Research and Development Series BASELINE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2009
Final Report John Burgoyne
Professor of Management Learning, Lancaster University Management School
Dr John Mackness
Teaching Fellow, Lancaster University Management School
Dr Sadie Williams
Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Education and Training, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University
Series 2: Publication 3
Research and Development Series BASELINE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2009
Final Report John Burgoyne
Professor of Management Learning, Lancaster University Management School
Dr John Mackness
Teaching Fellow, Lancaster University Management School
Dr Sadie Williams
Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Education and Training, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University
Series 2: Publication 3
Research and Development Series
Acknowledgements We are grateful for the advice and guidance given by colleagues at the Leadership Foundation; to those who took the time to respond to our questionnaire and to speak with us; and to colleagues who helped us with the institutional case studies. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by Abby Spencer who provided administrative support to the project and by David Allaway who undertook the research interviews. Professor John Burgoyne, Dr John Mackness, Dr Sadie Williams
First Published in December 2009 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Published by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Registered and operational address: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education First Floor, Holborn Gate 330 High Holborn London, WC1V 7QT England Tel: +44 (0)20 7849 6916 Fax: +44 (0)20 7849 6901 E-mail:
[email protected] www.lfhe.ac.uk © Leadership Foundation for Higher Education All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the copywrite owner. ISBN 978-1-906627-16-4 Designed & produced by Smith Creative Printed in the United Kingdom
1
Contents
Page
1. Executive summary 1.1 Overview . ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Findings from literature review ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Key findings . .............................................................................................................................. 4 2. Background 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Format of this report .............................................................................................................. 7 3. Literature review 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Investment in leadership development . ......................................................................... 8 3.3 Career progression in universities ................................................................................... 11 3.4 Leadership development and the learning organisation ....................................... 3.5 Review of Leadership Foundation reports ................................................................... 3.6 Comparative data – leadership development in other sectors ............................ 3.7 Messages for leadership development in higher education ................................. 4. Methodology 4.1 Overview of research methodology . ............................................................................. 5. The survey 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5.2 Survey findings ...................................................................................................................... 6. The interviews 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6.2 Interview findings ................................................................................................................. 7. Visits to institutions 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7.2 Case study institutions ........................................................................................................ 7.3 Key messages . ....................................................................................................................... 7.4 Interpretation of these messages . .................................................................................. 8. Discussion and analysis of findings 8.1 Summary of findings . .......................................................................................................... 8.2 Implications of the findings . ............................................................................................. References . ........................................................................................................................................... Appendices A Findings from consultation . .................................................................................................... B Leadership Foundation for Higher Education – Analysis of reports and their relevance for this study .................................................. C Short biographies ........................................................................................................................
11 13 13 17 19 20 20 44 44 57 57 58 59 61 64 67 70 73 78
2
Research and Development Series
1. Executive summary
such as Myers-Briggs, neuro-linguistic experiential team exercises, and so on.
programming,
1.1 Overview The research reported here has provided a baseline review of the current state of leadership development in higher education. It includes findings from the literature about best practice in leadership development as well as baseline research about leadership development in higher education, what is being spent and why, how much is being spent, and on what kinds of leadership development activities. The main findings of the research indicate that higher education has made significant progress with leadership development in recent years. Leadership development is high on the agendas of policy-makers and senior managers in higher education institutions (HEIs) and a wide variety of approaches to development are being used. There is also active consideration of what kinds of leadership development work best and in what contexts. Most leadership development in higher education is concentrated at present on individual leaders and their individual development. There is room therefore in the sector for more alignment of leadership development with strategic goals and with organisational change. There are also some gaps in provision, and some HEIs report having difficulty finding development opportunities which will have credibility with academics in higher education.
1.2 Findings from literature review Investment in leadership development Research shows that leadership development can be targeted at a number of levels: on senior leaders as individuals, on individual leaders up and down in any hierarchy, on top teams in terms of their collective rather than individual capability, and on the collective culture of the organisation. Initiatives targeting the first two are traditionally in the form of education, training and development; those targeting the latter two are organisation development and culture change initiatives. There is also an interesting trend towards hybrid programmes that seek to combine these two approaches. Survey research suggests that, in the UK at least, the majority of the leadership development budget (often around 80%) usually goes on the senior leaders as individuals (Burgoyne et al 2005). This is mirrored in the findings of the research reported here, which indicate a similar pattern. In terms of the content and pedagogy of leadership development programmes, there is enormous variety. Some elements occur frequently, for example: models of leadership style, Belbin’s team role models, Tuckman’s model of stages of team development, self-awareness through psychometrics
There is some evidence that what are known as contextsensitive methods are more effective than others. The main context-sensitive methods are the popular trilogy of coaching, mentoring and action learning. These methods are based around the challenges facing individual leaders and the strategies they are considering to meet them. It seems apparent from the literature that context-specific leadership development is one of the most effective kinds of management and leadership development. Institutional performance In organisations in general there seem to be three main forms of performance and performance measurement:
• •
•
Bottom-line and/or target-meeting performance (corresponding to the private and public sectors). The triple bottom line (financial/target meeting performance, environmental responsibility [in the green sense] and corporate social responsibility [Elkington 1998]). This is sometimes supplemented by a fourth: duty of care to employees. Multi-stakeholder satisfactoriness – usually manifest in the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996).
The performance criteria in use for universities can probably all be classified as mixes of these three. Like much or all of the public sector, HEIs have forms of institutional performance related to their mission, and financial performance is a more complex indicator than in the private sector. As the Guest and Clinton (2007) report shows, the main inter-correlating cluster of performance areas for HEIs are research, teaching and student progression. One thing that is interesting to observe about the performance of UK universities is that they never, or very rarely, fail. In practice, universities rarely move up or down more than one or two places in the various league tables on a year-by-year basis. Universities are not generally subject to massive or quick success or failure, and this is mainly because they have not, to date, been subject to the same market forces as the private sector. Enhancing leadership and management capability Research suggests that leadership development works, in terms of contributing to organisational performance, if and only if it is part of a ‘bundle’ of activities in which other elements are present and integrated with leadership development. The three broad parts of the bundle are acquisition, development and utilisation. Acquisition includes the recruitment of people
3
with the ability to lead or the potential to become leaders, and the recruitment of whole teams or organisational units acquired in mergers and takeovers. Development includes all formal and informal initiatives on education, training and individual development, organisational development, and also the natural learning that goes on without deliberate facilitation. Utilisation includes performance management, career development and reward systems, together with organisation design and redesign. Career progression in universities Charan et al (2000) propose a powerful and useful way of thinking about the effectiveness of the ‘leadership pipeline’ in organisations. Normally business professionals start their careers managing themselves as team members, progress to managing teams (first-line management), then managing groups of managers and teams, then managing a function (production, marketing etc) and from there they progress to managing a business unit containing all or many functions, then to being a group manager dealing with a cluster of business units, and finally, possibly, to being a member of the team managing the whole organisation. Obviously people climb on and off this ladder at different points.
organisations work on the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ principle; adaptive organisations see changes coming and reorganise themselves to have a better chance of survival in these emerging circumstances; and generative organisations understand the system they are part of and intervene ‘out there’ to change the rules of the game to their advantage. This model goes a long way to explaining the seeming paradox exemplified by universities, particularly the ancient ones, that the longest surviving organisations do not seem to have the characteristics of continuously changing adaptive organisations. Adaptive organisations fly in currents of continuous turbulence, much of which they create for each other, while generative organisations fly above this in calmer air currents. Findings from comparative data Research indicates that some companies are much more effective than others at leadership development. This raises the question, why are these companies so good? The Hay Group in a 2007 survey for Chief Executive magazine identified the following best practices as contributing towards this success:
•
Having leaders at all levels who focus on creating a work climate that motivates employees to perform at their best. Ensuring that the company and its senior management make leadership development a top priority. Providing training and coaching to help intact leadership teams, as well as the individual leaders, work together more effectively. Rotational job assignments for high potentials. External leadership development programmes for midlevel managers. Web-based self-study leadership modules for mid-level managers. Executive MBA programmes for mid-level managers.
Applying this model to UK universities, academics can be seen as starting with managing themselves, then perhaps progressing to managing a programme, a department or a research team. They may progress to leadership of schools or faculties, and to senior leadership roles such as pro-vicechancellor and vice-chancellor. Different pipelines apply to professional services and academic support functions. Applications of this approach may help to identify where leadership development programmes can usefully assist particular passages and transitions, what these programmes need to do and how they might differ from each other.
•
Leadership development and the learning organisation The scale of integration of management development with career management (Burgoyne’s ladder, Burgoyne 1988) can be seen as correlating with organisational performance through a series of stages, ranging from Stage 1 with no systematic management development and no systematic career management, through to Stage 5 with management and leadership development and career planning being not only part of implementing new strategies but also about contributing to deciding what these should be, and Stage 6 where management and leadership development work directly on forming and implementing organisational strategy and developing the capability to do this.
The study also flagged activities that do not add value – at least not if the goal is to identify and develop leaders:
Organisations can also be seen in terms of Senge (1990)’s three levels as reactive, adaptive and generative. Reactive
• • • • •
• • • •
Outdoor activity-based programmes. Paper-based self-study leadership modules. Job shadowing for senior managers. Executive MBAs and web-based self-study modules became worst practices when implemented too late in the executive’s career.
