‘Teamwork’ or ‘Working as a Team’? The Theory and Practice of Top Team Working in UK Higher Education

Abstract

This article focuses on the theory and practice of teamwork in 'top management teams' in UK higher education institutions. It is informed by some of the key findings from a recent two-year research project sponsored by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education that investigated the different ways in which UK higher education institutions organise their 'top management ' and 'senior management' structures (Kennie and Woodfield, 2008). The authors discuss literature from the corporate and higher education sectors on the meaning of 'teamwork' in top teams (e.g. Bensimon and Neumann, 1993;Katzenbach, 1998;Wageman et al., 2008) and relate the findings to the challenges of top level team working in higher education settings. Particular issues discussed include: the terminology related to higher education top teams, areas of decisionmaking and time-management, team orientation and agenda setting, team behaviours and team roles, team performance and evaluation, location, logistical support and resources, and team development.The authors conclude that the challenges of top team working in higher education settings are similar to those found in the corporate sector, albeit nuanced by different organisational cultures, and suggest some key principles to help top teams in higher education institutions improve their ability to work effectively together. Introduction and background

Teamwork benefits in tertiary education

“…The teams investigated, although comprised of undergraduate students at an Australian university, were real teams (Scribner et al, 2003;Sweeney et al, 2008;Woodfield and Kennie, 2008). Team members had interdependent relationships with one another and developed differentiated roles over the lifetime of the team, with the teams being homogenous within and heterogeneous between allowing a clear delineation between members and non-members (Gersick, 1988).…”

Strengthening the university executive: The expanding roles and remit of deputy and pro‐vice‐chancellors

“…At a theoretical level, this diversification of posts reflects the ‘dynamic tensions’ that characterise leadership and management in the contemporary university (Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, , p. 399), especially that between management and collegiality. That is because vice‐chancellors' decisions about executive team structures and members' activities reflect their own leadership values and beliefs (Woodfield & Kennie, ), including where they sit on the managerialism–collegiality continuum. The more managerial a vice‐chancellor's approach to the running of their university, the more managerial their interpretation—and expectations—of the DVC/PVC role.…”

“…These executive teams emerged as a support mechanism for vice‐chancellors as the range and complexity of management issues became too much for one person to deal with (Henkel, ). These days, the executive team may itself have support in the form of executive policy assistants (Middlehurst, ) and a wider senior management team, typically including deans and/or heads of department and directors of professional services (Woodfield & Kennie, , p. 398).…”

“…Since vice‐chancellors are the main determinant of an executive team's size and mode of operation, these vary from institution to institution (Middlehurst, ). However, there is a core membership common to virtually all executive teams (Woodfield & Kennie, ) comprising the vice‐chancellor, registrar/chief operating officer, director of finance, and the DVCs and PVCs who form the focus for this article.…”

Team learning: The missing construct from a cross-cultural examination of higher education

“…Current research on team learning in higher education has mainly focussed on students (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004;Jassawalla, Sashittal, & Malshe, 2009;Tashchian, Forrester, & Kalamas, 2014) and top management (Quian, Cao, & Takeuchi, 2013;Raes, Bruch, & De Jong, 2013;Woodfield & Kennie, 2008). Team learning among employees in higher education is an under-studied area of inquiry (Nissala, 2005), particularly in less developed countries.…”