the world, such that critical thinking is not exactly disappearing but that it is being reduced in its stature and presence. One might even say, being charitable, that the pattern I have sought to draw out is entirely explicable. Universities are hedged in, and in so many ways, and are accountable to increasing stakeholders. Decisions have to be made today and transparently too, and, if necessary, be defended in a subsequent court of law or public enquiry. Critical thinking, in this milieu, understandably shrinks. There is barely time for such a mode of consideration. Indeed, it comes to be felt to be inappropriate. But yet, my sense is that, if one looks sufficiently widely and deeply, we can find reasoning and critical thinking that possesses a surprising profundity and value basis. There is the obvious point to make, namely that leadership is to be found throughout a university, both ascribed and informal forms at that. Cometh the hour, cometh the leader. Sometimes, quite inexperienced persons emerge and take on leadership roles, almost unbidden. But more too, leadership of the nuanced and careful, thoughtful and, indeed, values-oriented kind can be glimpsed at all levels of universities. It is as if judgemental reasoning simply cannot be entirely repudiated or extinguished in a university. Some leadership teams, at least, will strive to do things for the right reason, displacing instrumental reason. Here, critical thinking will turn on the weight to be given to claimants – disciplines, students, members of staff, relationships with the civic community – in their own right, irrespective of what the arithmetic says. This reflection allows us to draw in other relevant components not yet mentioned. Any moment of critical thinking worth its salt is an element within a much larger human set of accomplishments that constitute criticality. These accomplishments include critical dispositions, critical being and critical action as well as critical thinking (Barnett, 1997).

Leadership and critical thinking  •  29 Consider a university leadership that weighs its possibilities and stands out publicly against an authoritarian state, as we see all too frequently across the world. Here, all of the moments of criticality come together. Such a leadership team, at a time of considerable challenge and even stress, would be weighing its options, would be scrutinising and evaluating the emerging policies and actions of the state (which is perhaps about to send its police or even soldiers onto campuses) and would be assessing its own possibilities. In the end, however careful the evaluations going into this process of collective reasoning, the decisions have to be one of value, of belief in the rightness of matters. Instrumental reason has to be supplanted by judgemental reason. All of this involves critical thought (of many kinds) and critical dispositions (it would be a leadership that was predisposed towards being critical of its circumstances), and it would be a leadership that had the courage to take a path of critical action, despite the consequences. It would be a leadership team that was infused and characterised by a state of critical being. It will be said that this is an extreme example, and that, thankfully, most leadership situations in higher education are far from that life-and-death setting just pictured. That is so, but the leadership of the modern university is surely faced continuously with situations that call for courage and agency on the part of the university. Today, if it is not only to survive but to fulfil its potential, a university has to be a corporate agent, having a sense of itself and its possibilities and its responsibilities in the world. The large battalions of the state and mega-corporations wield both financial power and discursive power, as they attempt to position universities in their own interests. Under such conditions, a university leadership team is continually faced with matters, small and large, that call for judgement, perspicacity, courage and steadfastness. And there are surely spaces still left to the leadership to display such qualities. This prospect may be utopian, but it is surely sufficient by the way of practical examples to suggest that the prospect is that of a feasible utopia (Barnett, 2013). Conclusions To a large extent, critical thinking within the leadership of universities is contracting and is being diminished. Now, the university has to be run as a tight ship, with a paper trail for its decisions, all of which need to be justified. And justification is supplied by the cost-benefit calculus. Critical thinking is reduced to mere p ­ roblem-solving. But still, around the world, and in spaces within universities, those who take on leadership roles – even if quietly and somewhat in the shadows – may be glimpsed taking up positions on principle. Judgements are made, and actions taken, because they are deemed to be right according to a chosen value-orientation or because they flow from deep thought about what it is to teach, or to be a student, or to come forth with new understandings or to advance the public sphere. There may even be inspirational leaders of just this kind, displaying the array of qualities – of authenticity, sincerity, courage and sheer professionalism – that accompany this kind of deep and fundamental thinking. There surely still remain spaces for this pattern of critical being in university leadership. This may be utopian thinking, but I sense that sufficient examples can be spotted to indicate that we have here a feasible utopia.

30  •  Ronald Barnett References Archer, M.S. and Maccarini, A.M. (Eds.). (2013) Engaging with the world: Agency, institutions, historical formations. London and New York: Routledge. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press and SRHE. Barnett, R. (2000) Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press and SRHE. Barnett, R. (2013) Imagining the university. London and New York: Routledge. Bauman, Z. (2006) Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity. Beckett, D. and Hager, P. (2018) A complexity thinking take on thinking in the university. In S. B ­ engtsen and R. Barnett (Eds.), The thinking university: A philosophical examination of thought and higher education (pp. 137–153). Dordrecht: Springer. Castells, M. (1997) The rise of the network society. Vol 1- The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Cohen, T. (Ed.). (2001) Jacques Derrida and the humanities: A critical reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2007/1980) A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London and New York: Continuum. Held, D. (1983) Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. London: Hutchinson. Horkheimer, M. (2004/1947) Eclipse of reason. London and New York: Continuum. List, C. and Pettit, P. (2011) Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Sartre, J-P. (2003/1943) Being and nothingness. London and New York: Routledge. Small, H. (2013) The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3

Critical thinking in leadership

Leading change in complex contexts FRANCIA KINCHINGTON

Introduction Change is a feature of organisations – a perceived inevitability. It is a process which can either be viewed with anxiety and evasion or embraced as an opportunity for innovation and creativity. Change is bound up with the dynamics of power and powerlessness, the organisation versus the staff ’s ability to facilitate or block the process of change in higher education. It is proposed that decisions leading to change can be taken only where there is a critical understanding of the hidden drivers that lie beneath the surface of an organisation. It is this understanding of the organisational context; philosophy; the past legacy of change; cultural attitudes; attributes of staff; internal political dynamics; and, importantly, timing that enables decisions to be taken with confidence. In taking this critical stance, the leader is asked to position themselves within a social constructivist paradigm where organisational policies, practice and outcomes are constructed and interpreted critically through the multiple realities of the stakeholders within the specific context within which the organisation finds itself. Whilst acknowledging the central influence of the political, economic and social macro-context in which the institution is situated, this chapter asks leaders to engage critically and reflectively with the inner world of the institution. The traditional literature offers staged models of the process of change: Lewin (1947, 1952) (unfreezing, moving and refreezing); Kanter et al. (1992) suggest that Lewin’s model of change is too simplistic and offer a set of ‘Ten Commandments’ for executing change, which includes an analysis of the organisation and the need for change, creating a shared vision and a common direction, as well as a sense of urgency, through to developing and enabling structures and reinforcing institutional change. Similarly, Kotter (1995) offers an eight-stage model of change management which ranges from establishing a sense of urgency through to developing a vision and strategy, creating short-term wins and anchoring the new approaches

31

32  •  Francia Kinchington into organisational culture. Graetz and Smith (2010: 151), in contrast, propose a more nuanced understanding of change, stating: The multi-philosophy approach reinforces the need to discard assumptions about opposing values, instead replacing them with an appreciation of complementary concepts…Flexibility might be essential in a turbulent environment in order to find new paths to innovation, but order is also necessary to ensure that innovation is focused and relevant. This chapter views organisational change through a social constructivist lens ­(Creswell, 2009), seeking to understand the actors, the subjective meanings of their experiences and the dynamics of influence. A psychological perspective, within this, enables the understanding of the inner world of the organisation, the stressors and the reactions to these that impact and serve to shape the organisation. ­Although a range of metaphors can be elicited from the actors which provide insight into the way they see and understand the organisation, the metaphor that I offer is that of the organisation as a complex organism that is subject to external and internal pressures and, further, that this organism can be viewed as positioned at a point in its life cycle at any given time. Locating the organisation in its ‘life cycle’ is critical to understanding the behaviours of the organisation. This may range from rock bottom to ascendency, in stable position but atrophying, in a stable position after a period of extreme change or anywhere in between. Discussions of organisational change management often omit this contextual understanding of the organisation and consequently neglect this key aspect to developing an understanding of how the imperatives for change are understood, experienced or responded to by either the organisation or the staff. Change in this context may be planned or emergent, organisational or grass roots. Bess and Dee (2012: 820) observe: a key challenge for organisational leaders is preserving the paradoxical tension between planned change and emergent change. Leaders, therefore, need to develop complementary skills sets: the ability to plan and implement change as well as capacities for vision and sense making and a willingness to support grassroots initiatives that may lead to new frameworks for organising the institution. It is with this in mind that four key elements are examined: whether change is mandatory or self-initiated; the insight offered by the metaphors used by staff; the understanding of what lies beneath the organisation; and, finally, whether resistance to change lies with the staff or the organisation. The ability to reflect critically on the interrelationships of the elements is central to navigating effective institutional change. Self-awareness and reflection on-action and in-action (Schön, 1983), and its impact on both the staff as players and on the outcome, enable insight and a constructive way forward for staff tasked with leading change. These comprise whether change is perceived by staff as mandatory or self-initiated; the staff ’s relationship with the organisation as viewed through the metaphors used;

Critical thinking in leadership  •  33 the way in which the personal experiences and roles of staff impact their ability to engage with change; how factors within the organisation’s practice and legacy can block the implementation of change; and, finally, timing. Mandatory or self-initiated? The starting point of any change process is whether change is perceived by the actors as self-initiated or mandatory. One implies autonomy and agency, while the other implies dependence and a sense of powerlessness. Where change is presented by the organisation as mandatory, to be implemented within a given time frame, it carries implicit notions of failure, imperative and consequences, with choice not being an option. The message is clear: change must occur for the survival of the organisation and ultimately for the jobs of the staff. Change is presented to staff in the form of strategic plans, reorganisation and a refocus of the organisation’s structure, policies and practice by the senior leadership teams, with decisions having been ratified by unions and staff representatives. A package of identified options is communicated to the wider staff framed by a consultation period but normally offering little opportunity to influence the designated options. Alternative options are not up for debate, and compliance is a requirement. In contrast, change that is self-initiated emerges from self-reflection and an acknowledgement that change is needed and is dependent on specific actions taking place. These may include gathering new knowledge, reviewing the current situation from alternative viewpoints, a paradigm shift or modifications in practice and a change in behaviour and attitude. Self-initiated change applies equally to an organisation and to the staff within it. The degree of perceived urgency and changes in the context can dictate the time frame which can be immediate or extended over an identified period with periodic points of appraisal which enable the refocus of action. Embedded within this is a notion of responsiveness and agency and that one is in control of the action needed to achieve change.

The insight offered by metaphors Taber (2007: 541) advocates the use of metaphors to understand organisational theory, using Morgan’s core metaphors as a basis for his exercise. Morgan (1986, 2006) proposes eight core metaphors that can be used to characterise organisations (as machines; organisms; brains; cultures; political systems; psychic prisons; flux and transformation; and, finally, instruments of domination where labour is treated as a commodity to be bought and sold). This list is by no means exclusive and offers a means of simplifying complex problems and relationships which carry emotional capital for the individual and, importantly, when gathered together, provide insight into how the organisation is perceived internally. The metaphors offered by staff provide clues to the psychodynamic life of the organisation and an insight into dependency, anxiety and insecurity, defence mechanisms such as rationalisation and intellectualisation, projection, alienation, space, task and authority boundaries,

34  •  Francia Kinchington powerlessness, agency and self-efficacy. The messages are there, but they need a leader who has the sensitivity and skill to read and interpret the language. This chapter draws on extensive experience of working with university and school leaders, at doctoral, masters and as part of professional development training in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Ukraine over the past 20 years. The use of metaphors to examine their relationships with their organisations has enabled leaders to gain invaluable understanding. The metaphors used by leaders offer psychological insight and an important starting point to work with leading change in these complex organisations. Such metaphors often contradict the analysis of the organisation as framed by its systems, policies, vision statements, and so forth. These metaphors are deeply personal and illustrate the degree of control or power the individuals have within their working environment, irrespective of their role or title, and as such reflect an emotional rather than an intellectual response. The metaphors used by senior staff to describe their organisations are telling. They think in terms of oil tankers, reflecting the inability of an organisation to respond rapidly to the need for change; they think of their organisations as fairground rides and speeding trains where there are no opportunities to influence decisions and staff are powerless to influence either momentum or direction; of their organisation as a family that are ‘normal’ in the main with good supportive relationships but ‘dysfunctional’ in parts, with ‘characters’ who exert inordinate power over the lives of others; and of organisations as beehives and ant hills, where there is direction and purpose, but where roles are assigned and do not offer any opportunity for change, and where the worker bees, drones or solider ants will always remain as such. They have also described themselves in terms of servitude and powerlessness: being chained/on a treadmill or unable to put one’s head above the parapet. It is interesting then to explore what lies beneath the surface that gives rise to these metaphors. An organisation, whether big or small, is a community. It may be a supportive community of practice or dysfunctional, one where its dysfunctionality serves ‘other’ individuals and, in so doing, binds disparate groups together. It may be one which people seek to join or to avoid. It may have a positive reputation which is enhanced over time because of staff and their impact on its students and alumni, or a community which has experienced poor leadership which has a detrimental impact on its reputation. Delving beneath the surface of the organisation Identifying and analysing the hidden drivers which lie beneath the surface of an organisation is crucial. These drivers can be hidden beneath layers of culture, accepted truths and practice, historical legacy and power, and may act as barriers to change. They effect decision-making in terms of willingness to ‘see’ the problem; think innovatively; and think in terms of prioritisation, action, responsiveness, timescale, allocation of resources and responsibility. The iceberg originally presented by Hellriegel et al. (1998) (Figure 3.1) shows what lies on the surface and what lies beneath the surface of an organisation. ­Figure 3.1 identifies attitudes, communication patterns, informal team processes,

Critical thinking in leadership  •  35

The Traditional Organisational Iceberg (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (1998)

Formal aspects (Overt) Customers Technology Formal goals

Physical facilities

Organisation design

Rules and Financial resources Surface competencies and skills regulations

Behavioural aspects (Covert) Attitudes Communication patterns Informal team processes Personality Conflict Political behaviour Underlying competencies and skills

Figure 3.1  The organisational iceberg (Hellreigel, Slocum and Woodman 1998). From Hellriegel / Slocum / Woodman. Organizational Behavior, 10E. © 2004 South-Western, a part of Cengage, Inc. Reproduced by ­permission. www.­ cengage.com/permissions. personality, conflict, political behaviour and underlying competences, and skills as critical dimensions that lie beneath the surface. Figure 3.2 has sought to expand the range of dimensions. Figure 3.2 presents an enhanced model based on the original model of Hellriegel et al. (1998), evolved through working with university and school leaders in England and Europe as part of leading-change training. Participants were presented with a blank iceberg and asked to consider their organisation’s ‘warts and all’ to identify strengths, barriers to change and the change legacy they inherited from their predecessors. They were asked to reflect on and label the groupings and influencers existing within their organisation and whether these had the potential or power to facilitate or impede the process of change. The activity has always taken place in a ‘psychologically safe’ environment, with the development of trust as an important aspect of the workshops. This has been important in that these leaders have been asked to exemplify the categories/words included in both the surface and underlying parts of the iceberg. The examples given have opened a door into underlying stressors, aspects of agency and powerlessness, and the silenced voices of those who are apparently in leadership positions and on whom others rely on to show direction. The hidden organisation presents a fascinating picture. The elements identified are defined by continua which range from the positive to the destructive. Tensions

36  •  Francia Kinchington

The Expanded Organisational Iceberg (based on Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (1998)

Formal Organisation Overt Procedures

The Vision Organisational Structure Financial Resources and Management Policies and Objectives

Technology

Formal Roles / Job Descriptions and Titles Formal Communication Structures Rules and Regulations Hidden Organisation

Ethos Gate Keepers

Norms

Values

‘Private Face’

Quality of Trust and Respect

Personal Aspirations and Goals Management Styles and Values Motivations and Commitment Threats

‘Public Face’

Quality Assurance

The Silent Majority

Power Networks Rumour machine

Group Loyalties Access to Influence Grey Cardinals

Fairness in the Reward Systems Psychological Safety

Bullying

Wellbeing/ Toxicity

Success and rewards for those ‘in the know’ or ‘whose faces fit’

Cliques

Hidden Rules

Figure 3.2  The expanded organisational iceberg (Kinchington, 2004). arise where there is a mismatch between espoused values as compared to actual behaviours, underlying hypocrisy, undue influence by cliques and the so-called ‘grey cardinals’ (powers behind the throne) who are able to influence ­decision-makers to their own advantage. The silent majority feel powerless and aggrieved and resort to complaining and feeding the rumour machine within their own network as a way of being heard and reassuring their own psychological safety. Participants have been able to give clear and detailed examples, and been able to reflect on the impact on themselves and on wider elements of their organisation. They have been open about how to navigate areas of potential impasse through use of interpersonal skills and humour and have shared strategies in the way in which they have been able to challenge, influence and negotiate the currents of the institution whilst maintaining their credibility and reputation. For example, active engagement with ‘gate keepers’ included cultivating a friendly, respectful relationship, ‘knowing the gate-keeper’s birthday and the health of her dogs’, which, in turn, enabled access, should they need a ‘hard to get’ quick five-minute appointment with their senior manager. Access and being able to circumvent levels of bureaucracy were identified as ‘the name of the game’. A key theme that emerged was that of emotion and the investment of emotional response in departmental interactions. Emotions run deep and comprise rivalries, feelings of being overlooked or slighted, disillusionment, suspicion, favouritism, anger, pressure to conform and even jealousy, all clouding interactions. These foster gossip, tensions, responses to individuals’

Critical thinking in leadership  •  37 promotion and reputation and staff well-being. Fineman notes that emotions are subject to social control in organisations and impact on moral conduct, observing: Whether or not we conform to expected emotional performance itself depends on our feelings about failure to conform. The risk of rejection from others can be painful. Crucially, the social connected emotions of embarrassment, shame and guilt are central to many aspects of organizational order. (Fineman, 1993: 17) Ultimately, this has a marked impact on the energy, stress, ability to sustain critical thinking and self-efficacy of the individuals involved. Our ability to think critically in contexts which may be perceived as challenging and may lack psychological safety and trust is essential since these skills enable us to engage with the world and others in ways that are sensitive, reliable, and predictable. By themselves, of course, they do not guarantee that we will flourish: misfortune, constrained circumstances, and bad decisions may derail us. Nevertheless, by virtue of their capacity to ground us in reality and successfully negotiate its challenges, they are likely to have an important role in realizing our capacity to flourish. (Kleinig, 2018: 137) The role played by leaders is central to the effective functioning of the workplace. Judgements made by staff about the ‘ethical’ qualities of leaders, their perceived competence, their ability to resolve conflict and issues that arise, and the way in which they model fundamental qualities such as honesty, justice, transparency, values and trust, either ameliorate or exacerbate the internal dynamics of teams. Does resistance to change lie with the staff or the organisation? The second part of the chapter considers whether there are potentially inherent barriers within the staff or the organisation itself which impede the process of change. Are there underlying cultures or embedded history within an organisation which have an impact on staff agency, identity and attitudes towards change? It is useful in the first instance to examine staff attitudes to change in that they not only signify personal responses to change but also impact on the experiences of the organisation itself (Kinchington, 2004). I would propose that any organisation is only as good as the people within it and is characterised by the way that the organisation cares, recognises, develops and respects them. Staff barriers to change Staff lack of trust in those leading the change, where leaders are: • judged as lacking self-efficacy, appropriate skills, experience, communication and interpersonal skills to take on this responsibility;

38  •  Francia Kinchington • perceived as exhibiting ambivalent ethical leadership where decisions appear to be based on favour, are erratic or subject to external influence and fail to deliver ‘daily ethical leadership’ (Bormann, 2017: 591); • observed to demonstrate superficial attitudes to consultation and involvement in the process of change where staff are concerned; • are seen as ambivalent or lack clarity about the purpose of change and • regarded as insecure in their role and lacking support from the organisation, which then impacts on their ability to support their departments through change. Individuals’ loss of personal power and identity where structural change r­ esults in: • loss of personal power or freedom; • loss of identity/status where identity is tied into position or title; • loss of skills and the need to retrain, so loss of expertise, agency and self-efficacy. Personal response to change arising from: • fear of the unknown or future; • being risk-averse but being forced into what they perceive is a high-risk situation in order to keep their job; • past experiences (positive or negative and their impact on the individual’s career and self); • handling stress arising from insecurity and living with ‘not knowing’, and • where the individual is on the ‘Change Transition’ curve proposed by ­Parker-Lewis (1981). The impact of ‘life’ exists where major changes occurring in the individual’s life are compounded by changes occurring in the workplace. The impact of trying to manage change on both fronts is often overwhelming and results in workplace behaviours ranging from avoidance to passive acceptance and feelings of powerless in an effort to counterbalance life events. Changes in an individual’s life can have a direct impact on their ability and attitude to manage change concurrently taking place within the organisation, relegating organisational change to second place. An individual’s age often reflects lifechanges, comprising children’s transition into different phases of education; promotion or changes in partner’s work location; health, either personal or within the family; divorce or death of partners; and increased family responsibility, including care for elderly parents. In an organisation where relationships are poor, where there is little psychological safety and leadership insufficiently connected with staff, individuals will find it difficult to share their situation or explain their feelings or decisions. The result is that staff feel isolated, unsupported, stressed and unable to do their job properly.

Critical thinking in leadership  •  39 Organisational resistance Six themes are proposed within this dimension which collectively contribute to create organisational resistance. These comprise culture and context, poor planning, experience and charisma of leaders and role holders, the way in which senior managers lead change, the persona of the leader and timing. i The culture and the context of the organisation have not been scrutinised during change led by management, so that a new template is placed directly over the existing structure. In this case, the organisational structures and policies may appear superficially radical but have been overlaid over a culture that has an in-built inflexibility (new titles but same old systems, structures and, importantly, people beneath). This results in replication of patterns of behaviour, attitude, mindsets, networks of influence and attitudes to risk. The change process itself may take on a momentum of its own, with the original reason for the changes taking place often being relegated into second place. The situation is compounded where the organisation has a history or legacy of poor change management and is fundamentally risk-averse. ii Poor planning is characterised by change not being locked into strategic development; the ‘wrong’ time frame is proposed, where the past history and experience of the organisation are not taken into account or where there is a lack of a ‘fresh’ view of the situation to offer alternative viewpoints. iii Negative opinions about the experience and charisma of leaders and role holders will have a significant effect on the confidence of the staff in terms of their willingness to go along with the prescribed change. Steffen (2000: 186) observes that:





The high failure rate of change managements is well documented. One of the key reasons for this is the selection of change agents who are temperamentally unsuited to their role or else inadequately trained for it. Staff confidence will be undermined by inexperienced and inflexible leaders who lack charisma and whose persona is perceived as being not the ‘right person’ to deal with what is needed at that moment in time. The leader may be perceived as a threat to existing power holders who maintain cliques of influence. The leader may also have a poor people management skill set that is inadequate in terms of dealing with the internal politics and the power networks of groups of individuals. Such powerful individuals have the capacity to topple the best laid plans because these do not work in their interests and because they have been in the organisation for a number of years and are willing to play the ‘long game’, knowing that the new leader is likely to move on within five years.

40  •  Francia Kinchington iv The way senior managers lead change and manage the inevitable resistance is critical in enabling staff to engage with change and to take the decision to either support the organisation’s plans or resist them. The strategies normally used by leaders to handle resistance to change can range from the positive (providing information, collaboration, negotiation, discussion) to the unhelpful, which reinforce a sense of powerlessness (ignoring staff disquiet, use of manipulation, power, force or sanctions).  A well-led change experience involves the ability to handle cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and learn from failure as well as acknowledge the creative opportunities that occur during periods of chaos or flux. A well-managed change experience can result in ‘perspective transformation’ (Mezirow, 2000); an opportunity for conflict transformation (­ Fetherston and Kelly, 2007); and an experience which is ‘differentiating, permeable (open to other viewpoints), critically reflective of assumptions, emotionally capable of change and integrative experience’ (Taylor, 2007: 180).  The experience of the leader is informed by experiences of success or failure, the extent of and the success of their experience in leading change in a range of contexts, personal confidence or insecurity, self-efficacy, their ability to handle cognitive dissonance, whether they are risk-averse, their flexibility of mind and whether they accept the constraints of the normalised strategies imposed by the culture of the organisation.  Lewis-Parker (1981) proposes a seven-stage ‘Transition Curve’ that describes the process through which individuals progress from cognitive dissonance to accommodating change. This offers a useful insight into how the leaders and staff respond to mandated change and an understanding of the process and potential timescale involved. These stages comprise ­immobilisation + shock (mismatch between expectations vs. reality), denial of change, incompetence (resulting in increased awareness and frustration), acceptance of reality (‘willing to let go’), testing (working out ways of dealing with the new reality), search for meaning (internalising the situation and trying to make sense of it) and integration (leading to changing viewpoint and behaviours). A leader’s acknowledgement of where they are positioned on the transition curve, or where the staff working with them are positioned, is important in dealing with the stress associated with enabling the transition from one stage to another. v The persona of the leader underpins plans for organisational change and the policies and strategies for their implementation. Whether they are a vice chancellor, senior manager, head of faculty or head of department, these leaders carry a personal perception of themselves in relation to their organisation, implicit within which is an attitude to change. Flintham (2005) identified a range of leadership personas comprising Heroic Leader (rescues the institution from failure); Consolidator Leader (steady hand on tiller); Nurturing Leader (rebuilds fractured relationships and bruised morale in institutions that have been through crisis or tragedy); Pruner Leader (cuts away dead wood to make room for new growth); Visionary Leader (sees long-term

Critical thinking in leadership  •  41 potential and has an extended plan for its achievement). All offer viable options; however, what happens if there is a mismatch between what the leader thinks the organisation needs and what the organisation actually needs? An important point to consider is the history of the organisation and where it is currently in its ‘life cycle’. The loss of experienced staff that hold the ‘institutional memory’ is potentially problematic, since all changes are viewed as ‘new’. An organisation that has been subjected to wave after wave of change that has not been given the opportunity to embed, may not be ready for yet more changes. It may not be prepared to accept someone who sees themselves as a heroic leader, ready to ‘save’ them, but may, in contrast, be prepared to accept a consolidator who will work alongside and inspire staff. vi Timing is crucial as the best thought-out plans and strategies for change can be undermined by not factoring timing into the equation. Where an organisation finds itself in ‘special-measures’ or is on the brink of closure, survival is dependent on rapid improvement within a two-phase timescale (emergency and consolidation) rather than an organic approach which may take a five-year timescale. An organisation that has experienced phase after phase of change, both major and local, over a five-year period, may be too exhausted for an additional wave of change and may need a period of consolidation. An organisation where the staff have experienced change driven by leadership egos whose aim was to build personal careers and then move on needs leadership that has the capacity to build confidence, self-esteem and the creativity of its staff and a community of practice that can lead the organisation forward. The key questions are: where is the organisation at this moment in time and what does it need to do to move forward? Does change need to be drastic, or can it be incremental and increase as the organisation’s confidence and resilience develop? What are the choices and what are the repercussions of failure to change? Conclusion Where does this leave an institution that is serious about bringing about change? In addition to an audit of the institution framed by the elements discussed within this chapter, two key aspects should be considered: namely, staffing and training. A scrutiny of the institution may reveal that the middle managers tasked with leading change are in fact ‘not fit for purpose’. The leaders in situ may be ideally placed for responsibility during periods of stability, during which they will be able to sustain development, enable supportive and nurturing relationships internally, and foster creative outward-reaching partnerships and networks externally. However, when the institution moves into a period of rapid change, existing incumbents may find that they lack the necessary confidence and skill set to lead change. Whilst there may be a change within the senior leadership team of the institution, it is unlikely that changes will occur at faculty or departmental level. Existing leadership teams are expected to deliver mandated change whilst confronted by staff who are wracked by insecurity, panic and anger.

42  •  Francia Kinchington The leadership attributes required at times of change are very specific. The leader must have a sense of self-efficacy, credibility and the capacity to inspire ‘follower-ship’ and trust; they need high levels of interpersonal skills and must not be risk-averse. Critical incidents occur throughout the period of change, and the ability to make ‘judgement calls’, with confidence, is paramount. Insecurity in making judgements results in a loss of trust by staff-colleagues. Loss of trust and reputation also occurs where leading change is viewed as a series of expedient steps aimed to meet institutional timelines and directives, and where staff-colleagues are perceived as expendable. Ethical leadership and the ability to engender trust enable staff to believe in the process of change, one where they are involved in collective decisions and the leader is entrusted to navigate change successfully with minimal collateral damage. Staff resistance needs to be understood. Understanding the constructed realities of staff is key to involving staff in decisions which will inevitably involve their professional lives and futures. Being critically reflexive – willing to consult, listen, interrogate decisions, understand risk and context – is essential. A leader who has the capacity to create a professional community where staff feel valued, respected and professionally developed is more likely to lead e­ ffective change that is embedded in the institution and one more likely to have a long-term impact. Either staff will have the appropriate qualities, experience and skill set, or a change of staff for a given period may need to be considered by the institution. Universities lack this flexibility, and so specialist developmental training of staff tasked with leading change may offer a way forward. Specialist training centred on the cycle of the change process needs to be instigated based on the leadership attributes discussed earlier and the four key elements discussed within the chapter: namely, whether change is perceived as mandatory or self-initiated; the staff ’s relationship with the organisation illustrated through the metaphors used; an examination of what lies beneath the organisation; and, finally, whether resistance to change lies with staff or the organisation itself. The process enables middle-level leaders collectively to anticipate and lead the change process. It enables them to identify barriers, understand and respond to critical incidents, work productively with staff and their insecurity, become increasingly self-reflexive and track the change process from the outset, monitoring it throughout the period of change through to its final evaluation. This process, which supports professional accountability and develops high-level skills and self-efficacy, is offered as a positive way forward. References Bess, J.L. and Dee, J.R. (2012) Understanding College and University Organization: Theories of effective policy and practice, Volume II- Dynamics of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub. Bormann, K.C. (2017) Linking daily ethical leadership to followers’ daily behaviour: The roles of daily work engagement and previous abusive supervision. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4): 590–600. Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.

Critical thinking in leadership  •  43 Fetherston, B. and Kelly, R. (2007) Conflict resolution and transformative pedagogy: A grounded ­theory research project on learning in higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(3): 262–285. Fineman, S. (Ed.). (1993) Emotion in organisations. London: Sage. Flintham, A.J. (2005) Post-Modernist portfolio people: Sustainability and succession in school headship. Nottingham: NCSL. Graetz, F. and Smith, A.C. (2010) Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10(2): 135–154. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., and Woodman, R.W. (2004) Organizational behavior (10th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western Pub. Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A., and Jick, T.D. (1992) The challenge of organisational change. New York: The Free Press. Kinchington, F. (2004) Understanding change. In M. Persson (Ed.), Towards the teacher as a learner: Contexts for the new role of the teacher (pp. 109–120). Sweden: Learning Teacher Network. Kleinig, J. (2018) Trust and critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(2): 133–143. Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 73: 59–67 Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social sciences: Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1): 5–41. Lewin, K. (1952) Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 330–344). New York: Holt. Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000) Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Morgan, G. (1986) Images of organization (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parker C. and Lewis R. (1981) Beyond the Peter principle: Managing successful transitions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 5(6): 17–21. Schön, D.A. (1983) The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Steffen, J. (2000) Breaking lances, dying in ditches: A survival guide for the international change manager. Journal of Change Management, 1(2): 186–193. Taber, T.D. (2007) Using metaphors to teach organisational theory. Journal of Management Education, 31(4): 541–554. Taylor, E.W. (2007) An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of empirical research (1995–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2): 173–191.

Part 2

International case studies on leadership in higher education

This section outlines case studies providing empirical and contextually situated theoretical evidence on the ways in which critical thinking in the leadership of higher education is conceptualised and practised in various international contexts. The subjects of these case studies are responding to and shaping fundamental changes occurring to higher education systems around the world in variable ways. The cases discuss leadership responses to situational problems, in the context of changes in organisational systems, regulation, marketing and quality, as well as funding, teaching and research, recruitment and policy-making. The chapters identify global examples of leadership, including those in which notable achievements and/or dilemmas have occurred.

4

Europe: Spain: Spaces of hope

Democratic leadership in a workers’ cooperative university in Spain REBECCA BODEN

Introduction Increasingly, European universities appear less collegial and to be adopting managerial leadership forms more commonly found in private sector firms. Critiques of this transition have been countered by arguments that, in times of financial constraints and policy imperatives for universities to contribute significantly to the knowledge economy, such forms of leadership are essential and that there is no alternative. In this chapter, I explore, by way of a case study of a workers’ cooperative university in Spain, leadership/governance configurations that offer alternatives to contemporary hegemonic practices. A report of a field visit to the university was published by Wright et al. (2011), and this chapter relies on data from that visit and other secondary sources. I begin by conceptualising leadership and governance dynamics. I then describe Mondragon cooperative university. This is followed by a discussion of the possible value of such innovative models in higher education systems generally. Leadership and governance in context Contemporary imperatives to make organisations more innovative, flexible, dynamic and entrepreneurial have engendered a tendency to redefine management as ‘leadership’ and managers as ‘leaders’. This rests on a, possibly false, ­dichotomy that management is about following procedure and therefore unsuited to ­being innovative, dynamic and so on, whilst leadership is more processual – open, ­contingent and ultimately focussed on delivering organisational aims. In reality, the two concepts are possibly quite similar as both concern the activities that make organisational work happen. However, leadership is perhaps a more useful concept as it semantically distinguishes more processual conceptual approaches from mechanistic procedural ones. Organisational leadership is the process of steering organisations towards their goals. The rules, structures, practices and processes within which leadership 46

Spaces of hope  •  47 happens are collectively known as governance regimes. Leadership processes are therefore a product of governance and significantly shaped by it. Governance regimes are dynamic, formed not just by formal rules but also by everyday practices, meaning that the practice of leadership ultimately also shapes governance. A third component in this complex landscape is the legal, ownership and structural foundations of organisations. These strongly influence how governance and thus ­leadership are constituted. Some aspects of the nature of organisations may be fixed, whilst others are relatively fluid. A simple example serves to illustrate this: a commercial company ultimately exists to make a profit for its owners or shareholders, and if it does not, it will cease to exist. The governance of firms is derived from this starting point – formal structural power is awarded to the owners who contribute the capital. There may also be exogenously formed legislative and regulatory regimes that shape ­governance arrangements which are designed to promote other stakeholders’ (such as workers) interests. Managers (or ‘leaders’) in such circumstances are tasked with working within these governance frameworks to deliver the company’s objectives – profit for the owners. The leadership culture will be driven by governance considerations. Individual leaders are motivated and controlled by governance rules (what they can and can’t do, what their structural power is) and by rewards and ­incentives, such as pay or a psychic wage from their work (Davis et al., 1997). It follows that these elements of the fundamental nature of the organisation, the governance regimes and the leadership form must be congruent with each other if an organisation is to flourish. The overwhelming majority of public universities in Europe, and especially in the United Kingdom, have complex histories and very particular contemporary organisational forms. Most are not-for-profit organisations. This means that, ­although they generally must achieve a financial surplus on their ongoing ­operations to be viable and sustainable, they do not exist to generate profit for private owners. This is because they are either charitable bodies or owned by the state and are therefore either self-owning or state-owned. They exist to provide a public good in terms of teaching and research, not to make a profit for private owners (Boden et al., 2012). Historically, this particular legal form and ownership structure engendered a form of governance usually known as ‘collegial’. Here, communities of scholars, bound and underpinned by a shared culture as well as rules and procedures, worked together to make decisions about their academic communities and to implement them. Tradition and an emphasis on academic freedom meant that there was little or no exogenously generated governance influence – universities were autonomous black boxes. Power structures and hence decision-making were based on academic hierarchies. Formal leadership followed suit – vice chancellors were primus inter pares –first amongst equals (Shattock, 2012), and posts such as deans were elected by the faculties and were fixed term, rotating appointments. Of course, the resulting organisations reflected the context of those who had power within  them  – ­primarily male and white. But the aim of this chapter is not to critique what these universities were, but to explore how they were constituted and led.

48  •  Rebecca Boden Collegiality began to break down from the 1980s onwards in Europe as universities were caught up in a wave of neoliberal reform (Middlehurst, 2013). In these reform processes, universities retained their fundamental structures as not-forprofit charitable bodies. Those that were state-owned were increasingly translated into self-owning bodies, supposedly with greater autonomy. Despite this continuity, new forms of governance were overlaid on universities, which became subject to much tighter exogenous control through government policy as cash-strapped governments sought to wrought universities into engines of the knowledge economy, pumping in knowledge and trained people. Under these twin imperatives of funding constraints and a need to be economically useful, endogenous collegial governance began to break down. Universities found themselves having to respond to these pressures by wresting control from academics in a process of making universities more ‘business-like’. This story possibly started in the United Kingdom, where savage cuts to university budgets from 1981 led the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (then the collective voice of UK u ­ niversities) to establish the Jarratt Committee. The ensuing Jarratt report (CVCP,  1985) opined the need for a greater role for government in directing universities to a more efficient, business-like approach. University councils (with significant lay ­membership), it argued, should assert their power vis-à-vis collegial senates dominated by academics. Universities became more centralised, business-focussed and financialised. Their governance was less about collective academic deliberation and more about accounting-driven mechanisms to ensure cost-effectiveness and service to the knowledge economy. This transformation had implications for leadership. Deem and Brehony (2005) discuss the extent to which university academic-managers have adopted ‘new managerialist’ approaches to their leadership. Characteristics of new managerialism, they argue, include: the erasure of bureaucratic rule-following procedures; emphasising the primacy of management above all other activities; monitoring employee performance (and encouraging self- monitoring too); the attainment of financial and other targets, devising means of publicly auditing quality of service delivery and the development of quasi-markets for services. (Deem and Brehony, 2005: 220) Deem and Brehony continue: Our exemplification of ‘new managerialism’ ideology by reference to research on the management of UK higher education suggests not only that new managerialism as a general set of ideological principles has permeated higher education but also that many manager-academics have embraced these principles and the associated language. This seems to be especially so for those who are in senior positions or hold permanent managerial posts at any level. Many senior manager-academics interviewed, despite most having a background as academics themselves, seemed to assert their right to

Spaces of hope  •  49 manage over both academics and other staff, thus suggesting that as a social group, such manager-academics are very interested indeed in maintaining relationships of power and domination. This is bolstered by outside agencies concerned with quality audit and assessment of research and teaching which further legitimate the right of university managers to manage. (Deem and Brehony, 2005: 231) Crucial to this transformation to a new leadership form in the United Kingdom was ‘recognising the Vice-Chancellor not only as academic leader but also as chief executive of the university’ (CVCP, 1985, paragraph 5.5 d). This placed considerable day-to-day executive power in the hands of vice chancellors and their senior managerial colleagues. In response to funding and knowledge economy pressures, European universities have increasingly adopted governance regimes and leadership styles more akin to private commercial firms than to collegial universities. Problematically, there is a dissonance between governance and leadership on one side, and the fundamental structures and basis of universities as charitable, not-for-profit public good organisations on the other (Boden et al., 2012). In the United Kingdom in particular, but elsewhere too, this has led to public controversy over, inter alia, vice chancellors’ remuneration and attempts to generate cash at the expense of students’ interests (see, for example, Adams and Gamperl, 2018; Loussikian, 2018). One answer to this dissonance, which is possibly impeding the operation of universities, would be to completely privatise universities, turning them into forprofit organisations with private owners. This would align the fundamental nature of universities as organisations with their governance regimes and leadership forms. There are isolated instances of this, such as when the United Kingdom’s University of Law was sold as a going concern by the charity that owned it to a Swiss private equity firm and then subsequently to a private education company. However, there are significant arguments to be raised against a wholly privately owned higher education sector – not least the surrender to private market ownership of an area of activity which requires significant public funding and which has profound implications for public good. This prompts consideration of possible alternatives to the current dominant European model, and I now turn to the case of Mondragon University in Spain’s northern Basque region. Mondragon University In Spain’s Basque region there exists an extensive network of worker-owned ­cooperatives known collectively as MONDRAGON. Cooperatives are organisations that combine human labour and capital in different ways from more traditional private companies or public sector organisations. In private firms owners invest their funds and the company then hires workers. The governance and leadership of the firm is primarily aimed at generating a profit as a reward for the owners risking their capital. In public, state-owned organisations the government provides public funds and hires workers who follow management directions to

50  •  Rebecca Boden achieve government-dictated organisational aims. The so-called ‘new public management’ suggests that public sector organisations are increasingly governed and led as if they were private firms (Hood, 1998). In both, leadership tends to be hierarchical and top-down, and ‘new managerialist’ in character (Deem and Brehony, 2005). It may not be acceptable for organisations that produce public goods, such as education, to be subject to profit-taking by private owners, and state-directed organisations may lack sufficient social involvement and be prey to the whims of remote policymakers. Gibson-Graham (2006) set out an alternative to this market model for the public and private sectors, which they termed ‘postcapitalism’. Here capital and labour combine in social market formations driven towards public, not private, good ends. They do not deny the need for profit, and business-like efficiencies, but argue that there are ways of achieving this whilst protecting the public good. ­Gibson-Graham urge a search for spaces of hope – exemplars of organisational forms where this can occur to act as inspirations to counter-hegemonic thinking. These spaces of hope can and do exist in universities (Kenway et al., 2014), and models are available from other sectors (Boden et al., 2012; Winn, 2015). Cooperatives offer an organisational form that meets the need for the delivery of public goods with business-like efficiency without the potential pitfalls of market economies. They have a long history – in 1844 in the United Kingdom a small group of weavers founded The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, an early consumer cooperative designed to give workers access to fairly priced food. The early work of the Pioneers led eventually to the current globally accepted definition of a cooperative as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a ­jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. (ICA website) The Pioneers started the formulation of the cooperative principles, which are summarised in Figure 4.1. The origins of the MONDRAGON cooperatives, which adhere to these principles, are particular to this region. In Franco’s Spain in the 1950s the region endured considerable privation and socio-economic exclusion. Under the leadership of a local priest, Fr Arizmendiarrieta, the first workers’ cooperative was established in 1956. This way of working was rapidly perceived to be beneficial to the local commu­ ONDRAGON is nity, which moved fast to create a networked, solidary economy. M now a cooperative of cooperatives, combining some 98 cooperatives and a further 68 not-for-profit companies that employ nearly 81,000 people. In 2017 the turnover of the collective whole was around €12bn (MONDRAGON a). MONDRAGON is organised into four divisions: finance, industry, retail and knowledge. The knowledge division includes a network of MONDRAGON ­technology centres and R&D units, a number of vocational training and education centres and Mondragon University (MU) (MONDRAGON b). Early on, the

Spaces of hope  •  51 The cooperative principles Voluntary and Open Membership: Cooperatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. Democratic Member Control: Cooperatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner. Member Economic Participation: Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. Autonomy and Independence: Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy. Education, Training, and Information: Cooperatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation. Cooperation among Cooperatives: Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures. Concern for Community: Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members. Source: International Cooperative Alliance https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity

Figure 4.1  The cooperative principles. co-operators of the region realised their need for educational resources for social and economic betterment and began establishing the various education cooperatives. For some years, under Spanish law, these had to have their degrees validated by another (state-owned) university. However, legal changes consequential to the Bologna process meant that, from 1997, MU could be established as a university in its own right. MU is itself a cooperative of three faculty cooperatives (engineering, business and humanities, and education sciences) together with a culinary

52  •  Rebecca Boden school  – a joint venture with the regional government. MU holds the degree awarding powers used by the faculties. MU is run ‘according to a profit-oriented business logic’ (Wright et al., 2011: 46). It has three primary sources of finance, which reflect its stakeholder groups. The first is the university workers, who, after two years of employment by one of the university cooperatives, become eligible for membership. This involves paying in a capital contribution of around €15,000. This capital contribution emphasises to the individual the notion of ownership. If a member leaves they can withdraw their capital. Members’ salaries are a payment in advance of a profit share of the cooperative for the year. This means that their pay can be reduced if financial performance is poor. This happened in the Business School in 2011–2012, when staff agreed to an 8% pay cut (Wright et al., 2012). The drive for personal reward over organisational need is mitigated by an alignment to the cooperative principles. For instance, in 2010–2012 the engineering faculty returned a good profit, but the members forswore a pay rise in solidarity with other ­MONDRAGON members who were suffering due to the global financial crisis (Wright et al., 2011). Second, MU is financed by the users of its knowledge via solidarity funding from MONDRAGON. Some surpluses from all MONDRAGON businesses are recycled into paying for more teaching and knowledge creation. Additionally, MU does paid contract work on projects with and for other MONDRAGON cooperatives. And finally, MU students must pay tuition fees of around €9,000 a year – very substantially higher than for those studying at Spanish public universities. These sources of finance reflect the stakeholders in MU, and, in turn, under the cooperative principles of open membership and democratic control, all three groups participate in the governance of the university. The academic and administrative staff, students and other stakeholders, such as other MONDRAGON ­cooperatives, business incubators and local councils, together combine to direct the university. There is both a formal structure that integrates these stakeholders and a democratic culture that allows deliberative, democratic collective leadership. Wright et al. (2011) describe the structure of the faculty of engineering to illustrate how the governance works. Engineering has a Faculty General Assembly that is one-third each cooperative workers, students and other stakeholder members. This Assembly takes final decisions on faculty matters on the basis of one member, one vote. The General Assembly delegates four representatives from each of the three stakeholder groupings to a 12-person Faculty Governing Board. Apart from organising the General Assembly, this body exercises detailed strategic control. This board decides on the four-yearly strategic plan and the annual management plan, and reviews them monthly. It responds to proposals for new members, sets the budget, receives monthly management accounts and subjects them to rigorous scrutiny. The Faculty Governing Board also appoints the dean of the faculty (from an academic point of view) who is at the same time the general manager of the cooperative. The dean attends the Faculty Governing Board and makes recommendations, but cannot vote (Wright et al., 2011: 48).