Messages for leadership development in higher education It is the attention to talent and its management that marks out the most effective top companies in the business world. It is clear that top companies take leadership development very seriously and are continuously monitoring the development
4
Research and Development Series
of talented people as they move up the organisation into senior positions. The literature seems to indicate that there is a recognisable set of principles about best practice in leadership development practised by top-performing companies, the prerequisites of which are the creation of a motivating work climate, the recognition that leadership development is a top priority and the capability to provide training and coaching to help intact leadership teams, as well as the individual leaders, to work together more effectively. The implications for higher education seem to be that higher education leaders should review their selection and promotion processes and the way in which they support people in leadership positions, especially in understanding their responsibilities and accountabilities. Organisations which appear in the top leadership league tables deliberately invest in the recognition and development of their leaders. In addition the senior managers and the CEO spend a great deal of time thinking about how to develop most effectively the skills required by leaders. Leadership development in top companies is ongoing and integrated, linking a variety of developmental practices with a person’s own work. It is necessary to address the question of whether these lessons from external organisations can be generalised to HEIs. We believe that, fundamentally, the answer is yes, and observe that in many ways, with the emergence of the knowledge economy, these other organisations increasingly have attributes in common with HEIs. It may, however, be the case that many of the processes involved are embedded in different ways. Outside HEIs many of the processes are embedded in systems and procedures, while inside HEIs they may be more embedded in cultural and ‘soft’ processes, particularly for the pre-1992 universities.
1.3 Methodology Three main tools were used to gather the data for this study. First of all a survey was undertaken of all HEIs in the UK using a questionnaire. Second, interviews and institutional visits were undertaken with a sample of 20% of the HEIs who responded to the survey. The survey was administered online and a hard copy was sent out, the interviews were carried out by telephone and the institutional visits involved face-to-face interviews. Finally, and as an additional activity, since the original data was gathered in the spring to summer of 2008, before the full onset of the ‘economic downturn’, the Leadership Foundation released a consultation document which presented the key findings from the survey originally carried out, and asked for
feedback from HEIs about the results. The main aim of this was to highlight any changes in practice or intention in relation to leadership development which had occurred since the autumn of 2008 and the onset of recession. This is included as Appendix A.
1.4 Key findings Key findings from the survey, telephone interviews, and case studies 1. Broadly speaking, leadership development is increasing in importance in higher education. The survey found that there was a strategy for leadership development in most of the institutions studied (70%), and the majority of those leadership development strategies had been updated in the last three years. This was confirmed in the case studies, where the legitimacy of investing in leadership and management development was recognised increasingly by all the universities visited. 2. Responsibility for leadership development strategy is often with the HR director, although it is also sometimes with vice-chancellors, staff development managers, and PVCs. 3. The main aims of leadership development focus on developing individuals, although not exclusively. Top aims concerning individuals were to develop capacity for future roles, and to support people in preparing for new roles. At a broader level, implementing new organisational strategies was also a top aim. 4. A wide range of kinds of leadership development were invested in – the most popular being short courses in one’s own institution, short courses with external providers, and funding for individual development (eg coaching, mentoring, and executive development). In keeping with the aims, the survey showed that the greatest amount of leadership development was aimed at individuals rather than at groups or teams. 5. Evidence from the interviews and case studies indicates that in many universities leadership development also takes place more informally, for example through networks of collegiate processes, through head of department/ school/faculty meetings, senior management team meetings and the like. 6. Frameworks to support leadership development are often underdeveloped, although post-1992 HEIs are more likely to use a framework than pre-1992 HEIs. Where there was a framework for leadership development this was most likely to consist of competencies, and a management development framework or programme. 7. Leadership development is gradually becoming more integrated into institutional strategies and organisational development programmes. In the survey, the majority of respondents (86%) reported that the leadership development strategy was integrated with other strategies
5
in the institution. However, a closer examination of the survey responses, interview data and case studies shows that there is still an emphasis on individually focused education, training and development, rather than organisational development. This suggests that although there is some integration, and it is growing, most HEIs are still at a relatively early stage in their understanding of the possible role of leadership development as a potential catalyst for organisational change. This is especially apparent when compared with private sector organisations where the integration of leadership with organisational development is often very advanced. 8. Nearly all institutions undertook some kind of measurement of leadership capability and performance, especially at senior levels. By far the most common kind of measurement of leadership capability was the annual appraisal. In addition, performance targets, 360-degree feedback, and probationary leadership periods were used. 9. Methods for evaluating leadership development activities were varied. Two-thirds of responding institutions engaged with some kind of evaluation of the effectiveness of investment in leadership development (including, for example, evaluation forms, participant feedback, general post-programme evaluation, and follow-up interviews). However, evidence from the case studies and interviews suggests that much evaluation is of an informal kind. Explicit and systematic evaluation is not the norm. 10. Respondents were often unclear about how effective leadership development was. The survey showed that most respondents (78%) believe that their investment gives value for money. Interestingly, however, this was in contrast to the interview findings, where there was considerable uncertainty over whether the investment in leadership development had had an impact. This can possibly be attributed to there being a belief that leadership development was broadly effective, but more doubts and questions as to exactly how it was effective surfacing when respondents were probed more deeply in the interviews. What did emerge clearly from both the survey and the interviews was that coaching, mentoring and executive development were thought to be the most effective kinds of leadership development. The interviews also showed that many have concerns about finding the right kind of leadership development. 11. Total budgets for leadership development varied widely, with the majority being less than £100,000 per annum. Although larger institutions generally had higher budgets, the average spend per employee was actually highest in the small institutions. In general, spend on leadership development is increasing modestly across the sector, but not significantly. 12. Leadership and management development is somewhat
more developed in post-1992 than in pre-1992 HEIs. The post-1992 HEIs do not have ‘rotating heads’ at department level, and they tend to have already adopted leadership competence frameworks which are used for recruitment, selection and performance management. There is also some evidence from the case studies that in the older universities, academic leadership often conforms more to what might be called an ‘umbrella’ model of leadership: that is protecting staff from interventions from above so that they can concentrate on teaching and research work. 13. Despite the advances in leadership development in recent years, there remain several barriers to leadership development in HEIs. These include, for example, the perception, especially in pre-1992 institutions, that leadership along with management is an administrative and therefore low-level job. Another is the policy of rotating staff in HOD and faculty management positions, which makes continuity and consistency of approach hard to sustain. Discussion and analysis of findings Need for integration of leadership development There is a need for leadership development in higher education to be better integrated into:
• • • • •
• •
Organisation development with teamwork and culture change initiatives at all levels. Developing performance management systems, integrated with leadership development. Developing career planning and succession planning systems, integrated with leadership development. Helping to introduce more systematic practices on the evaluation of leadership development initiatives. Encouraging the development of programmes for academic, and professional and support staff to assist with new hybrid roles. In many cases, this means developing programmes for all staff together, rather than separately. Assisting with the sharing of learning from across the sector. Running enhanced senior leadership programmes, combining the best of sector-specific focus and exposure to practice and practitioners from other public and private sectors.
The role of leadership development We found that the UK university investment in leadership (and management) development is at a level, both in terms of how much money and other resource is used and the kind of activity invested in, that is sufficient for the maintenance rather than the transformation of the system. There is a strong preponderance towards leader rather than leadership development.
6
Research and Development Series
In contrast, a review of best practice in leadership development practised by top performing companies and professional practice partnerships identified prerequisites for the adoption of best practice principles as the creation of a motivating work climate, the recognition that leadership development is a top priority and the capability to provide training and coaching to help intact leadership teams, as well as the individual leaders, to work together more effectively. Findings in relation to Burgoyne’s ladder Using Burgoyne’s ladder as a model of how leadership development can be understood in different organisational contexts, the findings of the research show that in UK higher education, leadership development is at a relatively early stage with many institutions at the basic levels. Few are operating at a level in which leadership development is keyed into a wider organisational strategy with visible senior management support. This contrasts with companies such as General Electric (GE) which can be positioned at level 6 of the ladder, with the CEO declaring that he spends 30% of his time on leadership development. There is also the question of whether the ‘ladder’ applies equally to HEIs and other kinds of organisations. We believe that it can, but that the way in which it is delivered may vary. In HEIs, particularly the pre-1992 universities, the processes are likely to be more embodied in the soft systems of culture rather than in hard systems and procedures. This proposition
may then lead us to underestimate the level of leadership development in HEIs. How to move up the ladder without investing huge amounts of money? Although the figures are not completely transparent for the amount of money invested in leadership development in organisations (and in HEIs), higher education institutions appear to be spending a very similar proportion to that spent in GE, the top leadership and leadership development company. An interesting question then emerges – how can HEIs spend the money they have more effectively? In order to move up the ladder, HEIs can learn from the good practice of the top performing companies. We have identified a number of these practices such as: spotting talent early, investing in talented people at every level, linking investment to wider strategic needs and constantly evaluating and learning from (and publicising) the results. Clearly, there is a cost involved in these ideas, but as many writers point out, it is very easy to ‘waste money’ on generic courses. Leadership development which is carried out in a way which stimulates groups and individuals to develop themselves and address the institution’s issues at the same time can generate a high return, as is clear from the top performers in the private sector.
