I have spent the past two and a half decades working as a leadership researcher and educator in UK universities. Throughout much of this time I have studied leadership in higher education (HE) as well as experiencing it first-hand. I have taken on leadership roles — both formal and informal — and have witnessed the trials and tribulations of colleagues as they have endeavoured to navigate the complexities of this context. In this article I share reflections on what I have learnt, why it matters, and what we can (all) do to enhance the quality and inclusiveness of leadership in this important sector.

Why Higher Education Leadership Matters

To begin it’s worth considering why HE matters for leadership theory, practice, and development. My own interest in researching leadership in this context was sparked by early work on distributed leadership in schools (e.g., Gronn, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004). HE provided an obvious testbed for exploring how such ideas might apply to other educational settings — particularly those with more complex structures, cultures, identities, and performance outcomes. Although there is fairly widespread agreement that the key purpose of effective school leadership is to improve pupil outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2006), the same does not apply to universities. Whilst student outcomes are undoubtably important metrics — and if you are a student, parent, or potential employer, perhaps the ones that concerns you most — this is not the only criterion by which HE institutions (and their staff) are evaluated. Another essential area of activity for universities is research — typically assessed in terms of “high quality” publications as well as by the volume of funding secured. Alongside this are agendas for external engagement and impact, not to mention the very real concerns of keeping universities running as viable businesses. Together, the diversity of stakeholders and priorities in HE produces a complex and contested environment where people and organizations may feel pulled in different directions. Such issues are not unique to HE but do make it an interesting context in which to study leadership, with important insights for emerging areas of scholarship, including complexity leadership (Uhl Bien, 2021), paradoxical leadership (Smith, et al., 2016) and collective leadership (Ospina et al., 2020).

At the center of any analysis of leadership is the interconnection between purpose, values, and identity, yet the somewhat schizophrenic nature of academia disrupts these dynamics in ways that can produce a sense of disenchantment, disengagement, and alienation. The HE system (in the UK and elsewhere) is founded on competing values systems — emphasizing both normative aspects (such as public service, professional autonomy, collegial practice, and traditions) and utilitarian principles (such as profit-making, corporate management, customer service, and change), such that a university “considers itself (and others consider it), alternatively, or even simultaneously, to be different types of organisations” (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 270).

The hybrid nature of HE poses particular challenges for leaders trying to establish credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of those they seek to influence, as different stakeholders identify “more with members of their own subcultures rather than as members of the university” (Winter & O’Donohue, 2012, p. 566). This is particularly true of academics who, as knowledge workers, carry professional identities and affiliations that extend well beyond their immediate employer. Whilst these, and other factors, make HE a particularly rich and rewarding context in which to study leadership there remains surprisingly little robust empirical research in this area and the HE leadership literature tends to be fragmented according to the perspectives and ideologies of different groups (Macfalane, et al., 2024).

Crisis, What Crisis?

The conceptual complexities of leadership in HE may, in part, help explain some of the difficulties facing the sector. Universities were particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic (PWC, 2021) and whilst the immediate crisis may have passed, it has exposed deep-seated issues that have (by and large) remained below the surface for many years. In particular, accounts of “toxic” management are linked to widescale dissatisfaction, industrial action, and recruitment challenges in the sector (Watermeyer et al., 2021).

In a series of focus groups conducted as part of a project for Advance HE in Sept-Dec 2021 colleagues and I asked participants about the shifting context of global higher education (Watermeyer et al., 2022). Five key areas — policy, society, funding, students, and staff — were highlighted as impacting perceptions, experiences, and practices of leadership in contemporary HE. While the specifics of contextual issues varied between institutions and countries, there was strong agreement across the groups that current changes are producing tensions and challenges that are hard to resolve, as outlined in the following quote from a participant in Roundtable 1 with Heads of Departments and Deans.