Spaces of hope  •  53 Below the Faculty Governing Board is a Faculty Executive Board. This consists of the dean and the directors of various functional areas. It has general planning and budgetary responsibilities and recommends salaries, etc. Beneath this are two departments, each with departmental heads responsible for quality and personnel issues. In addition to these bodies, there are various ‘commissions’ – joint c­ ollaborative fora for teaching and research lines, which then feed back into the formal ­decision-making hierarchy. These are vigorous debating bodies, bringing together the three classes of MU members – staff, students and external stakeholders. And there are also autonomous research groups, with high levels of responsibility for their work and budgetary matters, which again feed back to the faculty-wide structures. Balancing organisational needs with workers’ rights, the faculty also has a Social Council where workers’ issues and remuneration are discussed. The structure of MU itself, that is, the cooperative organisation of the faculty cooperatives, largely mirrors this structure, with a General Assembly comprising 30 representatives from the faculties (representing staff and students), six representatives from external stakeholders and one person from the workers in MU itself. Below this is a Governing Board comprising 12 faculty representatives and five representatives from external stakeholders. Finally, there is an ­Executive Board comprising the rector (vice chancellor), vice rector, general secretary, f­inance ­director and four deans. A primary part of the rector’s job is external representation of MU. In these formal structures, those in all formal leadership positions (‘management’) are elected via the formal democratic structures, and they are appointments that can be rescinded. Salaries are set mutually and, whilst there are salary differentials, these are strictly and collectively controlled via salary multiples; the salary hierarchy at MU is quite flat. It would appear that salary is not a motivating factor in leadership and instead there is reliance on an alignment of values and a psychic reward (Davis et al., 1997). When I visited MU and this system was described to me, it at first appeared overly bureaucratic and cumbersome to have so many deliberative bodies in such a hierarchical governance structure. Quite obviously, the formal structures and the power distribution within them will influence the nature of leadership at MU. The leadership approach is informed by the cooperative principle of democratic member control: ‘Cooperatives are democratic organisations controlled by their ­members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions’ (see ­Figure 4.1). Democracy is hardwired into the governance structures, and it is the conduct of the democratic process that makes MU work. Everything at the university is ­vigorously discussed at every level. This is costly and very time-­consuming – a senior staff member told me on my visit that staff can spend 20%–40% of their working week in such consensus-building discussions. When I expressed surprise at this, he asked me how much time my colleagues and I spent moaning about decisions made by senior managers at my university, and how often those decisions turned out to be good ones with widespread worker buy-in. ­Schonberger (1982) made it clear that:

54  •  Rebecca Boden the rapid hierarchical decisions of conventional American businesses (or strategically-led universities) do not necessarily result in coordinated action to achieve the goals set. In contrast, the deliberative and careful consideration of decisions found in many Japanese businesses in the 1980s, and in these cooperative from their founding, often result in decisions that nearly everyone accepts and enacts. (Wright et al., 2011: 44) We were told on our visit that the strength of the leadership of the organisation lay in the construction of working relationships around commonly held cooperative values and through processual means. The actively facilitated consensual ­decision-making heightened the prospects of eventual decisions being implemented and developed. However, this was no utopia and, when things did go wrong in the processes, the cooperatives had no qualms about resorting to the formal governance rulebook to determine what should happen next. Of course, some people will be more capable, skilled or persuasive than others, so they might hold greater sway in these deliberative decision-making processes. Such personal factors will override the simplicity of ‘one member, one vote’. That said, there was clear evidence of a real respectful ‘hammering out’ of collective decisions in meaningful debate and discussion within an explicit framework of commonly held cooperative principles. The ultimate result of this process is the creation of a university that, to an astonishing degree, meets many European governments’ demands that universities both serve students well and develop strong partnering relationship with ­surrounding society and economic actors. Not only are students integrated into the decision-making structures of their faculties and MU, but they are also integrated into the regional solidary economy. The need to pay quite high fees means that students work. A number of engineering students do this through a cooperative called Alecoop, which provides properly paid work to the students in other engineering and manufacturing cooperatives within MONDRAGON. These students attend class for half of their time and work the rest. In addition, a number of students work within the engineering faculty on projects for ­MONDRAGON cooperatives. Alecoop finds engineering students final year projects in M ­ ONDRAGON cooperatives, and the process of student evaluation is used explicitly to enhance university-company relationships by feeding back information. ­Additionally, around 5,000 MONDRAGON workers take part in lifelong learning at MU each year. The formal entanglement of external stakeholders with MU meant that, in 2004, when these partners questioned the range of transferable skills the MU students had, the response was to institute a substantial programme of problem-based learning. This points to the genuine nature of the involvement of the external stakeholders in MU’s leadership via democratic deliberative processes. Likewise, MU sees itself as facilitating the active development of the regional solidary economy represented by MONDRAGON, articulating the cooperative principle of education, training and information (see Figure 4.1). MU actively

Spaces of hope  •  55 seeks to understand the research and knowledge needs of regional enterprises, including in the longer term, via its democratic processes. Formal collaboration between the university and companies in the region via the university’s research commissions ensures that these needs are discussed and debated. Sometimes, the firms may sponsor PhDs in the relevant area, while in others, there are substantial collaborations between the university, the individual company’s research and development unit and MONDRAGON’s own separate development centres. Such schemes are fully funded by the company and MONDRAGON – giving the ­university financial stability and the capacity to meet the needs of external stakeholders to strengthen the solidary economy and surrounding society. As Wright et al. (2011: 53) put it: Our interviewees emphasised that the purpose of MU is to gear education, research and knowledge exchange to support the future development of companies or local institutions. Lecturers at MU are not just passive providers of knowledge who see if there any takers; they actively seek to identify innovation needs of companies and become collaborators in research and knowledge exchange. When they evaluate research activity, they focus on the tangible effects in the companies and what new knowledge the lecturers have gained, not merely on the volume of projects, the number of PhDs, or the publication output. A leadership approach for all? This chapter posits that organisational form, governance regimes and leadership approaches are delicately interconnected and that, for a university to be successful in achieving its aims, these three elements must be congruent. The ­evidence suggests that MU might be recognised as a ‘space of hope’ (Kenway et al., 2014), offering an exemplar of how such congruence can be achieved. More than that, this case study points to a university form, governance regime and leadership ­approach that appears to be delivering significantly against the common demands of employability (Boden and Nedeva, 2010) and external ­stakeholder engagement (Nedeva, 2013). This has been attempted, with debatable and uneven results, in many other universities by processes of marketisation, financialisation and leadership that consists of somewhat relentless demands for staff performance against management-determined demands (Deem and ­Brehony, 2005). MU adopts a deeply democratic approach to leadership through a formally articulated democratic structure underpinned by explicit and the commonly held cooperative principles. The university’s primary stakeholders – the workers, the students and local socio-economic actors who are members of the solidary ­economy – all participate in a meaningful way. The basic organisational form of the university drives this. This is a complex and nuanced form of democratic leadership, underpinned by long-standing cooperative principles and a particular regional history.

56  •  Rebecca Boden To evaluate the value of MU as a ‘space for hope’ (Kenway et al., 2014), it is necessary to consider the extent to which this is transferable form of university leadership (Winn, 2015). Crucial to any meaningful democratic process is the basic organisational form. In reality, because MU is such a networked university, there is little difference between its formal organisational form and that of most ­European universities. What is crucially different is that at MU the explicit ­cooperative principles underpin all and create a common culture and belief system. The extent to which this exists in most European universities is debatable. The most important point of distinction is that MU has a commitment to meaningful democratic processes, hardwired into the university’s governance regime, that encompass all significant stakeholders. It can do this because it is part of a regional solidary economy that shares the cooperative principles. To recreate even elements of MU at most European universities would require a significant transformation of governance regimes and, most crucially, a surrender of hierarchical power by those currently designated as leaders. References Adams, R. and Gamperl, E. (2018) ‘University vice-chancellors are paid far more than public sector peers’, The Guardian, 12 March 2018. Available at: www.theguardian.com/education/2018/ mar/11/university-vice-chancellors-are-paid-far-more-than-public-sector-peers [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Boden, R., Ciancanelli, P., and Wright, S. (2012) Trust Universities? Governance for post-capitalist futures, Journal of Cooperative Studies, 45(2): 16–24. Boden, R. and Nedeva, M. (2010) Employing discourse: Universities and graduate ‘employability’, ­Journal of Education Policy, 25(1): 37–54. CVCP (1985) The Jarrett report. Available at: www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/jarratt1985/ index.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., and Donaldson, L. (1997) ‘Toward a Stewardship theory of management’. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20–47. Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2005) Management as ideology: The case of ‘New Managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006) A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hood, C. (1998) The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford ­University Press. ICA (website) www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Kenway, J., Boden, R., and Fahey, J. (2014) Seeking the necessary ‘Resources of Hope’ in the neoliberal university. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a Glass Darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university (pp. 259–281). Canberra: ANU Press. Loussikian, K. (2018) ‘The nation’s highest paid university leaders’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 August 2018. Available at: www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-nation-s-highest-paid-­universityleaders-20180826-p4zztd.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Middlehurst, R. (2013) Changing internal governance: Are leadership roles and management structures in United Kingdom universities fit for the future? Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3): 275–294. MONDRAGON a (website) www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/economic-and-­financialindicators/corporate-profile/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. MONDRAGON b (website) www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/governance/organization/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Nedeva, M. (2013) New tricks and old dogs? The ‘third mission’ and the re-production of the university. In D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi, and S. Wright (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education

Spaces of hope  •  57 2008: Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education (pp. 85–105). London: Routledge. Schonberger, R. (1982) Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New York: Free Press. Shattock, M. (2012) Making policy in British Higher Education 1945–2011. Maidenhead: Open ­University Press. Winn, J. (2015) The cooperative university: Labour, property and pedagogy. Power and Education, 7(1): 39–55. Wright, S., Greenwood, D., and Boden, R. (2011) Report of a field visit to Mondragon University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching, 4(3): 38–56.

5

The United Kingdom: England

Collaboration and collegiality in university leadership ROB CUTHBERT

Introduction Collegiality and collaboration are dead? That would be a tragedy1 Neoliberalism, that wicked uncle, seems to have killed the values which supposedly once ruled higher education. Academics travelling into exile with collegiality and collaboration discover that their fellow travellers, once such friends, can no longer be trusted, and could lead to their own demise as they fall victim to another round of appraisal and performance management in a hostile market environment. Should academics abandon their friends to escape exile, assassinate neoliberalism and reclaim the realm of HE? If the final act sees the announcement that c­ ollegiality and collaboration are dead, this would indeed be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. But there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in neo-liberal philosophy, and there are more options than compliance or opposition. In this chapter I argue that not only are collegiality and collaboration values which higher education should fight to protect, but also that they are the best guarantee of the quality and value for money which most stakeholders in higher education seem to prize above everything else. There is an extensive literature on the iniquities of neoliberalism as it manifests itself in higher education, but it is too easy to blame all the current ills of UK higher education on a neoliberal philosophy. Paul Temple (2017) argues that neoliberalism has been ‘merely a bystander at the crime scene, not the perpetrator. Politicians and their agencies, wishing to exert ever-tighter control over higher education through half-baked ideas about markets and business methods, were the ones wielding the blunt instruments’. But even this is only part of the truth, because HE’s governors and managers have themselves been instrumental in breaking down collegiality and collaboration, and too many academics, even researchers into higher education, have confined themselves to whingeing about consequences and sniping from the sidelines, rather than engaging with the new challenges of a mass or universal higher education system. 58

Collaboration and collegiality  •  59 Trow’s (2007) elite-mass-universal categorisation of HE systems no longer seems a good fit, almost 50 years after it was first articulated in 1973. Martín-­ Barbero and Monck (2018) argue that in the 21stt century there are three kinds of HE system: equalisers, revolutionaries and globalisers. Equalisers, including the United Kingdom, prioritise balance and access, and public spending subsidises support. R ­ evolutionaries are in rankings-obsessed countries with growing economies, which see HE as an engine for economic growth. Globalisers – the United States and Canada – lead in scientific development and knowledge transfer as well as in fundraising and recruiting foreign students: they are competitive, exclusive, practical and selective. Martin-Barbero and Monck suggest there is an emerging fourth type, where students work and study throughout their time at university. Their analysis perhaps identifies systemic tendencies, but the typology is ­unconvincing: for example, the UK system has notable characteristics of all three types. But in a world with such complex and cross-cutting tendencies, are collaboration and collegiality viable strategies for institutional and systemic sustainability? Definition of terms We should begin by defining some terms. Collegiality has both structural and cultural features. In structural terms, collegiality involves academics determining content and standards for teaching and research, and in deciding who should be appointed as academic staff and admitted as students. There may also be academic involvement or nomination for the appointment of university leaders. But Collegiality is as much a culture of how work should be pursued as it is a structure for planning, decision-making and follow-up procedures. … ­Collegiality, in other words, is a working process based on the scientific argument. In this way, the collegium takes responsibility for the development and the quality of research and education. (Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016) Bess (1988) claimed to identify a third strand to collegiality, ‘behavioural collegiality’, meaning supportive behaviours by colleagues towards one another, but whether this should be treated as distinct from cultural collegiality depends on one’s definition of culture, that is, whether it is confined to values or whether it also embraces ‘the way we do things round here’, as many cultural theorists would prefer. Collaboration and competition perhaps need less explication, but the literature of strategic management examines collaboration and competition and draws on game theory to elaborate the idea of ‘co-opetition’, in which competing businesses may also find it possible or indeed necessary to collaborate as well as compete (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). Marketisation is an apparently irresistible global trend much deplored within academe, whose key features, according to Brown and Carasso (2013: 2–3), are institutional autonomy, low barriers to entry for new HE providers, competition

60  •  Rob Cuthbert for students, significant funding via tuition fees, institutions competing on quality and funding, and quality assurance focussed on customer information and support rather than quality enhancement. New public management is an equally global trend, now not so ‘new’, associated with the rise of managerialism, a term ‘generally used to refer to the adoption by public sector organisations of organisational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found in the private business sector’ (Deem, 2011). Managerialist behaviour involves ­actors inside and outside the university, especially senior managers, emphasising ­specification of outputs and targets, performance measurement to promote performance management, increased competition between HE providers and a ­quasi-market framing students as customers (Dill, 1998; Cuthbert, 2010). These terms can and do apply at many different levels within HE: sector-wide, institutional, school/faculty and department, and more. Why are collegiality and collaboration believed to be under threat? The traditional view of British universities, as of most rich Western universities in the 1960s and 1970s, was that they embodied collegial values – even that they went ‘as far along the road to participatory democracy as that of any major institution’, as Gareth Williams (1976) suggested in his review of the classic text on Power and Authority in British Universities (Moodie and Eustace, 1974). For ­Macfarlane (2016), collegiality was never very substantial and ‘has become an empty word’. Structural collegiality was, he says, always an elitist concept, and he doubts whether the shared values in academe were ever enough to sustain cultural collegiality, even more so now as academic roles become ever more unbundled. In any case managerialism has divided managers and academics, and Macfarlane’s cynical argument is that supportive behaviour between academics is no more than competitive behaviour in disguise: ‘collegiality and collaboration are genuinely encouraged only when they bring benefits to the bottom line: more publications, more research grants and so on’. The weightier critique by Deem and Brehony (2007) and others, of the new managerialism in HE dating from the 1990s or earlier, asserts explicitly that managerialism aims to change organisational cultures. Ferlie et al. (2008) argue that HE is not a special case: ‘the transformations experienced in higher education are similar to those experienced by other key public services, and can be understood as a redefinition of the role of the nation state in the public generally’. The national HE policy narrative in England, but perhaps not throughout the United Kingdom, has consistently been one which seeks to create a market or quasi-market in HE as a means of improving the quality of teaching and enhancing the student experience. The Browne Review (2010) was a bipartisan device straddling a general election which prefigured the raising of student fees to £9,000 and beyond. It aimed ‘to create genuine competition for students between HEIs, of a kind which cannot take place under the current system. There will be more investment available for the HEIs that are able to convince students that it is worthwhile’. The Review was quite explicit that ‘our proposals rely on student choice to drive up the quality of

Collaboration and collegiality  •  61 higher education’, an approach enthusiastically championed by successive government ministers – David Willetts, Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah – and leading to the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), which gave the HE market statutory form and created a single powerful regulator, the Office for Students, as Browne had proposed. The Act also made access to the HE market much easier for the socalled ‘alternative providers’. Palfreyman and Tapper (2014) argue therefore that what we have seen in the United Kingdom, or at least in the English HE system, is Reshaping the University: The Rise of the Regulated Market in Higher Education. This narrative holds that while in the past the dominant values were collegiality and collaboration, the rise of the market has supplanted those values and replaced them with managerialist control and competition. How does competition in HE actually work? There has always been competition in HE, between and within institutions, between academics and others, and between teaching, research and other activities. Marginson (2006) argued that: Higher education produces ‘positional goods’ (Hirsch, 1976) that provide access to social prestige and income-earning. Research universities aim to maximise their status as producers of positional goods. This status is a function of student selectivity plus research performance. At system-level competition bifurcates between exclusivist elite institutions that produce highly value positional goods, where demand always exceeds supply and expansion is constrained to maximise status; and mass institutions (profit and non-profit) characterised by place-filling and expansion. Intermediate universities are differentiated between these poles. Marginson (2013: 360) also argued that universities compete for ‘emerging areas of activity and for non-core commercial revenues’ rather than competing for undergraduate and postgraduate students, but this argument has become more difficult to sustain in England as universities increasingly look to expand student numbers, as even the so-called ‘selecting’ universities make growing numbers of ­unconditional offers to undergraduate applicants. It was the growing cost of HE, part of the broader problem of the growth, affordability and accountability of public services, which stretched budgetary and political control mechanisms to breaking point and facilitated the rise of new public management. In HE ‘the student experience’ became a central focus for competition between institutions, but English universities have chosen to construe the student experience in terms of the quality of their student accommodation, their campus buildings and their prestige and reputation, rather than the quality of teaching and teaching staff. The emphasis might seem to have shifted since the introduction of the so-called Teaching Excellence Framework in 2016, but it has been widely argued that TEF metrics directly measure neither teaching nor excellence (Ashwin, 2017), and universities have been content to trumpet their ‘gold’ or

62  •  Rob Cuthbert ‘silver’ TEF awards without, for example, embracing newer marketing thinking. Marketing guru Gerry McGovern described university websites as ‘a jungle of ego and a desert of usefulness’ because they lack authentic student reviews of their experience alongside all the positive messages from the university (Mitchell, 2018). While such institutional puffery provokes academic cynicism, competition between academics has meant that some willingly focus on their own research and satisfice in other domains, including teaching. The unbundling of academic roles has led to growing numbers of research-dedicated staff, ‘teaching only’ staff, part-timers and adjuncts on short-term contracts. In this trend, the values of global academic culture are as much to blame as managerialism. How do collaboration and collegiality work? David Watson argued that collaboration has always been part of the makeup of British HE: ‘If you take the long historical view, the “collaborative” gene was there from the start, for example through London external degrees and the system of “validating universities” …’ (Watson, 2009: 132). There is much to be learnt from validation and quality assurance systems about how HE collaboration works, or does not work. A century or more of collaboration in establishing and sustaining what Watson called the ‘controlled reputation range’ of British HE was marked by such great social inventions as the Council for National Academic Awards and that distinctive feature of British HE, the external examiner (Watson, 2014). ­Collaboration was always limited: for example, credit transfer between institutions remains a negligible part of the overall picture of UK HE, in contrast to the pattern in North America. The tradition of collaboration has been severely weakened by marketisation in recent years, as Watson noted: ‘the paradox was that, as the world beat a path to the UK door to learn about how to do some of these things, a series of ‘popular revolts’ at home did their best to do away with them, and … undermined the self-­regulating, collegial instincts of the sector as a whole’ (Watson, 2009: 132). ­Embodiments of collegiality, such as peer review in research and external examining in teaching, are increasingly difficult to realise in practice, as individual ­academics facing the pressures of performativity decline roles which may support collegiality but seem to do little for career survival and advancement. One heavily criticised development was the rise of the so-called ‘mission groups’, especially the Russell Group of self-styled ‘elite’ research-intensive universities, which became a significant barrier to collaboration beyond the groups, and would in earlier days have prevented many of the features of collaboration which were so highly valued. Alongside this growing competition in the teaching domain, there was a ­countervailing process in research, as the demands of big science, interdisciplinarity and European cooperation encouraged increasing collaboration within and between institutions, and across national boundaries. However, competition for research funding has become ever more intense, with many bemoaning the wasted effort involved in fruitless bids for research funds which are many times

Collaboration and collegiality  •  63 oversubscribed. Equally, the introduction in the UK of the Research Assessment Exercise and its successor Research Excellence Framework has honed metrics for apparently fine-tuned and certainly intense competition between institutions, disciplines, departments and individual academic staff. How do people manage? There is therefore evidence that current circumstances are significantly different from how things used to be. Just as important, many if not most academics and other staff believe that circumstances have changed. The 2018 strike in the United Kingdom by many academic staff over proposed changes to the Universities ­Superannuation Scheme (USS) exposed raw nerves – and a willingness to act – among many staff not generally disposed to taking industrial action. Fleming said the USS strike had showed academics that their managers held staff in contempt in his article for Times Higher Education on 27 May 2018. While Fleming’s sweeping judgement is no doubt hard on some university leaders, the USS strike was also a reminder of exposures in the national media of very high levels of pay for many vice chancellors, with annual increases far beyond the austerity which most institutions had imposed through restricted pay rises and worsening staffing ratios in the years since the 2008 global financial crash. The example of vice chancellors’ pay shows that it may be too easy for senior managers to lose touch with the values which motivate many of their colleagues. The demands of performativity are such that some managers are failing the ­challenges of institutional evaluation by losing sight of the values which should remain at the heart of the higher education enterprise: Managers shape institutional narratives to make external ambiguity manageable for Governors, staff and students. If they over-use rationalistic analysis, targets and key performance indicators as ‘weapons’ to respond to the ‘attacks’ they face, they may reinforce the very problem which causes the pressure - the inappropriately managerialist framing of evaluation questions. Mechanistic responses which do not sufficiently acknowledge academic and educational values reproduce external managerialist practices within the institution. (Cuthbert, 2011) This shows how managers may unthinkingly behave in ways which go against not only the values of their staff, but even the values which the managers themselves espouse, and which they may sincerely believe that they enact. Eldh (2016) defines core values as ‘ethical rules for an organisation and its employees’, noting close similarities with codes of conduct and value-based management. He suggests that: The role of core values, as the term is interpreted in research, is consequently threefold – to govern everyday actions in a business and organisation, to

64  •  Rob Cuthbert serve as a platform for decisions and to be a manifestation of the organisation’s mission for the outside world. Eldh goes on to argue that top-down formulations and expressions of values will more than likely fail; bottom-up articulation of values is much more likely to be effective. Hence: The challenge is not in formulating core values, but rather how we are to hand over responsibility to the employees, so they can determine how the values are to be expressed in their everyday actions. The solution to this problem is that it is not about teaching core values. It is instead about creating an awareness of how the university expects the employees to behave based on the values stated in the core values. Core values such as academic freedom, openness to challenge and debate, transparency, respect for others and their opinions, fairness and integrity are among those identified by Eldh in his literature review, and these values are closely aligned with collegiality, which might be seen as an umbrella term capturing such values. Collaboration is a similarly broad indication that those core academic values are indeed being embodied and reproduced in the way the university behaves towards other organisations. I have argued elsewhere that: The responsibilities of HE’s governors and senior managers are clear: to stand up for the best of academic values and to be transparent about their motives – supporting sustainable research and teaching. Their role is not to be a transmission belt, either for unthinking performance measurement from above or for unthinking academic populism from below. They need to rediscover, where it is lost, their responsibility to lead the institution by exercising their independent value-based judgement, and to educate those inside and outside the institution about the legitimate perspectives of other stakeholders in the higher education enterprise, and about the inevitability of disagreement and compromise. (Cuthbert, 2017) It is easy simply to ‘blame the management’ when academic core values come u ­ nder threat, but academics need to examine their own behaviour and values. Duffy and Pooley (2017) noted the trend towards ‘self-branding’ by academics: ‘Academics … are experiencing … pressure to engage in self-promotional practices, particularly as universities become progressively more market-driven’. Initiatives such as Academia.edu and Researchgate.net encourage and fuel a ­metrics-based comparison and competition between individual academics. As Duffy and Pooley observe, the ‘fixation on analytics reinforces a culture of incessant self-­monitoring – one already encouraged by university policies to measure quantifiable impact’. Some, perhaps many, academics seem to need no encouragement.

Collaboration and collegiality  •  65 Is there still a space for collegiality and collaboration? In June 2018 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (2018) published a report, Treating Students Fairly: the Economics of Post-School Education, which concluded that: The aim of the 2012 reforms to create an effective market amongst universities has not been achieved, as evidenced by the lack of price competition. We have seen little evidence to suggest that the higher education sector is suitable or amenable to market regulation. (Paragraph 85) Rather than drawing the obvious conclusion, the Committee suggested a range of measures to reform post-school education in ways which attempt to strengthen the market mechanism. But market mechanisms are inadequate to deal with p ­ roblems of values, as Ouchi (1980) pointed out long ago. He differentiated between three broad forms of organisation: markets, bureaucracies and clans. Markets are efficient when products are well-defined and well-understood, and can be regulated by price. Bureaucracies work for a range of public services because, despite their more diffuse products, the services can be efficiently regulated by legitimated authority. Universities do not fit well in either category, given their indeterminate production function and their fundamental need to question and challenge ­legitimate knowledge and authority. They fall naturally into Ouchi’s third form of organisation, the ‘clan’, which is regulated by shared values. If Ouchi’s analysis holds good, as I believe it does (see also Marginson, 2013), then losing the shared values of collegiality is bound to impose inefficiencies: If universities’ shortcomings are addressed only, or primarily, through the market there will be serious distortion. Students will address the things most easily measured, such as contact hours, rather than the more complex but more important issues of student engagement and workload, and the accessibility of academics and learning support. Market-driven careers encourage academics to value research more than teaching, the discipline more than the institution, and cosmopolitan mobility more than local stability. ­Managers in market-driven institutions chase short-term revenue rather than long-term academic integrity. And governments can ‘let the market decide’ rather than face politically difficult and complex choices. (Cuthbert, 2015) It follows that the values of collegiality are actually essential if higher education is to operate efficiently and provide good value for money for students and research sponsors. But this is not an argument for reverting to some imagined golden age. The 21st-century higher education system inevitably takes a global perspective, and mass participation poses major challenges of cost and accountability. P ­ eople in higher education must confront these challenges head-on by working with

66  •  Rob Cuthbert external pressures rather than simply railing against them. There is evidence that both managers and academics are developing new ways of adapting to these challenges. For example, Czerniewicz et al. (2018) begin by noting the threat to core ­academic values: Amongst the significant literature on the mechanisms and effects of marketisation, there is a long-standing body of critique from both the global north and south, with the main argument being premised on the social and public interest values being eradicated or risked in a marketised sector … It is posited that marketisation has undermined the principles of emancipationist humanism upon which universities were founded … social knowledge … scholarship, creativity, and indeed critique itself. However their research with senior managers in England and South Africa suggests that those managers are developing ways to make sense of their marketised environment through ensuring that practices and values are aligned with their partners, even if those partners are providing commercial services. They ‘negotiate the new normal’ by emphasising the pedagogical imperatives guiding partnerships, and ‘The distinction between profit and surplus … marks the university’s desire to set its values apart from those associated with the market’ (Czerniewicz et al., 2018). Similarly, academics may also be adapting to their new environment in ways which protect collegial values. Teaching assessment has been a major focus in managerialist control. Teelken’s (2018) research in the United Kingdom and two other European countries suggested that teaching assessments in the three countries have become more institutionalised, as scepticism of their principles have been replaced with resilience and pragmatism in assessment instruments and, among individual instructors, with sharpened focus on the operational side of teaching. Although faculty members acknowledged benefits of teaching assessments, they could not envision how the assessments would improve the quality of teaching. Core academic values continue to be essential for the quality, standards and value for money which all HE stakeholders seek. Working out how to protect those values in the current system will always be the responsibility of students, staff and governors of HE; we cannot expect politicians to do the work for us. There are grounds for optimism that people in higher education are beginning to work out viable approaches to sustaining collegiality and collaboration in the 21st-century higher education system they inhabit. Note 1 In Shakespeare’s version of history, Prince Hamlet is exiled by the King of Denmark, his uncle Claudius, who murdered Hamlet’s father to gain the throne. En route to exile in England he finds his old friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are carrying a letter from the King,

Collaboration and collegiality  •  67 ordering Hamlet’s death upon his arrival. Hamlet substitutes a letter condemning Rosencrantz and ­Guildenstern and returns to Denmark. By the end of the play Hamlet, Claudius and most of the other players have been killed, leaving only Horatio, he of the narrow perspective. An ­ambassador from England arrives to report ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead’.

References Ashwin, P. (2017) What is the teaching excellence framework in the United Kingdom, and will it work? International Higher Education, 88. DOI: 10.6017/ihe.2017.88.9683 Bess, J.L. (1988) Collegiality and bureaucracy in the modern university: the influence of information and power on decision-making structures. New York: Teachers College Press. Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996) Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation. New York: Doubleday. Brown, R. and Carasso, H. (2013) Everything for sale? The marketization of higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Browne Review (2010) Securing a sustainable future for higher education. An independent review of higher education funding and student finance, 12 October 2010. Available at: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422565/ bis-10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec. 2018]. Cuthbert, R. (2010) Students as customers? Higher Education Review, 42(3): 3–25. Cuthbert, R. (2011) Failing the challenge of institutional evaluation: How and why managerialism flourishes. In M. Saunders, R. Bamber, and P. Trowler (Eds.), Reconceptualising evaluation in higher education: The practice turn (pp. 152–157). Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press/ McGraw-Hill. Cuthbert, R., (2015) Marketing and marketisation: What went wrong and how we can put it right. In P. John and J. Fanghanel (Eds.), Dimensions of marketisation in higher education (pp. 48–56). London: Routledge. Cuthbert, R. (2017) What’s wrong with management in higher education? SRHE Blog, 28 April 2017. Available at: https://srheblog.com/2017/04/28/whats-wrong-with-management-in-higher-­ education/ [Accessed 3 July 2018]. Czerniewicz, L., Mogliacci, R., Walji, S., Swartz, R., Ivancheva, M., Swinnerton, B., and Morris, N. (2018) Negotiating the ‘new normal’: How decision makers in higher education perceive ­marketisation in the sector, in HERDSA Annual Conference Proceedings, 2018, [Re}valuing Higher Education, 25 July 2018. www.academia.edu/36918432/Negotiating_the_new_­normal_How_decision_ makers_in_higher_education_perceive_marketisation_in_the_sector?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest [Accessed 3 July 2018]. Deem, R. (2011) New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1): 47–70. DOI: 10.1080/0962021980020014 Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2007) Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. DOI: 10.1080/03054980500117827 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Dill, D. (1998) Evaluating the ‘Evaluative State’: Implications for research in HE. European Journal of Education 33(3): 361–377. Duffy, B.E. and Pooley, J.D. (2017) “Facebook for Academics”: The convergence of self-branding and social media logic on Academia.edu. Social Media and Society, January–March 2017, 3(1): 1–11. Eldh, C. (2016) What are core values? National and international perspectives. In T. Brage and I. Lövkrona (Eds.), Core values work in academia – with experiences from Lund University. Available at: http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/core_values_work_brage_lovkrona.pdf ­[Accessed 29 June 2018]. Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., and Andresani, G. (2008) The steering of higher education systems: A ­public management perspective. Higher Education, September 2008, 56: 325. DOI: 10.1007/ s10734-008-9125-5

68  •  Rob Cuthbert Fleming, P. (2018) The USS strikes revealed the management hierarchy in higher education, Times Higher Education, 27 May 2018. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/uss-strikes-­revealedmanagement-hierarchy-higher-education [Accessed 28 June 2018]. Higher Education and Research Act (2017) www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents/enacted Hirsch, F. (1976) Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (2018) Treating students fairly: The economics of postschool education. 2nd Report of Session 2017–2019 HL Paper 139 11 June 2018. Macfarlane, B. (2016) ‘Collegiality’ has become an empty word, Times Higher Education, 22 D ­ ecember 2016. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/collegiality-has-­become-anempty-word [Accessed 18 June 2018]. Marginson, S. (2006) Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education, Higher Education, July 2006, 52(1): 1–39. Available at: https://link.springer.com/journal/10734/52/1/ page/1 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Marginson, S. (2013) The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3): 353–370. Martín-Barbero, S. and Monck, A. (2018) The three models of higher education systems globally, Times Higher Education, 26 May 2018. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/three-­ models-higher-education-systems-globally [Accessed 15 June 2018]. Mitchell, N. (2018) Universities’ marketing is out of date, says web guru. University World News, 13 June 2018. Available at: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2018061317383691 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Moodie, G.C. and Eustace, R. (1974) Power and authority in British universities. London: George Allen and Unwin. Ouchi, W.G. (1980) Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 129–141. Palfreyman, D. and Tapper, T. (2014) Reshaping the university: The rise of the regulated market in higher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sahlin, K. and Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (2016) Collegiality in modern universities – the composition of governance ideals and practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2016(2–3). DOI: 10.3402/nstep.v2.33640 Teelken, C. (2018) Teaching assessment and perceived quality of teaching: A longitudinal study among academics in three European countries. European Journal of Higher Education, 20 June 2018. Available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21568235.2018.1490661 [Accessed 3 July 2018]. Temple, P. (2017) Be careful what you wish for. Available at: https://srheblog.com/2017/02/06/be-­ careful-what-you-wish-for/ [Accessed 14 June 2018]. Trow, M. (2007) Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J.J.F. Forest and P.G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 18. Dordrecht: Springer. Watson, D. (2009) The question of morale: Managing happiness and unhappiness in university life. ­Maidenhead: Open University Press. Watson, D. (2014) Only connect: Do we still have a higher education sector? Cambridge: Higher ­Education Policy Institute HEPI Occasional Paper 8. Williams, G. (1976) Review of GC Moodie and R Eustace (1974) Power and Authority in British ­Universities, London: Allen and Unwin. Journal of Social Policy, 2 April, 5: 200–201.

6

The United States: leadership in US public research universities

Design-based strategies and academic organisation JARRETT B. WARSHAW

Introduction In recent years, the concept of design has gained increasing attention among administrators and faculty of public research universities in the United States. Its advocates suggest vital contributions of design-based perspectives for organisational change and leadership strategies, especially within a global knowledge economy. As competition between and within institutions escalates for resources, prestige and world-class status in science, it informs considerations of adopting innovative organisational designs to expand the possibilities for generating and leveraging new knowledge (Crow and Dabars, 2015). The intended design applications to higher education are largely based on interdisciplinary models of research in government and industry laboratories (National Academies, 2005; Geiger and Sá, 2008). There, researchers are grouped by scientific problems rather than by departmental lines, supporting a flexible matrix configuration with orthogonal, cross-cutting linkages throughout the enterprise. Many US public research universities aspire to create matrix structures to open the flow of research, personnel and resources across a campus and in external partnerships with national laboratories, industry, other universities and non-profit entities (Warshaw, 2016). They evolve continua of centres, institutes, schools and departments, by which to position to compete for external funding and prestige and to advance science of broader economic and social relevance. The critics of design take issue with assumptions on which design-based ­strategies are employed and the top-down leadership associated with implementation. Some central administrators and faculty perceive academic departments, which are correlated with and deeply institutionalised in relation to disciplines and fields, as stifling to fast-paced change and to creativity and innovation in research and teaching (Jacobs, 2014). These administrators and faculty could aim to undertake dramatic and largely irreversible efforts, such as restructuring all academic departments into interdisciplinary schools and connecting schools to centres and institutes. Their view, to the critics, fails to consider how change may unfold over

69

70  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw time in loosely coordinated segments of the enterprise and in ways that are substantive and constructive but less outwardly visible. That critique is bolstered by the fact that campus advocates of redesign have not necessarily addressed how leadership and decision-making occur throughout multiple levels of universities, leading to less linear and more unstructured approaches to adapting the component elements of academic organisation and their arrangements/configurations. Recent accounts of design-based leadership focus on the professional role and boundaries of central administrators. A common portrayal indicates the effectiveness of strong, directive forms of administrative leadership that utilises formal managerial and budgetary authority to reshape academic structure to meet institutional goals (Capaldi, 2009). These accounts preclude understandings of how shared governance and faculty contribute to, or are divorced from, decision-­ making and organisational change. Additionally, as universities, academic units and faculty position to compete for research funding, prestige and world-class status, they may each engage in and make increasingly ascendant the processes of academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Cantwell and Kauppinen, 2014). As the theory of academic capitalism suggests, the market-driven behaviours of competition and pursuits to profit from science segment the university. They stratify, and thus exacerbate any power and resource asymmetries, between central administrators, unit leaders and faculty, and within these groups. Processes of academic capitalism are connected to competition for external resources in general and for federal research and development (R&D) funding in particular. The US government distributes about $30 billion annually for R&D at colleges and universities (Stephan, 2012). Nearly 97% flows to STEM fields and disciplines (Taylor, 2016). These funds constitute the largest share of resources for scientific research, and to win them, via competitive peer review, helps to enhance prestige and leads to opportunities to profit from any intellectual property ­developed from the federally funded work (Rooksby, 2016). At the campus level, academic capitalism is reflected in the expansion of managerial capacity and oversight, the development of fluid, network relationships among units on campus and between these units and external partners, and the shift in professional strategies of faculty by which to secure resources. Departments and faculty in the arts, humanities and social sciences face potential stratification and deprofessionalisation, as they are less prioritised over time in internal resource allocations. But even those in STEM fields and disciplines may encounter deprofessionalisation by way of increasing sensitivity to market-driven pressures. With these considerations in mind, this chapter’s research question is: What are the prospects for reconciling the concept and leadership strategies of design with dynamics of academic organisation? This chapter focusses on the relationship between concepts of design and leadership strategies in US public research universities. It applies the theory of academic capitalism to case-study data from four institutions – Stony Brook ­University, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Florida and University of Virginia – whose administrators and faculty have developed

Leadership in US public research universities  •  71 a variety of STEM-centred organisational innovations (SOIs) between 2000 and 2014. SOIs offer illustrative examples of continua of centres, institutes, schools and departments new to the adopting campuses during this time period. The study of SOIs offers an opportunity to consider design and leadership at multiple levels of these institutions and how processes of academic capitalism inform design and ­leadership. A contribution of the chapter to literature and theory on the topic may thus entail its emphasis on leadership strategies and perspectives from ­campus administration (presidents, provosts, deans, associate deans and so on), SOIs ­(directors, chairs and so on) and faculty affiliated with SOIs (tenure-track and tenured professors). These perspectives are of scholarly and practical importance, as they suggest why and how competition between and within universities stratifies academic organisation and restricts the capacity to envisage and/or enact novel designs. As ­considered here, these perspectives may broaden for university leaders and faculty the range of perceived policy and leadership choices to foster new equilibria on and creative possibilities for their campuses. The findings and implications discussed in this chapter are rooted in the US system of higher education but carry international implications. In comparative perspective, the US system is highly decentralised. The federal government has a Department of Education that regulates institutions and administers a robust student financial aid programme, and it defers to individual states and ­campus-centred boards to steer and govern colleges and universities. Such a setting relies more on market forms of coordination, where public institutions compete with each other and with private counterparts, rather than on centralised policymaking via a national education ministry (Hearn et al., 2016). Despite the appreciable differences in the structure and finance of higher education worldwide, there are emerging global trends that reveal distinctive recourses to comparable ends: using competitive markets to establish world-class institutions that enhance scientific funding, productivity and global prestige. To this end, many European public research universities have folded into their structures as once-independent research institutes and centres by which to strengthen their positioning in science (Salerno, 2009; Dill and Van Vught, 2011). Other countries, such as Brazil, China, India and Mexico, are aggressively pursuing efforts to develop world-class universities too (Altbach and Balán, 2007). As SOIs constitute adaptations to competition in the political economy between and within institutions, their designs and associated leadership strategies may lend themselves to ­extrapolation to comparable developments in these other increasingly market-focussed settings. The chapter is organised as follows. The second section presents a theoretical perspective on design and leadership in this arena, as well as propositions of how design and leadership may unfold at different levels of US public research universities. Section 3 addresses the case-study data and analytical strategy employed. Section 4 highlights the perspectives of campus administrators, SOI leaders and faculty in relation to propositions based on literature and theory. Section 5 concludes with implications for reconciling concepts and leadership strategies of ­design with dynamics of academic organisation in US public research universities.

72  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw Theoretical context A structural-functional perspective offers one theoretical lens by which researchers and analysts conceptualise design and leadership strategies in higher education. Crow and Dabars (2015) demonstrate such a view of US public research universities in their definition of design: Institutional design, in our usage, refers broadly both to the process of d ­ esign and its product, the organization of a knowledge enterprise and the social formations and knowledge networks its configuration engenders. The dynamics of this relationship in the American research university may ­appear at first glance to be a perfunctory administrative consideration. …But any institutional platform constructed to support the growth of knowledge is only the product of a sequence of decisions that determine its structure and functions, which may over time require calibration or reconfiguration. (p. 179) Their definition emphasises the need to align formal organisation and modes of production to meet the new interdisciplinary technical demands and goals of science. That is, context influences and is entwined with processes of creating and exchanging knowledge; by amending that context, Crow and Dabars suggest, institutions might improve and optimise their effectiveness and efficiency. The ­structural-functional lens brings helpful attention to adapting structures to amplify and open possibilities of interactions and communication on campus and in external partnerships to advance knowledge of economic and social importance. The Crow and Dabars (2015) conceptualisation of design is rooted in ­knowledge-based theories of the firm, structuration theory and concepts of epistemic communities. Knowledge-based theories of the firm posit that an organisation’s greatest asset, and one that should be protected and guarded from competitors, is the ability to create, transfer, integrate and exploit knowledge ­internally ­(Bolton and Dewatripont, 1994; Liebeskind, 1996; Teece, 2003; ­Håkanson, 2010). ­Structural change focusses on minimising the transaction costs ­associated with creating and exchanging knowledge and maximising value in the process. Sociologically, structuration theory addresses the ways in which organisational context (rules, norms, reward systems and so on) stabilises or destabilises over time relative to the degree to which individuals and groups can, within their contexts, conceive of and pursue innovative methods, approaches and forms and types of work (Giddens, 1984). The boundaries of organisational context for public research universities can be difficult to delineate as institutions, departments and faculty engage with ‘invisible colleges’ and external epistemic communities of disciplinary peers (Slaughter and Hearn, 2009). They boundary-span and bring to their campuses external interests, values, goals and resources; tie together a variety of organisations and collaborators; split accountability among an array of sources and resource providers; and exchange through collaboration knowledge, person­ leksiyenko, 2011). The Crow and Dabars perspective nel and resources (Sá and O

Leadership in US public research universities  •  73 thus indicates the importance of design-based strategies to attend to and synergise these disparate dynamics through organisational change and leadership. As noted in the Introduction, the accounts of design-based organisational change in US public research universities do not attend to specific leadership (or  governance) strategies. They indicate the general professional role and boundaries of central administrators, most notably presidents and provosts, who use formal managerial and budgetary authority to shape academic restructurings ­(Capaldi, 2009). Structural-functional assumptions and perspectives, which centre on how best to reorganise research universities for optimal results, could affirm the importance of administrative decision-making. Administrative leaders are ­positioned in the formal hierarchy of their campuses to look across the academic structure and may believe that they could amend its various components to strategic advantage for the institution as a whole. To the extent that such a perspective informs directive approaches to leadership, it stands in sharp contrast to deference to faculty autonomy and the less structured, ‘organic’ pathways to change. Jacobs (2014) highlights a core critique of administratively driven redesigns: A major concern with the [Crow and Dabars (2015)] model is the centralization of decision making. Interdisciplinarians often rail against the ways that disciplines undermine intellectual freedom. The heartfelt complaint is that a relatively small number of intellectual figures at leading institutions set the agenda for researchers throughout the discipline, thus unduly constraining creativity and scholarly advances. Yet central administrations are less likely to support the level of faculty autonomy and authority of interdisciplinary clusters that discipline-based departments have secured. (p. 215) As design-based changes are operationalised on campuses, they could involve shared governance and faculty engagement in decision-making. But there are knowledge gaps in extant structural-functional accounts. We know relatively little about the types and forms of leadership at faculty-governed levels and how leadership, there, shapes the reorganisation of academic structure. I extend a conceptualisation of design by situating it within an academic ­capitalist, critical perspective of organisational and leadership strategies in US public research universities. Theory of academic capitalism explains the processes and mechanisms by which publicly subsidised institutions position and pursue ­market-like and market initiatives (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Cantwell and Kauppinenn, 2014). Market-like behaviours entail using governmental subsidies to resource competitions for additional forms of external funding. Market efforts constitute leveraging public aspects of campuses (names, logos, trademarks, intellectual property from research and instruction and so on) to profit in the open marketplace. As such a perspective suggests, theorising about design may benefit from a critical eye to dynamics of competition and asymmetries between and within institutions.