7
2. Background 2.1 Introduction This study was commissioned by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. The Leadership Foundation’s aim was to undertake a baseline study of the current levels and nature of investment in leadership development by higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK and to provide an analysis of the kind, amount and value of such leadership development. A team from Lancaster University was selected to undertake the research. The research objectives were to benchmark the current state of leadership development in higher education. This is an under-researched area and one in which the findings should be of great interest to senior leaders in the education sector. Leadership capability in higher education is a key issue today and the research will contribute to our understanding of the ways in which the leadership development available to senior managers can be improved and extended. The research has involved a literature review combined with a number of strands of original data collection, including a survey, interviews, case study visits, and later, a further consultation. The findings of the research enable HEIs to benchmark their current provision for leadership development against that of other institutions. We believe that institutions will find this useful as a management tool.
2.2 Format of this report Section 1 provides an Executive Summary of the findings of the research. Section 2 gives a brief background and introduction to the research. Section 3 reviews the literature and makes some comparisons with other sectors. Section 4 details the methodology used in the study. Sections 5, 6, and 7 respectively report the findings from the survey, interviews, and institutional visits. Section 8 offers discussion, analysis and implications of the findings, and recommendations arising from the research. The findings from the consultation are presented in Appendix A. Appendix B provides summaries of some aspects of the Leadership Foundation’s previous research which are relevant to this project. Appendix C is a benchmarking tool designed by the team as a result of the research which can be used by higher education institutions as a comparison between themselves and the sector in general.
8
Research and Development Series
3. Literature Review
Figure 2: Where is leadership capability? Human Capital and Social Capital
3.1 Introduction
Leadership by the few
This literature review includes consideration of the following topics: 1. What is invested in, and how is this presumed to ‘work’? 2. What is the leadership and management capability that the investments are presumed to enhance? 3. What are the forms of institutional performance for universities that might be enhanced by the application of enhanced leadership and management capability, and how might this work? 4. What are the conditions under which enhanced leadership and management capability can be created and applied to increase organisational performance? 5. How does management and leadership development fit with and support the avenues of leadership and management career progression in universities? 6. How does leadership and management development fit with the idea of the learning organisation? Underlying this framing of these questions is the idea of the two-link value chain from management and leadership development to organisational and societal benefit. This suggests that investment in leadership development creates, if successful, leadership capability, the first link; and that when this is in turn exercised it should work to the benefit of the performance of the organisation, the second link. In this study, we are primarily interested in investment at the front end of this value chain, and the intended and achieved effects of this investment to the end of the chain. Figure 1: The two-link value chain Learning
Management development programme
Management
Management capability
Leadership by the many
HERO
EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT
TOP TEAM
CULTURE STRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
Human Capital individual capacity DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
Social Capital collective capacity
HYBRIDS
ORGANISATION CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
(Burgoyne 2006)
Leadership development can be targeted towards senior leaders as individuals (top left); top teams in terms of their collective rather than individual capability (top right); individual leaders up and down any hierarchy (bottom left); or on the collective culture of the organisation (bottom right). Initiatives targeting the left-hand side are traditionally in the form of education, training and development while those targeting the right are organisational development and culture change initiatives. There is also an interesting trend towards hybrid programmes that seek to combine both approaches (Mintzberg and Gosling 2002). Survey research suggests that, in the UK at least, the majority (often around 80%) of management/leadership development budgets (ie the budget allocated for management/leadership development, rather than the whole of the HRD/staff development budget), goes on the top left and on people on a ‘fast track’ career heading for those roles (Burgoyne et al 2005). This data was taken from a cross-section of all kinds of UK organisations, public, private and charitable sectors.
Performativity
Organisational performance
Wealth (well-being)
In terms of what the money is spent on, and in terms of the content and pedagogy of the programmes, there is on the one hand enormous variety (Huczynski 1983, 1987, 2001), but on the other hand there are some ‘regulars’ that appear in all kinds of programmes. These include:
(Burgoyne 2006)
• • •
3.2 Investment in leadership development
•
This section looks at what the spend on leadership development is invested in, and how it is presumed to ‘work’. A useful framework for considering the ‘target’ of leadership development is:
• •
Context
Models of leadership style. Belbin’s team role models (Belbin 1981). Tuckman’s model of stages of team development (Tuckman 1965). Self awareness through psychometrics like Myers-Briggs (Hirsh 1991, Myers and Myers 1980). Neuro-linguistic programming (Bandler and Grinder 1979). Experiential team exercises like raft building followed by de-brief, and so on.
9
On the novelty side, there appears to be no human activity that someone will not pass off as leadership development: walking on burning coals, contemplating cacti, pruning bonsai trees, paint-balling, horse-whispering and so on. One private study involving consultants using a whole variety of these methods suggested that the choice of activity did not matter – the effect was simply due to getting people together to get to know each other and practise influence and team work. Mangham and Pye (1991) provide a theoretical explanation for this – that it is the script-breaking effect of the novelty rather than the specifics of the novelty itself that is the effective ingredient. This could account for the constant churn of methods since they may lose their effectiveness once the novelty wears off.
generalisations that can be justified in the area of management and leadership development (Burgoyne et al 2004). Leadership and management capability Almost all organisations have leadership and management competency or capability frameworks through which they seek to define for themselves (in a context-sensitive way for their organisations) what they consider to be leadership and management ‘capability’, and hence what they aim to enhance with investments in leadership and management development. What is interesting is that practitioners and academics are both highly critical of these frameworks, but these do not go away. Adrian Furnham (2005) explains this as the TINA principle – There Is (or appears to be) No Alternative. Critical academics demonstrate this in their lives as corporate citizens when they discuss the head of department or vice-chancellor that they would like to work for, and almost inevitably come up with a list of desired characteristics. One of the more important lines of criticism is that academics, on the surface, favour the left hand side of the diagram (figure 2). However some organisations attempt to relate their competency frameworks to more collective statements of core organisational values and competencies.
There is some evidence that what are known as contextsensitive methods are disproportionately more effective (Horne and Stedman Jones 2001, Mabey and Thomson 2000). Contextsensitive methods are represented by the popular trilogy of coaching, mentoring and action learning. What makes them context-sensitive is that what goes on forms to a significant extent, around the actual challenges facing the developing leader at that time, specifically their perception of the challenges and what they are considering doing about them. The whole idea that what works in terms of leadership and leadership development is highly context-specific is one of the few Figure 3: Integrated management and leadership excellence Innovative Thinking
Delegate Work Develop People & Teams
Inspire Shared Vision
Manage Self
Selection & Succession
Forward Thinking
Decide During Crisis
Systems Thinking
Market Thinking
Strategic Thinking
Develop Trust & Respect Manage & Lead People
Maintain Activities Manage Activities
Improve Activities
Improve Performance
Change Activities
Critical Reflective Thinking
Manage Activities
Talk Vision
Lives Values
Create Values
Promote Challenge Taking Risks
Lead Direction & Culture
Manage Quality
Manage Resources
Use of Physical Resources
Manage Projects Manage Information
Promote Benefits
Secure Finances Effective Targeting
Excellence in Management & Leadersip
Review Operations
Audit Quality
Celebrate Success
Monitor Compliance
Advise & Support
Continuously Improve
Contribute to Closure
Plan Projects
Provide Information
Act on Information
Co-ordinate Run Projects
Interpret Information
Take decisions
Use of Financial Resources
Determine Effective Use
Contribute to Plans
Facilitate Meetings Implement Systems
Energy Efficiency
Establish Systems
Complete Projects
Key Thinking Abilities People Abilities Task Abilities
10
Research and Development Series
The most comprehensive review of management and leadership competency frameworks, carried out between 2000 and 2002 by and for the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (Perren and Burgoyne 2002) came up with the following summary model: This is based on a content analysis of the available models of management and leadership capability. It is not a meta analysis of characteristics that have been shown by research to underlie effective performance. Quite a small number of the frameworks considered are based on an attempt at such an empirical justification and they are probably all methodologically criticisable. However this is a comprehensive review of the terms in which management and leadership capability is discussed. There are really two dimensions, and these encompass the leadership–management debate. Firstly there is the strategic– operational distinction or dimension, and secondly there is the ‘hard–soft’ dimension – dealing with material resources including money and data/information, and the soft side dealing with people, culture and beliefs. Institutional performance UK universities are explicitly ranked and graded for research excellence, teaching quality, and to a lesser extent for the efficiency of administrative systems. They are also rated in various league tables produced by the media, accountable for financial performance, the meeting of specific targets (eg class, gender and ethnicity mix of students), and judged in various ways for growth and development. In organisations in general, there seem to be three main forms of performance and performance measurement:
• •
•
Bottom-line and/or target-meeting performance (corresponding to the private and public sectors). The triple bottom line (financial/target meeting performance, environmental responsibility [in the green sense] and corporate social responsibility [Elkington 1998]). This is sometimes supplemented by a fourth: duty of care to employees. Multi-stakeholder satisfactoriness – usually manifest in the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996).
