Middle leadership in higher education

Abstract

The paper is informed by a research study exploring middle leadership as experienced by Chairpersons of Departments within one faculty in a university in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is argued that middle leadership in higher education needs to be understood as a highly complex relational endeavour, characterised by compromises that are negotiated amidst leadership structures, hierarchies and relations. The focus on leadership as first and foremost relational provides a frame for critically examining the nature and complexities inherent in the lived reality of middle leadership. Relational leadership is conceptualised as encompassing four inter-related dimensions. These are derived from data and respectively centre on structure and power; trust and credibility; learning; and discursive relations. We suggest that each dimension provides a productive lens through which the complexities and challenges of middle leadership can be explored. Throughout the emphasis is that for middle leaders, the relations that they have to navigate and negotiate are multi-faceted and multidirectional, involving relations up, down and across organisational structures and networks. Middle leaders are shown to be acutely aware that their decisions and the decisions of other staff variously impact upon the context and relations that they are working amidst.

Middle leaders’ learning in a university context

“…Previously we have presented a view of middle leadership in the university context considering a number of relational dimensions including power relations and discursive relations (Branson et al, 2015). This article has focused on learning relations and is premised on the fact that we learn with and from others and that what and how we learn is determined to some extent by others and affects others.…”

“…Previously, we have discussed our conceptualisation of middle leadership as relational, highlighting the discursive events, practices and artefacts of our context, which both reflect relations and are constituted by relations (Branson et al, 2015). In this article, we specifically consider how learning was experienced, how it was constrained and enabled by discursive events and practices, and how it was both represented and mediated through codified artefacts.…”

“…Taking the view that middle leadership is fundamentally relational (Branson, Franken, & Penney, 2015;Davis & Jones, 2014;Hosking, 2006;Raelin, 2011;Uhl-Bien, 2006) has allowed us to, indeed, reframe our experiences, to appreciate the inherently social nature of leadership, to recognise power relations amidst that and to consider the opportunities for agency within and amidst the structures, processes and hierarchies that feature in our work as middle leaders. Previously, we have discussed our conceptualisation of middle leadership as relational, highlighting the discursive events, practices and artefacts of our context, which both reflect relations and are constituted by relations (Branson et al, 2015).…”

Transitioning into leadership: from faculty member to department chair

“…Research has applied 'relational leadership' to a university setting in New Zealand (Branson et al 2015). Other emerging theories may provide further insight to help conceptualize and guide department chair leadership.…”

“…3) it is a temporary role; and, 4) it is an egalitarian role in that one is leading and managing one's peers (Aziz et al 2005;Berdrow 2010;Boyko 2009;Branson et al 2015;Gonzalez 2010;Wolverton et al 2005). …”