74  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw The theory of academic capitalism is developed in relation to global economic competition and the policies used to leverage knowledge-as-raw-material from higher education (and its faculty and students) to serve national competitiveness campaigns. In the United States, economic policies have, since the 1980s, streamlined the process of patenting intellectual property from federally funded research; loosened the legal, regulatory restrictions on what can and should be patented; and promoted, in general, between and within institution competitions for resources and for the prestige and potential world-class status associated with those resources (Rooksby, 2016). The allocation of resources through a ‘tournament’ of funding, resulting in winners and losers, is considered to make ascendant entrepreneurial values and goals of universities, academic units and faculty while underscoring patterns of stratification (Taylor, 2016). These resources are concentrated among an elite group of institutions and scientists, and to compete for them prompts ‘horizontal’ stratification across academic units and faculty (Rosinger et al., 2016). To elaborate, a powerful force driving academic capitalism centres on federal R&D funding. The federal government allocates, in recent years, about $30 billion annually to the various mission agencies – notably the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others – to fund R&D in higher education. These funds, with the exception of contracts and non-competitive awards, are distributed through intensive peer review processes (Stephan, 2012), and they are the predominant source of funding and prestige for the scientific enterprise in colleges and universities. Institutions expend their own resources on research, as external funders do not cover the full costs associated with conducting the work (Gumport, 2016). States, private corporations, philanthropic foundations, alumni and non-profit entities fund R&D-related initiatives as well, and though their funding is not always awarded through peer review, they propel competition among and within institutions (Geiger and Sá, 2008; Warshaw and Hearn, 2014; Taylor et al., 2018). As applied to the organisational level, academic capitalism is reflected in the strengthening of administrative capacity to drive and manage changes throughout the enterprise. It entails the restructuring of academic labour, leading towards an increase in professional staff and reduction in tenure-line and tenured faculty and to additional administrative scrutiny of faculty to meet institutional goals (Rhoades, 2014). Academic capitalism informs as well the stratification of disciplines and fields, privileging resource allocations to STEM over the arts, humanities and social sciences due to perceived market/economic relevance rather than academic merit (Rosinger et al., 2016). About 97% of the federal R&D budget focusses on STEM (with a preference for biomedical and life sciences) (Stephan, 2012), and to increase institutional shares of that funding is linked to targeted ­allocations of funding within the campus. In such a context, design is likely connected to organisational changes and leadership strategies that aim to position universities, departments and faculty to win external and internal competitions. Whether for structural-functional reasons (technical effectiveness and efficiency) or academic capitalist rationales (competition for resources and prestige),

Leadership in US public research universities  •  75 design and leadership in the contemporary era increasingly entail a departure from the loosely coupled academic organisation. Public research universities have evolved over the past decades into disjointed, ‘bottom-heavy’ enterprises, where academic departments of professionalised faculty carry out the core work of ­research, teaching and service (Clark, 1983; Kerr, 1995). Centres and institutes, here, occupy peripheral spaces and are not always embedded in core academic structure. While the general organisational characteristics of these institutions have helped them to uphold an external taken-for-granted status in society as a whole (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), public research universities have nevertheless been associated with strong degrees of loose coupling (Weick, 1976). External perceptions of legitimacy are buffered (e.g. loosely coupled) from understandings of the core operations of these institutions, and on campuses, academic departments are suggestive of loose coupling when they interact and communicate infrequently and indirectly with each other. When the infrequent, indirect interactions and communications of academic departments unfold over time, they foster a loosely coupled system. Loose coupling offers constructive benefits whereby substantive, creative changes occur at local levels of the organisation and in relation to segments of the external environment. Any successes that a department has via loose coupling could flow to other units on campus through a ‘halo’ effect, but if those short-term successes turn into pernicious maladaptation, other units on campus are buffered. Meanwhile, a vulnerability of loose coupling pertains to times of crisis or external disasters that necessitate a coordinated, institution-wide response. Though these dynamics make for rather unstructured, non-linear forms and approaches to ­decision-making (Cohen and March, 1986), they also suggest that public research universities could be, contrary to criticism about them, highly nimble and adaptive. Change occurs at the ground level and thus in less outwardly visible ways. Due to loose coupling, an institution’s design may impose itself. Insofar as concepts and leadership strategies of design are tied to processes of academic capitalism, US public research universities may transition towards operating as corporate-like entities. Markers of that transition consist of adaptations to the core academic structure and to the professional roles and boundaries of campus administration, unit-level leaders and faculty. At each of these levels, propositions can be developed about design and leadership: Campus administration Campus administration includes presidents, provosts and other senior-level ­administrative leaders (e.g. Vice President for Research) who represent the campus as a whole in external contracts, negotiations and partnerships. They are positioned to think of the campus from a systems perspective in terms of how to position internally to establish external competitive advantage. In the context of academic capitalism, these leaders may favour the use of and perceive value in topdown, directive forms of administrative leadership. As they move their institutions in entrepreneurial directions, they could aim to steer and selectively invest in units

76  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw and faculty that give the university a competitive advantage. While presidents and provosts, for example, may not directly manage and oversee particular projects, they could expand managerial capacity and executive-level staff to preside over segments and selected budgets of the institution. There are constructive benefits for institutions from directive forms of leadership and administrative expansion (McClure, 2016). But theory of academic capitalism indicates design-based and leadership strategies that potentially widen the segmentation between administration and the academic enterprise and across departments based on market-like and market initiatives. Unit-level leaders Unit-level leaders are comprised of directors and associate directors and chairs and associate chairs of centres, institutes, schools and departments. In the context of academic capitalism, they could aim to position their particular unit to win internal and external competitions for funding and support. They may focus on elements of design including mission, goals, structural characteristics, personnel, budgets, and marketing and promotion. Meanwhile, their decision-making within their units, especially in centres and institutes, could reflect corporate forms of leadership. They preside, in effect, over ‘quasi-firms’ of faculty, research scientists, postdoctoral researchers, administrative staff, graduate students and ­undergraduate students (Etzkowitz, 2003). Processes of academic capitalism entail ­network-like relationships that open new pathways for the creation and exchange of knowledge, and, as such, they could inform strategic actions (brokering relationships, taking what the system gives, aggregating interests and so on) to negotiate dynamics of collaboration and competition. Faculty Faculty, for the purposes of this chapter, include tenure-track and tenured professors. In their emerging organisational contexts, they may seek strategic alliances and forge interdependent relationships to help them gain access to resources and structures to advance their research agendas and scientific credibility. As ­Slaughter and Leslie (1997) observe, ‘Competition for resources requires that [faculty] ­collaborate with each other, that they capitalize on each other’s strengths while holding each other accountable for the production and quality efforts that are essential to the collective well-being’ (p. 221). The affiliation of faculty to particular structures is related to strategic actions for resources and the production of science. This rationale, which is rooted in dynamics of competition in the political economy, differs from other recent accounts of change in the professional strategies of scientists. These recent accounts suggest a normative shift and new set of technical demands in science that propel scientific collaboration as ‘state-ofthe-art’ (Bozeman and Youtie, 2017). In contrast, market forms of coordination to allocate funding and distribute prestige could be driving the emerging interdependencies in team science.

Leadership in US public research universities  •  77 Case-study and analytical approach Sampling To examine design and leadership strategies, I employed a multiple case study distilled from a broader research project on the topic (Warshaw, 2016). A multiple case-study approach is well-suited for organisational research in higher education and appropriate for analyses of change and adaptation within colleges and universities. I focussed in this chapter on a purposeful sample of SOIs from Stony Brook University (SBU), University of Florida (UF), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne (UIUC) and University of Virginia (UVa). As members of the Association of American Universities (AAU), they are public research universities that compete in knowledge production and knowledge-exchange, pursue ­externally funded R&D and feature a range of organisational units and faculty and administrators suitable to study. Each is ranked in the top 35 public schools in the United States, and three – UF, UIUC and UVa – are in the top 15 (U.S. News & World Report, 2018). While they differ in state-context, endowment and size, their research emphasis makes them sites in which to tease-out effects of design and leadership on academic structure. Specifically, the ‘case’ was defined as the engagement of administrators and faculty with a delimited set of SOIs within an institution. The SOIs were centres, institutes, schools and departments formed in externally funded areas of science, with campus-access to medical schools, and founded between 2000 and 2014 to allow for an adequate sample of relatively new, recent units at their university at that time. I compared the case (administrator and faculty engagement with SOIs) at one institution to the cases at other institutions to approach a robust set of ­empirical conclusions (Yin, 2014). I operationalised centres, institutes, schools and departments based on typologies offered in related literature on the topic (Ikenberry and Friedman, 1972; Bozeman and Boardman, 2013). Using institutional websites to inventory SOIs, I  sampled those that were bricks-and-mortar with recognisable bureaucratic structures, ‘paper’ units (e.g. existing through a website and/or sign or plaque by a faculty office) and virtual units with websites and utilisation of existing facilities. The final sample of 35 SOIs was distributed rather evenly across institutions (about nine per institution) and entailed 29 centres and institutes, two interdisciplinary schools and four academic departments. Of the sampled SOIs, 71% were standard, bricks-and-mortar units (including all schools and departments), 26% were virtual units and 3% were ‘paper’ units. Data collection Using institutional and SOI websites I identified potential research participants throughout the campus administrative hierarchy. I focussed on current and emeriti campus and system officials (campus and system presidents, provosts, vice presidents, deans/associate deans and so on), SOI administrators (directors, ­associate directors, chairs and so on) and affiliate faculty (assistant, associate or full professors)

78  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw with direct knowledge of and involvement in SOIs. Each potential respondent received an e-mail about the study, and 75 participants consented to individual interviews but made for 77 total informants: I counted two participants twice because they had worked and were knowledgeable about SOIs at more than one of the sampled institutions. Table 6.1 shows the structure of the sample of individual respondents. The majority of respondents were senior faculty serving as SOI administrators. I visited each campus in fall 2014, during which I conducted face-to-face interviews with about three-quarters of the respondents. Another quarter of respondents were interviewed by phone, and two participants responded to questions by e-mail. The semi-structured interviews focussed on the emergence and characteristics of the SOI, how and by whom that unit developed over time and what the work of the unit meant for competing in and advancing science. These topical areas allowed for probing the types of designs and leadership strategies deployed and associated outcomes. Each interview ran for about 45 minutes on average and, when conducted in person or by phone, was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Through network sampling (Roulston, 2010), respondents recommended other participants who were perceived as central to the study’s topic. To add rigour and trustworthiness to the study, I triangulated sources of data to supplement interviews. I spent 22 hours – approximately 5.5 per site-visit – in ­campus-archives to review documentary materials on institutions’ historical developments of academic structure, strategic plans and status/standing within the AAU. I collected hardcopy and electronic documents about SOIs (strategic plans/ reports, brochures, website-content, newspaper articles and so on). Additionally, Table 6.1  Percent of research participants, by academic rank and gender Campus leaders (n = 15)

SOI administrators (n = 43)

Affiliate faculty (n = 17)

Total (n = 75)

Academic Rank None Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Endowed Chair/ Distinguished Professor Professor Emeritus/a

6.7 0 0 20.0 26.7

11.6 0 16.3 39.5 27.9

– 11.8 23.5 29.4 29.4

8.0 2.7 14.7 33.3 28.0

46.7

4.7

5.9

13.3

46.7

11.6

11.8

18.7

Gender Female

Note: ‘None’, a category under Academic Rank, includes the percent of SOI administrators and campus leaders who hold PhDs but who do not have joint academic appointments.

Leadership in US public research universities  •  79 SOI administrators and faculty toured me through laboratories, and I distilled these first-hand observations into field notes. These materials helped to clarify timelines and details about SOIs and the design and leadership strategies connected to them. Analysis I used a priori codes, within the context of the guiding theoretical propositions, to analyse the cases. I coded for the perspectives on and types of design and leadership strategies that each stakeholder group deployed and how those perspectives and related initiatives shaped SOIs at the sampled university. In addition, I also employed an emergent coding procedure to explore aspects of data not o ­ therwise captured through the a priori coding method (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The emerging coding process is especially helpful for discerning discrepancies or non-­ conforming patterns or themes and for developing rival explanations (e.g. ­design in the public research universities has a life of its own and is loosely coupled from or mediates structural-functional and academic capitalism forms of leadership). The analysis featured within- and cross-case coding and p ­ attern-matching techniques to identify, refine and organise empirical themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this chapter, the presentation of results focusses on the broad summative themes for each stakeholder group – campus administrators, SOI leaders and ­faculty – ­aggregated across the sampled cases and institutions. Limitations This analysis focusses on SOIs that, while relatively new to their campuses, are formalised and thus precludes examining those in earlier, more nascent and unstructured stages of development. The participants in this study represent stakeholders throughout organisational levels on their campuses, but do not include research scientists (who work full-time for centres and institutes), project managers and staff, postdoctoral researchers and graduate and undergraduate students connected to SOIs. Additionally, perspectives of external constituents (e.g. policymakers and industry) and members of governing and trustee boards are omitted. US public research universities share comparable field conditions of opportunities and constraints and pull resources from a similar set of providers; they differ, especially in their finances, from private research universities, and thus research on public AAU institutions may be limited in the extent to which findings may be extrapolated to others in the US system. Design-based and leadership strategies The study’s results are presented in the following by each of the three stakeholder groups in order to capture variation within and across campus administrators, SOI leaders and faculty. Broad, summative patterns for each group are emphasised, informing a more general understanding of administrator and faculty engagement in organisational change in this arena. Implications from these findings address

80  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw the animating research question of whether –and how – concepts and leadership strategies of design can be reconciled with dynamics of academic organisation. Campus administrators Campus administrators in the study emphasised leadership strategies by which to shape external perceptions of and enhance resource flows to their institutions. As respondents throughout the cases and universities noted, the competitive dynamics in science and in higher education informed an understanding among institutional leaders that their campuses were either ascending or falling. They did not necessarily use formal administrative and budgetary authority to create or implement their own models of organisational design. Instead, many of the campus administrators sought to close financial deals that would create SOIs as envisioned by donors and other resource providers and generate additional and matching state funds. A respondent from UIUC captured well a strategy of brokering/negotiating relationships and aggregating interests. In the following excerpt, the respondent discussed a historic moment in the 1980s that led to the creation of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, and the strategy employed at that time was later replicated for the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and for other, more recent SOIs: Quite often you use the prospect of support from one source as an ­instrument to leverage comparable or greater support from another source. In the case of the Beckman Institute, [we] had the governor of the state of Illinois lobbying Arnold Beckman to make this major donation, and [we] had ­Arnold Beckman lobbying the governor of the state of Illinois to support the university more than he had. So…positive things can leverage the whole enterprise up, and in the case of supercomputing, we got major federal grants for supercomputing, but one of the reasons we were so competitive was not just our historic strength in the computing field, but we were also able to enlist support from the state of Illinois [by emphasizing] that this was good for the state and good for the region for Illinois to be seen as the leader in supercomputing. As such a perspective suggests, there may already be a design or template in mind for a specific initiative (e.g. a centre for supercomputing) that donors or resource providers bring to campuses. Campus leaders, in turn, may leverage targeted forms of support, which help to form SOIs, to broaden other forms and types of funding (from the state) to ‘leverage the whole enterprise up’. Here we see some initial evidence of processes of academic capitalism, entailing competition and selective focus on units of competitive advantage, serving to support campuses more generally. At the campus level, administrative leaders highlighted their gatekeeping-like initiatives in deciding which faculty-driven SOIs to support and, potentially, to fund. Faculty could aim to create SOIs at any time, whether their efforts were

Leadership in US public research universities  •  81 connected to specific external grant opportunities (e.g. to receive centre-level grants from federal mission agencies) or not. To balance institutional investments a leader at UF indicated a measured perspective reflecting the tenor and tone of others in the study. While it was important to cultivate and assess faculty ‘grassroots’ efforts, the respondent said, there was also a need at the ‘administration level to look over the landscape of [faculty] expertise and say, “‘You know, where should we form some institutes?”’ Excellence matters and entails an important criterion for establishing SOIs. A campus leader at UVa noted that in order for an SOI to emerge and develop, it had to meet the institution’s threshold for quality and also excite and inspire a donor. Meanwhile, another campus leader at UF explained that disciplines and fields, in order to become academic departments, should show that they have ‘withstood the test of time, and therefore people have been able to question, add to, debate, share, and come to some conclusion’. Thus, central administrators did shape SOIs on their campuses by way of setting standards for quality/excellence, regulating which types of faculty initiatives could or could not formalise, and influencing which types of faculty initiatives could become which types of SOIs (e.g. institutes or academic departments). There were a range of perspectives on how best to facilitate the reorganisation and redesign of the scientific enterprise on campus. Some campus administrators, as noted earlier, suggested democratic-like processes of deciding which endeavours to support. They discussed vetting proposals to determine which SOIs might include the broadest range of faculty and have the broadest marginal, positive benefits for the overseeing unit or entity or the campus as a whole. Meanwhile, other campus leaders adopted a market-infused perspective to concentrate resources among an elite few in order to enhance the institution’s status and resources. A respondent from UVa articulated this philosophical stance well. In the following excerpt, she described the federal R&D funding approach to support the very best scientists at a small number of prominent universities and to offer some, but not quite as robust, resources to improve the competitiveness of other faculty and ­campuses in the United States. At issue is whether a ‘democratic’ strategy, distributing resources widely across scientists and institutions, serves the national interest: I don’t think of those [resource allocations to less-competitive institutions] as being “democratic.” I think of those [funds] as saying, “Look, our infrastructure has some weak elements to it. Our research infrastructure. And this is a way to build some new, strong players that eventually will be able to compete with anybody else in the nation.” Okay. So kill the word “democracy” with respect to research investment. It is a terrible idea. This perspective, as operationalised at the campus level, entails helping the ‘first tier researchers’, the respondent added, to create SOIs. While such a strategy may stratify resources on campuses, it has yet to ascend in full across the cases and institutions in the study. That is, the use of internal competitions and the distribution of resources to the very best without doubt is occurring in the study, but it sits rather uneasily and in tension with gatekeeping for equity.

82  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw SOI leaders SOI leaders, as they formed their units, utilised a type of bricolage in which they took what the system of resources and funding offered them. For example, the leaders of National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Industry/University Collaborative Research Centers (I/UCRCs) had some latitude to shape particular structural and managerial aspects of these units; however, the NSF was the designer/innovator that set the general organisational template and funding arrangements and timelines. Examples in this study include the I/UCRCs for Lasers and Plasmas at UVa (founded in 2002), High-Performance and Reconfigurable Computing at UF (founded in 2007) and Innovative Instrumentation Technology at UIUC (founded in 2013). Between 1990 and 2006, the Whitaker Foundation spent its entire holdings on creating Biomedical Engineering Departments at colleges and universities. Throughout the early 2000s, SBU, UF and UIUC created these departments despite not winning Whitaker money, in part to compete with other institutions that did win the funds in the emerging disciplinary field. Though each department varies somewhat in its content, operations and faculty expertise, it suggests the institutionalisation across campuses of an organisational design common to many institutions and one encouraged by Whitaker in order to ensure the longevity of the disciplinary field. These considerations suggest that many SOI leaders in the study predominately rely on and inherit externally imposed models of design. To the extent that SOI leaders could influence the designs of their units, leadership strategies focussed on using formal authority over operations and budgets. Many of the centres and institutes in the study were intended to endure for the long-term, and to compete to survive, some SOI leaders periodically reviewed the performance of affiliated research teams and would, if needed, dissolve less productive ones. The SOI itself persists by dissolving teams and agendas when, a UIUC respondent observed, ‘the animating idea, the moment of that idea, may pass, [and] events, larger events, may sort of surpass it. And so, on the national scene…there are reasons’. The viability of research groups is highly dependent on demonstrating relevance to national scientific priorities and, by extension, securing funding for themselves and their SOIs. Another strategy for SOI leaders entailed the astute use of budgetary authority to calibrate, if they could, the indirect cost recovery rate for their units. All colleges and universities apply to eligible external grants mark-ups for every dollar received to cover indirect costs (electricity, heat, facilities upkeep and so forth) and maintain and improve research infrastructure. That is, grants do not cover the full costs of conducting the research, and how these overhead returns are split among different campus units, whose faculty have joint appointments among numerous SOIs, can be contentious and a source of competition and strain in the university. At UF, stand-alone institutes, which reported directly to the provost, were funded with a hard money-line used to offset the costs of departments recruiting top investigators. Then, if UF successfully hired these top investigators, portions of grant funding would flow to the institution, to the stand-alone institutes and to the department in a way that was favourable to each entity. An SOI leader explained how

Leadership in US public research universities  •  83 overhead costs are frequently what drive a university, and the way it’s set up, the institutes automatically get 7.5% of overhead, which does not interfere with the 10% that departments routinely get. And, so, consequently, for a department chair to collaborate on recruitment [of faculty members], not only do they get a top investigator at a cheap price, they will also get that investigator’s overhead return…without my taking anything from it. So they get a top-notch investigator at half price, plus they get the full overhead return. That’s really attractive. Some SOIs were founded in order to seed-fund other centres and institutes. The success of nanoSTAR at UVa (founded in 2004) and Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at UIUC (founded in 2001) depended on their ability to create other units that advanced different niches of nanotechnology research (e.g. individualised medicine, brain mapping, technology-infused clothing and apparel, agricultural devices and so forth). Those SOI leaders who benefitted from seed funding perceived their units as situated within a ‘network of support’, a respondent at UVa observed. SOI leaders who did not have seed funding from other units on campus emphasised the intense competitions for resources that limited progress on scientific goals. As a respondent at SBU described it, ‘I mean…call it Dante in the ­Inferno. Do you know how many rings there are in the Inferno? What are there, nine? I mean, most of them are filled with academics looking for funding. It’s just brutal’. SOI leaders employed external boundary-spanning strategies to open opportunities for affiliate faculty to shape national funding priorities. They advocated for their faculty to participate in workshops at federal funding agencies so that these faculty could craft calls for proposals and thus have an advantage in competing for awards. An SOI administrator at UVa captured this strategy well: In fact, the last few days I was just at NIH, and we had a two day workshop that I helped organize on aging and place, and we had everyone from ­Medicare to… vendors, to patients, to all the technical people coming together to say – they call it the “Silver Tsunami.” All the people are aging at a hurricane rate, and how are we going to deal with this? …So that’s not a new vision, but the ideas, they’re starting to pay attention, and things are happening enough that the technology is being considered, that it can help, and so we just had this two day meeting…. As such a perspective suggests, SOIs could help in the external identification of scientific experts. They are suggestive of conferring a form of credibility to their institution and faculty, and thus serve as conduits between the campus and mission agencies. Faculty Faculty in the study had affiliated with a number of SOIs on their campuses, while maintaining their tenure homes in academic departments or schools. Some faculty

84  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw indicated the symbolic, status-related benefits of being connected to centres and institutes, but they were nevertheless sceptical of whether those organisational units improved scientific productivity and performance. Even though SOIs in general, and centres and institutes in particular, often provided access to laboratory equipment, facilities, funding and other researchers, several faculty questioned their critical importance to their work: some of the naming just comes because of how the granting agencies work. They say we’re going to fund a “centre,” and so you have to call yourself a “centre” because that’s what they’re saying they’re going to fund. (Associate professor, SBU) [If] you see a centre or institute on paper, to me, really the only guarantee is that they have each other’s e-mails [for the listserv]. (Assistant professor, UF) I was very involved with [the Institute for Genomic Biology] when it first formed, which was…a genomics based institute and in many different flavors from neuroscience, to plants, to energy production, to microorganisms, and…new antibiotics. But I actually am not a genomicist. So…I pretty well knew that that wasn’t going to be a good move for me. (Endowed chair, UIUC) These perspectives suggest that for some faculty respondents throughout different ranks and levels of seniority, selected SOIs such as centres and institutes had difficulty engaging them in collaborative research projects over time. They maintained joint appointments but did not always perceive a fit with their work or believe that SOIs were necessary to meet the technical demands of science. Yet other faculty noted the strategic benefits of affiliating with SOIs to help them compete for external funding in interdisciplinary fields. For example, an SOI administrator at UVa discussed wanting to transition from faculty to SOI leader because of the scientific ‘prestige’ of leading a centre that ‘allows you to publish papers in a certain area or certain time. That helps your credibility…but [for] all the benefits and all the talent, funding is never easy’. According to a faculty member at SBU, centres and institutes can position already-established investigators to build additional credibility and in new, emerging areas for funding. These centres and institutes further allow for collaborations with scientists who may already have the necessary expertise to improve the chances of receiving funding through peer review. In relation to competition for funding, the respondent explained: [I]f you were to change completely what you do, you have to then build up credibility in that new area…. You may have expertise in part of it but you’re never going to be credible for that unless you can either demonstrate that you now have acquired this new expertise or you bring in someone, you know, [to] collaborate.

Leadership in US public research universities  •  85 As such perspectives indicate, faculty in the study could turn to SOIs to help them advance their research for technical reasons: advancing research in particular niches of science, enhancing credibility and expertise in specialised areas, ­accessing equipment and facilities and so forth. Additionally, these perspectives suggest the ways in which competition in science and for external funding may compel scientific collaboration and affiliation with SOIs. Faculty in the study demonstrated another, particular strategy by which to advance their research and deepen their professionalisation in science: managerialisation. They sought to join centres and institutes and also to become leaders and managers of them. To this end, faculty did not always create or shape the characteristics, forms and types of SOIs but instead assumed managerial and leadership roles of those that were already established. An associate faculty member at UF explained the predominant rationale: And I’m considering it. And the reason I’m considering it is because we’ve put together a large proposal for the National Institutes of Health, and I’m one of the principal investigators. And then because I’m an associate ­professor — I’m not a full professor — I’m thinking that it will give me some credibility to show that I can manage big teams and take on leadership roles. The respondent suggests managerialisation as recourse to improving the chances of receiving funding for research. Other faculty in the study indicated a range of motivations for considering or assuming leadership positions in SOIs, such as seeking new career challenges, building up new programmes and departments and helping bring science to broader public audiences to benefit society as a whole. Nevertheless, before junior faculty could consider broadening their portfolio of academic work, an assistant professor at UVa noted, they needed to make sure that they could ‘feed’ themselves, their projects and their students with funding. Discussion and conclusion At heart, the concept of design offers a general framework by which to examine the relationship between academic organisation and the creation and exchange of knowledge. A design-based perspective suggests a helpful, flexible means of analysis for university leaders and faculty for considering how to adapt organisational context to advance science of economic and social importance to society as a whole. The pushback among critics to design-based changes lies in what they view as faulty assumptions about academic organisation and in the associated forms of top-down, directive leadership employed. For example, leadership and decision-making occur throughout multiple levels of public research universities, suggesting less linear and more unstructured forces of change in segments of campus and in relation to distinctive markets. This chapter has aimed to address, through an empirical case-study example, the prospects for reconciling the concept and leadership strategies of design with dynamics of academic organisation. Broad implications from the cases and sampled institutions are discussed in this

86  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw section, while a treatment of the results, as disaggregated by case and institution, are featured in Warshaw (2016). As the findings from this chapter suggest, campus administrators, unit-level leaders and faculty each contribute to forming and developing SOIs on their campuses. While each level of leadership indicates some distinctive strategies that inform design, there are striking commonalities throughout the cases and sampled institutions: the templates and models of design are largely inherited and suggestive of widely institutionalised forms in higher education. As such, SOIs in this study constitute local innovations, structures new to the adopting campuses but not necessarily new to the broader field of higher education. Campus administrators in this chapter, contrary to the theoretical propositions about them, did not necessarily utilise top-down, directive administrative leadership to undertake dramatic, sweeping structural changes (e.g. dissolving all academic departments and creating new interdisciplinary schools). They sought to leverage resource providers, especially donors, who were already set on wanting to fund a centre or institute; strategy, then, focussed on operationalising details of the centre and institute and on harnessing one source of funding to secure another, such as matching funds from the state. Likewise, SOI leaders often turned to traditional forms of organisation as they established centres, institutes, schools and departments. Academic capitalism offers an explanation, such that competition for federal R&D funding, for instance, may require compliance to the rules and expectations of the mission agencies. The NSF was the architect of I/UCRCs, so SOI leaders (and campus administrators and faculty) were not involved in shaping the broad idea of what those centres would and should look like. Though faculty were somewhat sceptical of whether an SOI, especially a centre or institute, was an effective design for advancing science, they still affiliated with the newer entities on campus. Affiliation, in this context of competition, suggests a normative value placed on SOIs, a ‘must-have’ connection for faculty to these units, irrespective of technical demands or needs in science. The main implications for university leaders and faculty pertain to the scope and bandwidth of imagination and the set of perceived, actionable leadership strategies available to them. Despite the adoption of long-standing forms of academic organisation (centres, institutes, schools and departments), the campus administrators and SOI leaders in the study focussed on innovative designs for individual or discreet networks of units. While the centre design has been a feature of academic organisation in research universities since the early 1900s ­(Gumport, 2016), it takes on intriguing, creative directions via the way its budget and indirect cost recovery are calibrated. The establishment of Biomedical ­Engineering Departments reflects the achievement of the ‘gold standard’ of academic design for emerging fields and disciplines, but each of these departments in the study reflects important nuances in content, faculty expertise and relationship with medical schools, external partners and funders. Such findings suggest that the reach of the creative imagination seems focussed on atomised aspects of individual entities rather than on generating entirely new and even bolder, more novel types of academic organisation.

Leadership in US public research universities  •  87 Academic capitalism accounts for segmentation as reflected in privileging some units over others in resource competitions, and it suggests, here, a specialised focus on component elements of selected SOIs or uniting selected SOIs together in resource networks. Yet the deeply institutionalised, traditional academic structure at the sampled universities may offer another explanation. Incremental change ‘on the margins’ of core academic organisation could be more feasible and politically viable than a dramatic altering of long-standing, embedded departments. Institutionalised forces, then, could limit the range of perceived and actionable possibilities. The leadership strategies in this study are notable for their variation throughout the levels of the cases and institutions and for their relative indirectness. For instance, campus administrators drive change when they work with philanthropists and donors to operationalise plans and designs for SOIs, but as this chapter suggests, they do not necessarily utilise corporatised forms of decision-making and management. We do not find many instances here of the use of incentive grants or cluster hire initiatives brought on by institutional leadership to steer strategic change (Geiger and Sá, 2008). It is possible that these approaches to fostering internal collaborations and external competitions in interdisciplinary areas of science are occurring but have not been salient topics of conversation in the interviews about SOIs. Or it could suggest that the ascendancy of processes of academic capitalism is mediated by institutional context and specific circumstances informing the development of SOIs on campus. Meanwhile, that faculty perceive managerialisation as a professional strategy is striking. The theory of academic capitalism suggests power asymmetries between administration and faculty that deprofessionalises professors in the sciences (beholden to market forces and administrative scrutiny) and in the arts, humanities and social sciences (beholden to underfunding and administrative scrutiny). But perhaps the theory could be recast to shed light on the collapsing of professional roles and boundaries between administrators and STEM faculty, such that competition in science may underscore perceptions of administrative leadership as important to advancing one’s scientific career. The motivations of faculty to assume leadership positions, which carry managerial and budgetary authority, merit further research attention. The concept and leadership strategies of design have potential for constructive application to US public research universities, but could benefit from dynamic, fluid use. As the findings from this chapter suggest, top-down design and leadership are not always feasible or sustainable, and competition between and within institutions may stratify the academic organisation and constrain the capacity to imagine and/or implement novel designs. The case-study data in this chapter indicate that at least some degree of loose coupling remains in academic organisation. Design seems to impose itself at various points in time and from a variety of external and internal constituents and sources. Loose coupling may challenge an administratively driven, systems-thinking approach to organisational strategy and change, suggesting that any given leader or stakeholder can only know so much about a decision-making opportunity and the organisation as a whole (Cohen and March, 1986). More generally, there is such a strong focus across many research

88  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw universities on capturing external resources and federal R&D funding. But competition may amplify to the point that it curtails risk-taking and innovating, in both science and in design, to increase the chances of winning (e.g. pursuing ‘­fundable’ projects) (Ness, 2015). Even as central administrators, SOI leaders and faculty each, and at times collaboratively, envisage truly novel designs and approaches to knowledge production, they may not be able to enact them due to competitive pressures to win funding. This chapter’s findings point towards several fruitful areas to consider for future research and policy. Two such areas of potential urgency include the use of data in decision-making and the deployment of pilot programmes. For example, we know relatively little about how campus administrators, SOI leaders and faculty gather, compile, share, analyse and reach conclusions about data. To what extent and how are data employed to determine which SOIs can and should formalise? How are data used – and by whom – to evaluate the market prospects of SOIs and their productivity and performance? Which types of data are included or excluded and how does this inform (or limit) understandings of quality and effectiveness? To the extent that design and leadership strategies have potential maladaptive effects on campuses, pilot programmes may be useful. Stakeholders could experiment with particular aspects of units or delimited sets of units, utilising elements of loose coupling to buffer the campus. Such an approach might quell concerns among critics about any backlash to campus and about the potential pitfalls in undertaking sweeping moves to restructure the university as a whole. Though the case-study data for this chapter come from the United States, where market competition is prevalent and governance is highly decentralised, they seem to parallel emerging global trends. Specifically, university leaders and faculty in the United States and in international settings could benefit from cross-comparative work that highlights the recourses to and consequences of the changes taking place. As universities in the Netherlands and Germany, for instance, fold once-independent research institutes and centres into their campus organisational structures, they inevitably feature an array of leadership and managerial strategies and tactics. How does leadership in these contexts compare to efforts in the United States to create new units within universities? To what extent does privatisation of the European public research university inform recourses to academic capitalism analogous to, or different from, pathways and processes in the United States? Importantly, what can or should university leaders and faculty in the US learn from international systems of education, where governmental steering has served to balance institutional interests with the broader public good? Such comparative perspectives, aiming to foster learning and scaling to context, will do well to expand the opportunities for organisations and leaders. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Jim Hearn, Sheila Slaughter and Erik Ness for informing my thinking in this chapter, and to Jill Jameson for the helpful comments and suggestions.

Leadership in US public research universities  •  89 Please address correspondence to Jarrett B. Warshaw, Department of Educational Leadership & Research Methodology, Florida Atlantic University, ED47–250, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA. Phone: 1–561-297–3555. E-mail: ­[email protected]. References Altbach, P.G. and Balán, J. (Eds.). (2007) World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bolton, P. and Dewatripont, M. (1994) The firm as a communication network. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4): 809–839. Bozeman, B. and Boardman, C. (2013) Academic faculty in university research centers: Neither capitalism’s slaves nor teaching fugitives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(1): 88–120. Bozeman, B. and Youtie, J. (2017) The strength in numbers: The new science of team science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cantwell, B. and Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014) Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Capaldi, E.D. (2009) Intellectual transformation and budgetary savings through academic reorganization. Change, 41(4): 19–27. Clark, B.R. (1983) The contradictions of change in academic systems. Higher Education, 12(1): 101–116. Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986) Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crow, M.M. and Dabars, W.B. (2015) Designing the new American university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dill, D.D. and Van Vught, F.A. (Eds.). (2010) National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32: 109–121. Geiger, R.L. and Sá, C.M. (2008) Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gumport, P.J. (2016) Graduate education and research: Interdependence and strain. In M.N. Bastedo, P.G. Altbach, and P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (4th ed., pp. 110–154). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Håkanson, L. (2010) The firm as an epistemic community: The knowledge-based view revisited. ­Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6): 1801–1828. Hearn, J.C., Warshaw, J.B., and Ciarimboli, E.B. (2016) Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education and Science, 41(184): 1–26. Ikenberry, S.O. and Friedman, R.C. (1972) Beyond academic departments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ­ niversity. Jacobs, J.A. (2014) In defense of disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research u Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kerr, C. (1995) The uses of the university (4th ed.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Liebeskind, P.J. (1996) Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 93–107. McClure, K.R. (2016) Building the innovative and entrepreneurial university: An institutional case study of administrative academic capitalism. Journal of Higher Education, 87(4): 516–543. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.

90  •  Jarrett B. Warshaw Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. National Academies. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research & Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ness, R.B. (2015) The creativity crisis: Reinventing science to unleash possibility. New York: Oxford ­University Press. Rhoades, G. (2014) Extending academic capitalism by foregrounding academic labor. In B. Cantwell and I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 113–134). ­Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rooksby, J.H. (2016) The branding of the American mind: How universities capture, manage, and monetize intellectual property and why it matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rosinger, K.O., Taylor, B.J., Coco, L., and Slaughter, S. (2016) Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. Journal of Higher Education, 87(1): 27–54. Roulston, K. (2010) Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory & practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sá, C.M. and Oleksiyenko, A. (2011) Between the local and the global: Organized research units and international collaborations in the health sciences. Higher Education, 62(3): 367–382. Salerno, C. (2009) Privatizing the public European university. In C.C. Morphew and P.D. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 160–180). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S. and Hearn, J.C. (2009) Final report for centers, universities, and the scientific innovation ecology: A workshop. NSF Grant BCS-0907827. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stephan, P. (2012) How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, B.J. (2016) The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000–2008. In S. Slaughter and B.J. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada (pp. 59–79). New York: Springer. Taylor, B.J., Barringer, S.N., and Warshaw, J.B. (2018) Affiliated non-profit organizations: Strategic ­action and research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 89(4): 422–452. Teece, D.J. (2003) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In C.W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge management (pp. 129–152). Berlin: Springer Verlag. U.S. News and World Report. (2018) Best Colleges. Available at: www.usnews.com/best-colleges ­[Accessed 20 Nov. 2018]. Warshaw, J.B. (2016) Structuring to advance science: STEM-centered organizational innovations in the research university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Warshaw, J.B. and Hearn, J.C. (2014) Leveraging university research to serve economic development: An Analysis of policy dynamics in and across three U.S. states. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2): 196–211. Weick, K.E. (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Yin, R.K. (2014) Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

7

South America: Colombia

A case study of leadership and transformation in the City of Medellin ROBIN MIDDLEHURST AND TOM KENNIE

Introduction All higher education institutions - public and private, non-profit and forprofit, from state colleges, research universities, community colleges and a wide variety of technical and professional schools – serve a public purpose. (adapted from Shapiro, 2005) While many stakeholders of higher education across the globe would wholeheartedly support this assertion, others would disagree. Challengers to this claim could point in several directions: to investors that seek to derive owner or shareholder profit from their universities and colleges, to governments that emphasise the private benefits of graduate status over the public return on investment in higher education systems and to governments that are increasing regulatory pressures on higher education to achieve greater accountability for their tax payers’ dollars. There are critical voices inside the academy – and outside – which argue that higher education can and should play a larger role in helping to solve big social and environmental challenges, such as climate change and healthcare, poverty and inequality, and mass migration. In practice, perhaps, it is the nature of the public purposes which higher education serves that is changing, just as the expectations of the contributions that higher education should make to a range of public purposes are shifting. If so, such changes will have implications for many levels of higher education operations, including the curricula and qualifications offered, staff roles and working conditions, teaching styles and opportunities for students, and research agendas. There will also be implications for leadership and governance of institutions and for the contributions of individuals and groups to such leadership. In this chapter we explore these ideas both conceptually, in notions of ‘critical leadership’ and ‘shifting public purposes’, and in practice, through a case study of transformational change and leadership taking place in the city of Medellin in Colombia, South America.

91

92  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie The idea of ‘critical leadership’ in a changing context for higher education As any internet search will today reveal, there are thousands of definitions of leadership. Each definition is influenced both by the context in which the practice of leadership is expressed and by theories of leadership that have emerged from different disciplinary cultures and traditions (Middlehurst, 2008). In regions of the world with an Anglo-Saxon heritage, a 20th-century view of leadership in higher education has emphasised (and, some would argue, overemphasised) a heroic, individualistic and hierarchical view of leadership closely aligned to a command-and-control style of management which has been widely dubbed – and derided – as ‘managerialism’ (Deem et al., 2001). Such concepts of leadership and management have been linked by sociologists and philosophers (Olssen, 2006) with wider socio-economic theories of neoliberalism that have gained substantive political traction over the past 30 years in Anglophone regions, and beyond. The origins of neo-liberal ideas and their leadership and management associations were laid earlier in 19th-century industrial contexts and honed in the cycles of economic, social, technological and political development that characterised the post-war years in Western society, from the 1950s to the 1990s. The apparent economic success of these ideas in corporate business sectors led political supporters to advocate the transfer of these ideas and their operational implications to various public sectors including healthcare, public services and education, in the interests of greater efficiency and effectiveness (Pollitt, 1990; Exworthy and Halford, 1999). The ideology of neoliberalism has been powerful and pervasive in policy circles over more than three decades. Now almost a quarter of a century into the 21st century – and with the generation of ‘millenials’ well-established – it is clear that the present era is vastly different to the 19th and 20th centuries in terms of the socio-economic, technological and political contexts for higher education. Prior to 2007–2008, the globalisation of higher education, including the importance of capital and information flows and free trade, appeared to be the prevailing narrative that informed both economic thinking and higher education policies in many regions. Post 2007–2008, after the most significant financial crash in a century, the almost unquestioning promotion of globalisation as both an inevitability and a positive development for all sectors has come under severe scrutiny (Piketty, 2014) as the socio-economic impacts of the crash have rippled across economies and societies in all parts of the world. The promises of globalisation, underpinned by increasing technological and economic inter-connectivity (leading to growth, human progress and social transformation), seemed not only to be overblown and overplayed but also neglectful of increasing inequalities within and between societies and countries. At the same time, other drivers of change and global challenges have gained prominence with the emergence of what has been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab, 2016). The prospect of fundamental and transformative change for economies and societies now demands attention from policymakers and higher education leaders alike. The speed and direction of technological advances, such as digitalisation and

Leadership and transformation in Medellin  •  93 artificial intelligence, may offer solutions to global challenges or pose new challenges and, most likely, both. It is the task of higher education leadership to navigate through these choppy waters, offering direction and examples of new ways of working to stakeholders within and outside the academy. In a prescient foresight study commissioned by the Council for Excellence in Leadership and Management in 2000, William Tate analysed and synthesised a range of futures’ studies that had been produced mainly by UK government departments at the turn of the century (Tate, 2000). The author described the features of future organisations and of governance and leadership; some of his key insights are worth repeating. Organisation (hierarchical power): With declining deference and increasing informality, structures will become more fluid, and marked by open communication and less protocol. Lateral communications will matter more than vertical communication. Employees and customers will feel free to email the chief executive. (Tate, 2000: 8) Management and leadership: Governance and accountability: Transparency will increase. Critics will be more educated, informed, transnational and vocal, in some cases holding the effective power of veto. Pressure will be exerted by stakeholders to keep business honest and hold it accountable in a holistic way. (Tate, 2000: 9) Leadership: Leading large organisations will become more difficult and burdensome. This will result from growing complexity, excessive data, public expectations, conflicting pressures, social changes, media gaze, criticism, and compliance codes. The inherent attractiveness of leadership in large companies (as well as for holders of public office) may decline as pressures and stresses rise. Pay may compensate. (Tate, 2000: 9) While Tate was making predictions, other consultants and researchers (Hamel, 2007, 2012) were mounting a trenchant critique of 19th- and 20th-century management practices which had been shaped in the first industrial revolution yet were still being applied to 21st-century organisations that faced an accelerating pace of change, expanding competition and the potential for far-reaching disruptive innovation to whole industries. Hamel (2007: 60–63) pointed to dangers at three levels, echoing some of Tate’s predictions: i Too much management, too little freedom. The more meddlesome the managerial oversight and the more restricting the shackles of policy and process, the less passionate people are going to be about their work …

94  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie ii Too much hierarchy, too little community. Hierarchies are good at ­aggregating effort (coordinating the activities of many people with many roles), but communities outperform bureaucracies in mobilising human capability … iii Too much exhortation, too little purpose. Initiative, creativity, and passion are gifts that people can give or withhold, they cannot be commanded … we need to enlarge the sense of mission and purpose in ways that enlist and justify extraordinary contributions … Hamel suggested that there is a need to challenge the status quo in organisations, and this involved looking at the organisation or business from the outside; ­re-examining the inheritance, legacy beliefs and ‘eternal truths’; rooting out dogma by asking sharp questions; exposing self-interest; and distinguishing between choices and consequences. Interestingly and importantly, ‘challenging the status quo’ is one of the five leadership practices of exemplary leadership in Kouzes and Posner’s model (2003), also identified as relevant for higher education settings (Bryman, 2007; quoted in Middlehurst, 2013). Each of the authors cited points to aspects of ‘critical leadership’. They note the growth and spread of ‘external critique’ arising from more educated and v­ ocal stakeholders, including today’s instant, fluid and open critique carried by s­ ocial media. In many Western societies, such external critique now comes from a ­myriad of sources – politicians and governments, businesses and public organisations, students and their families, and multiple media outlets. It requires formal and informal, instantaneous responses from institutional leadership to a variety of topical issues affecting, for example, students’ well-being, or institutions’ policy on investments in fossil fuels. In other societies, external critique of higher education is expressed in more repressive forms that can challenge academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Leaders also need to deal with internal critique. Some of this may be v­ alues-driven, reflecting differing views of the strategic direction and positioning of the institution; other aspects will arise from the painful reality of restructuring as institutions (or indeed, governments) seek to cut redundant processes (and roles) and invent new ones, affecting individual lives, traditional working patterns and careers. New voices are also entering the internal arena as students acquire more power and influence, as a consequence of changing expectations of quality assurance, increasing regulation, rising student fees and the significance of national and international league table rankings in informing student choices. Both external and internal critique call for a leadership response which is also ‘critical’ in various senses of the word. The rise of stakeholder critique and its particular focus on higher education are indications of the shift of higher education systems from the periphery of societies and economies, to their heartland. In knowledge-based societies, higher education is of such importance that it cannot be allowed to be complacent, low quality or adrift from the changing needs of economies and societies. In this sense, higher education is a critical and potentially transformational social, economic and technological resource. A recognition of

Leadership and transformation in Medellin  •  95 the critically important role of higher education needs to be reflected at institutional level in governance and leadership systems and practices and in imaginative ideas about how institutions can deliver or extend their traditional mission. A recognition of these various dimensions – external and internal critique and the critical role of higher education in meeting local and global challenges – ­requires new forms of ‘critical leadership’. Such leadership will reflect new ­attitudes, behaviours and styles that are better fitted to the conditions of the 21st century and will include some or all of the following components: • A predisposition to listen and question (at all levels – individual, team, institution) about the external environment and its implications for institutional mission and purpose; • Mechanisms for gathering external and internal intelligence and foresight about challenges ahead to shape imaginative responses; • An open and full engagement with the diversity of staff, students and partners, recognising this as an operational and cultural strength for institutions; • A culture that welcomes challenges to the status quo from any quarter, internal or external, including challenges to working practices and traditional ways of operating; • Management structures that are non-hierarchical which serve to foster and grow new ideas and innovative practices. One of the key tasks of critical leadership will be to reassess and reimagine the public purposes of higher education, as we discuss in the following. Shifting public purposes of higher education A fundamental purpose of higher education from its early beginnings centuries ago has been the provision of ‘a higher education’ or ‘higher learning’ (Bok, 1988). The early beneficiaries of higher learning were elite groups in society, including political administrators, the clergy and the professions of law and medicine. The first industrial revolution of the 19th century required broader curricula and gave rise, for example in the United States, to the creation of land grant universities and colleges to provide ‘practical education’ including new professional, technical and vocational subjects that served growing rural as well as urban communities. The provision of higher education became closely linked to the related public purpose of awarding qualifications at degree and diploma levels, signifying acquisition of a level of knowledge, skills, understanding and attributes among graduates that in many cases also granted a licence to practice in a professional or vocational field. Alongside changing curricula, the 19th and particularly 20th centuries witnessed the expansion and broadening of access in higher education systems, shifting them in many countries from elite to mass systems (with a trajectory towards ‘universal’ systems) (Trow, 1999). Increasingly large amounts of public funding were directed towards higher education in many countries (even where institutions

96  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie were legally and constitutionally ‘private’), thus strengthening the idea that all institutions deliver a public purpose. As specialised knowledge linked to scientific and technological advances became more important to societies’ interests, higher education also embraced research, although countries differed in whether research was located in universities (as in the classic German ‘Humboldtian’ tradition) or in specialist research institutes (as in France). In the last two centuries, the public purposes of education and research became interlinked, and in some countries virtually synonymous with definitions of ‘higher education’, especially that offered through universities or four-year degree-granting colleges. In the United States, a third public purpose (or mission) was also expected of universities: that of service. This expectation was embedded in both constitutional and funding structures; universities and colleges were located in urban and rural environments and were expected to contribute to the economic and social needs of local communities. Typically, the political economy of the states, provinces or regions became closely entwined with HEIs as politicians voted funds for education and research and local interests were represented in the governance structures of the institutions. In other countries (for example, the United Kingdom), rich benefactors or local communities voted funds to establish new universities in their city, sometimes with a focussed mission to educate previously under-represented groups. Religious institutions were also set up with focussed missions; in many countries these universities and colleges were legally independent of the state, while in other cases, they were part of state systems. There are other, broader concepts of ‘service to society’ embedded in university traditions, at least in Western societies. These include the concept of the university as a key institution in ‘civil society’ and part of the third sector of organisations that are independent of government and business. Among thinkers in Central and Eastern Europe, civil society is closely associated with concepts of civic values. In this context, the university has a role to play through civic engagement, first through its education of ‘citizens’. In the United Kingdom, recent research into the ‘wider benefits of higher education’ highlights the fact that graduates are healthier and live longer than non-graduates, commit fewer crimes and are more likely to sustain democratic traditions through voting in elections (Brennan et al., 2013). These are clearly contributions to wider public purposes, delivered through individuals and groups. In addition, the university itself makes important cultural and social contributions: for example, in preserving documents and artefacts in libraries and museum collections; in curating exhibitions; in mounting dramatic, artistic and musical performances in university theatres and concert halls; and in owning hospitals and providing healthcare services to communities. Beyond these contributions to society, universities are also expected to develop ‘critical thinking’ as a hallmark of graduates (at least in Western societies). ‘Critical thinking’ has several connotations: as a means of evaluating truth from non-truth, as a method of scientific enquiry and as a wider mode of thought that equips graduates to ‘engage critically’ in society. The idea of ‘critical engagement’ has also been applied to the role of the university itself, typically linked to concepts of academic

Leadership and transformation in Medellin  •  97 freedom and institutional autonomy. This linkage embodies the idea that universities are able to (and arguably should) serve as ‘critics of society’ by challenging established orthodoxies and speaking truth to power. In the latter part of the 20th century, governments in many countries have challenged higher education to become more accountable for the use of public funds, including their deployment towards ‘public purposes’ in the varied forms described earlier. Institutions have become subject to more stringent external quality assurance, tighter regulation and a sharper focus on performance targets and outcomes, often linked to national objectives (as in the Netherlands or Japan). Governments in different regions have required universities and colleges to contribute to national economic agendas, to nation-building or to the transformation of society, to support the nation’s trading and export agenda, and to contribute to the internationalisation of the country. The challenges that face the world in the present century, both at a collective level globally such as climate change, shortage of water or spread of infectious diseases, and in different regions and countries including conflict, wars, migration, displacement and poverty, are significant and complex. HEIs have missions and resources to address these issues and in many cases are doing so. A key challenge, however, is to leverage or share their resources with each other and with other kinds of organisations and sectors. Competition between institutions is a major barrier to partnerships that could deliver new public purposes, while working across sectors involves overcoming structural and cultural b ­ arriers. Nonetheless, ‘triple helix’ projects and alliances between universities, governments and businesses are happening, and institutions are creating alliances and consortia to address new public purposes. In other cases, ‘shared value’ initiatives are driven by companies and involve universities and other levels of education. A related challenge is to transform institutions’ own processes (governance and management, research, and teaching and learning) so that they deliver larger public purposes more efficiently and sustainably. This means remodelling ­teaching and learning to meet the needs of current and future global and local citizens and redefining and redesigning research agendas to be more collaborative, ­cross-disciplinary, international and inter-professional. It is also necessary to address the perceived lack of trust between institutions and wider stakeholders. This requires universities and their staff to engage fully and clearly with a public purpose agenda – to be initiators and shapers of that agenda as well as responsive to public perceptions of the value delivered by institutions and their faculties and staff. Given the shifting balance between public and private funding, this requires institutions to address both sides of the coin, that is, their return on public investments and their return on private investments both for current and future generations. It is not enough to serve the short-term needs of today’s stakeholders as ‘institutions’, universities and colleges also owe a duty of care to tomorrow. In the case study that follows, many of the themes we have explored are exemplified in imaginative, exciting and ultimately transformative ways.