The performance criteria in use for universities can probably all be classified as mixes of these three. In common with the public sector, HEIs have forms of institutional performance related to their mission, and financial performance is a more complex indicator than in the private sector. This is shown in the Guest and Clinton (2007) report, which also reports the main intercorrelating cluster of performance areas for HEIs as research, teaching and student progression.
One thing that is interesting to observe about the performance of UK universities is that they very rarely or never fail. Established private sector firms are said to have a life expectancy of about half the human life cycle – 35-40 years (Senge 1990). Arie de Geus (De Geus 1997) searched for the oldest private sector organisation and found the Swedish firm Stora at 300 years. Even the newest universities have some history; take for example Bedfordshire (previously Luton) University which can be traced back to the formation of Luton Technical College 50 years ago. The ancients, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews, for example, can be traced back to the 10th century or before, and thus compete in terms of age with church and state institutions. Universities have not, to date, been subject to the same market forces as has the private sector. In practice, universities rarely move up or down more than one or two places in the various league tables on a year-by-year basis and do not seem to be capable of massive and quick success (such as Google or Microsoft) or failure such as, for example, Marconi as the successor to GEC. Nor does it seem possible for universities to be brought up, or pulled down by one senior leader such as, for example, Marconi (whose demise in 2001-02 was widely attributed to Lord Simpson of Dunkeld’s strategy – which he later disputed – of spending a £2bn cash pile which had been inherited from the old GEC and using £4bn for the over-priced acquisition of two US internet equipment companies). One might conclude for UK universities, and particularly the ancients, that they are led as much or more by their culture and history as by their current senior leaders, and indeed the latter are probably more chosen by the former, than the latter produce or design the former. Enhancing leadership and management capability It has been suggested that leadership development works, in terms of contributing to organisational performance if, and only if, it is part of a ‘bundle’ of activities in which the other activities are present and integrated with leadership development (Burgoyne 2006). The three broad parts of the bundle are acquisition, development and utilisation.
•
•
•
Acquisition includes the recruitment of people with the ability to lead or the potential to become leaders, and the recruitment, or acquisition in mergers and takeovers, of whole teams or organisational units. Development includes all formal and informal initiatives on education, training, individual and organisational development; also the natural learning that goes on without deliberate facilitation. Utilisation includes performance management, career
11
development and reward systems, together with organisation design and redesign. This idea mirrors the similar idea about the effect of Human Resource Management (HRM) practices on organisational performance (Huselid 1995). In the case of leadership development, there is not only the logical argument – that leadership development is not going to work unless it is applied to people with the potential to be leaders, and the product is not going to be used unless organisational systems enable and encourage this – but there is also empirical evidence. Research has shown (in privatesector firms) that there is a positive correlation between the degree of integration of management development with the management of managerial careers, and organisational performance (Fox et al 1990, Fox and McLeay 1992). This study measured performance as return on capital employed set against the average for the industrial sector.
3.3 Career progression in universities Charan et al (2001) propose a powerful and useful way of thinking about the effectiveness of the ‘leadership pipeline’ in organisations. The pipeline is about leadership careers, and they posit that development help is needed at a number of key transition points where there is major change in the kind of leadership required. Their key diagram is shown in figure 4. Figure 4: Critical career passages in large business organisations anager
P5
P3
Figure 5: Burgoyne’s ladder
er
P4
functional
manager
e manager
manag
P2
It is not obvious that all the stretches of the pipeline join up that easily in the university world. It may also be the case, for academics at least, that there is a non-reversible parting of the ways where individuals either go on to become bigger and better professional academics or go into academic leadership, management and administration. However applications of this approach may help identify where leadership development programmes can usefully assist particular passages and transitions, what these need to do and how they might differ from each other.
The scale of integration of management development with career management that was reported above as correlating with organisational performance is illustrated in figure 5.
group man ag anager business m
A key proposition is that there are, in this GE version, six significant passage points where specific management/ leadership development initiatives are needed to help people make these transitions. The model has been adapted to different organisations, for example a British bank, where the stages and transition points vary. For UK universities all academics can be seen as starting with managing themselves, then perhaps progressing to managing a programme, a department or a research team. They may progress to leadership of schools or faculties, and to senior leadership roles such as pro-vice-chancellor and vice-chancellor. Different pipelines would, of course, apply to professional and other functions in HEIs.
3.4 Leadership development and the learning organisation
m enterprise
P6
to managing a business unit containing all or many functions, then to being a group manager dealing with a cluster of business units, and finally, possibly to being a member of the team managing the whole organisation. Obviously people climb on and off this ladder at different points.
manage ot
hers
lf
manage se
P1
Stage 6: strategic development of the management of corporate policy Stage 5: management development strategy input to corporate policy formation
P1-6= significant passages
Stage 4: a management development strategy to implement corporate policy
This model is based on a major case study of General Electric (GE), mentioned elsewhere in this report as a global leading example of leadership and leadership development good practice. Normally professionals (in this case, often engineers) start their careers managing themselves as team members, progress to managing teams – first line management, then managing groups of managers and teams, then managing a function – production, marketing etc. From there they progress
Stage 3: integrated and co-ordinated structural and development tactics Stage 2: isolated tactical management development Stage 1: no systematic management development
(Burgoyne 1988, 1992, 1999)
12
Research and Development Series
At stage 1, there is no systematic management development and no systematic career management, eg succession planning. At stage 2, there is one or other or both, but they are not connected or integrated. For example, possible candidates for succession and the development they would require are not identified, or when development is planned it is not done in the light of specific plans to develop a person for their current role or some future planned one. At stage 3, management development and career management are integrated and the relevant practices are in place. However these activities are carried out on the assumption that the current organisational structure, as represented in its organisational chart or the like, is stable and is a reliable map over which careers may be planned. However this is not often the case, and many organisations are being more or less continually restructured in response to a mixture of new strategy implementation and response to crisis. So, at stage 3, management and leadership development supports a too static view of the future, which could be considered ironic if leadership is about creating and responding to the future. At stage 4, everything that goes on at stage 3 still happens, but these activities are geared towards implementing strategy and responding to crises. Thus as new structures emerge, career planning and management development are used to implement them. Longer-term development, and management of career expectations, is geared to living with and coping in uncertainty. At stage 5, management and leadership development and career planning are not only part of implementing new strategies, but also about contributing to deciding what they should be. This is exemplified by working on live organisational strategic issues in development programmes, and listening to people’s visions of possible futures in career discussions. Finally, at stage 6, management and leadership development directly work on forming and implementing organisational strategy and developing the capability to do this. The primary data for this ladder is based on the private sector in the UK, but we believe that it applies, albeit in different ways, in the higher education sector. In the learning organisation, as formulated by Pedler et al (1996) individual and organisational learning are linked, and operations are informed by strategy, but strategy is developed in light of the experience of the consequences of operational implementation. This condition is achieved at stage 5 and above in the ladder framework.
Informal research suggests that most organisations are around stages 3 and 4 on the scale, with small tails to this distribution either side of this. It also suggests that senior and HR managers viewing organisations from the top tend to rate them higher than more junior staff viewing them from below. Senge (Senge 1990), in a different approach to learning organisations, has suggested that organisations can be at one of three progressive levels, and that those at the highest level are better in terms of viability and survivability and the development of the broader system of which they are a part. This is consistent with Bateson’s (1973) view that evolutionary process is not only achieved through the reproduction of units of survival with the better characteristics of environmental adaptation, but also the expansion of the unit of survival – we learn to collaborate as part of tribes and have a better chance of survival than we do if we operate as a ‘sole trader’. The three levels Senge suggests are reactive; adaptive; and generative.
•
•
•
Reactive organisations work on the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ principle and only change in reaction to current and real pain. The trouble with this is that by the time the problem has reached such a stage, it may be too late to fix it. Adaptive organisations see changes coming and reorganise themselves to have a better chance of survival in these emerging circumstances – this is the basis of the dynamically changing organisation and the approach to strategy formation that begins with forecasting environmental change. The generative organisation understands the system it is part of and intervenes ‘out there’ to change the rules of the game to its advantage – an example being First Direct changing the rules of insurance selling by going for a telephone service rather than a network of regional offices and door-to-door salespeople. Other firms were quick to follow this example, which was later transferred to the internet world. Leading generative organisations are copied by others and hence change entire sectors.
Binns (1994) points out that the amoeba reacts to the shortage of water by shrivelling up into a small jelly-like lump that regenerates if and when the water comes back. If it does not it eventually turns to dust. The human being, as a more advanced system, does not do this, though it can to a degree if there is no alternative. Human beings dig wells and set up water systems – we intervene in the environment to make it less likely that the problem will occur in the first place. This is the generative strategy (the alternative strategy to simple Darwinian environmental adaptation labelled ‘autopoesis’ by Maturana and Valera [1980]). Another example is, perhaps, the
13
Roman Catholic Church which does not do market research into changing attitudes to contraception and adapt its policies to meet them (the adaptive strategy); instead, it seeks to inculcate its values in the young of its community.
considers what the top companies do in terms of leadership development; how important leadership development is for them; what the relevance of this experience is to higher education; and what HEIs could potentially learn from this.
