A series of reviews over the past six years -from Dearing (NCIHE, 1997) to Lambert (Lambert, 2003) -have addressed the question of whether the structure and process of 'governance' in higher education is fit for modern times. This is a proper question to ask as operating environments change and pressures on institutional resources increase. Indeed, it is not coincidental that both the recent government-sponsored reports and those of the previous decade (Jarratt, 1985; NAB, 1987) were associated with significant financial changes in the sector. There are further parallels in that both the reports of the 1980s and those of the later period heralded legislative changes that produced -or will produce -new patterns of higher education provision in the UK (Education Reform Act, 1988; Further and Higher Education Act, 1992; Higher Education Act, 2004).The messages from the reports and White Papers (DES, 1987; DES, 1991; DfES, 2003) published in this twenty-year period have remained broadly similar, even though the wider environment has altered significantly. 'Increase efficiency, find new sources of income and improve performance across an everwidening range of activities and services' have been the watchwords of successive governments. Given the consistency of the message, it is useful to analyse the changes that universities have been making to meet these requirements and to consider what further changes may be needed in the light of new external challenges. The first part of the paper offers a historical perspective before addressing the evolution of leadership roles and management structures from the late 1980s. The second part considers some of the current drivers of internal and external change before discussing the kind of changes in internal govHigher Education Quarterly, 0951-5224

This paper examines changes and developments in institutions' internal governance during the last decade, identifying points of continuity in the policy and political environment in the United Kingdom as well as points of difference. External drivers are discussed as part of the increasingly dynamic and volatile operating conditions for higher education. Institutions' internal governance arrangements are presented within a framework drawn from Clarke's studies of entrepreneurial universities. The final section of the article argues for a re‐interpretation and strengthening of collegial forms of governance, using models and examples drawn from innovative private sector companies that can indicate useful directions for higher education institutions so that they are better fitted to meet 21st century challenges. While the analysis is focused on the UK, the lessons are more widely applicable.

This article first presents a historical examination of leadership and leadership research in higher education, placing it in the context of increasing interest and activity in relation to leadership and leadership development across various public sector bodies in the UK. It then examines why research (on leadership, management and governance) is regarded as an important activity for the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and what role it plays in the Foundation's agenda. A brief overview of the research commissioned between 2005 and 2008 is presented and questions — `is there something special and different about leadership in higher education?' and `how has the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education research contributed to policy, practice and development?' — are discussed. The article concludes by consideration of the role of research in mediating between political and institutional perspectives on leadership in higher education.

This paper addresses the relationships between leadership theory, practice and development, drawing on both the higher education and wider leadership literature. It explores why challenges and problems exist within the contested field of leadership theory and why gaps remain between theory and practice after more than a century of research -and indeed, with increasing levels of research, scholarship and development in the last 25 years. After highlighting the importance of context for theory, practice and development, the first section of the paper examines a range of factors that contribute to theoretical 'contests' including different starting assumptions made by researchers, the different focus of studies, examination of different causal links to explain leadership, differences in values and cultural lenses and different constructs, terminology and perspectives. The second section examines the challenges faced by leadership practitioners, as individuals, and through exercising leadership as a collective responsibility in the context of changing operating environments within higher education institutions and across sectors and countries. The author highlights three areas where some re-thinking of the links between theory and practice are necessary -at the input stage, linking research findings and recruitment practices; in terms of outcomes, by researching links between leaders, leadership and performance; and in process terms, to examine more deeply complex and relational dynamic of leadership in action.The third section offers a number of specific suggestions as to how closer alignment between theory, practice and development can be achieved. The paper concludes by arguing for greater maturity (in research, practice and development) that acknowledges that leadership is played out in complex, dynamic and changing social systems. A stronger emphasis on 'leadership learning' should deliver both better science and better outcomes for leaders and led in higher education.Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-5224

No abstract