98  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie Transforming Medellin Once known as the murder capital of the world, the metropolitan area of M ­ edellin, combined with the cities of Bogota and Cali, now forms part of the ‘Golden ­Triangle’ in Colombia (Brunner et al., 2012). Medellin is located in the department of Antioquia, the second biggest of Colombia’s departments and one of the economic engines of the country. After decades of armed conflict, social instability and violence, Antioquia is now focussed on economic and social development. With a population of over 6 million (13.3% of Colombia’s 46 million population), its economy is based on natural resources, manufacturing industry and a growing service sector. Industrial activity, tertiary education, R&D investments, population and income are all concentrated in the Medellin metropolitan area. Colombia itself is the third-largest country in Latin America in terms of population and fifth-largest in terms of area. The country is rich in natural resources, but has not yet created enough employment, with up to half its population still living in poverty. According to international data, Colombia lags behind Mexico, Chile and Brazil in terms of human capital development, and The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD and World Bank (OECD, 2012) argue that sustained growth and development are necessary for improving the quality of life of the population, particularly those from lower socio-economic and rural backgrounds. The central government is committed to long-term reform to modernise the economy and to expand participation in education at all levels through the ‘Education Revolution’. Antioquia has a good supply of tertiary education, differentiated among autonomous public and private institutions, and between universities and ­non-university institutions with different missions and responsibilities. There are 41 tertiary education institutions, 36 of them in the Medellin metropolitan area, as well as the free training provided by the National Learning Service (SENA). In addition, there are 11 branches of tertiary education institutions and five Regional Centres for Higher Education (CERES), promoted by the National Ministry of Education. Over the last decade, tertiary education participation has expanded in Colombia as a result of commitment to the ‘Education Revolution’, including policies that support broadening access to tertiary education and a strong push to support technical and technological education. The national plans have aimed to improve the supply of human capital in terms of participation, quality and relevance. This has resulted in a broad range of programmes and initiatives to increase and widen access to tertiary education and to follow-up student progress, such as scholarships and student loans through ICETEX and bridging programmes between secondary and tertiary education. While many of the initiatives are nationally driven, there are also bottom-up joint efforts by the Department of Antioquia and large municipalities, particularly Medellin. The story of Medellin is clearly one about transformative action at many levels and over time, with achievements recognised internationally: Medellin gained the ‘Most Innovative City of the Year’ award by the Wall Street Journal in 2013 (beating New York and Tel Aviv into second and third place, respectively); it also

Leadership and transformation in Medellin  •  99 secured the Lee Kwan Yew World City Prize in 2016. Individual leaders as well as communities and groups have all played their part in the transformation. One of the first significant contributions was made by Sergio Fajardo, a mathematician from the University of the Andes, who served as mayor from 2003 to 2007. Researchers from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, identified factors associated with the success of his policies (Merin et al., 2013). These included, first, wide-ranging and inclusive engagement of civic communities in creating and enacting beneficial policies and projects. In 2004, Fajardo established ‘civic-pact’ agreements whereby city administrators and local neighbourhoods collaborated to design government projects based on specific local needs. Community leaders and government officials jointly identified important initiatives and then signed agreements detailing the roles and responsibilities that each party would take on. To increase transparency, the mayor organised televised citywide spectacles where the agreements would be signed and shared publicly with the community. In addition, Fajardo involved the general public in the budgeting process by allowing local communities to decide how to allocate and spend small portions of the city’s budget. Annual ‘civic-pact’ meetings bring together over 2,000 actors involved in various projects, reinforcing and celebrating progress with the agenda. A second factor involved the creation of institutions that can foster innovation, backed by significant investments. With a total investment of approximately US$30 million, in 2010, Medellín announced the creation of Ruta N, a non-profit organisation with the mission of strengthening the city’s innovation ecosystem. This has included providing office space to host foreign and domestic companies in the city; programmes, mentors and funding to support entrepreneurs with new skills and business development; and responsibility for creating and managing the official Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Plan for Medellin, monitoring its improvement in global competitiveness. Symbolically and practically important is the location of Ruta N as anchor tenant in an Innovation District in the downtown area, also adjacent to the University of ­Antioquia. Later elements in the STI Plan focussed on fostering entrepreneurship opportunities for smaller local businesses, funded through small loans with flexible payment plans granted to high-potential entrepreneurs often from ­Medellin’s poorest neighbourhoods. A third and crucial support to fuel transformation involves a unique and powerful financing tool that Medellín has employed via a publicly owned utility. Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM) is a state-owned company that provides electricity, gas, water, sanitation and telecommunication services. It is run as a commercial enterprise but managed by the municipality of Medellín. The company is wholly owned by the city and is closely linked to the mayor’s office. Its unique structure has allowed EPM to play a strong role in the city’s success and transformation, contributing roughly 30% of its net revenue to the city budget. Yet, the company’s commercial position has not been compromised. In fact, EPM believes that community ownership has strengthened its operations because the city’s inhabitants have become proud of ‘their’ company’s contributions to the city’s economic development and culture and, as a result, are more inclined to buy into its projects.

100  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie The investment in infrastructure has also opened up the transportation links across the city. The above-ground metro system provides good links east to west; however, the way this integrates with the metro-cable system (a series of lifts) to connect the poorer residential areas is highly innovative. Built in a large valley, most of the recent residential housing growth has been up the sides of the valley, and by providing safe and speedy transport links, previous ‘no-go’ areas were opened up. The relationship between the mayor (Fajardo) and the education system has also played a key role in the transformation process, as another commentator (­Christopher Swope of Citiscope in an interview with Gerard Martin, 2014) has noted. He was the first mayor in Medellín to be in charge of the local education system, making education the central axis of his fight against social inequalities. Physically he put it in new schools and renovated older schools. He also introduced new training programmes and professional development for teachers and encouraged universities to engage in partnerships with public high schools to help improve their performance and quality. Overall, there was a very ambitious redefinition of the education agenda for the city, particularly in the poorest parts of the city. The city administration also worked on the public space, believing that libraries are part of the education agenda and the cultural agenda as digital hubs and for orchestrating cultural events. The mayor set up cultural centres in various neighbourhoods and vocational training centres in some of the most complicated neighbourhoods. Many of these are next to the new lines of public transit, such as buses, the Metro line or cable cars, and new programmes have taken place in neighbourhoods that had suffered some of the most intense violence. The tertiary education sector (with both about 80 public and more than 200 private institutions) has played its own part in the transformation agenda through four levels: universities, university institutions, technological institutions and professional technical institutions. There is also a National Training Service (SENA) and a series of regionally based centres of tertiary education (CERES). Three ­examples from Medellin provide a flavour of the contributions to transforming the city: Universidad EAFIT is a medium-sized private university. Among other initiatives it has introduced is the collaboration with a private sector partner, Argos. Argos is a large multinational corporation, being the largest provider of cement in Colombia and the fifth-largest in Latin America. As part of a public-private partnership, Argos has built a new Innovation Centre on the EAFIT campus. This houses the research and development facilities for Argos as well as being a hub for research partnerships. Based in Ruta N, the Innovacampus development programme is designed to build innovation capacity in the tertiary education sector and also acts as a portal to opportunities for leaders to gain experience and new skills in other countries. The Colombia-Purdue Initiative (CPI) grew out of a joint programme of research between Purdue and the Ministry of Education in Colombia. The Medellin context resonated with the large land-grant university’s mission as a globally engaged university and challenged the university to think imaginatively of working

Leadership and transformation in Medellin  •  101 with the entire education system, industry and government to make a difference in a place; these ideas have now spread widely in the context of universities as ‘anchor institutions’ helping to develop and transform cities and regions. Conclusion Clearly visible in the Medellin story is the ‘system-wide’ approach to their challenges. This has included critically engaging with those challenges – from finance and infrastructure to education, training and enterprise – and working with communities and cultures to achieve change. The city’s mayors have demonstrated leadership that has both challenged the status quo and sought to engage the community to participate in and co-create a more positive future. Their approach has balanced centrally coordinated work (on infrastructure and creating an innovation ecosystem) with a more emergent approach engaging many actors to address the complex, interconnected, ‘wicked’ social innovation challenges, crossing structural, organisational and cultural boundaries of sector and organisation while building a collective commitment to longer-term ambitions. In addition, city leaders are seeking to make the transformation sustainable by the collective efforts of many actors. The transformation of Medellin is clearly not complete, nor is its model of social innovation, but what is emerging is a new meta-culture in the city that acknowledges the failures of the past and provides a vision for people to aspire to, and be part of, generating a real sense of civic pride. The leadership culture that is evolving has been critical in every sense. It is shifting from a highly competitive, individualistic and ego-centred approach to a much more collaborative, team-based ecosystem style that embraces – and challenges – the public purposes and role of tertiary education. There is much to learn from and adapt within the story of Colombia and Medellin. References Bok, D., (1988) Higher learning. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Brennan, J., Durazzi, N., and Sene, T. (2013) Things we know and don’t know about the Wider Benefits of Higher Education: a review of the recent literature. BIS Research Paper No. 133. London, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Brunner, J., Gacel-Avila, J., Laverde, M., Puuka, J., Rubio, J., Schwartzman, S., and Valiente, O. (2012) Higher education in regional and city development: Atioquoia, Colombia. Paris: OECD. Accessed 4th April 2019: www.oecd.org/education/Antioquia.pdf Bryman, A. (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6): 693–710. Deem, R., Fulton, O., Reed, M., and Watson, S. (2001) New managerialism and the management of UK universities. End of Award Report. Swindon, Economic and Social Research Council. Available at: www.regard.ac.uk /home/index_html Exworthy, M. and Halford, S. (Eds.). (1999) Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hamel, G. (2007) The future of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G. (2012) What matters now: How to win in a world of relentless change, ferocious competition and unstoppable innovation. London: Jossey-Bass Wiley. Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2003) The leadership challenge. New York: Jossey Bass, Wiley.

102  •  Robin Middlehurst and Tom Kennie Merin, C., Nikolov, A., and Vidler, A. (2013) Local government handbook: How to create an innovative city. Available at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/local-government-handbookcreate-innovative-city/ Middlehurst, R. (2008) Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps between leadership theory and practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4): 322–339. Middlehurst, R. (2013) Changing internal governance: Are management roles and governance structures in United Kingdom Universities fit for the future? Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3): 275–294. OECD. (2012) Review of National Policies for Education: Tertiary Education in Colombia. Paris: OECD & World Bank. Olssen, M. (2006) Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 25(3): 213–230. Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pollitt, C. (1990) Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Oxford: Blackwell. Schwab, H. (2016) The fourth industrial revolution. Davos, World Economic Forum. Accessed 4th April, 2019. Available at: https://luminariaz.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/the-fourth-­ industrial-revolution-2016-21.pdf Shapiro, H. (2005) A larger sense of purpose: Higher education and society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Swope, C. (2014) Interview with Gerard Martin. How Medellín revived itself: Reforms hand Colombia ­mayors and cities more power. Accessed 4th April, 2019. Available at: www.uclg.org/en/media/news/ how-medell%C3%ADn-revived-itself-reforms-hand-colombia-mayors-and-cities-more-power Tate, W. (2000) Implications of futures’ studies for business, organisation, management and leadership. London: CEML. Trow, M. (1999) From mass higher education to universal access. The American advantage. In Minerva, 37(4): 303–328.

8

Europe: Estonia: critical leadership thinking in intrapreneurship education in Europe The case of Estonia

MART KIKAS AND OLAV AARNA

Introduction Countries need competitive economies to provide high and rising living standards, and gainful employment for their citizens. Entrepreneurship is considered crucial for a country’s competitiveness. This is one of the reasons why the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship is included amongst the European Union (EU) list of eight key competences for lifelong learning, which every citizen needs for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment in the knowledge society (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006). An entrepreneur is someone who translates a creative thought into a new, innovative product, service or process. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers who trust their potential and turn their creativity into reality by pursuing their dreams and transforming a vision into a strategic plan. They strike out on their own and build businesses. An intrapreneur is someone who displays the same characteristics but remains with an organisation as an employee. They generate enterprise for the organisation rather than create their own business. In today’s workplace, the benefits of entrepreneurship can be combined with the economies of scale enjoyed by large organisations by cultivating a culture of intrapreneurship. Developing the needed competencies of future employees has traditionally been the role of HEIs. This is especially relevant for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which have fairly limited capacity for in-service training of their employees. There are two definitions of entrepreneurship education (Moberg et al., 2014: 14): • Narrow definition – students are supported to become entrepreneurs themselves; • Broad definition – students are supported to act entrepreneurially and acquire entrepreneurial competencies, which they can use in working life, being employed by companies or other organisations.

103

104  •  Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna However, research shows that most entrepreneurship programmes taught in HEIs focus on independent entrepreneurship, rather than developing an entrepreneurial mindset. Students are prepared to become entrepreneurs, but not intrapreneurs. On the other hand, only less than 10% of a cohort will become independent entrepreneurs, as the mean established business ownership rate in the EU countries is 6.63% (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reports of 2011–2016, www.gemconsortium.org/report). Our analysis shows that entrepreneurship education based on the narrow definition, supporting students to become entrepreneurs, is not correlated with the intrapreneurship and competitiveness that Europe needs. This is a major shortcoming of entrepreneurship education offered in Europe and needs to be amended if Europe wants to stay competitive and support its companies at sustaining their competitiveness. Changing the focus of entrepreneurship education can be accomplished only with coordinated efforts of entrepreneurship trainers, HEIs and governments. This chapter demonstrates the role of critical thinking and leadership of governments and HEIs to amend the situation. Challenges concerning entrepreneurship education offered encompass three dimensions: content, methods and resources. The first section analyses the role of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in the ­European context. The second section explains the concept of intrapreneurship in more detail. The third section demonstrates how to define and describe entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship competence. The fourth section answers the central research question: how to develop intrapreneurship competence? The final section describes how this question is currently being answered in Estonia. Competitiveness of countries and enterprises The World Economic Forum (WEF) defines a country’s competitiveness as ‘the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of an economy, which in turn sets the level of prosperity that the country can achieve’ (World Economic Forum, 2017: 4). The WEF has been measuring competitiveness of countries annually since 2005, and publishes the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) which combines 114 indicators that capture concepts that matter for productivity and long-term prosperity. The scale of GCI ranges from 1 to 7: the higher a country’s score on the scale, the more competitive the country is. The GCI scores of the 28 EU countries in the Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 vary between the lowest score of 4.00 for Greece and the highest 5.57 for both Germany and the Netherlands, with the mean score 4.80. The competitiveness of the EU economies is high in the global context: all 28 countries are in the top 86, with Greece being on the 86th place and Germany and the Netherlands sharing the 4th and 5th places among 138 countries assessed in the Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017 (World Economic Forum, 2017). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is the largest annual study of entrepreneurial activity in the world, exploring the role of entrepreneurship in economic growth within nations by unveiling detailed national features and characteristics associated with their entrepreneurial activity. The GEM captures both

Intrapreneurship education in Europe  •  105 informal and formal entrepreneurship and both new business creation activity and entrepreneurial employee activity (intrapreneurship). The GEM provides data about three variables that describe different forms of entrepreneurship in countries: total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA), established business ownership rate and entrepreneurial employee activity (EEA), which is defined as the Percentage of the adult population aged between 18 and 64 years who as employees have been involved in entrepreneurial activities such as developing or launching new goods or services, or setting up a new business unit, a new establishment or subsidiary. (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2017) In the most recent data for each country in the EU (up to 2016), the highest TEA is 16.16% in Estonia, while the lowest is 4.42% in Italy, with the mean being 8.52%. In the most recent data, the established business ownership rate in the EU countries is the highest in Greece, being 14.10%, and the lowest in Luxembourg, being 3.20%, with the mean being 6.63%. In the most recent data, EEA in the EU countries is the highest in Denmark, being 11.43%, and the lowest in Bulgaria, being 0.90%, with the mean being 4.93% (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reports of 2011–2016, www.gemconsortium.org/report). While the EU countries have consistently high competitiveness rankings and index scores in the Global Competitiveness Reports, it is argued that Europe lags the world in entrepreneurship (World Economic Forum, 2015). Our analysis shows that in the EU, the correlations between the country’s GCI and TEA, and between the GCI and established business ownership rate, are both negative, and at the same time also insignificant. This finding does not support the argument of entrepreneurship being very important for the country’s competitiveness in Europe. There is an alternative explanation: many European economies do not lack entrepreneurial activity. Instead, due to the risk and opportunity profiles that European economies offer, entrepreneurial individuals in Europe frequently choose to start new ventures or projects while working for their employers rather than start their own business. Where this occurs, a shift into intrapreneurship is observed, also known as entrepreneurial employee activity. (World Economic Forum, 2016: 2) Our analysis shows that there is indeed a strong positive correlation between the country’s GCI and EEA in the EU. The correlation is significant, and as the confidence interval does not contain zero, it is not possible that the correlation is zero. This leads to an important conclusion: that in order to be competitive, Europe needs more intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurship is realised through EEA; it is the collective actions of entrepreneurial employees. The GEM reports show that in Europe, most employees are not behaving entrepreneurially in the companies where they work. This creates

106  •  Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna a challenge regarding their competitiveness for European companies. This challenge is especially big for SMEs because they do not have sufficient resources, they have limited human capital and their employees have more direct responsibility in contributing to the company’s success. Additionally, employees that fulfil all kinds of jobs and roles in SMEs play a crucial role in the entrepreneurial process in their companies, because many different categories of professionals are involved in intrapreneurship – not only research and development professionals, as at big companies, but also marketing, human resource, financial and management professionals and even production workers (Desjardins et al., 2016). At the same time, SMEs are considerably more vulnerable in competitive contexts, which makes the need for intrapreneurship even more urgent for them. One of the intended learning outcomes of entrepreneurship programmes is often a capability of the students to start a business. Our analysis shows that there is no correlation between perceived capabilities to start a business in a country (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reports of 2013–2016, www.gemconsortium.org/report) and EEA in that country in the EU. Moreover, there is a moderate negative, insignificant correlation between perceived capabilities to start a business in a country and competitiveness of that country in the EU. This leads to a realisation that entrepreneurship education based on the narrow definition, supporting students to become entrepreneurs, does not lead to intrapreneurship and competitiveness that Europe needs. This is a major shortcoming of entrepreneurship education offered in Europe and needs to be amended if Europe wants to stay competitive and support its companies at sustaining their competitiveness. Thus, the European system of higher education as a distributed network of HEIs fails to serve the needs of business, especially the European SMEs, as it does not produce employees capable of intrapreneurship by not developing the needed entrepreneurial competencies of students. If Europe wants to stay competitive and support its companies, particularly the SMEs, at sustaining their competitiveness, this needs to change. The concept of intrapreneurship Pinchot (1985) coined the term intrapreneurship out of intra-corporate and entrepreneurship to describe individual intra-corporate entrepreneurship. He defined intrapreneurship as the practice of developing a new venture within an existing organisation, to exploit a new opportunity and create economic value. After ­Pinchot, different authors have defined intrapreneurship, often with significant differences. For instance, Zahra (1991) defined intrapreneurship as the process of creating new business within established firms to improve organisational profitability and enhance a company’s competitive position or the strategic renewal of existing business. Eesley and Longenecker (2006) see intrapreneurship as the practice of creating new products and business opportunities in an organisation through proactive empowerment. We define intrapreneurship as entrepreneurship within an established organisation.

Intrapreneurship education in Europe  •  107 The term ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ has also been used in scientific literature, often to include the concept of intrapreneurship or as a synonym to it. Conceptually, corporate entrepreneurship is usually defined at the level of organisations and refers to a top-down process, that is, a management strategy to foster workforce initiatives and efforts to innovate and develop new business, while intrapreneurship relates to the individual level and is about bottom-up, proactive work-related initiatives of individual employees (Bosma et al., 2011). Intrapreneurship applies to large segments of the contemporary labour market, in the sense that even when not involved in a business start-up, people can nonetheless act in an entrepreneurial fashion in their own work setting (De Jong and ­Wennekers, 2008). Intrapreneurship is the behaviour of the individual employee, an individual intention or drive to innovate within an organisation, developing and implementing novel solutions to organisational problems, often in a bottom-up way (Amo and ­Kolvereid, 2005). The bottom-up view, which emphasises the paramount role of intrapreneurs in contributing to companies’ success, is described as an individual perspective on intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985; Heinonen and Toivonen, 2007). Intrapreneurial work behaviour is often conceptualised as a two-stage process: perceiving opportunities and chances, as well as developing new ideas, and implementing new ideas within the respective institution (Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017). This is the legacy of Pinchot (1985), who differentiated between two stages of the intrapreneurial process: the development of new ideas and the implementation of these ideas within the respective institution. These stages may also overlap and occur in cycles, as the perception of an opportunity sometimes follows various preparatory activities such as product design or networking (Gartner et al., 2003). The role of individuals in entrepreneurship has been explored using both personality and competence approaches. The personality approach focusses on fixed traits of the individual. The competence approach is directed towards aspects that can be developed (Kyndt and Baert, 2015). Intrapreneurship and innovative work behaviour are often used as synonyms but originate from different disciplines: whereas intrapreneurship is an established concept within the business discipline, innovative work behaviour is derived from the field of workplace learning (Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017). Thus, it can be said that intrapreneurs make innovation happen at companies where they work, thereby creating needed competitive advantage for companies. Intrapreneurship faces specific limitations that a corporate hierarchy and an intra-organisational context may impose on individual initiative as well as specific means of support that an existing business may offer to an intrapreneur. There is evidence that about 50% of all intrapreneurs have had to overcome some internal resistance in developing the new business activity (Bosma et al., 2011). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship competence The European Parliament and the Council adopted in 2006 the Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006). The recommendation is contributing to

108  •  Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna the development of quality, future-oriented education and training tailored to the needs of European society. It also provides a common European reference framework on key competences for policymakers, education and training providers, social partners and learners themselves. The key competences for lifelong learning are those that all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment in the knowledge society. Key competences are therefore relevant for all education and training sectors (schools, vocational education and training, higher education adult learning) as well as for non-formal and informal learning. The EU defines eight competences as key interests for learning and hence for economic development: communication in the mother tongue, communication in foreign languages, mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology, digital competence, learning to learn, social and civic competences, sense of initiative and entrepreneurship and cultural awareness and expression. The sense of initiative and entrepreneurship is defined as an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006). The entrepreneurial learning community of practice often refers to the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship simply as entrepreneurship competence. There is a growing awareness that entrepreneurial skills, knowledge and attitudes can be learnt and, in turn, lead to the widespread development of entrepreneurial mind-sets and culture, which benefit individuals and society as a whole. Putting the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship together means emphasising that entrepreneurship is more than venture creation. To further promote a shared understanding of entrepreneurship competence, the European Commission initiated the development of the Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp). In 2016, Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie and Van den Brande proposed the EntreComp which includes three competence areas and 15 competences related to entrepreneurship along an eight-level progression model (Bacigalupo et al., 2016: 18). The EntreComp framework is built on a broad understanding of entrepreneurship that also includes ‘sense of initiative’. EntreComp defines entrepreneurship as a transversal competence, which applies to all spheres of life: from nurturing personal development, to actively participating in society, to (re)entering the job market as an employee or as a self-employed person, and also to starting up ventures. In the context of the EntreComp, entrepreneurship is applicable to individuals and groups, including existing organisations, across all spheres of life. This broad understanding of entrepreneurship centres on the creation of cultural, social or economic value. It embraces different types of entrepreneurship, including intrapreneurship. The EntreComp conceptual model is made up of two main dimensions: • Three competence areas that directly mirror the definition of entrepreneurship as the ability to turn ideas into action that generate value for someone other than oneself; • Fifteen competences that, together, make up the building blocks of entrepreneurship as a competence for all citizens.

Intrapreneurship education in Europe  •  109 One of the three competence areas is ideas and opportunities, which includes spotting opportunities as one of the related competences. The other four related competences are creativity, vision, valuing ideas and ethical and sustainable thinking. Entrepreneurship as a competence is developed through action by individuals or collective entities to create value for others. The progression in entrepreneurial learning is made up of two aspects: • Developing increasing autonomy and responsibility in acting upon ideas and opportunities to create value; • Developing the capacity to generate value from simple and predictable contexts up to complex, constantly changing environments. The model does not lay down a linear sequence of steps that every citizen must take to become proficiently entrepreneurial or to start a venture. It shows that the boundaries of individual and collective entrepreneurial competences can be pushed forward to achieve an increasingly greater impact through value-creating endeavours. The model provides a reference for the development of proficiency, starting from value creation achieved through external support, up to transformative value creation. The model consists of four main levels: foundation, intermediate, advanced and expert. Although widely endorsed, the EntreComp framework has not yet been adapted to, or tested in, real settings. A subsequent step will be to try the framework out in practice, by implementing and evaluating it in a specific context, and, if necessary, to amend and refine it according to feedback from practitioners and end-users (Bacigalupo et al., 2016: 9). Wiethe-Körprich and colleagues construed intrapreneurship competence as directed towards individuals’ innovative work behaviour with regard to the recognition of opportunities for improvements, the generation of innovative project ideas and the championing and implementation of such projects within the organisational practice. They do not view intrapreneurship competencies as stable traits but as malleable aspects of human behaviour that can change in response to educational interventions, meaning that teaching and learning processes are required in order to develop intrapreneurship competence. They proposed an intrapreneurship competence model which can be used as a basis for defining and aligning curricular goals, instructional means and evaluation strategies and procedures (Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017). How to develop intrapreneurship competence? As a means to increase the level of intrapreneurship in European firms, a report by the WEF proposes to intensify the inclusion of educational activities (programmes, learning/teaching methods) related to the development of entrepreneurial competencies and initiatives (World Economic Forum, 2016). The majority of scholars believe that entrepreneurial aptitude and specifically intrapreneurial abilities can be developed through education and training. In principle, this can be done in the context of either in-service training or formal education.

110  •  Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna For employees working in European SMEs, it is often difficult to organise in-service training to develop their skills, given the size and resources of the company. Most SMEs, and especially the micro enterprises with less than ten employees, have a limited budget for in-service training of their employees. They invest primarily in hard skills that directly contribute to new business development and financial performance. In this situation, proposing in-service training of existing employees of European SMEs will not lead to much. Instead, the efforts should be focussed on training today’s students who will be the future employees of European SMEs. On the other hand, research shows that in high-income countries, educational levels seem to have no effect on the prevalence of intrapreneurship (Bosma et al., 2011). This seems to indicate that the education currently given, including what is offered by the HEIs, is not effective in developing the competencies needed for intrapreneurship in Europe. This analysis has led us to a conclusion that changes in the entrepreneurship education and training offered at HEIs should encompass three major components: • Content – should be based on the broad definition of entrepreneurship education, where the value creation is central, • Methods – teaching should be done through practice and • Resources – efficient and effective teaching formats should be used to accommodate limited resources of HEIs and overloaded curricula. Following these guidelines, an efficient and effective training module (two full days, 16 academic hours of mini-lectures and teamwork in an auditorium) has been developed in Estonia, aiming at increasing the level of intrapreneurship competence of undergraduate students of European HEIs. Students work in teams of 3–6 to learn about the components of a business model, practise modelling a business on their business ideas and practise communication of their business models to an audience. Having completed the course (module), a student: • Understands how economic value-creation happens through business activities in the context of a firm, • Knows the components of a business model and relationships between them, • Is able to model a business around a business idea, • Has improved on teamwork skills and • Has an increased self-efficacy in relation to communicating and presenting business ideas, concepts and models to others. The training package developed also includes the training modules for preparing lecturers/mentors capable of delivering the module. The modules have been tested in Estonia, Ukraine and Portugal.

Intrapreneurship education in Europe  •  111 Testing and piloting In January 2016, the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research launched an Entrepreneurship Education Programme to encourage the development of an enterprising spirit amongst Estonian students and teachers, and to ensure that creating the sense of initiative and developing entrepreneurial competencies would become a natural part of education. The aim is that all students in Estonia at general, vocational or HEIs will have an opportunity to complete activity-based entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) training. By developing the sense of initiative and entrepreneurial competencies and by providing the learners with relevant experiences, everyone will have more opportunities to shape their career, irrespective of whether they want to become an active employee or an entrepreneur in future or an active citizen. The programme activities include developing the entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) competencies model and study materials, and conducting training programmes for teachers at all levels of education, as well as for business mentors and entrepreneurs who participate actively in entrepreneurship education. In addition, entrepreneurship courses are designed, piloted and implemented at all levels of education, including higher education (Estonian Entrepreneurship Education Programme, https://ettevõtlusõpe.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ EDUTEGU_voldikud_ENG_4.pdf). Similar activities have been initiated and piloted in the Ternopil region (Ukraine) using the support of the development aid and cooperation programme of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The activities involve four universities in Ternopil city with more than 65,000 students. This regional initiative could serve as a valuable input and source of experience for the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science to develop a nation-wide entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) programme for Ukraine. One of the authors is frequently delivering the above-mentioned two-day ­module (course) under the title ‘Introduction to Business’ to bachelor’s and master’s students at different universities in Estonia. Similar courses have been delivered by him in two universities in Ukraine and Portugal. As part of this course, in the beginning, students are asked a question: ‘What business means to you?’ They write their answers on a sheet of paper. At the end of the course, a similar question is asked: ‘What business means to you now?’ complemented with questions about the student’s age, gender, number of years studied in higher education and the field of study. The sheets with answers are collected at the end of the course. To date, these data have been collected from 162 students who have participated ­ stonia, 50 in in the courses in 2017–2018. Of these, 72 were students studying in E Ukraine and 40 in Portugal. The average age of students was 25 years, whereas in Estonia it was 28 years, in Ukraine 21 years and in Portugal 25 years. On average, the students had passed 3.8 years of university studies, in Estonia 4.1 years, in Ukraine 3.4 years and in Portugal 3.7 years. Of the students, 44% were male and 56% female, in Estonia 31% male and 69% female, in Ukraine 47% male and 53% female and in Portugal 67% male and 33% female. In Estonia, the students were studying predominantly some area of design (graphic design, jewellery design,

112  •  Mart Kikas and Olav Aarna etc.) or arts. In Ukraine, the fields of study represented were mostly computer sciences, management, marketing and languages. In Portugal, the fields of study represented were mostly engineering, computer science and business. A challenge was to codify answers to the questions: ‘What business means to you?’ and ‘What business means to you now?’ for analysis. Some students gave coherent answers, while some gave only keywords. Some answers were longer, while some were very short. In Estonia, 66 students answered. In the case of 53 respondents (80%), it can be said that they had clearly a different and more systematic view of business after the course than they had before they took the course. In the case of seven respondents (11%), it can be said that they had a somewhat different and more systematic view of business after the course than they had before they took the course. In the case of six respondents (9%), nothing can be clearly said regarding the change in their view of business. In Ukraine, 11 students answered; five respondents (45%) had a clearly different and more systematic view of business, three respondents (27%) had a somewhat different and more systematic view of business after the course than they had before they took the course and of the three remaining respondents (27%), nothing can be clearly said regarding the change in their view of business. In Portugal, 20 students answered; 14 respondents (70%) had a clearly different and more systematic view of business, and six respondents (30%) had a somewhat different and more systematic view of business after the course than they had before they took the course. It is reasonable to suggest that there is a causal relationship involved and that this improvement was the outcome of the students’ participation in the course. Concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed training module, the following can be concluded: • The module is efficient – only two days (16 academic hours of ­mini-lectures and teamwork in an auditorium) are required; • The module is effective – the analysis of results suggests that better understanding of business and value creation is the outcome of the course. Conclusions The analysis provided demonstrates that the European entrepreneurship culture and competitiveness are based on intrapreneurship rather than on independent entrepreneurship. Intrapreneurship and innovative work behaviour are closely related concepts. Intrapreneurs make innovation happen at companies where they work, thereby creating needed competitive advantage for companies. This means that entrepreneurship education and training provided by the HEIs of Europe should aim at developing the intrapreneurship competence of all students, irrespective of their field of study. The implementation of this ambitious goal needs critical leadership by national governments and by HEIs. ‘Critical’ here meaning critical analysis of current practices and attitudes, while leadership in this situation means

Intrapreneurship education in Europe  •  113 taking leadership roles in implementing the new approaches. Piloting and testing the ­approach developed by the authors in the universities of three countries has demonstrated the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed training modules. References Amo, B. and Kolvereid, L. (2005) Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1): 7–19. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., and van den Brande, G. (2016) EntreComp. The entrepreneurship competence framework. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-­scientific-andtechnical-research-reports/entrecomp-entrepreneurship-competence-framework [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Bosma, N., Stam, E., and Wennekers, S. (2011) Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship, Discussion Paper 11–04, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute. Desjardins, R., Lans, T., and Ederer, P. (2016) Editorial: Adult learning, adult skills and innovation. European Journal of Education, 51: 141–154. De Jong, J. and Wennekers, S. (2008) Intrapreneurship; conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour. Scales Research Reports H200802, Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research. Eesley, D.T. and Longenecker, C.O. (2006) Gateways to intrapreneurship. Industrial Management, 48: 18–23. Estonian Entrepreneurship Education Programme. Available at: https://ettevõtlusõpe.ee/wp-content/ uploads/2016/08/EDUTEGU_voldikud_ENG_4.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006). Available at: https://eur-lex.­ europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006H0962 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M., and Hills, G.E. (2003) The language of opportunity. In C. Steyaert and D. Hjort (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 103–124). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA) (2017) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2016/17 Global Report. Heinonen, J. and Toivonen, J. (2007) Approaching a deeper understanding of corporate e­ ntrepreneurship – Focusing on co-evolutionary processes. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15(2): 165–186. Kyndt, E. and Baert, H. (2015) Entrepreneurial competencies: Assessment and predictive value for entrepreneurship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90: 13–25. Moberg, K., Barslund Fosse, H.B., Hoffman, A., and Junge, M. (2014) Impact of entrepreneurship ­education in Denmark – 2014. Available at: http://eng.ffe- ye.dk/media/637847/effektmacc8alingen20201520engonline.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Pinchot, G. (1985) Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row. Wiethe-Körprich M., Weber S., Bley S., and Kreuzer C. (2017) Intrapreneurship competence as a manifestation of work agency: A systematic literature review. In M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work. Professional and practice-based learning, Vol. 20. Cham: Springer. World Economic Forum. (2015) Leveraging Entrepreneurial Ambition and Innovation: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Development. Available at: http://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_EntrepreneurialInnovation_Report.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum (2016) Europe’s Hidden Entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial Employee Activity and Competitiveness in Europe. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_­ Entrepreneurship_in_Europe.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum (2017) The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. Available at: http:// www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitiveness­ Report2016-2017_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Zahra, S. (1991) Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259–285.

9

Europe: Ukraine: the crisis of Ukrainian higher education reform Moving towards a trauma informed understanding

NATALIYA L. RUMYANTSEVA, OLENA I. LOGVYNENKO AND ELENA V. CHILINA Introduction Two facets of crisis When it comes to the higher education sector in Ukraine, the key descriptor of the status quo is unequivocally crisis. This crisis is apparent in a number of different ways. First, the higher education reform process itself is said to be in crisis through the accounts of local and international observers (e.g. Fimyar, 2008; Janmaat, 2008). There is an ostensible flight of students eager to pursue educational and career opportunities abroad. This has grave implications for Ukraine’s human capital and future prosperity (Semiv and Hvozdovych, 2012). Those who stay often cheat or bribe their way through the system (e.g. Denisova-Schmidt et al., 2018). The overgrown university system, with over 300 HEIs for a 47 million population, is unnecessarily large in terms of both the student base which they are meant to serve and the qualified academic staff which they are meant to employ ­(Rumyantseva and Logvynenko, 2017). Academic staff also vote with their feet by leaving higher education to join the industry, civil service or civil society organisations, thus depleting higher education of qualified cadre. The question naturally arises: who are these institutions serving and what sustains their existence? Yet each one of those institutions, just like any other organisation anywhere in the world, is naturally preoccupied with organisational survival, which, perhaps in part, explains why ministerial attempts to close down some HEIs were met with fierce resistance (Rumyantseva and Logvynenko, 2017), and it was Serhiy Kvit, the Minister of Education at the time, who stepped down instead in 2016. National employers are disappointed with graduates’ employability skills (World Economic Forum, 2011), although it is difficult to gain agreement from the university leaders, who take a more positive view of higher education quality according to a recent survey (Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 2015). The second dimension of crisis is evidenced in the thinking of academics and professionals studying higher education reform in Ukraine. On the one hand, Western academics (e.g. Janmaat, 2008), donors and consultants (Darvas, 2003; 114

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  115 World Bank, 2004, 2005; OSI & NEPC, 2006) are quick to offer critical observations of the reform processes. Most analytical accounts of crisis result in identifying some form of tension between Soviet legacies and Western/European values as the underlying reasons for the crisis. Shaw et al. (2013) engage a competing cultural values perspective to explain why Bologna-related changes are only partly implemented at the institutional level. Oleksiyenko (2016) draws on the framework of incompatible ideological perspectives. Shaw (2013) offers a detailed analysis of the incompatible governance frameworks in an effort to understand what is at the bottom of the crisis. She concludes that the culprit is to be found in the conflict of the underlying assumptions about power, the locus of control and acceptable sources of leadership. The conflict once again is located between the ever-incompatible authoritarian (Soviet) and neo-liberal (Western) mindsets. If only the nation could resolve these differences by agreeing on how they wish to mobilise power and from which sources, the crisis would be resolved. A monumental task of collective reflection on sources and purposes of leadership could be undertaken, which, if accomplished, would bring the current impasse to an end and allow the system to progress and develop. This is a difficult challenge in a context in which abuse of power and favouritism have been described as rampant (Osipian, 2010, 2014, 2017). For the time being, however, the clash between the two mindsets remains in a state of an impasse, and the system itself is said to be stuck in a transformational trap (Kovryga and Nickel, 2006). The second underlying theme in these studies is what Fimyar (2010: 63–64) calls ‘an attack against the post-communist state’s inability to cope with the crisis’. The political leadership of the country is criticised in the studies for its lack of commitment, expertise, vision and strategy, as well as for the slow pace of reform and selective implementation of existing policies. Many commentators describe the Ukrainian education system as structurally ‘too centralized’, and, in terms of institutional practices, ‘too Soviet’. An assumption is made, and so far remains unchallenged in the literature that 20+ years of independence is a sufficiently long time for society in general, and higher education systems in particular, to undergo deep, large-scale, social, economic and political transformation. Fimyar (2010) has attempted to offer an alternative approach with an i­ ntention ‘to disrupt… the opposition between Soviet legacies and Western/European values’. Discourse analysis of higher education policy documents written by U ­ krainians for Ukrainians initially offers a possibility of an alternative angle, something uncontaminated by the Western neo-liberal influence. Much to the readers’ (and possibly researcher’s?) disappointment, the elaborate and time-consuming analysis does not reveal any locally cultivated insights that may have been overlooked by the Western observers. Instead, it concludes that the Ukrainian government has embraced the notion of crisis in early policy documents, and at the same time laying down the foundation for vigorous and potentially destructive self-critique. These documents tie the higher education system’s development to ‘catch-up ­Europeanisation’. Insufficient recognition is made of the long-standing positive aspects of the system. Instead, the crisis has been given legitimacy by system-level

116  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. leaders and politicians in the onset of Ukrainian independence. The Western observers critique the Ukrainian government, who are only happy to be the first to critique themselves. But does such critical thinking have the ability to lead to critical action that would enable positive transformations? Is this a case of a crisis of critical thinking in higher education leadership both in Ukraine and outside? Or is the crisis one of thinking about the system more widely? Kovryga and Nickel (2006) advocate for the need of broader historical as well as a future-oriented reflection in order to start unravelling the transformational trap. Kovryga and Nickel (2006) describe the transformational trap as two overlapping and mutually reinforcing cycles of false necessities. The first cycle is constitutive of the unreflected Soviet past, whilst the second is categorised by the unreflected embrace of the Western realities as suitable and unquestioned models for Ukraine’s future. The two sets of assumptions are in a state of conflict with each other, and ‘there is a paradoxical reality in the intersection of the two cycles’ that blocks meaningful transformation. This analysis resonates with Argyris’s (2010) concept of organisational traps which, he explains, are sustained by elements of denial. What is denied in the Ukrainian context? This chapter builds on the existing understanding of the building blocks of the transformational trap by engaging the concepts of historical memory (Fedinec and Csermocsko, 2017), collective trauma and the denial which typically accompanies such experiences (Sotero, 2006; Somasundaram, 2007; Bowen and Murshid, 2016). We argue that looking at Ukrainian higher education reform from a historical and trauma-informed perspective (Bowen and Murshid, 2016) allows for a dynamic view of the current status of the system and possibility for change. What is happening in the sector now can be better understood and appreciated in the wider historical context of the lives of the Ukrainian people and the archetypal notions of leadership that have formed over the centuries in the collective Ukrainian memory. We draw on elements of Ukraine’s difficult and traumatic history to point to the potentially unhealed wounds (and thus buried) in the collective memory that may be affecting society and higher education reform processes in the present day. It is because of such wounds and ‘hot memory’ (Fedinec and Csermocsko, 2017) that critical thinking, unless approached from the trauma-informed perspective, is likely to become unbalanced and unproductive. Engaging a trauma-informed understanding (Bowen and Murshid, 2016) can offer tools for more careful and specific approaches to the analysis of HE reforms both by Ukrainian decision-makers and by those external observers, scholars and consultants who presumably study Ukrainian HE reform with constructive intentions. We put forward the proposition that degrees of trauma awareness in Ukrainian and Western leaders and analysts are currently insufficient. And yet it is possible that a collective trauma legacy continues to influence Ukrainian leaders, followers and the decision-making processes in the present as well as limit conceptualisations of the future. Whilst Ukraine’s historical victim position is central to this analysis, we take care to avoid casting Ukraine in the light of helpless victimhood alone. We aim to disentangle the sources of historical victimisation from the present-day realities by looking at the historical position of Ukraine vis-à-vis the