The model of generative organisations goes a long way towards explaining the seeming paradox exemplified by universities, particularly the ancient ones, that the longestsurviving institutions do not seem to have the characteristics of continuously changing adaptive organisations. It could be suggested that adaptive organisations fly in currents of continuous turbulence, much of which they create for each other, while generative organisations fly above this, in calmer air currents.
Top companies for leaders in the world Several publications rank companies using the criteria of quality of leadership. For example, Fortune Magazine (Fortune Best Companies 2007) runs a competition to pick the 20 best companies for leaders in the world. This is open to organisations of any type (public, private, or non-profit) from any location, with revenues of any size. In 2006, 563 companies from around the globe participated. They completed a detailed questionnaire that examined factors influencing leader quality and depth in organisations. All entries were analysed for responses that were consistent with strong leadership practices. A panel of judges, composed of authors, academics and journalists, gathered in each region to select and rank the 2007 Top Companies for Leaders’ lists in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America. The judges considered many variables in selecting and ranking the lists, including survey and interview data, company reputation, leadership culture and values, and proven track record. The top companies in this survey and two other surveys are presented in table 1.
3.5 Review of Leadership Foundation reports We have reviewed all available LFHE reports. All are of interest, containing useful ideas and evidence, and they vary in their relevance to our inquiry and report. Many are relevant to the challenges facing HEIs, and the changing nature of leadership and management in higher education; they are also relevant to the content of leadership development initiatives and to those for whom such initatives are most appropriately targeted. These reports are less relevant to leadership development as a process. One at least (Guest and Clinton 2007) is about HR practices in higher education, which is very much about the context for leadership development. Guest and Clinton (2007) deal with Human Resource Management and report a mix of centralisation and decentralisation, and also a mixed picture with regard to HR representation on top management teams. Key problems at the time of the study (2006) were industrial relations, leadership and resource problems. There was an increasing trend to link HR to strategy. The most frequent policies mentioned were about new staff development and performance appraisal, and most were intended to take performance management further. It is not clear that the activities attracting most attention address the most important problems. Much of what we conclude in our report fits with the need to accelerate some of the changes slowly taking place via HR initiatives. Guest and Clinton also report that, at that time, there was no correlation between HR practices in the HEIs surveyed and organisational performance (but did not have the resources to investigate why this might be). Some of the integration that we suggest of leadership development with other HR processes could help with this issue.
3.6 Comparative data - leadership development in other sectors The purpose of this review of comparative data is to investigate what counts as best practice in leadership development in organisations in the public and private sectors. This section
The second ranking is carried out by Executive Excellence Publishing which produces ‘the best advisory newsletter in the world’ (Blanchard 2006), entitled ‘Leadership Excellence’ (Leadership Excellence Best in Leadership Development 2007). They researched 1,000 organisations to determine the best leadership development programmes and practices based on seven criteria: 1. Vision/mission. Are the statements from the programmes and activities linked to strategy, meaningful to participants, and focused on target outcomes? 2. Involvement and participation. How broad is the organisational involvement and how deep the participation? 3. Measurement and accountability. What Return on Investment (ROI) measures are made and reported and to what degree is accountability for performance and results part of the programmes and practices? 4. Design, content, and curriculum. How well designed are the programmes and practices? How credible is the content? How relevant is the curriculum? How customised are the programmes? 5. Presenters, presentations, and delivery. What are the qualifications of the presenters, how effective are their presentations, and how are the programmes delivered? 6. Take-home value. What do participants take away and apply to improve themselves, their families, their teams, and their volunteer work?
14
Research and Development Series
7. Outreach. What is the impact of the programmes and activities on stakeholders?
companies and interviews with relevant academics and search firm executives. The rankings are shown in table 1.
There were several similarities between this Executive Excellence Publishing list and Fortune’s although the criteria were not the same. GE was top in both.
Although the three surveys agree about the top two companies, there is considerable difference between the surveys below the top two. This could be explained by the different criteria used in the ranking and possibly by the level of cooperation they received in their communications with the companies. It also probably means that the survey process itself contains inconsistencies in terms of how leadership development is defined and understood.
The third ranking is from Chief Executive magazine which commissioned Hay Group to survey 564 companies with at least $8bn in revenue from around the world (Consultantnews 2007). Data was collected from three sources: surveys of leaders within the companies, surveys of leaders from peer Table 1: Comparative rankings
Fortune Survey ranking
Exec Excellence ranking
Chief Executive ranking
General Electric
1
1
1
Procter & Gamble
2
3
2
Nokia
3
Hindustan Unilever
4
Capital One Financial
5
General Mills
6
McKinsey
7
IBM
8
BBVA
9
Infosys Technologies
10
Inditex, S.A.
11
Medtronic, Inc.
12
Eli Lilly and Company
13
McDonald’s Corporation
14
Whirlpool Corporation
15
Natura Cosméticos
16
GlaxoSmithKline
17
Australia and New Zealand Banking Gp
18
ICICI Bank
19
WIPRO
20
Company
5
15
9
22
17
Southwest Airlines
2
Caterpillar University
4
Boeing
6
Yahoo
7
Countrywide Financial
8
Qualcomm
9
Motorola University
10
General Motors University
11
Wachovia Corp.
12
FedEx/Eli
13
Microsoft
14
Colgate Palmolive
16
Ikea US
17
12
15
Company
Fortune Survey ranking
Exec Excellence ranking
Pfizer
18
Ritz-Carlton Hotels
19
Dow Leadership Institute
20
JetBlue Airways
21
Disney Institute
23
Best Buy
24
Home Depot
25
Chief Executive ranking
8
Pepsico
3
Citigroup
4
Johnson & Johnson
5
HSBC Holdings
6
BASF
7
Coca Cola
10
Dell
11
Novartis
13
Verizon Communications
14
Nestle
15
Lockheed Martin
16
Amgen
18
Hewlett Packard
19
BAE Systems
20
The companies in the Hay Group survey (Consultant-news 2007) have an average five-year total shareholder return which beat the US S&P (Standard and Poor’s1) 500 index over the same period by 3.53%, so they are extremely high-performing companies. (This period covers both the bleak years following the downturn and 9/11 as well as the recent surge in the S&P.) Needless to say, not everyone agrees with these rankings, not least some employees of the companies, if the comments on Fortune Magazine’s own site are to be believed (Leadership Excellence Best in Leadership Development 2007). However GE’s reputation as a top company for leaders has remained over many decades and is frequently quoted as ‘the most admired company in America’. GE also topped the Financial Times ‘most respected’ survey for the seven years up to 2004. GE is well known for many things, but especially important is the priority it gives to developing and evaluating people and then acting on the results. GE is often admired for its $1bn training and development budget (about 0.6% of its global consolidated revenues in 2007), its legendary 53-acre Crotonville campus in New York and a long list of alumni who now lead major companies.
1
Although GE uses an evaluation system which effectively fires the worst-performing employees every year, Jeff Immelt, the current CEO comments, ‘The ability to demand high performance without being heartless has been a part of GE for a long time.’ GE’s leadership development programmes range from entrylevel training to ongoing classes for the 197 officers who run the 300,000-employee company. ‘Leadership development is embedded in GE’s philosophy and operating system, and is a core competency of the HR function at GE,’ says John Lynch, senior vice-president for human resources. ‘It’s also where I, and all our senior human resource managers, spend the majority of our time.’ (Hansen 2008). Leadership development practices of the top companies The Hay Group study (Chief Executive Magazine 2007) identified the practices followed by the Best Companies for Leaders. The top three of the six best practices in 2005 were also the top three for 2006 and account for 68% of the variance in the number and quality of leaders as reported by each organisation. These were:
The S&P is an index of 500 stocks chosen for market size, liquidity and industry grouping, among other factors. It is one of the most commonly used benchmarks for the overall US stock market and is designed to be a leading indicator of US equities.
16
Research and Development Series
1. Having leaders at all levels who focus on creating a work climate that motivates employees to perform at their best. 2. Ensuring that the company and its senior management make leadership development a top priority. 3. Providing training and coaching to help intact leadership teams, as well as the individual leaders, to work together more effectively. It is also interesting to note that 91% of the top 20 companies in the Fortune Best Companies Survey (2007) have a process for early identification of leaders; 82% have formal mentoring programmes; and 73% sponsor coaching relationships. The emphasis on bringing in the right people in the first place is emphasised by South West Airlines President Colleen Barnett: It takes a minimum of three interviews to land even an entry-level position at the company. Bringing in the right people in the first place helps Southwest avoid corrective measures later on (Fredman 2002). A typical comment about spotting talent early on comes from Ian Cook, President of Colgate Palmolive: We start making plans for high performers after their first promotion from entry-level positions. Spotting stars early is built into Colgate-Palmolive’s culture (Fredman 2002). In connection with creating a supportive work climate, Barbara Ramsey of the CIA, winner of the American Society of Training and Development Best Practice Award, emphasised the need to talent spot from the ranks of aspiring leaders. She said: Our objective is to foster a new management culture with shared values and practices that will help break down internal and external organisational stovepipes. Managing and leading change from the ‘middle’ has very high visibility and support within our organisation and has rapidly moved from being a ‘new’ initiative to becoming both a regular part of a manager’s development and an integral part of our strategic plan for the future (CIA 2005). The remaining best practices in the Hay Group Study (Chief Executive Magazine 2007) highlight the need to start early on for mid-level managers and high potentials: 4. Rotational job assignments for high potentials. 5. External leadership development programmes for midlevel managers. 6. Web-based self-study leadership modules for mid-level managers.