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  117 surrounding imperial powers of Russia, Poland, Austro-Hungary and the role of the West. This approach offers a different pathway for enabling trauma-informed critical thinking that, we argue, has a higher capacity to lead to critical being ­(Barnett, 1997) and positive change in all national and subnational contexts that experienced events of collective trauma. Historical leadership roles and the events of collective trauma Kovryga and Nickel (2004: 610) perceptively suggest that Ukrainian society has a strong shadow side, a parallel reality that exists behind the ideological façade which serves the purpose of satisfying the international pressures for reform. The shadow side ‘represents a more authentic progression towards change and the struggles, which underlie survival’. The shadow side is also where the conflict between two cycles of false necessities is, to some degree, reconciled (Kovryga and Nickel, 2006) which enables the day-to-day survival in a difficult context. This locally informed perspective is valuable in understanding the insider realities, which often remain hidden to the external observer’s eye. However, we invite the reader to consider an extension of this one-sided statement and allow a possibility of simultaneous coexistence of the authentic shadow and the authentic visible side in the context of higher education reforms. After all, the Ukrainian government has voluntarily signed up to the Bologna process in 2005, and many of the modernisation goals that form key elements of the reform had been set out in the Ukrainian policy documents long before that (Fimyar, 2010). Analytically, allowing for the presence of these conflicting motivations opens up a different path for analysis of the role of leadership in HE and approaches to leadership development in higher education. Understanding the possible sources of the rift between the shadow and the visible side, we argue, holds not only explanatory power but also serves as a bridge towards a different kind of critical thinking about the crisis. But how did this rift come about? Fimyar (2014), in her analysis of the Western policies in non-Western contexts, connects it to the violent exercise of power that was historically present in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Ukrainian history, in particular, is full of disadvantages for Ukrainian power dynamics and the struggles for identity and statehood (Subtelny, 2009). The historical events of the 1933 Holodomor are but one (admittedly the largest in scale) example of where the exercise of power had been transmuted into the exercise of violence towards the Ukrainian people. Although Ukrainian people have existed since the collapse of the Kyivan Rus in the 12th century, and the Ukrainian state, along with many other former Soviet republics, has only come to exist in a non-fleeting form in 1991, making Ukraine one of the youngest countries on the planet. However, unlike, for instance, Baltic countries, whose independence enabled them to return to their once strong autonomy, Ukraine has emerged as an ‘unexpected nation’ (Wilson, 2015), with virtually no history or experience of self-governance. And yet, unlike Belarus, which did not have any HEIs on its present-day territory, until the first one was established by the Soviet government, Ukrainian higher education (yes, in the absence of

118  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. the Ukrainian state) played a leading role in the struggles for independence. The first medieval universities were established in the modern-day Western Ukraine by members of Ukrainian clergy. Their founders used them as vehicles for promoting Ukrainian identity (in this instance, through the Christian Orthodox religion) in the face of external threats of Catholicism and the Rule of the Polish King (Yershova and Gordiichuk, 2013: 474). Universities that opened in the East of the modern-day Ukraine were the initiative of the Russian Tsar. They followed a more centralised model of governance and hence conformed more to the expectations of their sponsors (Osipian, 2008). Whilst the absence of independent nation statehood has limited Ukrainians’ capacity to develop and improve skills of self-governance, it simultaneously created favourable conditions for the development of the shadow side of leadership, namely, the skills of leading via the means of resistance and defiance against the dominant powers, with universities and university leaders often playing a key role in the process. These efforts were driven by the desire for survival as a distinct ethnic group with its own language and culture. Some of the key leaders of the Ukrainian struggle for independence, for instance, Ivan Mazepa (1687–1708) and Stepan Bandera (1909–1959), are best known for their achievements in these domains, which also explains why different observers, depending on where their loyalties lay, might choose to view them as historical heroes on the one hand, or as traitors (as was the case with Mazepa) or terrorists (as was the case with Bandera) on the other. Understanding these historical patterns of relationship to authority and the direction and purpose of decision-making efforts provides the context for what Kovryga and Nickel (2004: 624) call ‘well mastered processes of de-centralisation in [modern] Ukraine’. Fimyar (2014) uses the term ‘“partisan” responses to policies in illiberal contexts’ to describe the same phenomenon. According to these interpretations, Ukrainians continue to engage in day-to-day decentralisation of centrally issued directives. Such decentralisation takes on inconspicuous forms enacted in the local action in private that goes against the grain of publicly stated goals. Whether the centre was Imperial Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Imperial Poland or the Soviet Union is of lesser importance. What matters for the purposes of our analysis is that such context creates a fruitful ground for developing approaches to leadership and followership characterised by resistance, subversion and opposition. If the centre was viewed as an unwelcome imposition, from the perspective of the oppressed, subversion became a healthy response to unhealthy circumstances, a defence necessary for survival. Predictably, the struggles for identity by Ukrainians were met with opposition from the surrounding imperial powers who had opposing goals. The struggle was often overlooked or ignored by Western European leaders, who were more concerned with carefully balancing their own relationships with Russia and Poland (Reid, 1997). On more than one historical occasion, Western Europeans chose to collude with greater powers at the expense of Ukrainians’ right to ­self-identification and independence (Reid, 1997; Subtelny, 2009). This is an important point that many present-day Western analysts of higher education reform tend to overlook

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  119 when critically analysing Ukrainian policies, and yet these facts may influence the ethics of attributing responsibility. Naturally, such profound conflicts of interest between Ukraine and the imperial powers as well as between Ukraine and Western Europe have led to relationships which, for Ukrainians at least, were ridden with mistrust. Despite this, however, Ukrainian higher education continued to produce high-quality intellectuals who continuously cultivated the homegrown capacity for self-identification and nation-building. These individuals were often risking their lives for engaging in what Davies (2015) calls critical action. The period of Stalin’s rule over the Soviet Union was particularly full of aggression towards Ukraine’s intellectuals, which resulted in targeted elimination of intellectual elites in the 1920s–30s (e.g. Serhiy Efremov, Les Kurbas), and in the 1940s–50s (e.g. Mykola Holodnyi, Oleksandr Bogomolets). Besides, institutions that were in place, such as the All Ukrainian Academy of Science, which were originally established to foster Ukrainian nation-building, were converted into institutions aimed at promoting Soviet ideology in the 1920–30s (Hladchenko et al., 2018). The 1930s turned out to be particularly dark and damaging for Ukraine ­(Applebaum, 2018). After the elimination of intellectual elites who performed a function of national leadership for Ukrainian self-determination, Stalin initiated the policy of the so-called prodrazvyorstka, which led to the historical events of Holodomor of 1933 (Applebaum, 2017). ‘Stalin directed confiscation of harvests and foods’ (Bezo and Maggie, 2015) in the Ukrainian countryside in a campaign that was carefully planned and well executed (Klid and Motyl, 2012). Travel ­restrictions and roadblocks were put in place to restrict movement as much as possible. Eventually, people deprived of food and means to seek it elsewhere slowly and painfully died of hunger. The exact casualties are uncertain, as Stalin ordered the execution of the lead census takers (Subtelny, 2009; Applebaum, 2018), but the estimates of this genocide range from 3 to 6 million (Subtelny, 2009). Those who survived suffered profound humiliation, and witnessed their children’s, parents’, and neighbours’ deaths. In many places, funerals were prohibited, and bodies remained on the streams as a means of further terrorisation. Historical trauma is a relatively new concept in the academic literature, and its connection to large-scale change processes is largely under-explored. Historical trauma occurs where a dominant group subjects a certain population to all or one of the following: long-term segregation, displacement, physical and/or psychological violence, economic destruction and cultural dispossession (Sotero, 2006; ­Somasundaram, 2007; Bowen and Murshid, 2016). Embedded in the definition is a deliberate violent use of power, and hence destructive exercise of leadership, with devastating consequences for affected populations. Trauma effect goes beyond the affected population. Cumulative research evidence suggests that trauma survivors pass the trauma onto subsequent generations. Levine (2015: 163) notes that in the context of trauma treatment, ‘individuals frequently described surprisingly specific and often horrific images, sensations and emotions about events that seemed quite real but could not possibly have happened to them’. Research into survivors and their offspring identifies an array of negative consequences at individual,

120  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. familial and collective levels, ranging from depressive moods (Major, 1996), fear and mistrust they struggle to explain (Rowland-Klein and Dunlop, 1997), a pervasive sense of shame (Karenian et al., 2010), increased suicidal thoughts in some cases (Elias et al., 2012) and, as some propose, societal loss of culture and way of life (Evans-Campbell, 2008). In the specific case of Ukraine, Holodomor both followed and preceded other longer lasting and ongoing events of repression of Ukrainian uprisings and resistance movements, and deprivations of basic necessities. Denial is a significant component of the psychological response to trauma (Chang, 2017). Victims, perpetrators and those who witness atrocities (particularly when they choose not to interfere) are motivated, albeit for different reasons, to deny that the events took place (Applebaum, 2017). In line with the usual response to trauma, Holodomor remained a taboo subject in both Ukraine and the West, gaining only a marginal amount of attention in Ukraine since independence and some recent attention from Western researchers (Applebaum, 2018) and the US Senate (Najarian, 2018). Unsurprisingly, the effects of Holodomor remain largely understudied. The role of Western Europe in relation to these events is equally understudied. Reid (1997), an English journalist and a historian, comments that many Western journalists working in Ukraine at the time had chosen not to report the atrocities back to their headquarters in Europe and the United States out of the desire to hold on to their privileged access to the very closed Soviet Union. Applebaum (2017) describes how the Soviet apparatus kept Western journalists in check, and one particular The New York Times correspondent had gone as far as to justify the infliction of suffering, repeating the language of Stalin’s inner circles. The voice of Welsh journalist Gareth Jones, who had the courage to consistently expose atrocities, was a notable exception at the time, and he was subsequently banned from the Soviet ­Union. Such lack of critical thinking and critical action and elements of collusion on the part of the Western press would have contributed to the process of denial which the  Soviet government was motivated to maintain. It may also have contributed to the historically accumulated mistrust between Ukraine and the West of which perhaps present-day analysts and consultants in higher education remain unaware. Trauma does not only occur during a given point in time. It has a way of finding its way into the future through the process of trans-generational transmission ­(Evans-Campbell, 2008). As contemporary Ukrainian historian Grycak (2015: 32–33) asserts, It is nearly impossible to find a family in Ukraine who in the 20th century would not have suffered from violence, managed to stay in one place or keep their property. This fact gives us a key to understanding Ukrainians’ behaviour. According to surveys, what they most want is safety and stability in order to break away from this insane history. Although empirical research into trans-generational trauma transmission in Ukraine is very limited, Bezo and Maggie’s study (2015) is a valuable exception. In the interviews conducted with three generations of Holodomor survivors, these

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  121 Canadian researchers have uncovered that all respondents experienced persisting trauma-induced emotional states and the psychological coping mechanisms characteristic of trauma survivors of 1933. They were specifically interested in investigating ‘whether potential trauma, stemming from the Holodomor, continues to exert an intergenerational impact’ (p. 88) in the present day. Some of their findings bear a connection to Ukrainians’ thoughts and feelings about leadership, and the manner in which they are likely to engage with authority and power in the present. Given the mass scale of artificially engineered hunger in Ukraine and the intergenerational effects of trauma, we propose that Bezo and Maggie’s (2015) findings may hold explanatory potential for the leadership dynamics in the modern-day higher education system. And just as Holodomor itself straddled Russia, Ukraine and the West, the legacy of it may hold explanatory power for the crisis of critical thinking around higher education reform in Ukraine that we are witnessing today. Bezo and Maggie (2015) report two sets of findings from their interviews with three generations of Holodomor survivors: traumatic emotional states associated with Holodomor and trauma-based coping strategies. Specifically, three types of fear were reported: fear of repeated abuse of power, fear to take action and ‘fear and mistrust in others’. Fear of another genocide, a repeated abuse of power, is a natural extension of the Holodomor events. Fear to take action stems from memories of severe punishments that survivors witnessed in others who attempted to take action to secure food and were killed by armed soldiers. This emotional state continues to live in all three generations of respondents, taking on the form of ‘a fear to oppose, challenge, openly question, speak out against or strive to change the status quo, authority, government, public policy, or legislation’ (p. 90). The third generation of respondents described how they came to internalise such fears through ‘family oral histories of Holodomor-related atrocities’. The knowledge that Ukrainians were targeted and mistreated, and hence isolated from others, is also connected to fear and mistrust of others. Other emotional states reported by the participants included sadness over the loss of family members and the deaths of others, and ethnic-related shame ‘as a result of the Holodomor being inflicted on Ukrainians’. Interestingly, anger was the least discussed emotion but was also present in the interviews. These difficult emotional states necessitated certain coping strategies that resulted in patterns of surviving behaviours, some of which may bear relevance to interpersonal relationships today. Namely, the perceived need for self-preservation and ‘survival’ was reported to create ‘an increased social hostility’. ‘Hence, an indifference toward others emerged, that was reported not as an intrinsic selfishness, but rather the result of the perceived need for self-preservation that emerged during the Holodomor’ (p. 91). Towards trauma-informed understanding of higher education reform The literature on Ukrainian higher education reform reveals overlapping themes with those uncovered in the research on the collective trauma and broader Ukrainian history. Just as traumatic experiences become locked in the collective consciousness, the higher education system may be trapped in historical patterns

122  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. of violence and irresponsible use of power which are being propagated through the system in the unending and unchecked cycle of the trans-generational transmission of trauma. We aim to develop an understanding of how some of these trauma patterns may be playing out in the higher education system, affecting its leadership and functioning at various levels, and seek insights as to how such cycles of trauma may be interrupted by engaging critical thinking in trauma-sensitive ways. Centralisation/decentralisation tension in the Bologna expectations: unreflected, undiscussed and unresolved Although Ukrainian policymakers have voluntarily signed up to the Bologna process, Ukrainian observers note that the commitment to engage has dwindled over time (Shevchenko, 2018). Kovacs’s analysis (2014) notes a dual motivation of the Ukrainian higher education policymakers: to preserve good relations with EU and to preserve much-desired independence at the same time. As recent political events have demonstrated, both of these goals are equally desired by the ­Ukrainian people (possibly with the exception of some parts of the Eastern territories) and the Ukrainian government. Ukrainian higher education policymakers reconcile these opposing tendencies through non-confrontational decentralisation ­expressed in the quiet decline in the frequency of reports and inclusion of only limited ­information in the reports (Shevchenko, 2018; Educational Policy, 2015). Such a strategy precludes Western counterparts from understanding the reality of what is happening, keeping the tensions around nation-building in the shadow. At the same time, it maintains control with the Ukrainian side whilst avoiding possible open confrontation with the West. The tensions between national interests and the requirements of the Bologna process are not unique to Ukraine, a­ lthough other nations have been more open in vocalising their concerns and more assertive at reconciling tensions (Ravinet, 2008). As a younger and more recent newcomer to the Bologna process, Ukraine’s position is more vulnerable than that of Germany, the United Kingdom or France. This position vis-à-vis the West is historically familiar to Ukraine and carries similar power structures as in the past. The other side of this two-way process is the uncertainty of the European response, should Ukraine choose to be more vocal about its national priorities. Western observers’ ease at historically insensitive critiquing of Ukraine for poor performance in higher education reform may be experienced as emotionally charged with shame, further blocking the possibility of dialogue. Ukrainian policymakers reconcile this dilemma by explicitly disowning agency in the official policy documents through an impersonal use of language (Fimyar, 2010), thus setting up one of the key building blocks of denial that sustains the transformational trap (Argyris, 2010). Fear of authority and fear to take action The ambivalence of the overall policy environment and high levels of mistrust at the policy level are transmitted to the national-level university leaders. In the context of an overpopulated higher education system and strong dependencies

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  123 of HEIs on ‘the political environment for regulations, funding, and legitimacy’ (Hladchenko et al., 2018: 9), individual institutions are placed in a position where their survival depends on a rector’s capacity to build relationships with civil servants and politicians. Present-day ambivalence combined with the historical fear of authority creates a fertile ground for the abuse of power. Civil servants and politicians themselves exist in an ambivalent legal framework without a clear sense of boundaries and accountability (e.g. see Kovryga and Nickel (2004) for some insightful analysis). Who wins? Who loses? What are the definitions of success and failure? The possibility of resisting or challenging governmental policies is not widely considered by institutional leaders. Critical reflection and thinking, if engaged, does not translate into critical action. Instead, leaders are co-opted into political processes, and HEIs are being engaged to serve political ends. Such realities both shape the existing leaders’ behaviours and attract those individuals to these roles who are content with low levels of agency available to them: in other words, non-leaders. These dynamics resonate closely with what Cooper (2017) describes as dysfunctional social processes in societies with the historical experience of collective trauma. Similar to trauma victims, university rectors, along with the organisations for which they are responsible, find that they are being caught in a double bind (Weaver, 2008; Shaw et al., 2013). Their stated goals are to develop and improve their HEIs; however, in order to hold on to their roles and possibly to protect their institutions from closures or mergers, they strike deals with civil servants and politicians which often divert institutional goals towards political ends. Observers comment that such dynamics continue at the cost of causing harm to educational institutions and undermining their social functions (Hladchenko et al., 2018). ­Little space is left for changes advocated by the scholars of the reform process or any change that university rectors themselves may see as necessary. Once again, as in previous historical circumstances, survival needs dictate action. The organisational pressures to survive and possibly individual interests of the institutional leaders drive collusion processes between various centres of power, causing misalignment between strategic organisational choices and environmental pressures. Denial is used as a defence mechanism in order to sustain this situation. And the transformational trap is further reinforced at the organisational level. Similar forces at work at the level of individual academics have been reported by Shaw et al. (2013) who note that academic members of staff receive conflicting messages about what is expected of them. This, in turn, reproduces the double bind at the individual level (Bateson, 1972). Shaw et al. (2013: 8) provide empirical evidence of academic staff ’s fear of authority, particularly exemplified in an interview quote, ‘It is not such a good thing here to stand out’, whilst recognising that ‘the dearth of critical voices towards university leadership was likely related to a fear of authority that has been shown to be rather common in post-socialist societies’. Additionally, the lack of critical voices in confidential interviews with Western-based researchers may signify the lack of awareness or a state of denial of one’s own fearful mood in relation to their leaders. What Kinchington (2020) calls the ‘hidden organisation’ remains firmly under wraps. Fear, particularly the denial

124  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. of fear, once permanently instituted in the consciousness, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that runs the system on auto-pilot (Argyris, 2010). Whilst significant responsibility for change is disowned at the policy level, it often becomes shifted onto academic staff (Rumyantseva and Logvynenko, 2017). Although academic staff have been described as highly capable critical thinkers, their sphere of action is severely constrained by regulations, budgets and fear of authority. Ultimately, the responsibility for enacting change is shifted onto actors who are not sufficiently resourced to implement it to the desired extent. This further perpetuates academics’ sense of helplessness and sustains the transformational trap. Self-preservation and indifference towards others The higher education system, as well as the broader public sector in Ukraine, is frequently described as corrupt (Osipian, 2008, 2017). Positions of power are occupied by individuals who often misuse their office for private gain, subverting publicly stated intentions. The general recognition of these dynamics by Ukrainians themselves has been captured in a satirical TV series ‘Servant of the P ­ eople’ and then skilfully presented in the ‘The Economist’ (2018) as a part of the broader discussion of corruption and abuse of power in Ukraine. Much has been written about this particular aspect of Ukrainian politics (e.g. Yurchenko, 2018). O ­ sipian demonstrates how numerous governments have exercised strong leverage over universities through abuse of power, and how inconsistent and ambivalent expectations leave opportunities open for abusive practices within the HE system, resulting in corruption in licensing, accreditation, admissions and testing ­(Osipian, 2008, 2017). Hladchenko et al. (2018) demonstrate how ‘favouritism has also shaped the institutional architecture of Ukrainian HE and research to the benefit of powerful actors’. They argue that ‘the politics of “status enhancement” and favouritism has resulted in a situation in which organizational forms are largely decoupled from their endowed tasks and thus impede fundamental reform and the alignment with western HE models’. In other words, it is no accident that the higher education system has been hijacked to serve the interests of the few at the expense of the well-being of the majority. We propose that these types of behaviours of formal leaders can be described as a collective dysfunction. Similarly to alcoholism or drug addiction, such ‘dysfunctional behaviours sometimes come to symbolize a traumatic group experience’ (Cooper, 2017). The propagation of such dynamics through the layers of the system contributes yet another layer to the transformational trap and disables effective change. Conclusion Reid (1997) calls Ukraine a neglected nation, which started attracting international attention and has continued to do so since the 1990s. The contemporary crisis in higher education and elsewhere in the public sector has drawn a lot of attention from the outside world. The complex dynamics in the higher education sector and wider society are a starting point for a reintroduction of Ukraine to

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  125 the West, a reintroduction of a European nation that has undergone centuries of oppression and more recent experiences of collective trauma and yet managed to survive and surprise the world with its emergence out of the Soviet conglomerate in 1991 (Wilson, 2015). Ukrainians’ fear of challenging authority and their denial of such fear are likely to play a role in sustaining the dysfunctional processes and reinforcing the transformational trap in higher education. Although, as Argyris (2010) points out, traps are not uncommon in even the most successful organisations in the most stable of contexts, Ukrainian experience offers an opportunity to reconsider the role of critical thinking and the need for introducing its cousin, restorative thinking, in order to develop the ability to recognise and process denial and create a shift. Cooper (2017: x) proposes an explanation grounded in Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979 cited in Cooper, 2017) of how dysfunctional group dynamics may be maintained by both the in-group and out-group. Victimised populations may be more likely to experience collective dysfunction when ‘(a) a dysfunctional group behaviour is perceived to symbolize their collective trauma, and (b) the group’s collective trauma(s) is denied by powerful out-groups’. Ukraine has been enveloped in 85 years of denial of the events of the Holodomor, not to mention the most recent events of armed conflict with Russia. No explicit attempts have been made to seek reconciliation from outside Ukraine. The general level of awareness and the willingness to confront the past have only recently started to emerge within Ukraine itself. How much awareness do Ukrainian leaders at various levels have about their intergenerational trauma experience and how it influences their decisions in the present? Without an understanding of the legacy they have inherited and cultivating self and other-­ compassion, they would be unable to gain clarity around their shadow motivations and/or to resolve an internal conflict of wanting to move forward with the changes or to stay within the arguable safety of the status quo. How much awareness do Western leaders and leader developers have of the effects of the traumatic past of Ukraine and its influence on the present? Do they understand the implications of working with a society whose experience has been of subjugation and which often fell in between the cracks of political power play and interests of more powerful nations, including those who today comprise the European Union? Do they possess emotional awareness and sensitivity to engage with traumatised populations? Insufficient understanding by Western analysts and donors may be contributing an additional layer to the transformational trap through the present-day externally driven change mandates. By not explicitly acknowledging the trauma and its consequences, the exercise of critical thinking (and, in particular, in the form of critical judgement as discussed by Davies, 2015) towards higher education by outsiders may take on a destructive turn and be perceived by Ukrainians as attempts at shaming, thus once again triggering feelings of ethnocentric shame inherited from the genocide. Addressing traumatic experiences in Ukraine and elsewhere is crucial for the sustainability of any change efforts, whether they are driven internally or from the outside. In addition to critical observations of dysfunctional behaviours, there has to be an acknowledgement of complex emotional structures

126  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. and interdependencies that are likely to underpin them. Critical thinking needs to be supplemented with the restorative thinking essential for rebuilding capacity whilst tapping into the traumatic past for resilience. Goltz (2018: 426) advocates for an approach to change where emotions and discomforts are recognised and owned. Drawing on aspects of Buddhism and approaches from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, she argues for an approach that places ‘an emphasis on contact with reality even when it is uncomfortable, doing so with acceptance and non-judgment, and moving toward valued actions in the presence of discomfort’. Bowen and Murshid (2016: 223) outline the possibilities of trauma-informed social policies grounded in ‘safety, trustworthiness and transparency, collaboration, empowerment, choice, and intersectionality’. Such newly found understanding, tapping into the psychological resilience that coexists with vulnerability in traumatised populations (Chang, 2017), is likely to change the ways in which critical arguments are formulated, and critical dispositions and attitudes are developed. It opens pathways for cultivating compassion and kindness without giving up the rigour of critical thinking. Even in the presence of fear of authority and ethnocentric shame, such approaches may lead to the healing of historical wounds and subsequent critical action capable of overcoming various elements of the trap. As atrocious as it was, Holodomor has also become a commemoration of the capacity of the Ukraine people to cope with crisis and rebuild the equilibrium of life. Gradual delayering of traumatic defences would unlock the national potential for creativity and continuous cultivation of the nation’s potential for self-governance. Critical creativity (Davies, 2015) in the presence of an open trauma-sensitive dialogue could open up alternative pathways for accommodating competing values and reconciliation of past losses with a view to moving onto an alternative, previously un-envisioned future, where both the higher education system and the rest of society would progress and flourish. References Applebaum, A. (2017) How Stalin hid Ukraine’s famine from the world. The Atlantic. Available at: www. theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/red-famine-anne-applebaum-ukraine-soviet-­ union/542610/ [Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Applebaum, A. (2018) Red famine: Stalin’s war on Ukraine. London: Penguin. Argyris, C. (2010) Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bezo, B. and Maggie, S. (2015) Living in “survival mode:” Intergenerational transmission of trauma from the Holodomor genocide of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Social Science and Medicine, 134: 87–94. Bowen, E.A. and Murshid, E.S. (2016) Trauma-informed social policy: A conceptual framework for policy analysis and advocacy. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2): 223–229. Chang, K. (2017) Living with vulnerability and resiliency: The psychological experience of collective trauma. Acta Psychopathologica, 3(53): 1–5. Cooper, M. (2017) Group identity and collective dysfunction. Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  127 Darvas, P. (2003) Ukraine education reform policy note. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/­ curated/en/348821468313765642/pdf/470310ESW0whit1ote0Feb200301PUBLIC1.pdf. [Accessed 23 Nov 2018]. Davies, M. (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M.B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (41–93). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Democratic Initiatives Foundation. (2015) Survey of rectors results. Available at: www.dif.org.ua. ­[Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Denisova-Schmidt, E., Prytula, Y., and Rumyantseva, N. (2018) Beg, borrow or steal: determinants of student academic misconduct in Ukrainian higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 3: 1–24. Educational Policy. (2015) The editorial board of the portal “Educational Policy” about the successes of Ukraine in the Bologna Process by the materials “The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Implementation Report Bologna Process”. Available at: http://education-ua.org/ua/analytics/429-the-european-higher-education-area-in-2015-implementation-report-bologna-proces [Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Elias, B., Mignone, J., Hall, M., Hong, S.P., Hart, L., and Sareen, J. (2012) Trauma and suicide behaviour histories among a Canadian indigenous population: An empirical exploration of the potential role of Canada’s residential school system. Social Science and Medicine, 74(10): 1560–1569. Evans-Campbell, T. (2008) Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3): 316–338. Fedinec, C. and Csermocsko, I. (2017) (Re)conceptualization of memory in Ukraine after the revolution of dignity. Central European Papers, 1: 46–71. Fimyar, O. (2008) Educational policy-making in post-communist Ukraine as an example of emerging governmentality: Discourse analysis of curriculum choice and assessment policy documents (1999–2003). Journal of Education Policy, 23(6): 571–593. Fimyar, O. (2010) Policy why(s): Policy rationalities and the changing logic of educational reform in post-communist Ukraine. Post-Socialism is not Dead: (Re)Reading the global in comparative education. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 14: 61–91. Fimyar, O. (2014) What is policy? In search of frameworks and definitions for non-Western contexts. Educate, 14(3): 6–21. Goltz, M. S. (2018) Organizational change: Insights from Buddhism and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 15(5): 424–449. Grycak, Y. (2015) Kudy Ruhaetsya Svit (Where is the world going?). Kyiv, Ukraine: Grani-T. Hladchenko, M., Dobbins, M., and Jungblut, J. (2018) Exploring change and stability in Ukrainian higher education and research: A historical analysis through multiple critical junctures. Higher education policy, 1–23. Doi: 10.1057/s41307-018-0105-9. Janmaat, J.G. (2008) Nation building, democratization and globalization as competing priorities in Ukraine’s education system. Nationalities Papers, 36(1): 1–23. Karenian, H., Livaditis, M., Karenian, S., Zafiriadis, K., Bochtsou, V., and Xenitidis, K. (2010) Collective trauma transmission and traumatic reactions among descendants of Armenian refugees. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57(4): 327–337. Kinchington, F. (2020) Leading change in complex contexts. In J. Jameson (Ed.), International perspectives on leadership in higher education: Critical thinking for global challenges. London: Routledge. Klid, B. and Motyl, A.J. (2012) The Holodomor Reader: A sourcebook on the famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. Kovacs, K. (2014) The Bologna process in Ukraine. In T. Kozma, M. Rebay, A. Ohidy and E. Szolar (Eds.), The Bologna process in Central and Eastern Europe. Germany: Springer Fachmedein Wiesbaden. Kovryga, O. and Nickel, P.M. (2004) The inevitability of enduring historical and cultural patterns: The paradox of decentralisation efforts in Ukraine. Administrative Theory and Practice, 26(4): 609–634.

128  •  Nataliya L. Rumyantseva et al. Kovryga, O. and Nickel, P.M. (2006) In a cycle of false necessity? Escaping from embedded quasi-­ institutions and building a new system of public administration and management in Ukraine. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(13): 1151–1166. Levine, P. (2015) Trauma and memory. Brain and body in a search for the living past. Berkley, CA: North Atlantic Books. Major, E.F. (1996) The impact of the Holocaust on the second generation: Norwegian Jewish Holocaust survivors and their children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3): 441–454. Najarian, M. (2018) U.S. Senate Says Stalin ‘Committed Genocide’ in Famine-Hit Ukraine, ­RadioFreeEurope/ RadioLiberty. Available at: www.rferl.org/a/u-s-senate-passes-resolution-on-ukraine-famine-amove-hailed-by-kyiv/29526188.html [Accessed 26 Nov. 2018]. Oleksiyenko, A. (2016) Higher education reforms and center-periphery dilemmas: Ukrainian universities between Neo-Soviet and Neo-Liberal contestations. In J. Zajda and V. Rust (Eds.), Globalisation and higher education reforms. Globalisation, comparative education and policy research, Vol. 15 (pp. 133–148). Switzerland: Springer. OSI & NEPC. (2006) Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring. Overview and Country Reports. New York: Open Society Institute. Osipian, A. (2008) Transforming university governance in Ukraine: collegiums, bureaucracies, and political institutions. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper, No. 11058. Available at: http://mpra. ub.uni-muenchen.de/11058. [Accessed 3 Oct. 2015]. Osipian, A. (2010) Corruption in the politicized university: Lessons from Ukraine’s 2010 presidential elections. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, (23)2: 101–114. Osipian, A. (2014) Transforming university governance in Ukraine: Collegiums, bureaucracies, and political institutions. Higher Education Policy, 27: 65–84. Osipian, A. (2017) University autonomy in Ukraine: Higher education corruption and the state. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 50(3): 233–243. Ravinet, P. (2008) From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process. European Journal of Education, 43: 353–367. Reid, A. (1997) Borderland: A journey through the history of Ukraine. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Rowland-Klein, D., and Dunlop, R. (1997) The transmission of trauma across generations: Identification with parental trauma of Holocaust survivors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31: 358–369. Rumyantseva, N. and Logvynenko, O. (2017) Ukraine: Higher education reforms and dynamics of the institutional landscape. Chapter 16. In J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, and I. Froumin (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in Post-Soviet countries (pp. 407–433). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Semiv, L. and Hvozdovych, Y. (2012) The intellectual migration of the youth in Ukraine: The backgrounds for ‘brain circulation’. Journal of International Studies, 5(2): 72–81. Shaw, M. (2013) Flawed implementation or inconsistent logics? Lessons from higher education reform in Ukraine. European Education, 45: 7–24. Shaw, M., Chapman, D., and Rumyantseva, N. (2013) Organizational culture in the adoption of the ­Bologna process: A study of academic staff at a Ukrainian university. Studies in Higher ­Education, 38(7): 989–1003. Shevchenko, V. (2018) The reform of the higher education of Ukraine in the conditions of the ­military-political crisis. International Journal of Educational Development, 65: 237–253. Somasundaram, D. (2007) Collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka: A qualitative psychosocial-­ ecological study. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 1(5): 1–29. Sotero, M. (2006) A conceptual model of historical trauma: Implications for public health practice and research. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 1(1): 93–108. Subtelny, O. (2009) Ukraine: A History (4th ed.). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. UNDP. (2018) Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update. Ukraine. Weaver, C. (2008) Hypocrisy trap: The world bank and the poverty of reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Crisis of Ukrainian higher education  •  129 Wilson, A. (2015) The Ukrainians: Unexpected nation, 4th edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. World Bank. (2004) Ukraine-Equal access to quality education in Ukraine project, Project Information Document, Concept Stage, Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/919361468760561499/pdf/Project0Inform1ment010Concept0Stage.pdf [Accessed 23 Nov 2018]. World Bank. (2005) Ukraine-Education reform project. Project Appraisal Document (p. 138). Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/334131468316160160/pdf/32175.pdf ­[Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum. (2011) World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva, Switzerland. Yershova, O. and Gordiichuk, A. (2013) University autonomy in Ukraine: International experience and national interests. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(11): 472–476. Yurchenko, Y. (2018) Ukraine and the empire of capital: From marketisation to armed conflict. London: Pluto Press.

10

Australia

Global challenges and the role of diversity and feminism in critical university leadership JILL BLACKMORE

Introduction Leadership in higher education: a problematic concept Leadership has been a dominant discourse and research focus in organisation studies and change management as well as in school education since the 1990s but only recently in higher education (Bryman, 1993). The context in which leadership emerged as a focus is one in which universities are being more autonomous in terms of how they manage their resources in increasingly uncertain policy and social, economic and political external environments (Altbach, Reisberg, and ­Rumbley, 2009; Vukasovic et al., 2012) but also more regulated through policy, funding and accreditation processes (Blackmore and Sachs, 2007). This focus on leadership has fuelled an array of leadership development programmes in universities, most often offered by management consultants; the creation of leadership institutes; and leadership programmes based on shadowing, modelling and mentoring (e.g. the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education in the UK). Leadership has been promoted as the solution to the problem of transforming the university to meet national economic priorities (Morley, 2013). The aim is, first, to produce new knowledge through the innovative, interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial activities of academics as researchers and, second, to develop graduate ‘employability’ for rapidly changing workplaces by developing 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, flexibility and adaptability (Brown, Lauder, and Ashton, 2011). Policy discourses focus on the university’s role in producing human capital as the very nature and purpose of the university, and those who work and learn in it are being transformed to meet the perceived needs of globalised knowledge economies (Brown, 2015). Some argue that the university itself is under threat in a post-truth era marked by the ‘death of expertise’ in which the authority of university research is being challenged (Nichols, 2017), that universities will become fully corporatised (EY, 2018) or a hierarchy will develop between elite research-intensive liberal universities and mass online courses for the remaining students to widen participation (Palfreyman and Tapper, 2008; Nussbaum, 2010; Brown, 2015). 130

The role of diversity and feminism  •  131 The contemporary university is confronted with and responding to competing expectations from multiple stakeholders resulting in radical change in the material conditions and practices of academic, professional staff and student work. Post-welfare governments are reducing funds and privatising the public sector, and work is being transformed due to globalisation and digitalisation with increased flows of students, academics, credentials, knowledge and money as new competitors enter the international student market (e.g. in China, Singapore and Hong Kong). Universities are heavily reliant on reputation in global rankings (­ Espeland and Sauder, 2016), favouring the older elite research-intensive universities ­offering a more comprehensive curriculum, to attract students (Palfreyman  and ­Tapper, 2008). Uncertainty is therefore the ‘new normal’ for universities (Shore and Wright, 2018). The issue for executive management (vice chancellors, deans and university councils) is as much about institutional survival in a fast-moving globalised field of higher education. A number of discourses and national policies circulate within higher education, illuminating the paradoxes that academics negotiate daily. One paradox arises in terms of the notion of ‘critical’ and how it is mobilised differently for students and academics. On the one hand, global, national and institutional policy and priorities centre around the notion of students’ acquiring through higher education 21st-century skills, capacities or capabilities, usually characterised as team work, interpersonal capacity, intercultural awareness, communication skills, problem solving and critical thinking (Brown et al., 2011). Employers refer to these as the ‘soft skills’ now considered essential in addition to the credential that signifies technical expertise. On the other hand, there is rising concern within the academic profession regarding the weakening of protections of academic freedom, a core tenet of the modern university, which enables academics to profess both within the university and in the public domain (Barnett, 1997; Butler, 2006; Parke, 2012; Shattock, 2017; Shore and Wright, 2018). But with the culture and conditions of academic work changing as the university’s organisation and role are being reconfigured, universities now require greater alignment of academic teaching and research to university and national priorities, with the implicit expectation that academics protect the reputation of the university in which they work by not engaging in controversial public issues. Increasingly, universities are through industrial agreements (and how they are interpreted and operationalised by middle management) defining academic freedom as the right to speak only within their area of expertise and not to profess more generally on matters, for example, about the role of universities and pressures on academics to pass fee-paying students. For academics, ‘being critical’ is part of their disposition to become academics and researchers as they challenge assumptions, question practice and seek change. Teaching critical thinking is also central to educating the next generation as professionals and as researchers. A second paradox is that, on the one hand, there is the management discourse regarding the benefits of diversity (gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality, disability) (Henderson and Herring, 2013). This is most often based on the business case that diversity (usually quantified as the proportion of women and ethnically/culturally

132  •  Jill Blackmore diverse individuals in leadership) results in the financial outperformance of large companies (Hunt et al., 2018: 1). Critical management research argues that the diversity of standpoints and experience promotes problem solving, creativity and critical thinking within organisations (Bruni, Gherardi, and Poggio, 2005). A diverse workforce can best understand and meet the needs of client diversity. Diversity is therefore about ‘social justice, legal compliance, or maintaining industry standard employee environment protocols’ (Hunt et al., 2018: 2). The concept of diversity replaced equal opportunity in 1990s in universities. Diversity is a weaker term, a descriptor that individualises the issue and lacks the legal and historical recognition of systemic disadvantage implied by equity or equal opportunity (Ashcraft, 2009). Equal opportunity strategies instituted in the 1980s focussed on changing individual women as if they lacked the skills, personal attributes, institutional knowledge and aspiration to be leaders and thus were victims of their own femaleness. Changing university cultures and structures to make them inclusive of women’s experiences was too difficult. Now, in 2019, with the reduction of female academics entering, remaining in and leading the science and technology (STEM) disciplines, the focus is on ‘wasted talent’ (Blackmore, 2014; Butler, 2016). This trend of reduced female representation in STEM has longerterm effects as senior research leaders and managers tend to be recruited from STEM disciplines (Blackmore and Sawers, 2015). Furthermore, due to surveys mapping the pervasive sexual harassment of students on campus and the #MeToo movement, university reputations are at risk if not inclusive of diversity. Universities finally recognise unconscious bias and how merit has been socially constituted in ways that favour male academics in selection and promotion and discriminatory cultures of particular male-dominated disciplines (e.g. Engineering and IT) (Ahmed, 2012). The English Athena SWAN project and Australian SAGE projects seek to remedy the numerical ‘gender problem’ by a procedural focus on auditing, analysing and developing strategies to get more women into STEM and leadership. On the other hand, ‘the woman in leadership problem’ is re-emerging at a time when university cultures and structures have radically changed in ways that further impede, rather than enhance, women’s opportunities to access senior leadership. These include forever heightening expectations, the enduring, if not intensifying, work/family conflict arising from pressure to be mobile in order to scale up and internationalise and the widening scope of academic work (Jarboe, 2017; Johnson, 2017). This chapter charts the processes by which Australian universities are being corporatised and the impact of this on leadership in management, research and teaching. It draws on a four-year Australian Research Council project investigating Leadership in the entrepreneurial university: transnational study of diversity and engagement (2012–2015) and an earlier study investigating the restructuring of the education sector generally (Blackmore and Sachs, 2007), both indicating that academics are disengaged from and disenchanted with corporate leadership. I then discuss understandings of and the distinction between the academic disposition to be critical and critical thinking. I argue the case for criticality (being critical as an academic disposition, doing critique and undertaking critical inquiry) being central

The role of diversity and feminism  •  133 to leadership as well as academic work, and that being critical is not necessarily oppositional. Furthermore, criticality has both an affective and ethical dimension that should inform leadership practice in what are now conditions of supercomplexity and anxiety (Espeland and Sauder, 2016; Ruth et al., 2018; P ­ ullen and Rhodes, 2018). Work precarity and management practices countering criticality The Anglophile universities, in particular since the 1980s, underwent a range of neo-liberal policy shifts, with Australia drawing from the UK and NZ policies, thus feeding Australia’s cultural disposition towards instrumentalism. The university sector was restructured after 1989 in most Western nations, initiating a period of massification and unification of higher education, creating a sector of 38 public universities in Australia. This followed the abolition of fees in 1972 by the Whitlam Labor government, which benefitted women accessing universities, some off campus, largely in the humanities, social sciences, education, the arts and women’s studies, both informed by and informing the women’s movement. Males from blue-collar backgrounds entered the more lucrative trades via a strong Technical and Further Education sector. The reform focus was on quantity in terms of building research and teaching capacity across the sector, increasingly funded by international students. The Labor government that initiated the 1989 reforms sought to balance equity and efficiency with the delayed repayment of fees through tax, a policy later adopted in the UK. Over successive governments, there were incremental increases in university funding in real terms, thus requiring universities to raise student fees, develop industry and philanthropic collaborations and rely increasingly on international students, thus become more economically ­self-sufficient but at greater risk. Quality became the dominant external driver since 2000, both in terms of teaching and research, with various Australian attempts at research assessment finally leading to the Excellence in Research (ERA) introduced in 2010 based on a modified UK RAE (Besley, 2009). Other national bodies were formed to encourage, research and monitor teaching quality, and a national accreditation framework was established which focussed on graduate attributes and outcomes which, many argue, has standardised the university curriculum, making it outcomes-focussed. Australia was thus able to position itself within global higher education as a provider of high-quality courses to international students, largely from China and India, at the undergraduate level. Research reputation and the search for global ranking as world-class universities have been driven largely, but not only, by the Group of Eight universities, similar to the Russell Group in the United Kingdom and the Ivy League in the United States, although many universities of technology and post-1960 universities are also moving up in global rankings (Espeland and Sauder, 2016). Likewise, in research funding, priorities have focussed on strong national benefit justifications. These policy frames and processes have all linked Australian higher education more closely to national economic priorities, which have increasingly narrowed towards STEM as the source of innovation due to Australia’s poor record of research

134  •  Jill Blackmore commercialisation to the neglect of the social science and humanities and social innovation (Nussbaum, 2010; Thornton, 2015). Compacts between individual universities and the government during the 1990s and early 2000s capped enrolments in each course until the move to market demand following the Bradley Review meant unpopular courses were often closed as universities focussed on research priorities. Policies on widening participation post-2010 focussed on students from low-income families and indigenous background in a context of widening gaps of inequality within Australia as in other affluent economies (Gale and Parker, 2013). An assemblage of federal policies on research and teaching quality, funding based on outcomes, narrowing priority setting, industry partnerships and international education over 30 years has effectively steered Australian universities, as in the United Kingdom and NZ, towards a survivalist mode. University leaders are aware of the Australian higher sector’s vulnerability arising from increasing dependence on international students, the volatile political and policy environment around visas, enrolments and financial crashes, and heightened global competition over rankings, with the Asian university sector expanding rapidly (Shore and Wright, 2015). Contextualising leadership practices and being critical The drivers of internal reorganisation in Australia and the United Kingdom during the 1980s and 1990s were marketisation and corporate managerialism modelled on new public administration. The New Public Administration (NPA) treated management (and leadership) as a generic decontextualised individual attribute (Deem and Brehony, 2004; Pusey, 1991). In universities, corporatisation was signified by the naming of the vice chancellor as CEO/president and increased managerial assertion of control. In a three-year A ­ ustralian study of the effects of educational restructuring on academics and leaders in the early 2000s, Blackmore and Sachs (2007) found an emerging bifurcation between academics who taught and researched and those who had moved into line management. Bourdieu (1988) refers to the former as having earned intellectual capital through teaching and research, and the latter as gaining academic capital due to positional leadership. As summarised by Parker (2002): The professionalised managerial system of university governance, ­imported from the private sector, offered the prospect of a faster, more flexible ­decision-making process that could break through inherited and ­decaying university power structures and resource abuses. However, it has brought with it design archetype features such as a structural appearance of ­de-centralising functions and control down to faculties and divisions, while in fact installing a centralised system of senior executive operational and resource control. Decision-making has become driven more by senior executive command, strategic initiatives have been imposed upon faculties and divisions, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, revenue generation has been derived from school level activity while a large proportion of resulting revenue inflows have been diverted to strategies, subunits and projects directly controlled by the senior executive. With their centralised control and its proliferating

The role of diversity and feminism  •  135 strategic initiatives, these executive leaders often become overwhelmed by their workload and disconnected from the academic and administrative community they supposedly lead… A real tension has been created between the need for universities to strategically position themselves for survival in a highly competitive environment and the need for them to preserve space for inquiry and critique (the very foundations of their “distinctive competence” and “competitive advantage”). (Parker, 2002: 609–610) Scott et al.’s (2010: 403) study of deputy vice chancellors and deans found that ‘Most agree that good leadership entails management, but excessive management is counterproductive to good leadership as it leads to compliance’. The leadership in the entrepreneurial university project (Blackmore and ­Sawers, 2015) indicates that this emergent bifurcation between line management and academics doing teaching and research is now the logic of practice of many ­Australian universities, although to varying degrees (see also Rowlands, 2017). VCs have through serial internal restructurings justified the need for greater executive power in order to be ‘nimble’ over three decades: amalgamating faculties into super faculties under executive deans to create new efficiencies, increasing research management to produce quality output for ERA and directing towards industry partnerships and international research collaborations. Multiple strategic imperatives, whether in international education, industry engagement, work integrated learning, employability or international partnerships, have resulted in new senior management positions increasingly recruited from industry or NGOs. Many are without academic backgrounds, thus reducing academic voice in decision-making. At the same time, parallel systems of decision-making have evolved, with line managers determining resource allocation and policy while academic committee systems of academic boards focus on quality assurance (Rowlands, 2017). These trends towards managerialism have implications for leadership succession and regeneration, with dual career pathways emerging (Bexley, James, and Arkoudis, 2011). Academics are aware that once in line management, it is difficult to return to research, although many have continuing professorial appointments. In particular, the tension between the performative exercises required of managers and the ‘real work’ of leading is now institutionalised as performativity or ‘being seen to do the thing right’ against performance indicators rather than doing the right thing ethically and professionally: this has reconfigured ‘real work’ practices (Blackmore and Sachs, 2007). Increasingly, academics refer to being ‘­over-managed’ in teaching and research, with requirements for them to align teaching and research with their school, faculty, university and national priorities. Together with the managerial tools of performance management and quality assurance, a culture of compliance or audit culture has resulted in Australian higher education similar to that in the United Kingdom and the United States (Shore and Wright, 2018). The conditions of academic work have also altered. The introduction in A ­ ustralia of enterprise bargaining in the 1990s rather than a national award gave individual universities more discretion to negotiate wages. Each new award required increased

136  •  Jill Blackmore productivity for wage gains and linked workloads to performance appraisal. Industrial agreements, together with federal government pressure for increased research income, quality of teaching and research publications, have led universities to adopt point systems to determine workload which ignore a significant amount of overtime and gifting of academic labour to achieve escalating expectations. New learning technologies have required academic flexibility with a time/space collapse increasing demands on academics to communicate more quickly in multimodal ways, rejuvenate their technical skills constantly with continual software upgrades, respond to university management and professional staff requests for information and compliance checks for ethics, codes of conduct, diversity policies and so on (Selwyn, 2014). Structural reform has overall reasserted the privileging of the ‘hard’ over the ‘soft’ sciences in both representation and decision-making. The disciplinary voice of the social sciences, creative arts and humanities, which are often amalgamated into one faculty, is sidelined relative to STEM mega faculties of the technological, health, engineering and physical sciences. Many academics see the policy focus on STEM, applied research and outcomes that have immediate economic value and measurable impact as a demotion of the role of the humanities and social science that has undermined the comprehensiveness of the liberal education curriculum (Nussbaum, 2010; Thornton, 2015; Shore and Wright, 2018). The social sciences and humanities, often taking a critical stance in contentious areas of social policy or politics, make industry partnerships and funding difficult. This restructuring is also gendered in that female academics are largely located in the social sciences, humanities and biological sciences and in the lower academic levels across all faculties (Crimmins, 2016; Jarboe, 2017). Women who do move into executive leadership or become high-achieving research professors are seen to give up their lives, families and even the possibility of children, which deters many women who perceive that leadership only goes to exceptional women or women who sacrifice themselves for the organisation or research (Blackmore and Sawers, 2016; Eddy et al., 2017). In Australia, as more women move into executive management, a vertical gender segmentation is emerging, with male managers in charge of the externalities and locus of power in research and finance, while female deputy vice chancellors undertake the domestic internal domain focussing on quality assurance, change management, student and staff in teaching and learning. In Australian DVC positions, women are 44% in academic, 31% in international, 36% in research and 21% in corporate roles (Universities Australia, 2017). Even fewer women professors direct strategic research centres, and, if they do, these tend to be located in the biosciences, the humanities and the social sciences. In Australia, 50% of academic boards are gender-balanced, women are 15% of chancellors, 20% chair of key committees, 25% vice chancellors and one-third of executive teams. Women are a majority of academic board chairs, but only 34% are deans, where the power lies (Universities Australia, 2017). The gender binaries are thus reinstated within the organisational and leadership structures of the academy as women move into leadership (Newman, 2013).

The role of diversity and feminism  •  137 Despite the radical restructuring of university organisations and academic work as outlined earlier, leadership and change management are rarely addressed in the higher education literature or in policy. Bexley et al.’s (2011: xii) survey of over 5,000 academics from 20 Australian universities reported that it was a ‘deep commitment to scholarship [that] draws people to academic work and lies at the core of their professional values’; many were satisfied with teaching and research, but only a third thought the workload was manageable, that ‘half of mid and late career staff indicate that their work is a source of considerable personal stress’ and ‘60 per cent of early career staff are dissatisfied with their job security’ and income, with ‘40 per cent of academics under 30 years of age planning to leave Australian higher education in the next five to ten years’. The report argued there was a need to address regeneration and the casualisation of work and workload. Consequently, there is increasing evidence of academic dissatisfaction with and disengagement from leadership, with a small pool of applicants for management positions and strong criticisms regarding poor change management. Scott et al. (2008) in Learning leaders in Times of Change: Academic leadership capabilities in Australian Higher Education concluded that change management is the biggest issue for leadership in HE, but there is little research or professional development undertaken in this area. We have found that the selection and development processes for higher education leaders are often unrelated to what is necessary to negotiate the daily realities of their work, that the nature and focus of leadership development programmes don’t always address the capabilities that count and that the central role of university leaders in building a change-capable culture is either unrecognised or misunderstood. (Scott et al., 2008: 5) Critical higher education studies indicate that academics feel alienated from the university, disenchanted with leadership and that academic freedom is under threat, a pattern not unique to Australian universities (e.g. Deem, Hillyard, and Reid, 2007; Shore and Wright, 2018). In part, the conditions of academic work are considered by many to constrain their professional autonomy, either through overwork or demands for compliance and in part due to the incapacity to inform d ­ ecision-making due to more hierarchical decision-making processes. The first Times Higher Education Best University Workplace Survey in 2014 found that ‘around four in ten university employees feel unable to make their voices heard within their institutions, according to preliminary findings’ (THE, 30 January, 2014). Despite this, the individual academic framed by neo-liberal imperatives performs well when meeting deadlines, doing compliance checks but with a sense of frustration (Archer, 2014). Alignment means that academics constantly and carefully negotiate the tensions between the academic imaginary of ‘the university’ and ‘being an academic’ and what the entrepreneurial university requires in daily practice (Davies and Barnett, 2015). Being critical, therefore, of current university priorities, processes of decision-making, change management or leadership positions individual academics as resistant and

138  •  Jill Blackmore recalcitrant. It is particularly dangerous for early career researchers in a university seeking to identify entrepreneurial talent and potential leaders ­(Sutherland-Smith, Saltmarsh, and Randell-Moon, 2011; McLachlan, 2017). Critical thinking in the corporate university Academics, while disenchanted with university leadership, recognise that leaders work under the constraints of policy, institutional context and resources. Hence, there is academic ambivalence towards the university as an employer which does not maximise the use of its internal expertise upon which its legitimation relies. In the contemporary context, the discourse of 21st-century learning dominates. Academics are marketed as creative thinkers, thought leaders and innovators within their discipline by the university, solving and expected to solve wicked societal problems (Bruni et al., 2005). They are expected to be innovative in research and to teach and model critical thinking in the classroom and research supervision with the aim to develop graduates who are knowledge workers and professionals able to deal with complexity, critical thinking being a core desirable attribute valued by employers and being a 21st-century global citizen (Blackmore, Sanchez, and Sawers, 2017). The paradox is between being expected to develop critical thinking in students and how criticality is understood within the academy. Critical thinking may include ‘reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do’ and ‘disciplined, self-directed thinking’ or a set of cognitive skills (such as analysis, interpretation, inference and self-regulation) (Szenes et al., 2015: 574). Critical thinking, despite its ‘seemingly neutral and transparent intellectual value [,] has multiple meanings and enactments’ (Danvers, 2016: 282). How are critique, a tool of scholarship, or ‘being critical’ as an academic, or critical thinking different? In academic scholarship there are different histories and contexts to ‘critical’ work in different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The word doesn’t mean the same in Literature as it does in Sociology, or Geography, or Cultural Studies, or the same in India that it does in the USA, or South Africa, or England. To make matters more complex, changes in the nature of academic careers, publishing patterns and outlets, the departmental structures of universities, and their national contexts have influenced the ways that the critical has emerged at different times and places. This means that questions of academic identity, whether disciplinary, national or political, shape and are shaped by specific histories…and cannot be assumed to be timeless. (Parker and Thomas, 2011: 420) Furthermore, an Aristotelian perspective of criticality takes an analytical approach focussing on the logical validity of arguments. A Habermasian approach considers that the key purpose of criticality is social emancipation through individual empowerment and its social and political effects. Post-structuralist criticality is about examining how the effects in meaning and representation are achieved, for

The role of diversity and feminism  •  139 example, Foucault’s deconstruction. Feminists re/vision the aforementioned perspectives but particularly critique neo/liberalism’s false binaries of rational/affect, mind/body and autonomous individualism while focussing on changing structural, cultural, political and economic forms of oppression, discrimination and bias to achieve gender justice. The meaning and doing of ‘criticality’ also change as critical perspectives are mainstreamed through processes of knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation (e.g. feminist and queer theory become ­mainstreamed – and domesticated?). All positions assume academic freedom as the condition of criticality. Theories of academic identity refer to the academic disposition, training and sense of professional responsibility to think critically (Stensaker et al., 2012). ­Andrews (2015: 50) argues that the practice of critical thinking is ‘when one is driven by (a) a spirit of inquiry and scepticism, (b) able to take criticism of one’s colleagues and other academics’ work as part of the fabric of intellectual exchange and (c) is self-critical’. Furthermore, Parker and Thomas (2011: 421) consider that many academics would argue that social science requires academics to be critical and sceptical of common sense, treating all arguments as provisional and looking for evidence. On the one hand, we could imagine the social sciences and humanities as exploring problems which largely contribute to the maintenance or reform of existing cultural and social arrangements. On the other hand, ‘critical’ research and teaching would seek to radically change these arrangements through introducing, and then perhaps institutionalising, new forms of knowledge. (Parker and Thomas, 2011: 421) Despite multiple discourses promoting critical thinking as valued in the university and in the national interest, critical thinking as a core practice of academic work is discouraged in many instances. The contractualist yet affective nature of pedagogical relationships created by marketisation articulates from university policies, student evaluations and postgraduate outcomes into instrumentalism (Rawolle et al., 2016). Student ‘satisfaction’ is now a measure of both a good university and academic (Blackmore, 2009). For example, an Australian university proposed a behavioural code requesting academics to be less critical and to ‘demand positivity and show passion’ to make their students ‘feel good’ (Priess, 2012). A law professor responded that this ‘could threaten critical thinking, although he understood managers’ frustrations with academics who complain endlessly about their work’ (Priess, 2012: 5). New Zealand academics drawing on research to criticise research assessment and its consequences were ignored and positioned as oppositional, creating a sense of anger and helplessness, displaying the affective effects of an audit culture (Davis et al., 2018). Academics, considered to be in a privileged occupation, are positioned negatively for being critical about the radical restructure of their work and the role of the university. Nor is critical thinking in contemporary discourses about 21st-century ‘soft skills’ linked to critical research and teaching. Critical thinking is characterised by cognitive constructs such as ‘abilities to identify issues and assumptions, recognise important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority,

140  •  Jill Blackmore and deduce conclusions’ (Rezak, 2018: 743). Moore (2013: 507) examined six academics’ understandings of critical thinking at an Australian university and identified ‘judgment, skepticism, originality, sensitive reading, rationality, critical stance, and self-reflexivity’. Critical thinking from a pedagogical perspective can cause discomfort because of the emotional investment in gender, race and class identity when academics raise issues of difference and power from a feminist position (Walker, 2010). Critical pedagogies focussing on self-reflexivity relative to others mean considering disadvantage and privilege and understanding the structures, processes and practices of exclusion and inclusion, debating values and v­ alued positions, but always in a respectful context which recognises difference and a diversity of opinion. Troubling gender, racial, class and sexual identity is part of becoming a researcher and a professional in culturally diverse contexts and workplaces, a neglected theme of the discourse of employability (Ashcraft, 2009). Evaluations provide scope for students to vent anonymously when they feel challenged by ideas which make them feel uncomfortable, revealing gender and racial biases, and can impact on academics’ careers in performance appraisal (MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt, 2015; Martin, 2016; Rosen, 2018). Academics often ­self-regulate as they are aware of such consequences (Sutherland-Smith et al., 2011). Such a culture of compliance is an anathema to what many academics consider to be their professional responsibility in terms of teaching and research in a university. The academic disposition in their everyday work of teaching and research is about critical analysis of the world; knowledge production; and making a difference through selecting, synthesising, reshuffling, combining and redesigning existing and new knowledge through recognition of associations, patterns, mental models and assumptions in ways that serve economic and social purposes. Critical thinking is a cognitive and affective process as it requires an openness about one’s worldview and a sense of self (Danvers, 2016). To take this further, Reid (2004) argues that we should talk about universities nurturing critical inquiry rather than thinking. Critical inquiry, Reid argues, has a • Conceptual dimension - analysing the reasons for actions taken, such as examining the assumptions and theory behind their practices and exploring alternatives, • Critical dimension - justifying what is done in relation to the moral, ethical and socio-political issues associated with practice: for example, looking at the external forces and broader social conditions and • Critical forms of inquiry are centred on a commitment to equity and social justice. The notion of inquiry suggests a more investigative and purposeful approach premised upon ethical principles rarely addressed in learning outcomes. Furthermore, the desire for universities to align academics to university and national priorities ignores how academics have multiple loyalties - to the idea of a university as a place of learning and inquiry, to a disciplinary community, to their colleagues and to the public good. For leaders in a university, more so than other organisations, the challenge is to engage with the present but also maintain

The role of diversity and feminism  •  141 an ethical and critical stance. To be critical requires leaders to ‘radically question widely accepted assumptions and aims to minimise domination’ as well as sometimes assuming ‘leadership is more power’ to some at the expense of others (Alvesson and Spicer 2012: 376). Lack of understanding or forgetfulness among managers about the academic disposition towards being critical impacts on how academics respond to reform initiatives imposed from above. Since universities are organised around knowledge, the knowledge basis for reform ideas tends to be questioned and discussed in the same way as other knowledge domains. Hence, reform ideas concerning ‘quality’, ‘autonomy’ or ‘internationalisation’ will often be confronted with a critical attitude by those affected, questioning the logic and arguments provided in favour of reform. In other words, changing mindsets and values of individuals is not a straightforward task. (Stensaker et al., 2012: 6) A managerial response views ‘being critical’ as being difficult or not committed to university-wide objectives. Ironically, a ‘learning’ organisation such as a university is expected to draw on and values multiple forms of knowledge and diverse positions from within as nurtured through collegial and participatory relationships (Ashcraft, 2009). Critical leadership and expertise in the academy The critical leadership literature argues that leadership is difficult to define and historically has been conceptualised narrowly as being about individual attributes and the capacity to influence others based on a false leader/follower dichotomy (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012). The functionalist view ignores how context, policy, structures and cultures impact on leadership practices. The distributed leadership literature suggests that leadership is done by many but in practice often reduces to the delegation of work and responsibility rather than of authority and resources without addressing issues of power and difference (Jones et al., 2012). Both literatures overestimate the capacity of individual leaders to change cultures, particularly in complex organisations such as universities with multiple disciplinary and structural subcultures. Nor is their mention of the role of affect in critical thinking argued effectively, although ‘emotional intelligence’ is now cited as a necessary leadership skill (Blackmore, 2013). Critical thinking is considered to be about reasoning as a cognitive process which ignores the embodiment and emotional investments of the thinker or indeed the affective economy of the organisation or the political context within which decisions are being made. Consequently, universities focus on managing academics rather than co-participation in change management, which means addressing the affective economy around academic identity. Leadership from a critical perspective denaturalises leadership, viewing it as part of an ‘ongoing process of social construction and negotiation’, and researchers try not to ‘optimise leadership’ (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012: 373) by deconstructing the focus on leaders as solutions to complex organisational problems. Leadership

142  •  Jill Blackmore in the academy is not only invested in positional leadership, as responsibility for outcomes is widely devolved and distributed down onto individual ‘leaders’. Academics ‘lead’ courses, teaching and research programmes and centres, community organisations, international networks, their disciplinary specialism and professional organisations. Academics are recognised externally as leaders through their intellectual work, and within their disciplinary communities of practice and international networks, earning the authority to speak due to their intellectual capital (Bourdieu, 1988). The critical management literature argues: Close-up studies of leadership-saturated situations often point out the fragilities, ambiguities and insecurities around leadership discourses… managers often struggle to adopt the identity of ‘leader’ in their day-to-day activities, which are usually full of administrative tasks. Often subordinates raise objections to the manager’s ideas, suggestions and instructions, partly based on their detailed knowledge about work and practical circumstances…the uncertainties around leadership discourse provide potential space for reflexive consideration and engagement around the topic. (Alvesson and Spicer 2012: 375) Bourdieu (1988) argues that those in positional authority have to earn their authority within an academic culture that does not necessarily adhere to hierarchy, although positional leaders seek to influence through rewards and disincentives to achieve organisational aims. Academics who practise leadership in disciplinary communities and have high levels of practical experience expect, in an organisation which claims to value diversity and critical thinking, to have their expertise recognised and called upon. Policies demanding consistency and compliance are therefore not well regarded if there is no strong evidence base or rationale. Hence, a sense of disenchantment with the change processes mobilised by management exists, even at the professorial level (Evans, 2018). Yet, instead of a more participatory approach, university leaders call upon consultants promoting corporate change management literature about strategising, planning and talent management. In the corporate management literature, critical thinking is defined narrowly as the use of cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desired outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed, a kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions. (Rezak, 2018: 743) This is more about seeking a particular outcome (e.g. moving up global university rankings, increasing numbers of graduates gaining employment within a time period) and strategising how to get there. Factors such as unpacking the assumptions, unexpected consequences or who loses or benefits are sidelined as they are wider issues of environmental sustainability.

The role of diversity and feminism  •  143 Leadership development programmes similarly focus on strategic planning and managing others against predefined corporate objectives. Senior managers focus in professional development on understanding context, managing out to government, industry and the media; middle managers learn about managing up to the executives, all seeking to influence by identifying where power lies while ignoring the unequal distribution of power. Managers learn to manage down through strategic planning, but with little feedback from academics other than annual surveys. For early and mid-career academics, the professional development focus is on establishing themselves within their disciplinary field, about individual career progression, networking, modelling and mentoring. Leadership professional development fails to address substantive issues about the purpose, ethics, responsibilities and obligations of leaders to the wider community, public or environment. Leadership professional development is about individual or organisational success and not the role and functioning of the university against ethical global measures other than university rankings. Imagining critical leadership How would critical leadership in universities be enacted? Consider the various policy moves since 2000 towards the introduction of Excellence in Research in Australia in 2010. A critical leadership approach in universities would perhaps not have, as many universities did, (i) introduced journal ranking within disciplines, (ii) rewarded academics based on point scores of journal ranking and (iii) recruited star academics, creating new hierarchies and distinctions among academics while casualising academic work. Instead, they would review the impact of taking such steps in the UK, examine the differential impact of journal rankings across disciplinary fields and consider the effect on academic careers based on building capacity and equity. Or they will act in similarly mechanistic ways in the case of innovation, an overused term in Australian national and institutional policy which assumes a particularly narrow instrumentalist short-term and commercial notion of impact. Bruni et al. (2005: 217) argue that evolutionary economics meant the notion of innovation was itself commodified ‘in terms of the generation and application of new knowledge in the creation of products, processes or services to be placed on the market’. They argue that knowledge has been defined mainly by economics as a “new” resource that flanks the traditional means of production… It implies, in fact, that all the actors in an innovation system learn, and that the aim of the system is constant growth, with scant attention paid to aspects such as social productivity (the reduction of poverty) or relations with developing countries amid globalisation. (Bruni et al., 2005: 218) Interpreting this from a social innovation perspective would require universities incorporating and addressing in planning, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals rather than global rankings. Critical leadership would not equate innovation

144  •  Jill Blackmore to STEM but would consider alternative ways of thinking about social innovation and of innovation studies when ‘anthropology and sociology were the humus for development of the debate on innovation diffusion processes’ (Bruni et al., 2005: 217); that is, recognising not the product but the processes of knowing as a social (practice-based) approach to knowing processes emphasises that knowledge is produced as situated and socio-material practice within an intra- and inter-organisational network…Innovative processes will consequently be analysed as situated in the everyday activities and practices of organising, so that innovation is conceptualised as neither separate nor separable from learning, working and organising. When one starts from this point of view, knowledge becomes a collective activity which takes place within work practices and is enacted by a community of professionals who possess and develop the knowledge necessary to work, organise and innovate. (Bruni et al., 2005: 218) Sociality is central to academic work; it addresses the affective economy of academic work. Critical leadership would therefore ask how universities can enhance social innovation by fully utilising the expertise of their employees by adopting a participatory approach to change management to restore collegiality and reduce the emergent intellectual/academic bifurcation embedded in corporate logics of practice. Neo-collegiality offers the restoration of broader, more collegial ­decision-making processes to create a professional, efficient and appropriately 21st century management approach. Such processes engage academic and professional staff across institutions, adopting and adapting a range of flexible and innovative means as appropriate to the distinctive features of individual universities in the UK’s large and varied higher education sector. (Bacon, 2014: 1) Managerialism is no longer appropriate for what are now the supercomplexity of multinational universities which comprise multifaceted and diverse knowledges and knowledge practices. Drawing and learning from internal expertise would require processes with feedback loops tracking the impact of changes and evaluating how new initiatives impact academic work and social innovation in ways that would reengage with collegiality, the social glue of innovation. Reimagining diversity would also inform the processes of decision-making even in the corporate economic logic. “Critical diversity” is the equal inclusion of people from varied backgrounds on a parity basis throughout all ranks and divisions of an organisation. The critical diversity perspective argues that as organisations become more diverse, they benefit relative to their competitors (Henderson and Herring, 2013: 299). Critical diversity, if taken seriously, would welcome diverse ontologies, politics, identities and bodies. Critical thinking is practised by anyone

The role of diversity and feminism  •  145 who addresses issues of power with regard to all forms of inequality, whether these relate to class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or disability. Critical leadership would recognise and protect academics from external and internal vilification and harassment, for example, in student evaluations and social media as, in an era of post-truth, universities are seen by populist conservatives (often under the guise of market libertarians) as controlled by ‘the left’ and about political correctness. Critical leadership also requires reflection on leader’s own practices, for example, and understanding the power of symbol and narrative and being receptive to and encouraging feedback from colleagues (Czarniawaski, 1997). Leaders often use storying as a tool of change management. But often the story is built around anecdotal evidence of a ‘problem’, then enacted into a policy as the solution that is applied universally across the university. A leader therefore has to be critical of the narratives that are mobilised to gain systemic change – check them out as to their veracity, continually question the logic of practice they produce and constantly rethink the terms and concepts that are used in policy texts so that they do not lose authenticity. While mission statements promote team work, collegiality, interdisciplinarity and collaboration, critical leadership asks who benefits most from policies regarding flexibility when the intensification of academic labour is so overwhelming it consumes home life. Conclusion The capacity to achieve organisational change that benefits most requires high levels of mutual trust based on a clear statement of value position which indicates that those in leadership are also critical intellectuals. It is important in a time of posttruth where expertise and science are being challenged, to state and argue for the values of a liberal inclusive education and defend academic freedom (Slater, Perez, and Fain, 2008; Spicer, Alvesson, and Kärreman, 2009). Leadership credibility and trust are questioned when there is token investment in equity, for example, lack of funds or workloads that counter work/life balance claims. Such policies become a form of symbolic violence as many think the policy means equity is achieved, but women, for example, do not experience improved work/lives. Hey and Morley (2011) argue that we need to: develop a vocabulary with greater capacity for bringing into view those s­ ilenced, hidden, and ‘difficult’ readings and experiences that are so often obscured in larger concerns with theorising transformation at the level of the global… In such transformations the embodied, emotional, s­ patial, contestable and diverse relations of social actors seem prime sites for ­investigation—the ‘inside stories’ of those who make the university as they enact teaching and learning, work and study relations. It is our contention that the interactions of people in the circulatory flows, or pulses and sometimes spasms of policy’s demands are often ghosts in the machine as it seeks to assert an over-rationalistic idealist view of the world of the university. (Hey and Morley 2011: 166–167)

146  •  Jill Blackmore The current lack of trust and reciprocity in universities is because staff feel readily disposable and the precarity of academic work leaves individuals open to being bullied and rendered powerless. ‘Lack of influence coupled with the imposition of excessive and unmediated expectations represents a stress-inducing combination’ (MacFarlane, 2014; THE, 2018). To conclude, criticality (doing critique, being critical, critical thinking, critical intellectualism) in the academy is even more important in the current context where the role and expectations of the university are radically changing. Critical leadership is more urgent for universities to survive in the 21st century as universities need to retain their distinctiveness from other organisations and remain central to advancing democracy in a context of rising authoritarianism. The issue for university management is that they recognise, value and protect criticality as core work of the university. References Ahmed, S (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke ­University Press. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., and Rumbley, L. E. (2009) Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO. Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) Critical leadership studies: A case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3): 367–390. Andrews, R. (2015) Critical thinking/argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). New York: Palgrave. Ashcraft, K. (2009) Gender and diversity: Other ways to “Make a Difference”. In M. Alvesson, T.  ­Bridgman, and H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies (pp. 304–327). ­Oxford: ­Oxford University Press. Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Besley, T. (Ed.) (2009) Assessing quality in educational research. Rotterdam: Sense. Bexley, E., James, R., and Arkoudis, S. (2011) The Australian academic profession in transition: Addressing the challenge of reconceptualising academic work and regenerating the academic workforce. Centre for Higher Education, Melbourne. Blackmore, J. (2009) Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: Evaluating teaching and what students want. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8): 857–872. Blackmore, J. (2013) A feminist critical perspective on educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(2): 139–154, Special Issue: These disruptive times: Rethinking critical educational leadership as a tool for scholarship and practice in changing times, doi: 10.1080/13603124.2012.754057. Blackmore, J. (2014) ‘Wasting talent’? Gender and the problematics of academic disenchantment and disengagement with leadership. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1): 86–99. Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J. (2007) Performing and Reforming Leaders: gender, educational restructuring and organizational change. New York: SUNY Press. Blackmore, J., Sanchez, M., and Sawers, N. (Eds.) (2017) Globalised re/gendering of the academy and leadership. London: Routledge. Blackmore, J., & Sawers, N. (2015) Executive power and scaled-up gender subtexts in Australian entrepreneurial universities. Gender and Education, 27(3), 320–337. Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Branson, C. M., Marra, M., Franken, M., and Penney, D. (2018) Leadership in higher education from a transrelational perspective. London: Bloomsbury.

The role of diversity and feminism  •  147 Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos. Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books. Brown, P., Lauder, H., and Ashton, D. (2011) The global auction. Broken promises of education, jobs and income. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., and Poggio, B. (2005) Gender and entrepreneurship: An ethnographic approach. London: Routledge. Bryman, A. (2007) Effective leadership in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32: 693–710. Butler, J. (2006) Academic norms, contemporary challenges. In B. Doumani (Ed.), Academic freedom after September 11 (pp. 107–142). New York: Zone Books. Crimmins, G. (2016) The spaces and places that women casual academics (often fail to) inhabit. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(1): 45–57. Czarniawaski, B. (1997) Narrating the organisation: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Danvers, E. (2016) Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical thinking in higher education. Gender and Education, 28(2): 282–297. Davies, M. and Barnett, R. (2015) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Deem, R. and Brehony, K. (2005) Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reid, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism. Oxford: OUP. Espeland, W. and Sauder, M. (2016) Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Evans, L. (2018) Professors as academic leaders. London: Bloomsbury. EY. (2018) University of the Future: Bringing Education 4.0 to life. Ernst & Young reportAvailable at: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-university-of-the-future/$File/ey-university-ofthe-future.pdf [Accessed 4 April, 2019]. Gale, T. and Parker, S. (2013) Widening participation in Australia in higher education, Higher Education Funding Council for England; CFE Research, Leicester, England. Henderson, L. and Herring, C. (2013) Does critical diversity pay in higher education? Race, gender, and departmental rankings in research universities. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(3): 299–310. Hey, V. and Morley, L. (2011) Imagining the university of the future: eyes wide open? Expanding the imaginary through critical and feminist ruminations in and on the university. Contemporary Social Science, 6(2): 165–174. Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., and Yee, L. (2018) Delivering through diversity. Retrieved from http://boardagender.org/files/MyKinsey. Jarboe, N. (2017) Women count: Australian universities. Retrieved from https://womencount.org/ portfolio/womencount-australian-universities-2016. Johnson, H. L. (2017) Pipelines, pathways and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., and Ryland, K. (2012) Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 67–78. MacFarlane, B. (2014) Intellectual leadership in higher education. Renewing the role of the university professor. London: Routledge. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., and Hunt, A. N. (2015) What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 0: Article 53. Martin, L. (2016) Gender, teaching evaluations, and professional success in political science. Political Science & Politics, 49(2): 313–319. McLachlan, F. (2017) Being critical: An account of an early career academic working within and against neoliberalism. Sport, Education and Society, 22(1): 58–72. Moore, T (2013) Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4): 506–522. Morley, L. (2013) The rules of the game; women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1). DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.740888

148  •  Jill Blackmore Morley, L. (2016) Troubling intra-actions: Gender, neo-liberalism and research in the global academy. Journal of Education Policy, 31(1): 28–45. Newman, J. (2013) Spaces of power: Feminism, neoliberalism and gendered labour. Social Politics, 20(2): 200–221. Nichols, T. (2017) The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2010) Not for profit. Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O’Mullane, M. (2011) University Leadership: Approaches, formation and challenges in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Palfreyman, D. and Tapper, T. (2008) Structuring mass higher education: The role of elite institutions. Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer. Parke, K. (2012) The transformation of the academic profession. The erosion of tenure and the (E)state of the professoriate. In M. Vukasovic, P. Maassen, M. Nerland, R. Pinheiro, B. Stensaker, and A. Vabo (Eds.), Effects of higher education reforms: Change dynamics (pp. 219–238). Rotterdam: Sense. Parker, L. D. (2002) ‘It’s been a pleasure doing business with you’. A strategic analysis and critique of university change management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13(5): 603–619. Parker, M. and Thomas, R. (2011) What is a critical journal? Organisation 18(4): 419–427. Priess, B. (2012) Academics not happy about having to be happy at work. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 March, 6. Pullen, A. and Rhodes, C. (2018) Anxiety and organization. Culture and Organization, 24(2): 95–99. Pusey, M. (1991) Economic rationalists in Canberra. A nation building state changes its mind. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reid, A. (2004) Towards a culture of critical enquiry. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/217783333. Rezak, C. (2018) Developing your critical thinking leadership skills. International Institute of Directors and Managers. (iidmglobal.com). Rosen, A. S. (2018) Correlations, trends and potential biases among publicly accessible web-based student evaluations of teaching: A large-scale study of RateMyProfessors.com data. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1): 31–44. Rowlands, J. (2017) Academic governance in the contemporary university: Perspectives from anglophone nations. Rotterdam: Springer. Rowlands, J., Rawolle, S., and Blackmore, J. (2016) The implications of contractualism for the responsibilisation of higher education. Discourse, 38(1): 109–122. Ruth, D., Wilson, S., Alakavuklar, O., and Dickson, A. (2018) Anxious academics: Talking back to the audit culture through collegial, critical and creative autoethnography. Culture and Organization, 24(2): 154–170. Scott, G., Coates, H., and Anderson M. (2008) Learning Leaders in Times of Change. Academic Leadership Capabilities for Australian Higher Education. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research. Scott, G., Bell, S., Coates, H., and Grebennoiov, L. (2010) Australian higher education leaders in times of change. The role of Pro Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice- Chancellor. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32(4): 401–418. Selwyn, N. (2014) Distrusting educational technology. Critical questions for changing times. London: Routledge. Shattock, M. (2017) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: a synoptic view. Working paper 13. London: Centre for Global Higher Education paper series. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (Eds.) (2018) Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Berghan. Slater, J., Perez, D., and Fain, S. (2008) The war against the professions. The impact of politics and economics on the idea of the university. Rotterdam: Sense. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., and Kärreman, D. (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4): 537–560.

The role of diversity and feminism  •  149 Stensaker, B. Välimaa, J., Sarrico, C. (Eds.) (2012) Managing reform in universities. Dynamics of culture, identity and organisational change. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Sutherland-Smith, W., Saltmarsh, S., and Randell-Moon, H. (2011) ‘Inspired and assisted’ or ‘berated and destroyed’: Research leadership and academic performativity in troubled times. Ethics and Education, 6(3): 293–306. Szenes, E., Tilakaratna, N., and Maton, K. (2015) Knowledge practices of critical thinking. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 573–591). London: Palgrave. Thornton, M. (Ed.) (2015) Through a glass darkly. The social sciences look at the neoliberal university. Canberra: ANU Press. Times Higher Education (2014) Best University Workplace Survey Results. Retrieved April 15, 2018 from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/times-higher-education-best-­universityworkplace-survey-2014-results/2010792.article Universities Australia. (2017) Women count report. Canberra. Vukasovic, M., Maassen, P., Nerland, M., Pinheiro, R., Stensaker, B., and Vabo, A. (Eds.) (2012) Effects of higher education reforms: Change dynamics. Rotterdam: Sense. Walker, M. (2010) Critical capability pedagogies and university education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(8): 898–917.

Part 3

Conclusion

11

Global leadership insights on critical and creative thinking

Reflecting on the research of Professor N. J. Adler, McGill University, Canada JILL JAMESON

Editorial Note These reflections on an exemplary case of Canadian university leadership are drawn from the global cross-cultural leadership artistry research of Professor Nancy J. Adler, Professor of Organizational Behaviour and S. Bronfman Chair in Management, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal. At the invitation of this book’s Editorial Team, Professor Adler agreed to have an editorial reflection written about her global leadership contributions deriving from her work at McGill University and around the world, based on insights from her wide-ranging publications. Following searches in Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Emerald and social media, a selection of articles, several books and films featuring Prof Adler and co-authors were consulted in the writing of this chapter from a corpus of more than 125 articles, three films, ten books and extensive creative works. Professor Adler’s reflective leadership development journal, ‘Leadership Insight’, was amongst the works included. A combination of critical and creative thinking is therefore brought together from Professor Adler’s scholarly contributions as a world expert on creative innovations relating to ‘critical being’ in global leadership. The chapter highlights selected aspects of the extensive corpus of insights in her work with colleagues at McGill and elsewhere and the impact of this work across the fields of global leadership, organisational behaviour and management, the role of women in leadership and the unique contribution of the arts and music to leadership.

Introduction In an article contemplating the role of the arts in relation to leadership, Professor Nancy J. Adler (Adler, 2006) of McGill University in Canada puts forward the profound need for hope inspired by global leadership. She narrates the story of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Professor Elie Wiesel, a Romanian-born Holocaust survivor, philosopher, university teacher and author, who transformed overwhelming experiences of suffering to affirm an optimistic ethical position towards leadership, saying, ‘it is human to have hope’ (Adler, ibid.: 486), in an interview reported in 152

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  153 her article. Wiesel addresses leaders in a speech given at the awards ceremony for his prize in ethics: I would like leaders of today to stop and say, “Is it ethical, what we are doing? Is it moral?” Because without ethics, really, all our endeavours are meaningless. Think higher and feel deeper. (20th Anniversary Elie Wiesel Foundation Prize in Ethics Awards: Wiesel, 2009) In relating the inspiring story of Wiesel’s moral courage despite the pain and grief he had endured and in asserting his profound lesson regarding the need for hope, Adler does so not as a direct recommendation resulting from empirical research. She provides instead a deeper, more challenging insight, a courageously affective aspirational encouragement to leaders to offer hope to the world (Adler, 1996, 2006, 2014; Adler and Izraeli, 1994) and, in her later work, the inspiration to ‘lead beautifully’ (Adler, 2018), in making direct and forthrightly generous contributions to meet the needs of humanity. To act, in other words, as Professor Ron ­Barnett would describe it, as responsible, humane and compassionate global leaders who possess the wisdom and urgency of ‘critical being’ (Barnett, 1997, 2000). The advocacy of hope is not a routine tick-box or image management exercise. It cannot be prescribed by governments. Nor is it the direct result of quantitative measurements arising from management in an audit culture. Hope is a positive, optimistic frame of mind, a restorative, purposeful sense-making human contribution leaders can choose to offer, Adler explains. She highlights the importance of the hope that is, in the best circumstances, brought forward into the world purposely by thoughtful and compassionate global leaders, those who have the courage and audacity to advocate for hope: Hope is not an empirical conclusion. Hope does not come from watching three versions of the evening news and adding up the data to conclude either for or against hope. Hope is what people bring to a situation; hope is what leaders bring to their organisations and to the world. (Adler, 2006: 486) Professor Adler was brought up to consider her life from a global cross-cultural humanitarian perspective, given her mother’s experience in Austria as a young person, an international refugee and escapee from Nazi persecution during the Holocaust in World War Two. In her 2008 publication, ‘I am my mother’s daughter: early developmental influences on leadership’, Adler discusses her personal background and the ‘bubble of love’ that her parents created to protect their three children from the horror and evils of that war, and to preserve the sanctity of childhood innocence. Adler writes that My mother eventually found a way to tell me her story in a manner that now defines the very essence of who I am as a human being, a professional,

154  •  Jill Jameson and a leader. Rather than overwhelming me with horror, fear, anguish, and condemnation, she told the story of her childhood in a way that encircled me with courage, compassion, responsibility and love. (Adler, 2008: 7) Her mother and father protected her for many years from this information until she was old enough to understand and cope with it. From the experience of hearing her mother’s story when she was a teenager, a story ‘as profoundly moving as it is excruciating painful’, emerged Adler’s profound message of hopefulness, creativity and beauty despite the suffering in the world (Adler, 2008, 2013a,b). She therefore developed a uniquely creative and rigorously critical series of insights on the importance of this message through her teaching, research, professional practice and writing, encouraging leaders to learn how to protect the people they lead and serve by inspiring hope and optimism in sustainable ways: As leaders, your job is to create the global equivalent of my parents’ bubble of love; your job is to encircle the world with a sustainable bubble of peace, justice, compassion, and prosperity – a bubble in which humanity is safe to flourish both today and for all the generations to come. (Adler, 2008: ibid.) Adler’s work is extraordinarily original and courageous on focussing on hope, on creativity and on wider affective, ethical, cross-cultural and artistic contributions of global leadership. Her work goes well beyond the standard range of much research carried out in university business and management schools. In Wiesel’s sense, as conveyed in the citation from the 2009 recording of his speech at the Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics Essay 20th Anniversary Awards Celebration (Wiesel, 2009), it could be said that Adler ‘thinks higher and feels deeper’ in going beyond, as she puts it, the rigidly ‘dehydrated language of management’ (Adler, 2010b) that is sometimes the focus of university business and management research. Adler guides us to consider moving beyond the desiccated patterns and dry remnants of the past, to disperse old rigidities of thought and feeling, opening anew, every day, spontaneously emergent paths in a fluid discovery of unexpectedly creative leadership solutions. Whereas prior patterns of thought may once have been vibrant and appropriate in a relevant context, they no longer speak to the needs of the present. Therefore, there is an urgent need to act in new ways, breaking out of stultifying rigidities of mundanely conformist patterns by reflecting on and updating our thinking to meet the dilemmas of this ‘fractured’ time (Adler, 2015b). The urgent need for ‘critical being’ in purposeful global leadership action Addressing the issue of hope as a contribution that leadership can make to the world, in her 2010 article relating to Leadership Insight, the reflective inspirational artistic journal on leadership development she created, Adler (2010b) asserts the

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  155 need for leaders to be reminded of the ‘fierce urgency of now’, recalling this resounding phrase by Martin Luther King, Jr., on the need for critical action for social justice, as cited by former US President Obama. Adler points to the desperate need for good leadership to act with urgent purpose to enable positive change across the world, to address what is wrong in the current era, while there is still time and opportunity, now, rather than to repeat unhelpful ossified modes of thinking, the ‘constrained pragmatism’ of the past: Twenty-first century society yearns for a leadership of possibility, a l­eadership based more on hope, aspiration, wisdom, and innovation than on the ­replication of historical patterns of constrained pragmatism… ­Luckily, such a leadership is now possible, although unfortunately still rare. For the first time in history, leaders can work backward from their aspirations and imagination rather than forward from the past. The gap between what leaders can imagine and what they can accomplish has never been smaller (Hamel, 2000: 10).…. (Adler, 2010b: 91) In relation to this urgent requirement for global leadership action within the world from both business and higher education to address socio-economic injustices, inequities and other high-priority worldwide problems through effective leadership, Adler reminds us of the desperate need for global innovative solutions that take action on poverty, hunger and injustice in view of the suffering and death of millions of people across the globe: Eight-hundred million people go to bed hungry every night; including more than 300 million children. Every 3.6 seconds, a person dies of starvation. Most companies consider such poverty-related tragedies to be society’s problem, not the primary concern of business. They not only fail to see the more than 3 billion people who live on less than $2 a day as an opportunity, they remain completely blind to the possibility that they might constitute a lucrative market…. Belief in the great trade-off illusion … has insidiously blinded most managers into assuming that the choice to do good precludes the ability of corporations, along with the executives who lead them, to do well. Most managers falsely assume that the more they focus on enhancing societal well-being, the worse their companies will perform financially…. (Adler, 2010b: 90) This lesson on the feasibility of combining urgent social action with good business management and financial effectiveness, much needed by leaders of business corporations, applies equally to leadership and management in higher education, especially given the predominant focus of higher education in recent decades on increasingly utilitarian, marketised and corporatised business management ambitions and goals for the ‘knowledge economy’. An increasingly c­ ommercial ­market-based focus has gradually been implemented that is shifting higher education towards

156  •  Jill Jameson ever greater micro managerial efficiencies, social stratification and reductive accountabilities at the cost of academic meaningfulness and collegiality (Brown and Carasso, 2013; Bacon, 2014, see also Chapter 10, this volume). This is occurring gradually in arguably detrimental ways in the implementation of ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004, see also Chapter 6, this volume). This is allied increasingly to a mainly instrumentalist, competitive view of higher education as a private marketplace for global academic goods and prestige rather than for public good, given that public funding for higher education is being withdrawn in many countries, while HEIs are pressed ever harder to compete rather than collaborate in this marketplace for ever higher ‘world class’ prestige, research funding, student fees and knowledge resources (Marginson, 2011; Shore and Wright, 2017). As part of this trend, competitive higher education measurement and ranking systems have grown apace. In a highly cited and influential article in 2009, which won the AMLE (Academy of Management Learning and Education) outstanding article of the year award, Adler and Harzing (2009) called for a re-examination of university academic ranking systems, arguing that, for complex reasons, the supposedly rigorous metrics-based measurements of such systems are, in fact, highly fallible, sometimes seem to be arbitrary, are often based on narrow linguistically skewed criteria and all too often result in virtually meaningless or inaccurate results. Adler and Harzing question the extent to which scholarship has been led astray by such systems, recommending the abandonment of existing ranking systems in favour of the more nuanced judgements of expert academic peer review combined with a refocussing of attention on relevant scholarship, ‘the goal of asking and researching questions that matter’ (Adler and Harzing, 2009). Despite this excellent article and its citation in more articles than any other management article published in the same year, since 2009, the university ranking systems through which research excellence, grants, academic appointments and world-class university status are accorded have continued to demand increasing attention in higher education: the focus and energetic efforts of institutions have shifted to meet the status-driven instrumentalist reputational mindsets encouraged by the narrowly interpreted quantitative goals of academic capitalism (Giacalone, 2009). This potentially risks diverting the attention and energy of institutions away from the wider global socially responsible academic and research roles of universities. Adler and Harzing argue that here is a need to avoid mindless reactive prioritisation of the imperatives to achieve high-ranking success at the cost of globally relevant research on questions and solutions that matter. By contrast, it is possible to reconcile this ‘rigour-relevance gap’ by ‘daring to care’, pursuing ‘scholarship that matters’ in both passionate and compassionate ways (Adler and Hansen, 2012). There is an assumption in some areas of management thinking that the exacting demands of the ongoing achievements needed for world-class institutional status and economic success are incompatible with compassionate service to humanity. This is not at all the case. In fact, some of the world’s highest achieving research and business innovation groups frequently demonstrate an ethical combination of excellent intellectual, social, creative and economic impact outputs, as demonstrated

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  157 in the examples cited by Adler (ibid., 2012) and in selected case studies discussed in earlier chapters of this book. There are global opportunities for networked higher education leadership to influence various stakeholders to reverse or modify the trend towards ­ever-greater limitations of research through instrumentalist marketisation, building anew on worldwide interconnectedness and welcoming diverse cross-cultural partnerships (Adler and Aycan, 2018). In collaboration with international business, social enterprise and charitable initiatives, there is a huge potential for additional, rigorous and caring scholarly higher education contributions to be made in tackling global problems. The world has already seen highly talented, influential examples of such initiatives, but they are too few and far between. As other chapters in this volume have argued, in citing various examples of such creative and enterprising w ­ orldwide initiatives, higher education leaders have a transformative role to play as critical and creative thinkers, whether as city-wide regional experts within ‘anchor institutions’ or as global initiators of cross-cultural change and new world-leading research ventures. The key point is that humanity is facing unprecedented challenges which urgently need all the help that senior leaders and staff at every level in higher education can provide, especially those leaders with networking capabilities, specialist perception, expertise and professional knowledge. To achieve such influence in innovative ways, the unique insights of artists and designers can provide guidance, as Adler has argued in a number of her publications, keynote speeches, artistic works and films. Learning from the insights of artists and designers As Adler notes in her 2015 article on The Artistry of Global Leadership, there is a significant gap in leadership at the global level which has the abilities, skills and dispositions that relate to creativity: The World Economic Forum’s “Global Agenda Outlook” (2013a,b) established that the global leadership vacuum is “the biggest challenge of all for 2013 and beyond.” In IBM’s (2010) Global CEO Study, 1,500 CEOs identified creativity as their single biggest leadership need. (Adler, 2015a: 48) In response to this important combinatory vacuum of global leadership and business needs, there is therefore a strong potential for developing further ­cross-fertilisation between the creative arts and leadership development initiatives. In affirming the potential for business to combine effective prosocial action with the realistic achievement of healthy financial rewards, Adler recommends that the insights of artists and designers can enable more imaginative and innovative ­problem-solving solutions to emerge to address the many complex, ambiguous challenges that businesses, including HEIs, now face in the 21st century (Adler, 2015a, 2015b). The roles of artists, designers and musicians as inspirational

158  •  Jill Jameson exemplars for business has gradually but steadily been recognised and valued anew in business and management training and development: Designing options worthy of implementation calls for levels of inspiration, perception, and innovation that, until recently, have been more the province of artists and artistic processes than the domain of most managers. To meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, we increasingly need artistic imagination to co-create the planet’s best approaches and most influential solutions. (Adler, 2010b: 91) Adler cites the following encouragement from Whyte (1994) to open up the visionary potential for leaders to see future possibilities beyond prejudiced, thoughtless, reductively unthinking deterministic solutions in meeting the many competing demands of their roles. This requires discipline, ethics, courage, openness and imaginative focus, acting with insight regarding future potentialities, even the emergent possibilities that are as yet unborn: There is a good practical reason for encouraging our artistic powers within organizations that up to now might have been unwelcoming or afraid of those qualities. The artist must paint or sculpt or write, not only for the present generation but for those who have yet to be born. A good artist, it is often said, is fifty to a hundred years ahead of . . . [his or her] time . . . The artist . . . must . . . depict this new world before all the evidence is in. They must rely on . . . their imagination to intuit and describe what is yet a germinating seed in the present time, something that will only flower after they have written the line or painted the canvas. [Leaders] . . . must learn the same artistic discipline, they must learn to respond or conceive of something that will move in the same direction in which the world is moving, without waiting for all the evidence to appear on their desks. To wait for all the evidence is to finally recognize it through a competitor’s product. (Whyte, 1994: 241–242).’ (Adler, 2010b: 91) The unusual blend of leadership innovation, creativity and criticality that emerges from Adler’s work urgently calls for a profoundly forward-thinking, truthful and compassionate philosophy of leadership hopefulness, acting in service of cross-cultural goodwill to address critical global humanitarian problems. This calls for socially responsible leadership to take up the seemingly impossible multiple challenges of leading with new purpose-driven insight. Social responsibility: ‘leaders of the world, you must lead’ The awareness arising from Adler’s influential contributions to global leadership literature and practice is of the immediate need, now, in the c21st, for leaders of university business and management schools, of higher education and of business corporations in general to act with confidence and energy in socially responsible

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  159 ways. For this, leaders might use the full potential of the present moment in their roles by taking on the responsibilities of co-creating, with arts, business, political and community leaders, for example, new collaborative cross-cultural solutions towards addressing, in local, regional, national and/or global ways, the most complex universal human challenges. Each HEI and every country’s university and college system has a potential role to play in its own way, to implement, for example, actions to meet global challenges such as the ten international principles on human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption outlined in the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC, 1999). Voluntary international networking groups such as the Principles for ­Responsible Management Education (PRME) group, a United N ­ ations-supported initiative founded in 2007, are amongst those which have already come together to inspire future leaders and develop ‘the skills needed to balance economic and sustainability goals, while drawing attention to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and aligning academic institutions with the work of the UN Global ­Compact’ (PRME, 2019). One of PRME’s active sponsors is the International Association for Management Development in Dynamic Societies group, CEEMAN (2019), a Central and Eastern Europe management development association with a global reach. In her keynote speech at the CEEMAN annual conference 2009, Adler confirmed her view that ‘our personal role as leaders in management education is to make a difference in the world’. She cited Einstein in saying that in finding problem-solving solutions, there was a need for organisations to ‘jump levels’ from a focus on local or national initiatives into new planetary ways of thinking, transcending the mindset in which problems had occurred, to find new critical and creative approaches in tackling deeper issues in healthcare, poverty elimination, environmental sustainability and the reduction of global socio-economic inequalities (Adler, 2009: 56.23–56.31). There is a need, therefore, for individual organisations such as HEIs to ­re-examine their strategic leadership and management values and priorities to ‘dare to care’ and ‘jump levels’ in seeing the world anew from a planetary perspective. The strongest theme relating to this volume on leadership that emerges in relation to Adler’s work, therefore, is the promotion of a renewed vision and mission that leadership in the 21st century has a social responsibility to support global-level initiatives for public good, such as the priorities discussed earlier, including the UN Global Compact and Sustainable Development Goals, and that this kind of globally aware critical social action in advocacy of ‘scholarship that matters’ is potentially highly compatible with higher education and business success. Indeed, it may one day be likely that only organisations that do respond effectively with meaningful, rather than tokenistic, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to major crises affecting humanity will ultimately be respected and trusted by the public sufficiently well to survive long term in future decades. The significant loss of public trust in Facebook following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal demonstrates the importance of ethical corporate responsibility to consumer confidence (Business Insider Intelligence’s Digital Trust survey, 2018).