7. Executive MBA programmes for mid-level managers. ‘The Top 20 companies are far more likely to use the top practices than their peers’, according to Hay Group. ‘And, while many of the companies we looked at employ all of the practices, the top ones use them by a much wider margin.’ Leadership development activities that do not add value In addition to identifying the practices that companies should focus on to develop their next generation of leaders, the study also flagged activities that do not add value – at least not in relation to the goal of identifying and developing leaders: Practices that waste resources include:
• • • •
Outdoor activity-based programmes. Paper-based self-study leadership modules. Job shadowing for senior managers. Executive MBAs and web-based self-study modules became worst practices when implemented too late in the executive’s career.
‘These practices may achieve other objectives, such as personal rewards or short-term team building, but they don’t help companies develop more, better leaders’ according to the Hay Group. Common ground for leading companies Writing about the Fortune Study, Fay Hansen (2008) said: The common ground for all these companies is that human resources owns the leadership development process but receives enormous support from the full executive committee and from a system that holds business leaders and line managers accountable for identifying and training executives. Hansen also carried out research with Hindustan Lever and Whirlpool. Speaking about Hindustan Lever, she says: HR is directly accountable for managing what Hindustan Unilever refers to as ‘hot jobs, hot people’. The hot jobs are the 50 most strategic positions in the company, and the hot people are the 50 people with the highest potential. The CEO says: ‘Our objective is that the hot people must occupy 90 percent of the hot jobs; every 15 days, I report to the management committee on these 50 jobs and 50 people, including any difficulties that any of the 50 may be having. We want to maximize the movement of these 50 people into these 50 jobs’ (Hansen 2008). The attention to talent and its management marks out these
17
top companies. At Whirlpool, Senior Vice-President for global human resources David Binkley spends ‘75% of his time on leadership development’. It is clear therefore that top companies take leadership development very seriously and are continuously monitoring the development of talented people as they move up the organisation into senior positions.
3.7 Messages for leadership development in higher education
global counterparts, case studies, external education and a wide variety of e-learning and other media.
•
Integrate with talent and succession management.
Similar summaries are provided by Miller and Desmarais (2007) and Leadership Development Practices of Top-Performing Organisations (Ninth House 2006).
The data and information above suggest that there is a recognisable set of principles about best practice in leadership development practised by top performing companies, and professional practice partnerships. Marc Effron, from Hewitt Associates who carried out the Fortune-sponsored Top 20 Survey (Fredman 2002), identifies a:
These observations are exactly in line with Linda Hill comments (Hill 2005) about leadership development in higher education. She is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Business Administration of Harvard Business School. Writing about American colleges and universities, she says that many HEIs ‘underestimate the negative impact of mediocre leadership’.
... virtuous circle composed of four equally crucial and interrelated steps. The companies hire great talent; they make sure that the talent is aligned with the company’s culture, objectives and strategy; they develop the talent aggressively and reward it significantly.
Academics she says are ‘ambivalent’ about assuming leadership roles and tend to see themselves as targets of change rather than agents of change. Therefore leadership development in HEIs is harder than in the private sector.
The prerequisites for the adoption of best practice principles are identified in the Hay Survey as:
• • •
The creation of a motivating work climate. The recognition that leadership development is a top priority. The capability to provide training and coaching to help intact leadership teams, as well as the individual leaders, to work together more effectively.
Another survey by Bersin and Partners (2008) identifies the principles as follows:
•
Develop strong executive engagement to make the programme respected, aligned with corporate strategy and focused on the right business issues.
•
Define tailored leadership competencies to help shape leadership development, succession planning, career development and other talent-related processes.
•
Align with the culture, values, and strategies of the company.
•
Target all levels of leadership including line managers, functional managers and top leaders.
•
Apply a comprehensive learning approach on several learning platforms – instructor-led, developmental assignments, 360-degree assessments, meetings with
The best practice she finds in developing new leaders is one where organisations have: ... made the radical move from a sink-or-swim ‘selection of the fittest’ approach to a ‘development of the fittest’ approach. These organisations provide a portfolio of learning opportunities and resources through deliberate and careful career planning and considerable online informal coaching and frequent off-line formal performance reviews. The implications for HE identified by Hill are that: 1. HE leaders should review their selection and promotion processes to include characteristics such as emotional intelligence, acceptance of the need for collegiality and the skills to mentor junior faculty. 2. HEIs need to review the way they support people in leadership positions especially in understanding their responsibilities and accountabilities including: ... how to develop an agenda to serve as a screen for making judgments about the urgent and important, how to cultivate and use a network, how to leverage themselves by developing their people and building a team and how to work smarter by engaging in opportunistic behaviour. Hill believes that the most critical and difficult step in developing leaders is ‘to foster a culture conducive to learning to lead’. She concludes by saying that:
18
Research and Development Series
only those organisations that are quite deliberate in identifying and investing in the next generation of leadership talent will be able to achieve and sustain success. This is exactly in line with the comments from those organisations which appear in the top leadership league in table 1. Those companies not only deliberately invest in the recognition and development of their leaders but the senior managers and the CEO spend a great deal of time thinking about developing the skills required to develop leaders in the most effective way. Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) claim that ‘best-practice’ organisations: recognise leadership as a key component of jobs at all levels and are committed to creating leaders throughout their organisations. Increasingly organisations have CEOs who model leadership development through a strong commitment to teach leaders internally. McCauley and VanVelsor (2004) add that leadership development in top companies is ‘more systemic and involves more than training’. This means that leadership development
efforts are ongoing and integrated, linking a variety of developmental practices with a person’s own work. Another interesting finding about top companies, particularly in view of the higher education sector’s largely sceptical view of competency frameworks, is that ‘a reductionist list of idiosyncratic competencies’ (Buckingham and Vosburgh 2001) comes second to the development of the whole person’s strengths and natural talents. Leadership competencies still matter of course because they represent an important way to characterise job needs, but it seems to be the case, as suggested by Day (2001), that leadership and leadership development ‘are seen as inherently collaborative social and relational processes’. Thinking about the future of leadership development, HernezBroome and Hughes (2004) suggest that rather than training individual leaders: leadership will be understood as the collective capacity of all members of an organisation to accomplish such critical tasks as setting direction, creating alignment and gaining commitment,
19
4. Methodology 4.1 Overview of research methodology Three main tools were used to gather the data for this study. First of all a survey was undertaken of all HEIs in the UK using a questionnaire. Second, interviews and case studies were undertaken with a sample of 20% of the HEIs who responded to the survey. The survey was administered online and a hard copy was sent out, the interviews were carried out by telephone and the case studies were carried out through faceto-face visits. The aim of the survey was to establish a baseline dataset to describe the kind and amount of leadership development currently being undertaken in higher education institutions
in the UK. The interviews and case studies were carried out to triangulate the findings from the surveys and to get more indepth information about what institutions were thinking and doing about leadership development. Finally, since the original data was gathered in the spring to summer of 2008, before the full onset of the ‘economic downturn’, the Leadership Foundation itself released a consultation document which presented the key findings from the original survey, and asked for feedback from HEI’s about the results. The main aim of this was to highlight any changes in practice or intention to invest in leadership development which had occurred since the economic downturn. The findings from this consultation are given in Appendix A.
20
Research and Development Series
5. The Survey 5.1 Introduction Focus of the questionnaire to HEIs The questionnaire survey focused around a number of key topics including:
• • •
Institutional strategies for leadership development. The impact of leadership development and how it is measured by institutions. The kind and amount of institutional spend on leadership development.
Sample and responses All higher education institutions in the UK were surveyed. The questionnaire used was targeted at senior manager level as the intention was to obtain information focused at the strategic and budgetary level. Most managers in the sample were at HR senior manager or pro-vice-chancellor level, but a number of other roles were included where these were more appropriate to the particular structure of that institution. The survey was sent out during March 2008 to a nominated person in each institution. A total of 162 questionnaires were sent out and a final total of 102 responses were received, giving a response rate of 63%. Questionnaire design It was decided to use an email questionnaire, which could also be downloaded and printed off by those who preferred to send hard copy. The questionnaire was designed to be easy to complete, with many of the questions involving simple tick boxes that would not take long to fill in. There were also a range of open-ended questions where people could give more detailed and in-depth comments. Considerable efforts were made to ensure good response rates, and in addition to the original mailing, a follow-up email letter was sent to all those who had not yet responded. Finally, a hard copy was sent out to those who had still not replied, as it was felt that some people might find it easier to respond in this way.