160  •  Jill Jameson There is an urgency about the pressing requirement to recognise key global problems, such as climate change, mass migration, unprecedented levels of poverty and inequality, and to understand the potential for leaders to collaborate to recognise and take up our collective responsibilities in the service of humanity. For example, at the time of writing this reflective case study on Adler’s global leadership influence, David Attenborough, British environmentalist, spoke with the dedicated passion of his decades of expertise and experience at the UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland (December, 2018), to call for world leaders to come together to take urgent action now to reverse climate change, saying, ‘Leaders of the world, you must lead’ (Attenborough, 2018). Whether this call will be met or not will be determined by the multiple leaders to whom it was widely addressed, including those across the world in higher education, with expertise and resources that are highly relevant in helping to contribute new research and teaching solutions to such an emergency call. As Adler observes regarding the importance of taking socially responsible leadership action to see beyond restricted, overly marketised, economically focussed agendas of historical business and management interests: If individual countries are to remain capable of providing a high quality of life for their own citizens, and if the community of nations is to remain capable of providing for the well-being of the world’s population, leaders from all sectors will need to think and to manage very differently (see Porter, 1986, 1990, 1991; & Priorities for Competitive Advantage, 1992)… Is this not the fundamental challenge facing us, as cross-cultural professionals? Should not our vision be to use our extensive international and cross-cultural competencies to create a 21st century that is worthy of the epithet human for all the peoples of the world? Should we not be challenged to accomplish that vision through all our roles as educators, trainers, and researchers? (Adler, 1995: 532) There is a need, in response, for leaders to engage in regular metacognitive reflection to enable greater critical self-awareness regarding the importance of such responsibilities. These reflections enable leaders to challenge all prior expectations and to be critical thinkers who foster, daily, in personal and professional ways, an ongoing openness to challenge deterministic solutions, enabling creative insights to emerge regarding the most important priorities facing them, their institutions and their staff. There is, in short, a need to think higher and feel deeper about current global challenges to humanity. Leadership insight: leading beautifully in a mindful way Adler’s work over past decades has therefore been prescient in going beyond the traditional rhetorical and disciplinary boundaries of economic and strategic business planning in management education. She has brought artistic expression, greater optimism and a new vision into management learning, challenging

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  161 convention in providing new roles for global leadership in business and higher education. Writing about her creative journal, Leadership Insight, to encourage ongoing reflective leadership development, Adler (2010a) observes, ’he time is right for artistic imagination to co-create our planet’s best and most influential leadership’ (ibid.: 147). Leadership Insight stimulates reflective writing in journal form, while through articles, speeches, artwork and books, Adler challenges leaders to develop themselves mindfully, to ‘go beyond the dehydrated language of management’ through quiet reflection, saying in an interview about this: Reflection today for leaders is hugely important, and almost non-existent. If, as leaders, we can’t reflect, there’s nothing we can do except replicate the past, because we’re constantly out there just responding, reacting, to what’s out there. Only if we take – even a few moments a day – to step back and ask, ‘What does this all mean? What does it seem like to me? What feels like it’s right or wrong? What questions should I be asking? What questions is nobody asking? What’s everybody saying so they’re all agreeing with it, but it’s not true?’ That only happens when leadership becomes a dance that includes reflection. (‘What role do you see reflection playing in leadership today?’ – Global HR Organization Interview, Nancy Adler Artistry YouTube video three: 0.28–2.11) This exhortation to develop a daily practice of mindfulness reflection in meditative practice encourages the creation of quieter spaces in which leaders can reflect on their thoughts, goals and priorities. This allows time for leaders to step back from the whirlwind of incessant demands, the routinely enforced activities and the relentless goals that dominate working practices, even for only a brief time, to concentrate on ‘critical and creative being’ in the present moment rather than rushing ever onwards without pausing or stopping to think. Such an encouragement is reminiscent of the research of Howard Gardner, who advocated that leaders should carry out a daily reflective practice: And already, years ago, Howard Gardner’s research showed that extraordinary leaders reflect on a daily basis – those leaders – the ones who really make an extraordinary difference, reflect on a daily basis. As I observe the executives that I work with, that’s almost disappeared, so we re-invite them and then created the journals so that they would have a way to do an executive reflection, a leadership reflection that would support them in how they are trying to influence the world. (‘What role do you see reflection playing in leadership today?’ – Global HR Organization Interview, Nancy Adler Artistry YouTube video three: 0.28–2.11) Adler argues in this and other presentations and publications that there is a critical need, in ‘the fierce urgency of now’ (Adler, 2010b: 98), for leaders to meet their societal obligations ‘beautifully’, with mindful awareness and with greater levels of

162  •  Jill Jameson spontaneous innovation, courage and ‘anticipatory creativity’ (Adler, 2006: 487) in the recognition that ‘we yearn, today, for wholeness and meaning’. For such a task, given the uncertainties of the current 21st-century era, and its increasing levels of unpredictable, contradictory chaos and complexity, the flexible, innovative design-based solutions of the creative arts are more fitted to deal with the ‘discontinuous, disruptive change’ that businesses, including universities, need to face to survive and innovate continuously to keep up (ibid.). Adler argues that leaders in the current era can use the opportunity for meta-analytic journal reflective writing in Leadership Insights to progress their own leadership development in these four fundamental ways to: • ‘reflect – to return to the quiet and contemplation it takes to be wise; • gain perspective – to acquire the courage needed to see reality as it actually is, rather than continuing to rely on illusions perpetuated by colleagues, the media, and the broader culture; • aspire to exceptionally exciting possibilities – to envision extraordinary possibilities by drawing on the depths of their own and others’ hopes, aspirations, and creativity; and [to] • inspire others – to inspire people to move beyond current reality back to possibility’. (Adler, 2010b: 92) Adler focusses on multiple positive dimensions of being: the rational, the affective, the artistic, the social and the spiritual. In addressing such aspects of leadership’s ‘critical being’, she advises innovative thinking rather than focussing solely on the boxed-in anodyne spaces of the utilitarian and instrumental, the purely rational mechanistic aspects of organisations. Recognising hard truths In recognition of the supercomplexity of demands in the 21st century, Adler therefore challenges leaders critically to reflect on difficult realities and not to shy away from confronting hard truths. It is only in the acceptance of reality, in both its full ugliness and its beauty, that the capacity to achieve real change can thrive. There is a need for both courage and urgency in understanding the requirement to act energetically in the world to create change beautifully, to lead beautifully, in a time of global uncertainty, when multiplicities of competing problems and demands abound at every turn, anxieties accelerate and solutions seem out of reach. As ­Barnett indicates in Chapter 2, to act with effective leadership at this level of the supercomplexity within higher education is to carry out the ‘art of the impossible’. To meet such impossible demands, Adler aims to foster mindfulness and spontaneity through the use of her leadership development reflective journal, through music and through contemplation of artwork as an intrinsic part of leadership development. These unusual techniques aim to draw forth from readers and live audiences, not only enthusiastic seminar debate, but the creative practice

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  163 of meditation as a reflective form of self-examination (Adler and Delbecq, 2018), of renewed metacognitive awareness and leadership development. Through the ­examination of small moments of truth emerges an ability to see, in ‘negative space’, in silence and in absence, the potentials for quiet discovery of the creative, that flows ­hitherto neglected or invisible (Adler, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Conclusion Adler’s work is provocative in challenging the stiff, dry and instrumentalist r­ hetoric of some forms of traditional management in business and higher education, which may be too focussed on market-based competitiveness in the service of rational economic profit and rigidly reactive, fearfully competitive thinking. This is the language and thinking of the last century, Adler asserts, and it will no longer serve to meet the current needs of the world. She proposes, instead, that c21st l­eadership needs to be more adaptive, innovative and spontaneously flexible in responding to the uncertainties and multiple problems of the highly complex, stressful, ­fast-moving ‘fractured’ landscape of the current global environment. She advocates instead an ongoing openness to the creative diversity of cross-cultural engagement and a proactive sense of social responsibility combined with ­‘pragmatic wisdom’ to engender new understandings that can make a positive difference in the world (Adler, 2015c). Throughout Adler’s work, the call to action for ‘leaders of the world to lead’ with ‘the fierce urgency of now’ is clear across all industries and sectors. This chapter argues that it is now time for leaders in higher education to meet that call by thinking higher and feeling deeper. Acknowledgements I thank Professor Nancy Adler, her co-authors, publishers and colleagues at McGill University and worldwide, for their kind support in enabling this chapter to be written. References Adler, N. J. (1995) Competitive frontiers: Cross-cultural management and the 21st century. International Journal Intercultural Relations, 19(4): 523–537. Adler, N. J. (1996) Global women political leaders: An invisible history, an increasingly important future. Leadership Quarterly, 7(1): 133–161. Adler, N. J. (2008) I am my mother’s daughter: Early developmental influences on leadership. European Journal of International Management, 2(1): 6–21. Adler, N. J. (2009) Management education responses to global crisis: Challenges and opportunities. 17th CEEMAN Annual Conference, “Local Responses to Global Crisis”, Riga 2009, C ­ EEMANNetwork: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1_rPif5naE [Accessed 18 January 2019]. Adler, N. J. (2010a) Leadership insight. London, England: Routledge. Adler, N. J. (2010b) Leadership insight: Going beyond the dehydrated language of management. ­Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4): 90–99. Adler, N. J. (2013a) An interview with Nancy J. Adler, PhD. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(2). DOI: 10.1108/ccm.2013.13620baa.006

164  •  Jill Jameson Adler, N. J. (2013b) In celebration of Nina: Nancy Adler at TEDxNavigli: For whom or for what would I open the door? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ZZkxre91o [Accessed 18 January, 2019]. Adler, N. J. (2014) Global wisdom and the audacity of hope: Designing global networks in a world of complexity. Based on Adler with Uniterra and Adler (2007; 2006). In Joyce S. Osland, M. Li, and Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Volume 8) (pp. 19–44). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Adler, N. J. (2015a) The artistry of global leadership: Going beyond the dehydrated strategies of management, economics, and politics. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1): 48–51. Adler, N. J. (2015b) Finding beauty in a fractured world: Art inspires leaders – leaders change the world. Academy of Management Review, 40(3): 480–494. Adler, N. J. (2015c) Global wisdom: Not a panacea, but absolutely necessary for transcending managerial failures. In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Handbook of research on management ideas and panaceas: Adaptation and context, research handbooks in business and management series (pp. 442–476). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Adler, N. J. and Aycan, Z. (2018) Cross-cultural interaction: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 307–333. Adler, N. J. and Delbecq, A. (2018) Twenty-first century leadership: A return to beauty. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2): 119–137. Adler, N. J. (with Gunderson, A.). (2008) International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson. Adler, N. J. and Hansen, H. (2012) Daring to care: Scholarship that supports the courage of our convictions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(2): 128–139. Adler, N. J. and Harzing, A. W. (2009) When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE), 8(1): 72–95. Adler, N. J. and Izraeli, D. N. (1994) Competitive frontiers: Women managers in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Attenborough, D. (2018) Keynote speech at the COP24 UN climate change conference 3 December, 2018 in Katowice, Poland. https://www.news18.com/news/world/david-attenborough-urgedworld-leaders-to-take-the-threat-of-climate-change-seriously-1960097.html [Accessed 14 ­January, 2018]. Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4): 409–422. Brown, R. and Carasso, H. (2013) Everything for sale? The marketization of higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Business Insider Intelligence Digital Trust Report. (2018). https://www.businessinsider.com/­consumersdont-trust-facebook-at-all-new-survey-data-2018-4?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 20 January, 2019]. CEEMAN. (2019) The international association for management development in dynamic societies (CEEMAN). http://www.ceeman.org/ [Accessed 19 January 2019]. Giacalone, R. A. (2009) Academic rankings in research institutions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amnesia. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 122–126. Marginson, S. (2011) Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4): 411–433. Porter, M. E. (1986) Competition in global industries. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Porter, M. E. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1991) Canada at the crossroads: The reality of a new competitive environment. Study prepared for the Business Council on National Issues and the Government of Canada, ­October. Cross-cultural Management, 537. Priorities for competitive advantage. (1992) A study ­conducted by IBM and Towers Perrin. Available at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/34748681?­selectedversion=NBD8929434 [Accessed 4 April 2019]. PRME. (2019) The principles for responsible management voluntary organisation website. http://www. unprme.org/about-prme/index.php [Accessed 18 January 2019]. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (Eds.) (2017) Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Berghan.

Reflecting on the research of N. J. Adler  •  165 Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. UNGC. (1999) United Nations global compact. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/ principles [Accessed 14 January 2019]. Whyte, D. (1994) The heart aroused. New York: Currency Doubleday. Wiesel, E. (2009) Prize in ethics video, Elie Wiesel prize in ethics 20th anniversary awards celebration. Elie Wiesel Foundation. http://eliewieselfoundation.org/prize-ethics/ [Accessed 13 January 2019].

12

Conclusion

Critical leadership thinking for global challenges JILL JAMESON

This book in the International Studies in Higher Education series has examined the interactional relationship and practice of leadership with critical thinking, critical being and creativity – or the lack of it – in relation to major contemporary challenges in international higher education. Following that examination, I assert that, despite its seemingly challenging, elusive qualities, critical thinking skills, dispositions and related ‘criticality’ strengths of ‘critical being’ in a global leadership mindset are vital to the flourishing of higher education. This strongly needs attention as well as more precise consideration, more nuanced research and further development. The multiple levels of supercomplexity within the rushing torrents of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in which higher education now finds itself require a new and very different order of leadership and management from that adopted in any previous era. New forms of participatory power are emerging in the 21st century (Heimans and Timms, 2018) that require agile, creative, consensual and intelligent engagement in hybrid processes of both formal and informal collaborative leadership involving all staff in higher education (Jameson, 2007, 2008; Bolden and Petrov, 2014), whether that is as leaders themselves and/or as supportive followers. It is no longer appropriate or sufficient to align leadership only with top management in assuming that leadership is solely the remit of individual ‘heroic’ senior positional leader-manager postholders (Bolden and Petrov, 2014; Winn and Hall, 2017). Nor is it sufficient to assume that everyone can just automatically be a leader able to easily take on the task of critical thinking and its multiple related capabilities. Ricketts (2005) found initially modest but increasingly promising results in relation to critical thinking and training for youth leadership development that: Th[e] connection between leadership and critical thinking is natural, and one that is necessary. It is necessary because leaders who do not use critical thinking as they make decisions that affect and influence others are ­dangerous (Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo, 1998). Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo list several ways that we can protect ourselves from leaders who 166

Conclusion  •  167 lack the willingness or the ability to make good judgments, but the most important way cited was simply, educating persons to think. (ibid.: 10) Having considered his research finding that increasing developmental capacity for critical thinking, including in analysis, decision-making, problem solving, conflict resolution, self-regulatory metacognition, motivation and interpersonal communication, improved with more training and developmental experience in leadership, Ricketts recommended (ibid.) that additional research should be conducted to gain a better understanding of the relationship between leadership and critical thinking. This future research should include more quantitative, empirical, and reliable measures of leadership than the methods used in this study, and should investigate the impact of training leaders in critical thinking. (Ricketts, 2005: 11) Ricketts’s assessment and recommendations can also be applied more widely to higher education organisational leadership, in which there is a need to focus again on the dimensions of criticality appropriate to academia rather than to accelerate existing trends towards the ‘hollowing out’ of universities with increasing instrumentalism, marketisation and commodification (Lea, 2011; Brown and Carasso, 2013; Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013). Higher education is neither solely nor even primarily a utilitarian entrepreneurial business-focussed capital market-place ­(Marginson, 2011, 2013), though that may occasionally be one of its roles in neoliberal interpretations of academic capitalism (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004): there is a need to challenge the excessive managerialism now prevalent in higher education which is more suited to privatised commercial environments. To grasp the opportunities provided by the values and frameworks of emerging new power (Heimans and Timms, 2018) to higher education, there is a need to look critically at leadership models, both theoretically and in organisational practice. Prior leadership models from business, management and economics, while frequently helpful in an appropriate context, are mostly unsuited to academic environments that are still, to an extent, (un)realistically or not, attuned to educational faculty ideals of collegiality, scholarly citizenship, academic freedom and autonomous decision-making. Further development towards large-scale critical and creative collaborative leadership for a mature supercomplex environment of highly educated academics is now needed in higher education, not instrumentalist models more suited to an industrial workforce or factory floor. The critical literature on managerialism from a number of countries reports that overly controlling managerialist instrumentalism in dysfunctional higher education leadership situations may gradually be eroding the very fabric of higher education through the disillusionment and exhaustion of its academic staff (Deem, Hillyard, and Reid, 2007; Lea, 2011; Jameson, 2012; Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Parr, 2013; Gill, 2017; Branson et al., 2018, Ruth et al., 2018). As Gaddis and Foster (2015) observe,

168  •  Jill Jameson effective leadership is vital for the functioning of organisations across all sectors: both ineffective and destructive leadership have very negative results: Because senior leadership drives management practices, leadership ultimately determines the fate of organisations (R. Hogan, 2007). In other words, when leadership is effective everyone benefits…. Likewise, everyone suffers from ineffective or destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad, 2007), which is of concern given research suggesting that between 33% and 61% of leaders act destructively (Aasland et al., 2010). (Gaddis and Foster, 2015: 25) While expert, skilful management at different levels remains essential to the effective functioning and survival of complex higher education systems, processes and operations, high-quality critical leadership, individually and collectively, at every level across the entire spectrum of higher education is needed to cope with the supercomplexity of competing, unpredictable demands now facing us. Constant changes in higher education environments include existing and emergent ecological, technological, industrial, economic, demographic, social and political changes, state-led higher education policy changes and the implementation thereof, intense competition for and amongst local and international students, changing quality and research assessment procedures, changes to tuition funding and fees arrangements, global league tables, new spaces and facilities management and so on and so forth. The list of challenges facing HEIs globally is seemingly endless. Fathomless multiplicities are accelerating within the supercomplexity facing leadership, management and administration in higher education in ways that are impossible to control, predict or tackle with certainty. Prior strategies will not necessarily work in some institutions when the competing expectations of numerous stakeholders in higher education multiply as demands on resources increase and talented staff depart, alienated by the precarity of short-term contracts and the increasingly intense pressure to be seen to be performing at world-class levels despite minimal support (Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Gill, 2017). In this profoundly demanding, uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that the apparently logical, instrumentalist solutions offered by over-controlling managerial authorities or the glib escapism of laissez faire leaders are attractive. To those newly enticed into senior leadership and management roles in higher education by the prospect of personal career advancement and salary increases, the enormous challenges of leader-manager roles may be a shock. Such staff may not be well prepared to handle this supercomplexity and may resort to managerial command and control strategies to cope. New leader-managers may also be unaware that the academic research literature and the evaluative professional feedback on the global rise of managerialism in higher education have raised significant concern around the world, or may thoughtlessly be inclined to dismiss such critique as simply politically inspired academic ‘whingeing’. They may not have experienced the destructive effects of new managerialism and new public management in higher education extensively

Conclusion  •  169 reported in prior literature (Deem, 1998; Chandler, Barry, and Clark, 2002; Deem and Brehony, 2005; Deem, Hillyard, and Reid, 2007; Lea, 2011; Branson et al., 2018). Such leader-managers may be equally unaware of the wider global patterns of problematic workforce disengagement, as analysed in the Gallup State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders Worldwide (2013), which reports that, across the world, only 13% of employees are likely to be engaged in their work, with only 12% of tertiary educated employees and 14% of professional employees so engaged in Western Europe, for example, with 69% not engaged and a further 17% actively disengaged. Significant concerns have therefore been raised about the capacity of higher education to retain future academic talent (Branson et al., 2018) in a context of ‘hollowed out’ precarious jobs (Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013). As a response to the myriad of related global challenges facing universities and colleges, it is therefore necessary to call upon a new kind of leadership which is more suited to emerging models of participatory collaborative power (Heimans and Timms, 2018) rapid enough to respond to highly uncertain, uncontrollable environments. This is the leadership of critical being as virtuous m ­ eaning-making action within the world in the creation of a new epistemology for living amid uncertainty (Barnett, 2000). Such leadership needs to prioritise critical thinking in all its dimensions, at the level of investigating competing knowledge claims, acting with reflective metacognitive awareness of the individual self, adopting a ­creatively critical disposition towards others and towards the wider world in trustworthy actions (Jameson and Andrews, 2007) for enhanced knowledge, social justice and ­well-being to address global challenges. Such leadership needs to be aware of and to respect the role not only of critical thinking in the form of cognitive skills and dispositions, but also of criticality as an intrinsic modus vivendi of higher ­education per se, to appreciate, if not necessarily adhere to, the role of critical ­pedagogy as a teaching and theoretical approach, to be aware of the role of critical theory as an analytical mindset and, above all, to deeply value the role of critical being as an ontological action-focussed reflexively insightful response to untruthful, unjust and unethical situations. While such leadership may adhere to varied, intellectually diverse disciplinary, political, cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic perspectives itself, it needs to possess advanced capabilities of mutually trustworthy tolerance, by respecting and working inclusively and, when ­appropriate, collaboratively, with others. Despite the drive towards managerialism and new public management systems across the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and in variable ways in the multiple other countries explored in this book, significant influence is still, nevertheless, exerted by professorial leadership across varying kinds of institutions in higher education (Evans, 2018). There is a conundrum here involving competing pressures from differential controls within the supercomplex environments of higher education. Despite the increasing authority exerted by top-down hierarchical institutional management, notably but not exclusively in newer universities, excellent research leadership across higher education, especially but not exclusively in elite universities, retains the authority of significant prestige value

170  •  Jill Jameson through the critical intellectual power vested in the professoriate. The somewhat opaque, multidimensional role of professors, leading researchers, scholars and lecturers in the elite-mass complexity of HEIs suggests that an updated role for the professoriate and wider faculty in the critical leadership of higher education is much needed in many institutions. It is perhaps here that the potential for widely distributed critical and creative leadership is to be found that can form part of a hybrid newly coordinated, expanded ‘neo-collegial’ leadership system (Bacon, 2014; Bolden and Petrov, 2014; Jameson, 2012, 2018) that is fit to respond in multiple ways to competing agendas. Excellent, agile, imaginative, courageous, ethical and skilful leadership is urgently required to act in concert at all levels of higher education to cope with the volatile, uncertain, supercomplex and ambiguous situation facing higher education. While leadership is exceptionally difficult both to define and to assess with any level of agreed rigour or accuracy both in higher education and in other sectors and industries, there are a number of cross-cultural globally recognised leadership behaviours that are universally reported by observers to be beneficial – or not – worldwide across numerous countries and industrial sectors. In their study of global leadership behaviours, Gaddis and Foster (2015) report from the literature that Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, and House (2006) used the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program to examine worldwide leadership differences. The authors used a sample of 62 cultures to identify 10 culture clusters: Anglo, Confucian Asia, E ­ astern ­Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin America, Latin Europe, Middle East, Nordic Europe, Southern Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Studying leader behavior by country in these clusters, they found a number of culturally contingent leader attributes, including being individualistic, status conscious, and prone to taking risks. However, the authors also noted a number of universal impediments and facilitators of leadership effectiveness. Being asocial, irritable, and dictatorial were viewed as detrimental to leadership effectiveness across countries and cultures, whereas being trustworthy, visionary, charismatic, inspirational, and an effective team-builder were viewed as universal leadership facilitators. (Gaddis and Foster, 2015: 27) It seems possible, therefore, to identify observably effective or less effective behaviours by leaders. The best leadership generates an abundance of creative and critical vitality, energising new levels of leadership to emerge in different contexts, as staff and students take ownership of their own roles to make original contributions to a common cause. It is only mass leadership, acting creatively together in critically articulated harmony, that will have the power to turn the tide into a better world in which the ‘public good’ enabled by higher education is once again highly valued (Marginson, 2011, 2013). This can take shape in many different ways. The ‘spaces of hope’ that Boden puts forward in Chapter 4 might be found here, while

Conclusion  •  171 the restorative thinking of the Ukrainian example provided by Rumyantseva, ­Logvynenko and Chilinain in Chapter 9 here can be applied to heal past organisational conflicts in which excessive criticality has been enacted negatively. Here can be found the transformative story of universities as ‘anchor institutions’, as exemplified in Chapter 7, in Middleton and Kennie’s example of the city of Medellin, enabling a collective ecosystem commitment to longer-term innovative ambitions. The reconciliation of leadership strategies of design with dynamics of academic organisational can be found here in new centres, institutes, schools, and departments which foster innovation creatively, as Warshaw reports in Chapter 6. Here too, potentially, is the hopeful maintenance and development of collegiality and collaboration advocated by Cuthbert in Chapter 5. The advancement in democracy and equality put forward by Blackmore in Chapter 10 is indispensable here for its recognition of the role of global critical leadership in valuing and protecting criticality as the core work of the university. Here is the capable, energetic and innovative competency of intrapreneurship put forward by Kikas and Aarna in Chapter 8. It is here too that staff understand and value the hidden ­psychological aspects of organisational culture beneath the iceberg surface of institutions and, in doing so, embrace change in flexible ways, as Kinchington advocates in ­Chapter 3. Finally, it is here that we meet the inspirational leaders of Barnett’s feasible ­utopia in higher education in Chapter 2: leaders whose ‘critical being’ in the form of ­‘authenticity, sincerity, courage, and sheer professionalism’ is accompanied by the ‘deep and fundamental thinking’ of an expanded global complex self-concept of eco-being that is capable of undertaking virtuous action in the world. References Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., and Einarsen, S. (2010) The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21: 438–452. Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Bolden, R. and Petrov, G. (2014) Hybrid configurations of leadership in higher education employer engagement. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4): 408–417. Branson, C. M., Marra, M., Franken, M., and Penney, D. (2018) Leadership in higher education from a transrelational perspective. London: Bloomsbury. Brown, R. and Carasso, H. (2013) Everything for sale? The marketization of higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002) Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55(9): 1051–1069. Cribb, A. and Gewirtz, S. (2013) The hollowed-out university? A critical analysis of changing institutional and academic norms in UK higher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(3): 338–350, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2012.717188 Deem, R. (1998) ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1): 47–70. Deem, R. and Brehony, K. J. (2005) Management as ideology: The case of ‘New Managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reid, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism. Oxford: OUP.

172  •  Jill Jameson Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., and Skogstad, A. (2007) Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207–216. Evans, L. (2018) Professors as academic leaders. London: Bloomsbury. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., and Giancarlo, C. A. F. (1998) Professional judgment and the disposition toward critical thinking. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Gaddis, B. H. and Foster, J. L. (2015) Meta-analysis of dark side personality characteristics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1): 25–54. Gill, R. (2017) Beyond individualism: The psychosocial life of the neoliberal university. In M. Spooner (Ed.), A critical guide to higher education & the politics of evidence: Resisting colonialism, neoliberalism, & audit culture (pp. 1–21). Regina, CA: University of Regina Press. Heimans, J. and Timms, H. (2018) New power: How power works in our hyperconnected world—and how to make it work for you. Canada: Random House. Hogan, R. (2007) Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jameson, J. (2007) Investigating collaborative leadership for communities of practice in learning and skills. Research Report, Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), Lancaster University. Jameson, J. (2008) Leadership: Professional communities of leadership practice in post-compulsory education. Invited Research Report, ESCalate Discussions in Education Series: HEA Subject Centre: Stirling University. Jameson, J. (2012) Leadership values, trust and negative capability: Managing the uncertainties of future English higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(4): 391–414. Jameson, J. (2018) Critical corridor talk: Just gossip or stoic resistance? Unrecognised informal higher education leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4): 375–389. Jameson, J. and Andrews, M. (2008) Trust and Leadership. Research Report. Lancaster University: CEL. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., and House, R. J. (2006) In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67–90. Marginson, S. (2011) Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4): 411–433. Marginson, S. (2013) The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3): 353–370. Parr, C. (2013) THE Best University workplace survey: Staff unheard? Times Higher Education, 15 August. Ruth, D., Wilson, S., Alakavuklar, O., and Dickson, A. (2018) Anxious academics: Talking back to the audit culture through collegial, critical and creative autoethnography. Culture and Organization, 24(2): 154–170. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Winn, J. and Hall, R. (Eds.) (2017). Mass intellectuality and democratic leadership in higher education. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bibliography

[Emerald Publishing Group] (2013) An interview with Nancy J. Adler, PhD. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(2). DOI: 10.1108/ccm.2013.13620baa.006 Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M.B., and Einarsen, S. (2010) The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21: 438–452. Adams, R. and Gamperl, E. (2018) ‘University vice-chancellors are paid far more than public sector peers’, The Guardian, 12 March 2018. Available at: www.theguardian.com/education/2018/ mar/11/university-vice-chancellors-are-paid-far-more-than-public-sector-peers [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Adler, N.J. (1995) Competitive frontiers: Cross-cultural management and the 21st century. International Journal Intercultural Relations, 19(4): 523–537. Adler, N.J. (1996) Global women political leaders: An invisible history, an increasingly important future. Leadership Quarterly, 7(1): 133–161. Adler, N.J. (2008) I am my mother’s daughter: Early developmental influences on leadership. European Journal of International Management, 2(1): 6–21. Adler, N.J. (2009) Management education responses to global crisis: Challenges and opportunities. 17th CEEMAN Annual Conference, “Local Responses to Global Crisis”, Riga 2009, CEEMANNetwork: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1_rPif5naE [Accessed 18 January, 2019]. Adler, N.J. (2010a) Leadership insight. London, England: Routledge. Adler, N.J. (2010b) Leadership insight: Going beyond the dehydrated language of management. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4): 90–99. Adler, N.J. (2013) In celebration of Nina: Nancy Adler at TEDxNavigli: For whom or for what would I open the door? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ZZkxre91o [Accessed 18 January, 2019]. Adler, N.J. (2014) Global wisdom and the audacity of hope: Designing global networks in a world of complexity. Based on Adler with Uniterra and Adler (2007; 2006). In Joyce S. Osland, M. Li, and Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Volume 8) (pp. 19–44). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Adler, N.J. (2015a) The artistry of global leadership: Going beyond the dehydrated strategies of management, economics, and politics. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1): 48–51. Adler, N.J. (2015b) Finding beauty in a fractured world: Art inspires leaders – leaders change the world. Academy of Management Review, 40(3): 480–494. Adler, N.J. (2015c) Global wisdom: Not a panacea, but absolutely necessary for transcending managerial failures. In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Handbook of research on management ideas and panaceas: Adaptation and context, research handbooks in business and management series (pp. 442–476). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Adler, N.J. (with Gunderson, A.). (2008) International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson.

173

174  • Bibliography Adler, N.J. and Aycan, Z. (2018) Cross-cultural interaction: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 307–333. Adler, N.J. and Delbecq, A. (2018) Twenty-first century leadership: A return to beauty. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2): 119–137. Adler, N.J. and Hansen, H. (2012) Daring to care: Scholarship that supports the courage of our convictions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(2): 128–139. Adler, N.J. and Harzing, A.W. (2009) When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE), 8(1): 72–95. Adler, N.J. and Izraeli, D.N. (1994) Competitive frontiers: Women managers in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., and Rumbley, L.E. (2009) Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO. Altbach, P.G. and Balán, J. (Eds.). (2007) World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Alvesson, M. and Blom, M. (2018) Beyond leadership and followership. Working with a variety of modes of organizing. Organizational Dynamics. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.12.001 Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. ­Human Relations, 65(3): 367–390. Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2014) Critical perspectives on leadership. In: D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 40–56). New York: Oxford University Press. Amo, B. and Kolvereid, L. (2005) Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1): 7–19. Andrews, R. (2015) Critical thinking/argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). New York: Palgrave. Applebaum, A. (2017) How Stalin hid Ukraine’s famine from the world. The Atlantic. Available at: www. theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/red-famine-anne-applebaum-ukraine-­sovietunion/542610/ [Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Applebaum, A. (2018) Red famine: Stalin’s war on Ukraine. New York: Penguin. Archer, M.S. and Maccarini, A.M. (Eds.). (2013) Engaging with the world: Agency, institutions, historical formations. London and New York: Routledge. Argyris, C. (2010) Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashcraft, K. (2009) Gender and diversity: Other ways to “Make a Difference”. In M. Alvesson, T. ­Bridgman, and H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies (pp. 304–327). ­Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashwin, P. (2017) What is the teaching excellence framework in the United Kingdom, and will it work? International Higher Education, 88. DOI: 10.6017/ihe.2017.88.9683 Attenborough, D. (2018) Keynote speech at the COP24 UN climate change conference 3 December, 2018 in Katowice, Poland. https://www.news18.com/news/world/david-attenborough-urged-worldleaders-to-take-the-threat-of-climate-change-seriously-1960097.html [Accessed 14 ­January, 2018]. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., and van den Brande, G. (2016) EntreComp. The entrepreneurship competence framework. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-­scientificand-technical-research-reports/entrecomp-entrepreneurship-competence-framework (accessed 05.11.2018). Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Ball, S.J. (2012) Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1): 17–28. Barcan, R. (2013) Academic life and labour in the New University. London: Routledge. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2000) Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press and SRHE.

Bibliography  •  175 Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4): 409–422. Barnett, R. (2004) Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3): 247–260. Barnett, R. (2013) Imagining the university. London and New York: Routledge. Barnett, R. (2015) A curriculum for critical being. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 63–76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Collier Macmillan. Bauman, Z. (2006) Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity. Beckett, D. and Hager, P. (2018) A complexity thinking take on thinking in the university. In S. Bengtsen and R. Barnett (Eds.), The thinking university: A philosophical examination of thought and higher education (pp. 137–153). Dordrecht: Springer. Besley, T. (Ed.) (2009) Assessing quality in educational research. Rotterdam: Sense. Bess, J.L. (1988) Collegiality and bureaucracy in the modern university: the influence of information and power on decision-making structures. New York: Teachers College Press. Bess, J.L. and Dee, J.R. (2012) Understanding College and University Organization: Theories of effective policy and practice, Volume II- Dynamics of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub. Bexley, E., James, R., and Arkoudis, S. (2011) The Australian academic profession in transition: Addressing the challenge of reconceptualising academic work and regenerating the academic workforce. Centre for Higher Education, Melbourne. Bezo, B. and Maggie, S. (2015) Living in “survival mode:” Intergenerational transmission of trauma from the Holodomor genocide of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Social Science and Medicine, 134: 87–94. Blackmore, J. (2009) Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: Evaluating teaching and what students want. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8): 857–872. Blackmore, J. (2014) ‘Wasting talent’? Gender and the problematics of academic disenchantment and disengagement with leadership. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1): 86–99. Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J. (2007) Performing and Reforming Leaders: gender, educational restructuring and organizational change. New York: SUNY Press. Blackmore, J., Sanchez, M., and Sawers, N. (Eds.) (2017) Globalised re/gendering of the academy and leadership. London: Routledge. Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy, 20(4): 477–493. Boden, R. and Nedeva, M. (2010) Employing discourse: Universities and graduate ‘employability’, Journal of Education Policy, 25(1): 37–54. Boden, R., Ciancanelli, P., and Wright, S. (2012) Trust Universities? Governance for post-capitalist futures, Journal of Cooperative Studies, 45(2): 16–24. Bok, D., (1988) Higher learning. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2008) Developing collective leadership in higher education. ­London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(2): 257–277. Bolton, P. and Dewatripont, M. (1994) The firm as a communication network. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4): 809–839. Bormann, K.C. (2017) Linking daily ethical leadership to followers’ daily behaviour: The roles of daily work engagement and previous abusive supervision. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4): 590–600. Bosma, N., Stam, E., and Wennekers, S. (2011) Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship, Discussion Paper 11–04, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute. Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowen, E.A. and Murshid, E.S. (2016) Trauma-informed social policy: A conceptual framework for policy analysis and advocacy. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2): 223–229. Bozeman, B. and Boardman, C. (2013) Academic faculty in university research centers: Neither capitalism’s slaves nor teaching fugitives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(1): 88–120.

176  • Bibliography Bozeman, B. and Youtie, J. (2017) The strength in numbers: The new science of team science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996) Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation. New York: Doubleday. Branson, C.M., Marra, M., Franken, M., and Penney, D. (2018) Leadership in higher education from a transrelational perspective. London: Bloomsbury. Brennan, J., Durazzi, N., and Sene, T. (2013) Things we know and don’t know about the Wider Benefits of Higher Education: a review of the recent literature. BIS Research Paper No. 133. London, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Brown, P., Lauder, H., and Ashton, D. (2011) The global auction. Broken promises of education, jobs and income. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, R. and Carasso, H. (2013) Everything for sale? The marketization of higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos. Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books. Browne Review (2010) Securing a sustainable future for higher education. An independent review of higher education funding and student finance, 12 October 2010. Available at: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/422565/bis-10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec. 2018]. Bryman, A. (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6): 693–710. Burns, J.M. (2005) Leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 11–12. Business Insider Intelligence Digital Trust Report. (2018). https://www.businessinsider.com/­ consumers-dont-trust-facebook-at-all-new-survey-data-2018-4?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 20 January, 2019]. Butler, J. (2006) Academic norms, contemporary challenges. In B. Doumani (Ed.), Academic freedom after September 11 (pp. 107–142). New York: Zone Books. Cantwell, B. and Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014) Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Capaldi, E.D. (2009) Intellectual transformation and budgetary savings through academic reorganization. Change, 41(4): 19–27. Castells, M. (1997) The rise of the network society. Vol 1- The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. CEEMAN. (2019) The international association for management development in dynamic societies (CEEMAN). http://www.ceeman.org/ [Accessed 19 January, 2019]. Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002) Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55(9): 1051–1069. Chang, K. (2017) Living with vulnerability and resiliency: The psychological experience of collective trauma. Acta Psychopathologica, 3(53): 1–5. Choi, S. and Schnurr, S. (2014) Exploring distributed leadership: Solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team. Discourse Studies (16): 3–24. Clark, B.R. (1983a) The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, B.R. (1983b) The contradictions of change in academic systems. Higher Education, 12(1): 101–116. Clifton, J. (2006) A conversation analytical approach to business communication. Journal of Business Communication 43: 202–219. Clifton, J. (2017) Taking the (Heroic) leader out of leadership. The In Situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. In C. Ilie and S. Schnurr (Eds.), Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse (pp. 1–24). Singapore: Springer. Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986) Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, T. (Ed.). (2001) Jacques Derrida and the humanities: A critical reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Bibliography  •  177 Collinson, D. (2011) Critical leadership studies. In A. Bryman, D.L. Collinson, K. Grint, et al. (eds.) The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 179–192). London: Sage. Collinson, D. (2017) Critical leadership studies: A response to Learmonth and Morrell. Leadership, 13(3): 272–284. Cooper, M. (2017) Group identity and collective dysfunction. Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cribb, A. and Gewirtz, S. (2013) The hollowed-out university? A critical analysis of changing institutional and academic norms in UK higher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(3): 338–350. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2012.717188 Crimmins, G. (2016) The spaces and places that women casual academics (often fail to) inhabit. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(1): 45–57. Crow, M.M. and Dabars, W.B. (2015) Designing the new American university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cuthbert, R. (2010) Students as customers? Higher Education Review, 42(3): 3–25. Cuthbert, R. (2011) Failing the challenge of institutional evaluation: How and why managerialism flourishes. In M. Saunders, R. Bamber, and P. Trowler (Eds.), Reconceptualising evaluation in higher education: The practice turn (pp. 152–157). Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press/ McGraw-Hill. Cuthbert, R. (2015) Marketing and marketisation: What went wrong and how we can put it right. In P. John and J. Fanghanel (Eds.), Dimensions of marketisation in higher education (pp. 48–56). London: Routledge. Cuthbert, R. (2017) What’s wrong with management in higher education? SRHE Blog, 28 April 2017. Available at: https://srheblog.com/2017/04/28/whats-wrong-with-management-in-higher-­ education/ [Accessed 3 July 2018]. CVCP (1985) The Jarrett report. Available at: www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/jarratt1985/ index.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Czarniawaski, B. (1997) Narrating the organisation: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Czerniewicz, L., Mogliacci, R., Walji, S., Swartz, R., Ivancheva, M., Swinnerton, B., and Morris, N. (2018) Negotiating the ‘new normal’: How decision makers in higher education perceive marketisation in the sector, in HERDSA Annual Conference Proceedings, 2018, [Re}valuing Higher Education, 25 July 2018. www.academia.edu/36918432/Negotiating_the_new_normal_How_ decision_makers_in_higher_education_perceive_marketisation_in_the_sector?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest [Accessed 3 July 2018]. Danvers, E. (2016) Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical thinking in higher education. Gender and Education, 28(2): 282–297. Darvas, P. (2003) Ukraine education reform policy note. Available at: http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/348821468313765642/pdf/470310ESW0whit1ote0Feb200301PUBLIC1.pdf. [Accessed 23 Nov 2018]. Davies, M. (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M.B. Pauslen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–92). Cham: Springer. Davies, M. and Barnett, R. (2015) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., and Donaldson, L. (1997) ‘Toward a Stewardship theory of management’. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20–47. Day, D., Gronn, P., and Salas, E. (2004) Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 857–880. De Fina, A. (2010) The negotiation of identities. In M. Locher and S. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 205–224). Berlin: de Gruyter. De Jong, J. and Wennekers, S. (2008) Intrapreneurship; conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour. Scales Research Reports H200802, Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research.

178  • Bibliography Deem, R. (2011) ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1): 47–70. DOI: 10.1080/0962021980020014 Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2007) Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217–235. DOI: 10.1080/03054980500117827 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Deem, R., and Eggins, H. (2017) The university as a critical institution? Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Deem, R., Fulton, O., Reed, M., and Watson, S. (2001) New managerialism and the management of UK universities. End of Award Report. Swindon, Economic and Social Research Council. Available at: www.regard.ac.uk /home/index_html Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reid, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism. Oxford: OUP. Dehler, G.E. (2009) Prospects and possibilities of critical management education: Critical beings and a pedagogy of critical action. Management Learning, 40(1): 31–49. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2007/1980) A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London and New York: Continuum. Democratic Initiatives Foundation. (2015) Survey of rectors results. Available at: www.dif.org.ua. ­[Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Denisova-Schmidt, E., Prytula, Y., and Rumyantseva, N. (2018) Beg, borrow or steal: determinants of student academic misconduct in Ukrainian higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 3: 1–24. Desjardins, R., Lans, T., and Ederer, P. (2016) Editorial: Adult learning, adult skills and innovation. European Journal of Education, 51: 141–154. Dill, D. (1998) Evaluating the ‘Evaluative State’: Implications for research in HE. European Journal of Education 33(3): 361–377. Dill, D.D. and Van Vught, F.A. (Eds.). (2010) National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Duchesne, R.E.J. (1996) Critical thinking, developmental learning, and adaptive flexibility in organizational leaders. Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Duffy, B.E. and Pooley, J.D. (2017) “Facebook for Academics”: The convergence of self-branding and social media logic on Academia.edu. Social Media and Society, January–March 2017, 3(1): 1–11. Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Educational Policy. (2015) The editorial board of the portal “Educational Policy” about the successes of Ukraine in the Bologna Process by the materials “The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Implementation Report Bologna Process”. Available at: http://education-ua.org/ua/analytics/429-the-european-higher-education-area-in-2015-implementation-report-bologna-proces [Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. Eesley, D.T. and Longenecker, C.O. (2006) Gateways to intrapreneurship. Industrial Management, 48: 18–23. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., and Skogstad, A. (2007) Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207–216. Eldh, C. (2016) What are core values? National and international perspectives. In T. Brage and I. Lövkrona (Eds.), Core values work in academia – with experiences from Lund University. Available at: http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/core_values_work_brage_lovkrona.pdf ­[Accessed 29 June 2018]. Elias, B., Mignone, J., Hall, M., Hong, S.P., Hart, L., and Sareen, J. (2012) Trauma and suicide behaviour histories among a Canadian indigenous population: An empirical exploration of the potential role of Canada’s residential school system. Social Science and Medicine, 74(10): 1560–1569. Elton, L. (2008) Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3): 224–236. Ennis, R.H. (1962) A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1): 81–111. Ennis, R.H. (1996) Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, Vol. 18, Nos. 2 & 3: 165–182.

Bibliography  •  179 Espeland, W. and Sauder, M. (2016) Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and a­ ccountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Estonian Entrepreneurship Education Programme. Available at: https://ettevõtlusõpe.ee/wp-content/ uploads/2016/08/EDUTEGU_voldikud_ENG_4.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32: 109–121. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006) Available at: https://eur-lex.­ europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006H0962 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Evans, L. (2018) Professors as academic leaders. London: Bloomsbury. Evans-Campbell, T. (2008) Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3): 316–338. Exworthy, M. and Halford, S. (Eds.). (1999) Professionals and the new managerialism in the public ­sector. Buckingham: Open University Press. Facione, P.A. (1990) Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for the purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae: California Academic Press. Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., and Giancarlo, C.A.F. (2001) California critical thinking disposition inventory: CCTDI. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Fedinec, C. and Csermocsko, I. (2017) (Re)conceptualization of memory in Ukraine after the revolution of dignity. Central European Papers, 1: 46–71. Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., and Andresani, G. (2008) The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, September 2008, 56: 325. DOI: 10.1007/ s10734-008-9125-5 Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson. Fetherston, B. and Kelly, R. (2007) Conflict resolution and transformative pedagogy: A grounded theory research project on learning in higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(3): 262–285. Fimyar, O. (2008) Educational policy-making in post-communist Ukraine as an example of emerging governmentality: Discourse analysis of curriculum choice and assessment policy documents (1999–2003). Journal of Education Policy, 23(6): 571–593. Fimyar, O. (2010) Policy why(s): Policy rationalities and the changing logic of educational reform in post-communist Ukraine. Post-Socialism is not Dead: (Re)Reading the global in comparative education. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 14: 61–91. Fimyar, O. (2014) What is policy? In search of frameworks and definitions for non-Western contexts. Educate, 14(3): 6–21. Fineman, S. (Ed.). (1993) Emotion in organisations. London: Sage. Fleming, P. (2018) The USS strikes revealed the management hierarchy in higher education, Times Higher Education, 27 May 2018. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/uss-strikesrevealed-management-hierarchy-higher-education [Accessed 28 June 2018]. Flintham, A.J. (2005) Post-Modernist portfolio people: Sustainability and succession in school headship. Nottingham: NCSL. Flores, K.L., Matkin, G.S., Burbach, M.E., Quinn, C., and Harding, H. (2012) Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates; implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2): 212–230. Fullan, M. and Scott, G. (2009) Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Gaddis, B.H. and Foster, J.L. (2015) Meta-analysis of dark side personality characteristics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1): 25–54. Gale, T. and Parker, S. (2013) Widening participation in Australia in higher education, Higher Education Funding Council for England; CFE Research, Leicester, England. Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M., and Hills, G.E. (2003) The language of opportunity. In C. Steyaert and D. Hjort (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 102–134). Cheltenham, UK: ­Edward Elgar.

180  • Bibliography Geiger, R.L. and Sá, C.M. (2008) Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Giacalone, R.A. (2009) Academic rankings in research institutions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amnesia. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 122–126. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006) A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gill, R. (2017) Beyond individualism: The psychosocial life of the neoliberal university. In M. Spooner (Ed.), A critical guide to higher education & the politics of evidence: Resisting colonialism, neoliberalism, & audit culture (pp. 1–21). Regina, CA: University of Regina Press. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA) (2017) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2016/17 Global Report. Goltz, M.S. (2018) Organizational change: Insights from Buddhism and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 15(5): 424–449. Gornall, L., Thomas, B., and Sweetman, L. (Eds.) (2018) Exploring consensual leadership in higher education: Co-operation, collaboration and partnership. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gosling, J., Bolden, R., and Petrov, G. (2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: What does it accomplish? Leadership, 5(3), 299–310. Graetz, F. and Smith, A.C. (2010) Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10(2): 135–154. Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2005) Critical management studies: A reader. Oxford: OUP. Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Grint, K. (2010) Leadership. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 423–451. Grycak, Y. (2015) Kudy Ruhaetsya Svit (Where is the world going?). Kyiv, Ukraine: Grani-T. Gumport, P.J. (2016) Graduate education and research: Interdependence and strain. In M.N. Bastedo, P.G. Altbach, and P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (4th ed., pp. 110–154). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Håkanson, L. (2010) The firm as an epistemic community: The knowledge-based view revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6): 1801–1828. Hamel, G. (2007) The future of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G. (2012) What matters now: How to win in a world of relentless change, ferocious competition and unstoppable innovation. London: Jossey-Bass Wiley. Harter, N. (2013) Socrates’ mission against reproachable ignorance: Leaders who refuse to acknowledge their ignorance and instead suppress criticism. In J. Lemmergaard and S.L. Muhr (Eds.), Critical perspectives on leadership: Emotion, toxicity and dysfunction (pp. 154–170). ­Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hearn, J.C. and Holdsworth, J.M. (2002) The societally responsive university: Public ideals, organisational realities, and the possibility of engagement. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(2): 127–144. Hearn, J.C., Warshaw, J.B., and Ciarimboli, E.B. (2016) Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education and Science, 41(184): 1–26. Heenan, D. and Bennis, W. (1999) Co-Leaders: The power of great partnerships. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Heimans, J. and Timms, H. (2018) New power: How power works in our hyperconnected world—and how to make it work for you. Canada: Random House. Heinonen, J. and Toivonen, J. (2007) Approaching a deeper understanding of corporate ­entrepreneurship – Focusing on co-evolutionary processes. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15(2): 165–186. Held, D. (1983) Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. London: Hutchinson. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., and Woodman, R.W. (2004) Organizational behavior (10th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western Pub.

Bibliography  •  181 Henderson, L. and Herring, C. (2013) Does critical diversity pay in higher education? Race, gender, and departmental rankings in research universities. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(3): 299–310. Herman, J.L. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2014) The complex self-concept of the global leader. In J.S. Osland, M. Li, and Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Advances in global leadership, Volume 8) (pp. 93–111). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hey, V. and Morley, L. (2011) Imagining the university of the future: eyes wide open? Expanding the imaginary through critical and feminist ruminations in and on the university. Contemporary Social Science, 6(2): 165–174. Higher Education and Research Act (2017), Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents/enacted [Accessed 4 April 2019]. Hirsch, F. (1976) Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hladchenko, M., Dobbins, M., and Jungblut, J. (2018) Exploring change and stability in Ukrainian higher education and research: A historical analysis through multiple critical junctures. Higher education policy, 1–23. DOI: 10.1057/s41307-018-0105-9. Hogan, R. (2007) Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holmes, J. (2000) Politeness, power and provocation. How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse & Society, 2: 159–185. Hood, C. (1998) The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horkheimer, M. (2004/1947) Eclipse of reason. London and New York: Continuum. House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (2018) Treating students fairly: The economics of postschool education. 2nd Report of Session 2017–2019 HL Paper 139 11 June 2018. Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., and Yee, L. (2018) Delivering through diversity. Retrieved from http://boardagender.org/files/MyKinsey. ICA (website) www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Ikenberry, S.O. and Friedman, R.C. (1972) Beyond academic departments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ilie, C. and Schnurr, S. (2017) Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse. Singapore: Springer. Jackson, B. and Parry, K. (2008) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Jacobs, J.A. (2014) In defense of disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jameson, J. (2006) Leadership in post-compulsory education. London: David Fulton, Taylor and Francis. Jameson, J. (2007) Investigating collaborative leadership for communities of practice in learning and skills. Research Report, Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), Lancaster University. Jameson, J. (2008) Leadership: Professional communities of leadership practice in post-compulsory education. Invited Research Report, ESCalate Discussions in Education Series: HEA Subject Centre: Stirling University. Jameson, J. (2011) Distributed leadership and the visibility/invisibility paradox in on-line communities. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 7: 49–71. Jameson, J. (2012) Leadership values, trust and negative capability: Managing the uncertainties of future English higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(4): 391–414. Jameson, J. (2014) Distributed e-leadership and trust: The visibility/invisibility paradox in the ecology of online school communities. Keynote: International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) Annual Conference 2014, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Jameson, J. (2018) Critical corridor talk: Just gossip or stoic resistance? Unrecognised informal higher education leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4): 375–389. Jameson, J. and Andrews, M. (2008) Trust and Leadership. Research Report. Lancaster University: CEL. Jameson, J. and McNay, I. (2007) The ultimate leadership and management handbook. London: Continuum International Publications Essential FE Toolkit Series (Series Ed.) J. Jameson. Janmaat, J.G. (2008) Nation building, democratization and globalization as competing priorities in Ukraine’s education system. Nationalities Papers, 36(1): 1–23.

182  • Bibliography Jarboe, N. (2017) Women count: Australian universities. Retrieved from https://womencount.org/ portfolio/womencount-australian-universities-2016. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S., and House, R.J. (2006) In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67–90. Jenkins, D. (2012) Global critical leadership: Educating global leaders with critical leadership competencies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2): 95–101. Jenkins, D.M. and Cutchens, A.B. (2011) Leading critically: A grounded theory of applied critical thinking in leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2): 1–21. Johnson, H.L. (2017) Pipelines, pathways and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Jones, S. (2014) Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership, 10(2): 129–141. Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., and Ryland, K. (2012) Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 67–78. Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A., and Jick, T.D. (1992) The challenge of organisational change. New York: The Free Press. Karenian, H., Livaditis, M., Karenian, S., Zafiriadis, K., Bochtsou, V., and Xenitidis, K. (2010) Collective trauma transmission and traumatic reactions among descendants of Armenian refugees. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57(4): 327–337. Kenway, J., Boden, R., and Fahey, J. (2014) Seeking the necessary ‘Resources of Hope’ in the neoliberal university. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a Glass Darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university (pp. 259–281). Canberra: ANU Press. Kerr, C. (1995) The uses of the university (4th ed.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kinchington, F. (2004) Understanding change. In M. Persson (Ed.), Towards the teacher as a learner: Contexts for the new role of the teacher (pp. 109–120). Sweden: Learning Teacher Network. Kinchington, F. (2020) Leading change in complex contexts. In J. Jameson (Ed.), International perspectives on leadership in higher education: Critical thinking for global challenges. London: Routledge. King, D. (2015) The possibilities and perils of critical performativity: Learning from four case studies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2): 255–265. King, E. and Badham, R. (2018, in press) Leadership in uncertainty. Organizational Dynamics, DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.005 Kleinig, J. (2018) Trust and critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(2): 133–143. Klid, B. and Motyl, A.J. (2012) The Holodomor Reader: A sourcebook on the famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 59–57. Reprint 95204 March-April, 1995. Available at: https://eoeleadership.hee.nhs.uk/ sites/default/files/leading_change_why_transformation_efforts_fail.pdf [Accessed 4 April, 2019]. Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2003) The leadership challenge. New York: Jossey Bass, Wiley. Kovacs, K. (2014) The Bologna process in Ukraine. In T. Kozma, M. Rebay, A. Ohidy and E. Szolar (Eds.), The Bologna process in Central and Eastern Europe. Germany: Springer Fachmedein Wiesbaden. Kovryga, O. and Nickel, P.M. (2004) The inevitability of enduring historical and cultural patterns: The paradox of decentralisation efforts in Ukraine. Administrative Theory and Practice, 26(4): 609–634. Kyndt, E. and Baert, H. (2015) Entrepreneurial competencies: Assessment and predictive value for entrepreneurship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90: 13–25. Leih, S. and Teece, D. (2016) Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2): 182–210. Lemmergaard, J. and Muhr, S.L. (Eds.). (2013) Critical perspectives on leadership: Emotion, toxicity, and dysfunction. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Levine, P. (2015) Trauma and memory. Brain and body in a search for the living past. Berkley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Bibliography  •  183 Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social sciences: Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1): 5–41. Lewin, K. (1952) Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 330–344). New York: Holt. Liebeskind, P.J. (1996) Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 93–107. List, C. and Pettit, P. (2011) Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Lorenz, C. (2012) “If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance?” Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3): 599–629. Loussikian, K. (2018) ‘The nation’s highest paid university leaders’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 ­August 2018. Available at: www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-nation-s-highest-paid-­ university-leaders-20180826-p4zztd.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Lumby, J. (2018) Leadership and power in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1458221 Maassen, P. (2003) Shifts in governance arrangements. In A. Amaral, V.L. Meek, and I.M. Larsen (Eds.), ­ ordrecht: The higher education managerial revolution? Higher education dynamics, vol 3. D Springer. Macfarlane, B. (2016) ‘Collegiality’ has become an empty word, Times Higher Education, 22 ­December 2016. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/collegiality-has-become-an-­ empty-word [Accessed 18 June 2018]. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., and Hunt, A.N. (2015) What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 0: Article 53. Major, E.F. (1996) The impact of the Holocaust on the second generation: Norwegian Jewish Holocaust survivors and their children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3): 441–454. Marginson, S. (2006) Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education, Higher Education, July 2006, 52(1): 1–39. Available at: https://link.springer.com/journal/10734/52/1/ page/1 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Marginson, S. (2011) Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4): 411–433. Marginson, S. (2013) The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3): 353–370. Marra, M., Schnurr, S., and Holmes, J. (2006) Effective leadership in New Zealand workplaces: ­Balancing gender and role. In J. Baxter (Ed.), Speaking out: The female voice in public contexts (pp. 240–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Martin, L. (2016) Gender, teaching evaluations, and professional success in political science. Political Science & Politics, 49(2): 313–319. Martín-Barbero, S. and Monck, A. (2018) The three models of higher education systems globally, Times Higher Education, 26 May 2018. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ three-­models-higher-education-systems-globally [Accessed 15 June 2018]. McClure, K.R. (2016) Building the innovative and entrepreneurial university: An institutional case study of administrative academic capitalism. Journal of Higher Education, 87(4): 516–543. McLachlan, F. (2017) Being critical: An account of an early career academic working within and against neoliberalism. Sport, Education and Society, 22(1): 58–72. Merin, C., Nikolov, A., and Vidler, A. (2013) Local government handbook: How to create an innovative city. Available at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/local-government-handbookcreate-innovative-city/ Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363. Michel, J., Shen, Y. K, Aiden, A. P, Veres, A., Gray, M.K., Brockman, W., The Google Books Team, ­Pickett, J.P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M.A., and Aiden, E.L. (2010) Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science ­(Published online ahead of print: 12/16/2010).

184  • Bibliography Middlehurst, R. (2008) Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps between leadership theory and practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4): 322–339. Middlehurst, R. (2013) Changing internal governance: Are leadership roles and management structures in United Kingdom universities fit for the future? Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3): 275–294. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Mitchell, N. (2018) Universities’ marketing is out of date, says web guru. University World News, 13 June 2018. Available at: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2018061317383691 [Accessed 20 June 2018]. Moberg, K., Barslund Fosse, H.B., Hoffman, A., and Junge, M. (2014) Impact of entrepreneurship ­education in Denmark – 2014. Available at: http://eng.ffe- ye.dk/media/637847/­effektmacc8alingen20201520­ eng-online.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Mok, K.H. (1999) The cost of managerialism: The implications for the ‘McDonaldisation’ of higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1): 117–127. MONDRAGON a (website) www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/economic-and-financial-indicators/corporate-profile/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. MONDRAGON b (website) www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/governance/organization/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Moore, T (2013) Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4): 506–522. Morgan, G. (1986) Images of organization (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morley, L. (2013) The rules of the game; women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1). DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.740888 Morley, L. (2016) Troubling intra-actions: Gender, neo-liberalism and research in the global academy. Journal of Education Policy, 31(1): 28–45. Najarian, M. (2018) U.S. Senate Says Stalin ‘Committed Genocide’ in Famine-Hit Ukraine, ­RadioFreeEurope/ RadioLiberty. Available at: www.rferl.org/a/u-s-senate-passes-resolution-on-ukraine-faminea-move-hailed-by-kyiv/29526188.html [Accessed 26 Nov. 2018]. National Academies. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research & Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nedeva, M. (2013) New tricks and old dogs? The ‘third mission’ and the re-production of the university. In D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi, and S. Wright (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2008: Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education (pp. 105–123). London: Routledge. Ness, R.B. (2015) The creativity crisis: Reinventing science to unleash possibility. New York: Oxford University Press. Newman, J. (2013) Spaces of power: Feminism, neoliberalism and gendered labour. Social Politics, 20(2): 200–221. Nielsen, J. (2004) The myth of leadership: Creating leaderless organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Northouse, P.G. (2004) Leadership theory and practice (third edition). London: Sage. Nussbaum, M. (2010) Not for profit. Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O’Mullane, M. (2011) University Leadership: Approaches, formation and challenges in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. OECD. (2012) Review of National Policies for Education: Tertiary Education in Colombia. Paris: OECD & World Bank. Oleksiyenko, A. (2016) Higher education reforms and center-periphery dilemmas: Ukrainian universities between Neo-Soviet and Neo-Liberal contestations. In J. Zajda and V. Rust (Eds.), Globalisation and higher education reforms. Globalisation, comparative education and policy research, Vol. 15 (pp. 133–148). Switzerland: Springer. Olssen, M. (2006) Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 25(3): 213–230.

Bibliography  •  185 OSI & NEPC. (2006) Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring. Overview and Country Reports. New York: Open Society Institute. Osipian, A. (2008) Transforming university governance in Ukraine: collegiums, bureaucracies, and political institutions. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper, No. 11058. Available at: http://mpra. ub.uni-muenchen.de/11058. [Accessed 3 Oct. 2015]. Osipian, A. (2010) Corruption in the politicized university: Lessons from Ukraine’s 2010 presidential elections. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, (23)2: 101–114. Osipian, A. (2017) University autonomy in Ukraine: Higher education corruption and the state. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 50(3): 233–243. Ouchi, W.G. (1980) Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 129–141. Palfreyman, D. and Tapper, T. (2008) Structuring mass higher education: The role of elite institutions. Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer. Palfreyman, D. and Tapper, T. (2014) Reshaping the university: The rise of the regulated market in higher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parke, K. (2012) The transformation of the academic profession. The erosion of tenure and the (E)state of the professoriate. In M. Vukasovic, P. Maassen, M. Nerland, R. Pinheiro, B. Stensaker, and A. Vabo (Eds.), Effects of higher education reforms: Change dynamics (pp. 219–238). Rotterdam: Sense. Parker C. and Lewis R. (1981) Beyond the Peter Principle: Managing successful transitions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 5(6): 17–21. Parker, L.D. (2002) ‘It’s been a pleasure doing business with you’. A strategic analysis and critique of university change management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13(5): 603–619. Parker, M. and Thomas, R. (2011) What is a critical journal? Organisation 18(4): 419–427. Parr, C. (2013) THE Best University workplace survey: Staff unheard? Times Higher Education, 15 August. Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pinchot, G. (1985) Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row. Pollitt, C. (1990) Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Oxford: Blackwell. Priess, B. (2012) Academics not happy about having to be happy at work. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 March, 6. PRME. (2019) The principles for responsible management voluntary organisation website. www.unprme. org/about-prme/index.php [Accessed 18 January, 2019]. Pullen, A. and Rhodes, C. (2018) Anxiety and organization. Culture and Organization, 24(2): 95–99. Pusey, M. (1991) Economic rationalists in Canberra. A nation building state changes its mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ravinet, P. (2008) From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process. European Journal of Education, 43: 353–367. Reid, A. (1997) Borderland: A journey through the history of Ukraine. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Reid, A. (2004) Towards a culture of critical enquiry. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/217783333. Rezak, C. (n.d.) Developing your critical thinking leadership skills. International Institute of Directors and Managers. (iidmglobal.com). Rhoades, G. (2014) Extending academic capitalism by foregrounding academic labor. In B. Cantwell and I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 113–134). ­Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rooksby, J.H. (2016) The branding of the American mind: How universities capture, manage, and monetize intellectual property and why it matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rosen, A.S. (2018) Correlations, trends and potential biases among publicly accessible web-based student evaluations of teaching: A large-scale study of RateMyProfessors. com data. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1): 31–44.

186  • Bibliography Rosinger, K.O., Taylor, B.J., Coco, L., and Slaughter, S. (2016) Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. Journal of Higher Education, 87(1): 27–54. Roulston, K. (2010) Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory & practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rowland-Klein, D., and Dunlop, R. (1997) The transmission of trauma across generations: Identification with parental trauma of Holocaust survivors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31: 358–369. Rowlands, J. (2017) Academic governance in the contemporary university: Perspectives from anglophone nations. Rotterdam: Springer. Rowlands, J., Rawolle, S., and Blackmore, J. (2016) The implications of contractualism for the responsibilisation of higher education. Discourse, 38(1): 109–122. Rumyantseva, N. and Logvynenko, O. (2017) Ukraine: Higher education reforms and dynamics of the institutional landscape. Chapter 16. In J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, and I. Froumin, (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in Post-Soviet countries (pp. 407–433). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ruth, D., Wilson, S., Alakavuklar, O., and Dickson, A. (2018) Anxious academics: Talking back to the audit culture through collegial, critical and creative autoethnography. Culture and Organization, 24(2): 154–170. Sá, C.M. and Oleksiyenko, A. (2011) Between the local and the global: Organized research units and international collaborations in the health sciences. Higher Education, 62(3): 367–382. Sahlin, K. and Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (2016) Collegiality in modern universities – the composition of governance ideals and practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2016(2–3). DOI: 10.3402/nstep.v2.33640 Salerno, C. (2009) Privatizing the public European university. In C.C. Morphew and P.D. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 160–180). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sartre, J-P. (2003/1943) Being and nothingness. London and New York: Routledge. Schön, D.A. (1983) The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schonberger, R. (1982) Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New York: Free Press. Schwab, H. (2016) The fourth industrial revolution. Davos, World Economic Forum. Available at: https://luminariaz.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-2016-21.pdf Selwyn, N. (2014) Distrusting educational technology. Critical questions for changing times. London: Routledge. Semiv, L. and Hvozdovych, Y. (2012) The intellectual migration of the youth in Ukraine: The backgrounds for ‘brain circulation’. Journal of International Studies, 5(2): 72–81. Shapiro, H. (2005) A larger sense of purpose: Higher education and society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shattock, M. (2012) Making policy in British Higher Education 1945–2011. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Shattock, M. (2017a) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: A synoptic view. Working paper 13. London: Centre for Global Higher Education paper series. Shattock, M. (2017b) University governance in flux. The impact of external and internal pressures on the distribution of authority within British universities: A synoptic view. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(4): 384–395. Shaw, M. (2013) Flawed implementation or inconsistent logics? Lessons from higher education reform in Ukraine. European Education, 45: 7–24. Shaw, M., Chapman, D., and Rumyantseva, N. (2013) Organizational culture in the adoption of the ­Bologna process: A study of academic staff at a Ukrainian university. Studies in Higher ­Education, 38(7): 989–1003. Shevchenko, V. (2018) The reform of the higher education of Ukraine in the conditions of the ­military-political crisis. International Journal of Educational Development, 65: 237–253.

Bibliography  •  187 Shore, C. and Wright, S. (Eds.) (2017) Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Berghan. Slater, J., Perez, D., and Fain, S. (2008) The war against the professions. The impact of politics and economics on the idea of the university. Rotterdam: Sense. Slaughter, S. and Hearn, J.C. (2009) Final report for centers, universities, and the scientific innovation ecology: A workshop. NSF Grant BCS-0907827. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Small, H. (2013) The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, D.N. and Adams, J. (2009) Governance and the autonomous university: Changing institutional leadership in UK and Australian higher education, Chapter 15. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives on the governance of higher education: Alternative frameworks for coordination (pp. 252–270). New York: Routledge. Somasundaram, D. (2007) Collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka: A qualitative psychosocial-­ ecological study. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 1(5): 1–29. Sotero, M. (2006) A conceptual model of historical trauma: Implications for public health practice and research. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 1(1): 93–108. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., and Kärreman, D. (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4): 537–560. Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J.B. (2000) Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30: 23–28. Steffen, J. (2000) Breaking lances, dying in ditches: A survival guide for the international change manager. Journal of Change Management, 1(2): 186–193. Stensaker, B., Välimaa, J. and Sarrico, C. (Eds.) (2012) Managing reform in universities. Dynamics of culture, identity and organisational change. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stephan, P. (2012) How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Subtelny, O. (2009) Ukraine: A History (4th ed.). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Sutherland-Smith, W., Saltmarsh, S., and Randell-Moon, H. (2011) ‘Inspired and assisted’ or ‘berated and destroyed’: Research leadership and academic performativity in troubled times. Ethics and Education, 6(3): 293–306. Swope, C. (2014) Interview with Gerard Martin. How Medellín revived itself: Reforms hand ­Colombia mayors and cities more power. Available at: www.uclg.org/en/media/news/how-­ medell%C3%ADn-revived-itself-reforms-hand-colombia-mayors-and-cities-more-power [Accessed 3 April 2019]. Szenes, E., Tilakaratna, N., and Maton, K. (2015) Knowledge practices of critical thinking. In M. Davies and R. Barnett (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 573–591). London: Palgrave. Taber, T.D. (2007) Using metaphors to teach organisational theory. Journal of Management Education, 31(4): 541–554. Tapper, T. and Palfreyman, D. (2000) Oxford and the decline of the collegiate tradition. Abingdon, Oxon: Woburn Press. Tate, W. (2000) Implications of futures’ studies for business, organisation, management and leadership. London: CEML. Taylor, B.J. (2016) The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000–2008. In S. Slaughter and B.J. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada (pp. 59–79). New York: Springer. Taylor, B.J., Barringer, S.N., and Warshaw, J.B. (2018) Affiliated non-profit organizations: Strategic action and research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 89(4): 422–452. Teece, D.J. (2003) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In C.W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge management (pp. 129–152). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

188  • Bibliography Teelken, C. (2012) Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3): 271–90. Teelken, C. (2018) Teaching assessment and perceived quality of teaching: A longitudinal study among academics in three European countries. European Journal of Higher Education, 20 June 2018. Available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21568235.2018.1490661 [Accessed 3 July 2018]. Temple, P. (2017) Be careful what you wish for. Available at: https://srheblog.com/2017/02/06/be-­ careful-what-you-wish-for/ Accessed 14 June 2018. Thornton, M. (Ed.) (2015) Through a glass darkly. The social sciences look at the neoliberal university. Canberra: ANU Press. Tourish, D. (2007) Communication, discourse and leadership. Human Relations, 60(11): 1727–1740. Trow, M. (1999) From mass higher education to universal access. The American advantage. In Minerva, 37(4): 303–328. Trow, M. (2007) Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J.J.F. Forest and P.G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 18. Dordrecht: Springer. Trowler, P. (2010) UK higher education: Captured by new managerialist ideology? In V.L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, and T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (197–211). Dordrecht: Springer. U.S. News and World Report. (2018) Best Colleges. Available at: www.usnews.com/best-colleges [Accessed 20 Nov. 2018]. UNDP. (2018) Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update. Ukraine. UNGC. (1999) United Nations global compact. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/ principles [Accessed 14 January, 2019]. Universities Australia. (2017) Women count report. Canberra. Vine, B., Holmes, J., Marra, M., Pfeifer, D., and Jackson, B. (2008) Exploring co-leadership talk through interactional sociolinguistics. Leadership, 4: 339–360. Vukasovic, M., Maassen, P., Nerland, M., Pinheiro, R., Stensaker, B., and Vabo, A. (Eds.) (2012) Effects of higher education reforms: Change dynamics. Rotterdam: Sense. Walker, M. (2010) Critical capability pedagogies and university education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(8): 898–917. Warshaw, J.B. (2016) Structuring to advance science: STEM-centered organizational innovations in the research university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Warshaw, J.B. and Hearn, J.C. (2014) Leveraging university research to serve economic development: An Analysis of policy dynamics in and across three U.S. states. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2): 196–211. Watson, D. (2009) The question of morale: Managing happiness and unhappiness in university life. ­Maidenhead: Open University Press. Watson, D. (2014) Only connect: Do we still have a higher education sector? Cambridge: Higher Education Policy Institute HEPI Occasional Paper 8. Weick, K.E. (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Wiesel, E. (2009) Prize in ethics video, Elie Wiesel prize in ethics 20th anniversary awards celebration. Elie Wiesel Foundation. http://eliewieselfoundation.org/prize-ethics/ [Accessed 13 January 2019]. Wiethe-Körprich M., Weber S., Bley S., and Kreuzer C. (2017) Intrapreneurship competence as a manifestation of work agency: A systematic literature review. In M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work. Professional and practice-based learning, Vol. 20. Cham: Springer. Williams, G. (1976) Review of GC Moodie and R Eustace (1974) Power and Authority in British Universities, London: Allen and Unwin. Journal of Social Policy, 2 April, 5: 200–201. Winn, J. (2015) The cooperative university: Labour, property and pedagogy. Power and Education, 7(1): 39–55.

Bibliography  •  189 Winn, J. and Hall, R. (Eds.) (2017). Mass intellectuality and democratic leadership in higher education. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. World Bank. (2004) Ukraine-Equal access to quality education in Ukraine project, Project Information Document, Concept Stage, Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/919361468760561499/pdf/Project0Inform1ment010Concept0Stage.pdf [Accessed 23 Nov 2018]. World Bank. (2005) Ukraine-Education reform project. Project Appraisal Document (p. 138). ­Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/334131468316160160/pdf/32175. pdf ­[Accessed 23 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum. (2011) World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva, Switzerland. World Economic Forum. (2015) Leveraging Entrepreneurial Ambition and Innovation: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Development. Available at: http://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_EntrepreneurialInnovation_Report.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum (2016) Europe’s Hidden Entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial Employee Activity and Competitiveness in Europe. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Entrepreneurship_in_Europe.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. World Economic Forum (2017) The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. Available at: http:// www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/­Th eGlobalCompetitivenessRep ort2016-2017_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018]. Wright, S., Greenwood, D., and Boden, R. (2011) Report of a field visit to Mondragon University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching, 4(3): 38–56. Yershova, O. and Gordiichuk, A. (2013) University autonomy in Ukraine: International experience and national interests. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(11): 472–476. Yin, R.K. (2014) Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yukl, G. (1989) Leadership in organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zahra, S. (1991) Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259–285.

Index

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures. academic capitalism 14, 20, 70–1, 73–6, 79–80, 86–8, 156, 167; theory of 14, 70–5, 87 academic leadership xxv, 9, 12, 14–15, 137; see also leadership administration xxii–xxiv, 2–3, 7–8, 14, 24, 52, 69–74, 142, 168; campus administration 75–9; administrators 80–8; city administration/administrators 99–100; new public administration (NPA) 134–5; political administrators 95 agency xxiii, 22, 29, 33–5, 37–8, 122, 123 Argyris, C. 116, 122–6 artificial intelligence 21, 93 Australian higher education case study 130–46 authority xxii, xxv, 1–3, 7–8, 11, 33, 65, 70, 73, 80, 83, 87, 118, 121; authoritarian state 29; fear of 122–4; Power and Authority in British Universities 60 autonomy 11, 33, 48, 51, 109, 117, 141; faculty 73; institutional 9, 21, 59, 94, 97; professional 137 Bauman, Z. 22 big data 21, 22, 24 Bourdieu, P. 134, 142 Canada, higher education case study 152–63 case studies see individual case studies by country change: models of 31–2; resistance to 32, 37–9, 40–2; management, models of 31–2

‘Change Transition’ curve 38, 40; change, mandatory or self-initiated 31–3; organizational resistance to 39–42, 107 collegial(ity) xxiv, 3, 9, 11–14, 46–9, 58–66; definition of 59, 141, 144–5, 156, 167; and neo-collegiality 144, 170, 171 Colombia, higher education case study see Medellin competence(s) 35, 37; competence approaches 107, 109; competence, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship 104, 107–10, 112; Competence Framework, European Entrepreneurship (EntreComp) 108–10; Competences for Lifelong Learning, European Key 103, 107–8; and incompetence 40 complexity xxvii, 9, 11, 12, 20, 23–8, 93, 138, 162, 166, 170; discursive 23; skills 24; and supercomplexity 23 (see also supercomplexity); complexity theory xxvi, 5 conceptual problems (for university leadership) 23 cooperative principles 51 corporation(s) 74, 100, 155, 158; mega-corporations 29 Council for Excellence in Leadership and Management 93 creativity xxvi, 5, 16, 22, 31, 40–1, 66–75, 86, 94, 103, 109, 126, 132–8, 152–63, 166–71; creative leadership 6–10, 15, 154, 170 critical action 28–9; critical being 28–9; critical dispositions 29

191

192  • Index criticality xxiii–xxiv, 1–10, 6, 10, 11, 15–16, 28–9, 132–3, 138–9, 146; dimensions of xxvi–xxvii, 4–5; with larger set of human accomplishments 28 critical inquiry 5, 132, 140 critical pedagogy xxiii, 5, 169 critical theory xxiii, xxvi, 1, 4–5, 169; Frankfurt School of Critical Theory 26 critical thinking xxii–xxvi, 1–9, 11, 20, 25–9, 37, 45, 96, 104, 116, 117–26, 130–46, 166–9; and smart thinking 27; destructive turn by outsiders 125; means-end 27; reduction in 28; critical thought 29 critical leadership and management studies CLS, CMS xxii–xxvi, 1, 5, 9, 92–5, 141–6 critique, potentially destructive 115 culture 10, 34, 39; institutional/ organizational 20, 32; layers of 34; cultures xxvi, 6, 13, 16, 20; epistemological 27; metaphors and 33; research-intensive 9–11; culture wars 22 data see big data deep thinking 29 Deleuze, G. 22 democracy: democratic culture 52; collective leadership 52; processes 53–6, 81, 96; structures 53; democraticallycontrolled enterprise 50; member control 51; organization 51 destructive leadership see leadership distrust of elite ‘expert knowledge’ 6; see also trust diversity 3, 13, 15, 95, 130–46, 163 economy 20, 130; actors in 53–5; affective 141, 144; affluent 136; betterment 51; competition 74, 103; and corporate logic 144; destruction 119; engines of/ development 98–9, 108; evolutionary economics 143; growing 59; impact 156; knowledge economy 20, 46, 48–9, 187; macro-context 31, 167; market economies 50; of scale 103; oppression 139; participation, by member 51; perspective 13, 160. 167; policies 74; political 71, 76; priorities 133, 160, 163; self-sufficient 133; and social purposes 140; and social relevance 69, 72, 74, 75; solidary 50, 54–6; success 156; value 106, 108, 110; World Economic Forum (WEF) 104–5

emotion/emotions (in organisations) 36–8; see also affective economy entrepreneur(s) 99, 103; ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ 107; entrepreneurial approaches xxiv, 5, 9, 24, 46, 75, 167; mindset 104; knowledge exchange 6; values and goals of universities 74; entrepreneurship 14, 103, 104–6, 130, 132–5; entrepreneurship programmes 104, 107–13; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 104; and intrapreneurship competence 107–113; see also intrapreneurship epistemology for living with uncertainty xxvii, 6, 9, 169 Estonia, higher education case study 103–13 ethics 119, 143, 154, 156, 158; compliance checks for 136; ethical: competences 109; issues in critical inquiry 140; qualities of leaders 37, 42, 133, 152, 159, 170; principles 140; rules for an organisation 63; doing the right thing 135; unethical situations 169 Ethics Award Elie Wiesel Foundation 153 European higher education case studies see under individual country chapters European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) 108–9 European Key Competences for Lifelong Learning 103, 107–8 feminism 5, 15, 130–46 finance 5, 20, 21–5, 29, 35, 36, 46–8, 50, 52, 53, 71, 79, 80, 101, 106, 136; financial crash 63, 92, 134; financialisation 53; financial (out)/performance 110, 132, 155; financial rewards 157; financial stability 55; financing tool 99 fixed mindset (vs. growth mindset) xxvi follower/ship 42, 116, 118, 141, 166 Frankfurt School of Critical Theory 26 Giddens, A. 72 global: challenges xxii, xxvi, 1–16, 92–5, 130–46, 159–60; leadership for challenges 7–9, 166–71 global rankings see world rankings governance xxii, xxvi, 2–10, 13–14, 20, 46–56, 70, 73, 88, 91, 93, 95–7, 115, 134; centralized model of governance 118; self-governance 11, 117, 118, 126 government see state

Index   •  193 ‘grey cardinals’ (powers behind the throne) 36 growth mindset (vs. fixed mindset) xxvi Guattari, F. 22 hegemony: hegemonic practices 46; counter-hegemonic thinking 50 heterarchy xxv, 7 hierarchy 73, 142; between elite and mass universities 130; campus administrative 77; corporate 107; decision-making 53; organizational xxiv; salary 53; too much 94 higher education systems: categorisation as elite-mass-universal 59; as equalisers, revolutionaries and globalisers 59 Holodomor 15, 117–26 humanities 27, 51, 70; arts, humanities and social sciences 74, 87, 137; humanities, social sciences, education, the arts and women’s studies 133; the social science and humanities and social innovation 134, 136, 138–9

leadership: and critical thinking 5–7, 25–6; falling away of 22; academic leadership xxv, 9, 12, 14–15, 137; charisma of leaders 39; democratic leadership 13, 46, 55; destructive leadership xxiv, 119, 168; distributed leadership; ethical leadership 37–8; experience of leader 39–40; inspirational leaders 29; Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (LFHE); persona of leader 40; professorial leadership 169; senior academic leadership xxv, 9; senior positional leaders xxv, 48, 166; valuesoriented leadership 28 Lewin, K. 31

judgement(s) 5, 25, 26, 29, 37, 42, 63, 156; critical judgement 125; ‘judgement calls’ 42; judgemental reason/ing 28–9, valuebased judgement 64

management xxii–xxvii, 1–9, 10–15, 20–3, 24–7, 31, 36, 39, 46, 48–55, 58–64, 93–7, 106–7, 112, 131–7, 146; and change 31–2, 39, 130, 141–5; and complexity 24–6; and leadership 24–6, 132; command-and-control style of 92; consultants 130; corporate managerialism xxv, 134; executive 131; critical management 132, 142 (see also critical); formal managerial authority 73; managerial approaches/ new/ managerial/ ism xxiv, 1–2, 7–12, 21, 24, 46–50, 60–6, 70, 82–8, 92–3, 134–5, 141, 144, 168–9; managerial capacity 70, 76; ‘soft managerialism’ xxiii; new public management (NPM) 1, 50, 60, 168, destructive effects of 168; see also administration, new public (NPA) marketisation 55, 59–62, 66, 134, 157, 167: market model for public and private sectors 50; see also privatisation metaphor 32–42 mission 64, 74, 76, 81, 83, 86, 94–100, 159; ‘mission groups’ 62; mission statements 145 mistrust 109, 120–2; see also trust Medellin, city of, higher education case study 91–101 Mondragon cooperative university, higher education case study 46–56 Morgan, G. (images of organisation) 33 multiplicities 22

knowledge: knowledge economy 20, 46, 48–9, 69, 155; see also wisdom, critical thinking Kotter, J.P. 31

national higher education case studies see case studies by country national rankings see world rankings neoliberalism 20, 58, 92

iceberg, model of organisational 34–6 incompetence see competence innovation see change institution(s) 36, 40, 41–2, 60–5, 69–71, 72–5, 91–9, 114–15, 119, 123–4, 137–8, 144, 159–60, 169–70; anchor 101, 157, 171; case studies of 77–84, case study findings of 85–8; competitiveness of 104; frameworks for organizing 32; institutional autonomy 59; change 32; knowledge 132; memory within 41; policy 143; sustainability 59; intrapreneurial work within 107; survival of 123, 131; tertiary education public and private 100; institutionalised 135; new forms of knowledge 139; world class status 156 intrapreneurship: definition of 106; and entrepreneurship, competence 107–13

194  • Index organisation: culture and context of 39; gatekeepers of 36; hidden 35; inner world 32; life cycle 32; organisational hierarchy; organisational leadership xxiii, 46, 167; psychodynamic life of 33 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 98 oxymoron xxii, 20, 28 persona see leadership persona policy 5, 46, 48, 71, 88, 92–4, 115–19, 121, 130, 168; policy circles and neoliberalism 92; policymaking 3–6, 10–12, 50, 71, 79, 92, 108, 122; Australian policy 133–146; policy narrative in England 60; Ukranian policy/makers 117–24 post-heroic xxv power 29; discursive power 29; financial power 29; loss of power 38; powerlessness 33–4 prestige 61, 69–76, 84, 156, 169 private 118; commercial firms 49–50, 167; corporations 74; face 36; funding 97; gain 124; institutions 71, 91, 96, 98, 100; marketplace 156; owners 47, 49; research universities 79; sector 46, 60, 134; privatisation 15; privatising universities 49, European universities 79, privatising the public sector 131; public-private partnership 100, see also public privation 50; deprivations 120 professionalism 29, 171 psychology: psychodynamic life of organisation 33; psychological: aspects of organizational culture 171; coping mechanisms 121; insight 34; perspective 32; resilience 126; response to trauma 120; violence 119; psychologically safe environment 35; safety 36–38, within organisational iceberg 36 public: accountability 13, 143; face 36; public (common) good xxvi, 6, 8, 16, 47, 49, 50, 88, 140, 156, 159, 170; public assets xxvi, 16; controversy 49, 131; domain/sphere 23, 26, 29, 131; enquiry 28; expectations 93; funding 49, 59; office 93; organisations 94; policy 121; purposes, shifting 14, 91, 95–101; public/public research universities 14, 47, 133; US public research universities 69–88; return on investment 91; sector 49–56, 60,

124, 131; services 13, 61, 65, 92; service excellence xxvi, 16; trust 159; publicly auditing quality 48; publicly standing out vs. authoritarian state 29; publicly stated goals/intentions 118, 124; see also management: new public management reason: instrumental reason 26–9; judgmental reason 29; see also judgement reflection 32; -in-action and -on-action 32; self-reflection 33 reflexivity: reflexive 42; reflexively insightful 169; space for reflexive consideration 142; self-reflexive 42 reputation 21, 22, 34, 36–7, 42, 61, 131–2; ‘controlled reputation range’ of British higher education 62; in global rankings 131; reputational damage 21; reputational mindsets 156; research reputation 133 research, research-intensive culture(s) 9–11 resistance 32, 37, 39, 64, 114, 118; resistance movements 120; see also change, resistance to rhizome (image of university) 22 risk(s) 25, 28, 37, 39, 42, 105, 133, 156; analysis of 21; assessment of 25; highrisk; risking capital 49; risking lives 109; risk-averse 38–40, 42; risk-takers/taking 88, 103, 170; reputations at risk 132; values being risked 66 school leaders 34 Schrödinger’s cat (as metaphor of leadership) xxii self-awareness 32 self-efficacy 34, 37–8, 40–2 silence: silent majority 36; silenced voices 35 squid (metaphor for university) 22 socio-economic inequalities 159; injustices 155; theories of neoliberalism 92–6; social, economic and political transformation 115 Socratic wisdom xxiii spaces of hope (for university leadership regeneration) 13, 46–56, 170 Spain, Mondragon higher education case study see Mondragon

Index   •  195 state(s) (governmental) 5, 9–12, 21–2, 29, 47–51, 60, 71, 74, 77–88, 91, 96, 99, 115–18, 168 stress 23, 29, 32, 35–40, 93, 137, 146, 163 supercomplexity xxvi, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 23–8, 133, 144, 162, 166, 168; see also complexity systems xxiii, 24–5; higher education systems 1, 4–5, 10–16, 23–6; leadership systems 8; systems designer 23; systems theory xxvi; ranking systems 12–13, 156; see also world ranking tertiary 169; tertiary education public and private institutions 98–101 TINA mentality (There Is No Alternative) 21 theory: critical theory (see critical); feminist and queer theory 139; of academic capitalism (see academic); of academic identity 139; of critical inquiry 140; of social identity 125; structuration theory 72 thought see critical thinking; deep thinking trauma 14–15; trans-generational transmission 15, 120–2; traumainformed understanding 114–26 training 4, 7, 34–5, 41–2, 50–4, 98, 100–1, 103, 108–13, 139, 158, 166–7 transform xxvi, 6, 152; transformation 14, 33, 40, 48–9, 56, 60, 103, 109; of Medellin 91–101; transformative responses xxx, 6; transformational 10, 14, 16, 157, 171; transformational trap 15, 115–25; problem of transforming university 130–1, 145 ‘Transition Curve’ see also change trust xxv, 35, 37, 42, 103, 145, 159; distrust 6; lack of 97, 146; loss of 42, 58; mistrust

109, 120–2; mutual 145; staff lack of 37; trustworthiness 78, 126, 169, 170; within expanded organizational iceberg 36 Ukraine: higher education case study 114–26 United Kingdom (UK), England: English higher education case study 58–67 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 159 United States (US) higher education case study 69–88 unethical 169, see also ethical university and school leaders 24, 34 university leadership see leadership university management see management utopia: utopian 29; feasible utopia 29 values 28; espoused values (vs. actual behaviours) 36; values options 26; value orientation 26; values-oriented leadership 28 Watson, D. 62 Wiesel, E. 152–3; Elie Wiesel Foundation Ethics Award 153 wisdom xxiii, 20, 25, 153, 155, 163; see also Socratic wisdom world-class university status 22, 71, 133, 156; in science 69–74 World Economic Forum (WEF) 104–5, 114, 157 world rankings: competitiveness rankings 14, 105; global and national ranking systems iii, 5, 12–13, 59, 131, 156; league table rankings 94; power of 20; global ranking as world-class universities 133–4, 142–3