5.2 Survey findings Characteristics of respondents Post held Respondents held a variety of posts. Most respondents were directors of HR, heads of staff development, or staff development managers. There were also a wide range of other roles represented, as shown in table 2. Table 2: Post held Total
%
Director of Human Resources
25
25
Head of Staff Development/ Professional Development/ Corporate Leadership and Development
21
21
Staff Development Manager/ Organisational Development Manager/ Learning and Development Manager
15
15
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
8
8
Deputy Vice-Chancellor/ Deputy Principal
6
6
Deputy Director of Human Resources
5
5
Registrar/ Secretary
4
4
Vice-Chancellor/ Principal
3
3
Director Corporate Services/ Policy
3
3
Assistant Head of Staff Development
2
2
Other
10
10
Total
102
100
Size of institution Respondents were fairly evenly spread between large and small institutions.
21
Table 3: Size of institution No.
%
Large
36
35
Medium
35
34
Small
23
23
Very small Total
8
8
102
100
Type of institution 33% of respondents came from pre-1992 institutions, 51% from post-1992 and 16% from specialised or other colleges. Table 4: Type of institution No.
%
New (post-1992)
52
51
Old (pre-1992)
34
33
Specialised institution
11
11
5
5
102
100
Other college or institution Total
Institutional strategies for leadership development Existence of leadership development strategies 70% of respondents indicated that there was a strategy for leadership development in their institution. Table 5: Whether there is a strategy for leadership development in the institution No.
%
Yes, we do have a strategy for leadership development in our institution
71
70
No, we don’t have a strategy for leadership development in our institution
29
28
2
2
102
100
Under development Total
The medium-sized and larger institutions were slightly more likely than the small institutions to have a strategy for leadership development. Table 6: Whether there is a strategy for leadership development in the institution: by size of institution Large
Medium
Small
Total
Yes, we do have a strategy for leadership development in our institution
26 (72%)
27 (77%)
18 (58%)
71 (70%)
No, we don’t have a strategy for leadership development in our institution
9 (25%)
8 (33%)
12 (39%)
29 (28%)
Under development
1 (3%)
-
1 (3%)
2 (2%)
36 (100%)
35 (100%)
31 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
There were only slight differences between new and old universities and other institutions about whether they had a strategy for leadership development.
22
Research and Development Series
Table 7: Whether there is a strategy for leadership development in the institution: by type of institution Old (pre-1992)
New (post-1992)
Specialised/ college
Total
Yes, we do have a strategy for leadership development
23 (67%)
37 (71%)
11 (69%)
71 (70%)
No, we don’t have a strategy for leadership development
10 (29%)
14 (27%)
5 (31%)
29 (28%)
Under development
1 (3%)
1 (2%)
-
2 (2%)
34 (100%)
52 (100%)
16 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
Updating of leadership development strategies Where there was reported to be a strategy for leadership development in the institution, respondents were asked when this was last updated; 79% had been updated in the last three years. Table 8: When institutional strategy was last updated No.
%*
Before 2000
-
-
2000-04
6
8
2005-08
56
79
9
13
71
100
Currently being updated/ under development Total * As a % of those who have an institutional strategy for leadership development
Leadership development in the institutional strategic plan Respondents were also asked if leadership development was specifically mentioned in the overall institutional strategy or strategic plan; 78% reported that it was. Table 9: Whether leadership development specifically mentioned in the overall institutional strategy or strategic plan No. Yes, specifically mentioned in the strategy No, not mentioned in the strategy Total
80
% 78
22
22
102
100
Responsibility for leadership development Respondents were asked who had the main responsibility for the leadership development strategy in their institution. In 47% of cases it was the HR director. Vice-chancellors, staff development managers and PVCs were also frequently cited.
23
Table 10: Person mainly responsible for the leadership development strategy in the institution No.
%*
HR Director
48
47
Vice-Chancellor
16
16
Staff Development Manager
13
13
PVC
6
6
Leadership Development Officer
2
2
Joint responsibility
9
9
Other
8
8
Total
102
100
Integration with other strategies Respondents were asked if the leadership development strategy was integrated with other strategies in the institution (eg HR, learning and teaching, research) or was independent; 86% reported that it was integrated with other strategies. Table 11: Whether leadership development strategy is integrated with other institutional strategies No.
%*
61
86
Independent
7
10
Other
3
4
Total
71
100
Integrated with other institutional strategies
* As a % of those who have an institutional strategy for leadership development There were no significant differences between institutions of different sizes about whether the leadership development strategy was integrated with other institutional strategies. Table 12: Integration with other institutional strategies: by size of institution Large
Medium
Small
Total
Integrated with other institutional strategies
23 (85%)
23 (85%)
15 (88%)
61 (86%)
Independent
2 (7%)
3 (11%)
2 (12%)
7 (10%)
Other
2 (7%)
1 (4%)
-
3 (4%)
Total
27 (100%)
27 (100%)
17 (100%)
71 (100%)
New universities reported that the leadership development strategy was integrated with other institutional strategies slightly more frequently than other institutions.
24
Research and Development Series
Table 13: Integration with other institutional strategies: by type of institution Old (pre-1992)
New (post-1992)
Specialised/ college
Total
Integrated with other institutional strategies
18 (75%)
34 (94%)
9 (82%)
61 (86%)
Independent
3 (13%)
2 (6%)
2 (18%)
7 (10%)
Other
3 (13%)
-
-
3 (4%)
Total
24 (100%)
36 (100%)
11 (100%)
71 (100%)
In 77% of the HEIs, leadership development strategies were integrated with systems of performance management that aimed to identify development needs, and in 69% they were integrated with career development and succession planning. In just over half (54%) they were integrated with recruitment strategies to acquire people with leadership potential. In only about a third of the responding institutions were they integrated with reward systems that incentivise performance or with the design of new roles for implementing institutional strategies. Table 14: Nature of integration with other strategies Strongly agree / Agree No. (%)
Neither/ don’t know No. (%)
Disagree / Strongly disagree No. (%)
No reply No. (%)
Total No. (%)
Recruitment strategies to acquire people with leadership potential
55 (54)
31 (30)
14 (14)
2 (2)
102 (100)
Systems of performance management that aim to identify development needs
79 (77)
13 (13)
8 (8)
2 (2)
102 (100)
Career development and succession planning
70 (69)
18 (18)
12 (12)
2 (2)
102 (100)
Reward systems that incentivise performance
36 (35)
36 (35)
27 (26)
3 (3)
102 (100)
Design of new roles for implementing institutional strategies
34 (33)
42 (41)
23 (23)
3 (3)
102 (100)
Leadership development in our institution is planned to operate in conjunction with:
Framework for leadership development 55% of respondents reported that there was a framework for leadership and its development in the institution; 41% reported that there was not. Table 15: Whether there is a framework for leadership and its development in the institution (eg competencies, statement of desired leadership skills, etc) No.
%
Yes
56
55
No
42
41
2
2
Don’t know No reply Total
2
2
102
100
Smaller institutions were least likely to report that there was a framework for leadership and its development.
25
Table 16: Whether there is a framework for leadership and its development: by size of institution Large
Medium
Small
Total
Yes
21 (58%)
24 (69%)
11 (36%)
56 (55%)
No
15 (42%)
11 (31%)
16 (52%)
36 (35%)
Don’t know
-
-
2 (6%)
2 (2%)
No reply
-
-
2 (6%)
2 (2%)
36 (100%)
35 (100%)
31 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
In relation to institution type, there was a fairly even split between those that reported having a framework and those that did not. The majority of specialised institutions reported that they did not have a framework for leadership and its development. Table 17: Whether there is a framework for leadership and its development: by type of institution Old (pre-1992)
New (post-1992)
Specialised/ college
Total
Yes
18 (53%)
34 (65%)
4 (25%)
56 (55%)
No
16 (47%)
16 (31%)
10 (63%)
42 (41%)
Don’t know
-
1 (2%)
1 (6%)
2 (2%)
No reply
-
1 (2%)
1 (6%)
2 (2%)
34 (100%)
52 (100%)
16 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
Open- ended responses about the framework for leadership development Respondents were asked what constituted the framework for leadership development in their institution. Competencies and management development frameworks were the most common response. Responses are summarised below. Table 18: What constitutes the framework for leadership development in the institution Competencies
13
Management development framework/ programme
6
Core behaviours
4
Institutional values
3
Leadership model/ framework
2
Performance management
2
Role definitions
1
MBTI-based (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
1
Capability standards
1
Expectations and responsibility statement
1
26
Research and Development Series
Some comments were: • Framework is a bit overstating it - more like some desirable competencies for Heads of Department. • We are currently developing the framework to link it directly to the HERA Framework. It consists of a statement of the core behaviours for all leaders and managers, mapped against the key HERA competencies. This framework will form part of our existing Initial and Continuing Leadership Development Framework which also details our leadership development priorities and the range of support available to staff. • We have a structured and robust development programme whilst not aligned to a formal competency framework. • Leadership is identified as one of the university’s five core Capabilities. As such it has a set of definitions for different role types. • Framework for Good Management Practice – outlines 12 critical leadership behaviours as determined by the university and forms a key part of the management review process and a basis for the universities’ Leadership Development Programme. • We have developed an ‘expectations and responsibilities’ statement for staff management/ leadership across the university. • Key leadership performance indicators, skills and attributes linked to key performance indicators in institutional strategy. • The framework sets out the specific skills, attitudes and underpinning knowledge necessary to deliver effectively a leadership role within the university. This work underpins our overall leadership development approach and is recognised as key in helping the institution achieve its operational and strategic goals. • We have a leadership and management standard which outlines the baseline expectations (skills, knowledge and behaviour) for anyone undertaking a role with leadership and management responsibilities. We are also in the process of producing a competency framework for all roles in the university. Leadership capability and performance Measurement of leadership capability Nearly all the respondents (92%) indicated that they do undertake measurement of leadership capability at the senior levels (eg through appraisals, 360-degree feedback etc).
27
Table 19: Whether any measurement of leadership capability is undertaken at the senior levels (eg through appraisals, 360-degree feedback etc) No.
%
Yes
94
92
No
7
7
No reply
1
1
102
100
Total
The most common kind of measurement of leadership capability was the annual appraisal (96%). In addition, over two-thirds (69%) used performance targets and over half (55%) used 360-degree feedback. A third (33%) used probationary leadership periods. Table 20: What kind of measurement of leadership capability is undertaken* No.
%
Annual appraisal
90
98
Performance targets to be met
65
71
360- degree feedback
52
57
Probationary leadership periods
31
34
4
4
Other *As a % of those who do undertake some measurement of leadership capability only
Kind of indicators of university performance seen as important in the institution Respondents were asked what kinds of indicators of university performance were seen as important in their institution. There was a very wide range of responses and these are summarised in table 21. Student recruitment, financial performance, student satisfaction, research income, league tables, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), external esteem, staff satisfaction and income generation were all frequently mentioned.
28
Research and Development Series
Table 21: Kinds of indicators of university performance that are seen as important in the institution Student recruitment/ numbers (including PhD, international)
26
Financial performance
23
Student satisfaction/ experience
19
Research income/ position
16
League tables
15
RAE
14
External esteem/ academic profile/ reputation / international standing
14
Staff survey results/ satisfaction
13
Income/ investment generation
10
Student retention
8
Staff recruitment/ retention
7
Student success rates/ progress
5
Teaching quality
5
Student feedback/ survey
4
Employability
3
Innovation
3
Appraisals undertaken
3
Internal Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
3
Audit
3
National Student Survey results
3
Strategic plan targets
2
Organisation growth
2
Employer engagement
2
Grievance levels
2
Estate development
2
Investors in People (IIP)
2
External networking
2
Awards / Queen’s prizes
2
UG Tariff points
1
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
1
Staff outputs
1
Employer branding
1
Widening Participation (WP) measures
1
International partnerships
1
Economic and social impact
1
Participation in external initiatives/ committees
1
Continuing professional development
1
Sickness levels
1
Some comments were: • At the moment the key indicators relate to student satisfaction, retention and employability. • Achievement of targets in the Strategic Plan, Departmental Development Plans and Service Development Plans. • We follow the EFQM and balanced scorecard approach together with appropriate business-related validation. The main key performance indicators fall into financial, customer performance, internal processes, learning, development and growth of the organisation.
29
• International and domestic standing ratings. • Success in attracting students, research grants, development income, participation in external initiatives/committees (especially at national or international levels). • The university has a set of measures embedded within our ‘2010 Test’. The details of these are published on the university website under the link ‘Mission Statement’. • External league tables are important indicators of the university’s performance, along with HESA information. Internally we have strong planning and budgetary management systems and control and we use extensively our planning department metrics. • League tables. We aim to be in the top 10 universities in the UK in 10 years, and the top 100 in the world. • A new set of KPIs is currently being developed and will be reviewed by the Governing Body. These indicators are themselves supported and informed through benchmark data comparisons along with strategic and operational plan targets. • Student progression, research profile, student satisfaction, staff satisfaction, financial performance. Aims and functions of leadership development All respondents reported that leadership development in their institution aims to enhance performance in current roles. Nearly all reported that leadership development in their institution aims to develop capability for future roles, to support people in implementing new organisational strategies, and to support people preparing for new roles. Over half (57%) reported that leadership development aims to support planned career moves into existing roles, with almost half (42%) reporting that it serves as a forum for developing new institutional strategies. Just over a quarter (28%) reported that leadership development is largely provided on an ad hoc basis. Table 22: Aims and/or functions of leadership development in the institution
Leadership development in my institution:
Strongly agree / Agree No. (%)
Neither/ don’t know No. (%)
Disagree / Strongly disagree No. (%)
No reply No. (%)
Total No. (%)
Aims to enhance performance in current roles
102 (100)
-
-
-
102 (100)
Aims to develop capability for future roles
92 (90)
7 (7)
2 (2)
1 (1)
102 (100)
Aims to support people in implementing new organisational strategies
86 (84)
13 (13)
1 (1)
2 (2)
102 (100)
Aims to support people preparing for new roles
83 (81)
14 (14)
4 (4)
1 (1)
102 (100)
Aims to support planned career moves into existing roles
58 (57)
31 (30)
10 (10)
3 (3)
102 (100)
Serves as forum for developing new institutional strategies
43 (42)
35 (34)
22 (22)
2 (2)
102 (100)
Is largely provided on an ad hoc basis
29 (28)
13 (13)
59 (58)
1 (1)
102 (100)
30
Research and Development Series
Leadership development and organisational change Nearly two-thirds of the institutions reported that they had an institution-wide programme of leadership development aimed at organisational change. Table 23: Whether there are any institution-wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change
Yes No Total
No.
%
64
63
38
37
102
100
Large institutions were the most likely to have an institution-wide programme of leadership development aimed at organisational change. Table 24: Whether there are any institution-wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change: by size of institution Large
Medium
Small
Total
Yes
29 (81%)
22 (63%)
13 (42%)
64 (63%)
No
7 (19%)
13 (37%)
18 (58%)
38 (37%)
36 (100%)
35 (100%)
31 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
Old and new institutions were equally likely to report that they had an institution-wide programme of leadership development aimed at organisational change, but specialised institutions were less likely to report this. Table 25: Whether there are any institution-wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change: by type of institution Old (pre-1992)
New (post-1992)
Specialised/ college
Total
Yes
22 (65%)
36 (69%)
6 (38%)
64 (63%)
No
12 (35%)
16 (31%)
10 (63%)
38 (37%)
34 (100%)
52 (100%)
16 (100%)
102 (100%)
Total
Details of institution-wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change Respondents were asked for details of any institution-wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change. Senior management programme was the most common response, followed by general management and leadership training. There was also a wide variety of other responses, as shown in table 26.
31
Table 26: Details of any institution wide programmes of leadership development aimed at organisational change Directors/ senior managers’ development programme
11
Management and leadership training
7
Aimed at new staff
4
Change management programme
4
Team building / values centred leadership/ insight-based learning events / quality enhancement programme
4
Middle-management programme
3
Ad hoc
2
Project management programme
2
Coaching and mentoring
2
Academic leadershi
2
Transformational leadership
2
Performance management
2
Some comments were: • Faculty futures aimed at new staff in humanities and social sciences to stop them being cynicised by their colleagues – year-long course with them engaging senior leaders in the institution and doing a project; development centres for prospective heads of schools; development centres for middle admin managers; heads and deans (current) academic development programme. • Various – open change management programme, managing change integrated in ILM-accredited programmes, leading change as topic in other MD programmes. • Informally, all our middle manager development programmes are aimed at facilitating organisational change. • Practical Leadership for University Management (ILM Endorsed Award) – senior administrators and academic staff with significant leadership and management responsibilities. • Current provision helps heads of academic and non-academic departments, administrative managers in academic and nonacademic departments, junior managers and those considering management as their next step. But it is not yet the comprehensive, levelled, competency-based programme I would wish to see. • Top management programme (VC, PVCs, deans and directors) focusing on OD culture, values, climate, people dynamics and communications, succession planning and management. • Leadership development programme contains elements of OD, eg strategy and leadership, strategic change management, developing high performance teams. • We have a leadership development programme with a number of layers. This aims to support organisational change by increasing the leadership capacity and capabilities of a range of staff. The top ‘layer’ is all the university’s senior leaders (PVCs, deans, heads of schools and services) – we have a number of approaches and programmes. The second [layer] is up-and-coming leaders via the Tomorrow’s Leaders Development Programme. • Bespoke senior management programme for academic managers which focuses on leading change; managing performance and the key skills required to do this effectively; managing resources.
32
Research and Development Series
Who receives leadership development? Most senior groups of staff were reported to be included in the institution’s leadership development strategy. Table 27: Staff groups covered by the institution’s leadership development strategy No.
%*
Senior managers in HR/ Finance/ Estates etc
62
87
Heads of Department
60
85
Heads of School
56
79
PVCs or equivalent
55
77
Deans
54
76
Middle managers in HR/ Finance/ Estates etc
44
62
Heads of Research teams (PIs)
43
61
Covers all levels
41
58
VCs
40
56
Other academic staff
21
30
*Those who have an institutional strategy for leadership development only Target groups for leadership development By far the greatest amount of the leadership development budget was aimed at individuals rather than at groups or teams, although 25% of responding HEIs did report team development at departmental level. Table 28: Where the spend on leadership development is aimed Estimated % of spend
