Embedded in two worlds: The university academic manager’s work,identity and social relations

Introduction

This paper is about academics who manage colleagues in universities. Despite their important and problematic role, these middle-level academic managers (AMs) or heads of school/department (heads) have not been extensively studied. AMs are important because they are expected to execute the organization’s policies; however, their role is problematic because managing may run counter to colleagues’ professional interests. To better understand the AMs’ role, I pose three research questions: first, how do heads perceive their tasks, identity and relations with others at work (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021)? Second, is the conventional hierarchical framework adequate for understanding the AM’s role? And third, if not, is there a more promising alternative? I will argue that although the AM can be positioned as a classic middle manager in a professional (academic) context, this prevailing ‘one world’ hierarchical framework neglects the AM’s role as a collegial representative leader, who temporarily enacts a management role. I demonstrate that AMs are simultaneously embedded in ‘two worlds’, one based on hierarchy and management ideology; the other based on polyarchy and collegiality. This positioning in ‘two worlds’ enables a deeper understanding of how AMs perceive and undertake their role.

I begin with a brief overview of studies focusing mainly on university middle managers. The study’s methodology is then outlined, followed by a report on the study’s research findings on the AM’s tasks, identity and social relations. Using the ‘two worlds’ framework, I discuss these findings and conclude by noting implications for learning and development and future practice.

Overview of the literature and the ‘two worlds’ framework

There are three pertinent streams of literature regarding university AMs; ¹ two are concerned with middle management roles, while the third stream focuses on the organization and its socio-political context. Regarding the first stream, higher education scholars use concepts from organization theory to explore changes in the AM role and the effectiveness with which tasks, including leadership, are undertaken (Bryman and Lilly, 2009; Lumby, 2012; Smith, 2002). The second research stream draws on critical social psychology, viewing the AM as both superior and subordinate, exploring questions of identity and role enactment (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021; Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019). Both streams are premised on the ontology of hierarchy, a concept elaborated by scholars in the third stream who use organization theory to examine the structural and cultural characteristics of universities (Burnes et al., 2014; Hellawell and Hancock, 2001).

Situating the AM within the ‘two worlds’ of professional collegiality (PC) and managed bureaucracy (MB)

AMs work in universities that differ in size, structure and culture within and between societies (Enders, 2015; Lumby, 2012). Organizational forms resembling the PC ideal type preceded MB historically and were expected by Max Weber to be superseded by the more efficient bureaucratic type (Waters, 1989). However, Weber did not foresee the growth of science-based professions that resist bureaucracy and prefer collegial practices that protect members from external control (Waters, 1989). Organizational change has revealed tensions between old and new organizational forms, encouraging the development of analytical models (Alajoutsijarvi and Kettunen, 2016; McNay, 1995), some of which distinguish between collegial and managerial types of organization. For example, Bruckman and Carvalho (2018) claim that the managerial type is based on bureaucratic and managerial principles while the collegial type embodies principles of autonomy, participative decision-making and collective responsibility, although formalization of rules can introduce bureaucratization to this ideal type (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014; Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016; Tapper and Palfreyman, 2010). Universities in western countries, including the UK and Australia, are characterized as hybrid in form, combining elements of managerial and collegial values, structures and practices (Burnes et al., 2014; Christopher, 2012), with tensions between these cultures varying between and within universities. In order to better understand the AM’s organizational imagery and action, Table 1 builds on this literature by summarizing the two ideal types along seven relevant organizational dimensions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Two ideal types of organization.

Organizational dimension	Professional collegiality (PC)	Managerial bureaucracy (MB)
Key values as sources of norms	Freedom from state and corporate control regarding staff selection, research and teaching; cross- disciplinary debate; inclusivity based on peer standards; occupational solidarity; participation in decision-making	Organizational effectiveness defined by strategy in response to key stakeholders: government, firms and students.a Operational efficiency; loyalty to superordinates
Structure	Autonomous, federal with dispersed power	Limited autonomy from the state; power concentrated in CEO equivalent and board
Authority	Specialized knowledge, peer debate and social practices that encourage solidarity	State- and management-derived rules. Positions based on qualifications and experience
Governance logic	Polyarchal; decision-making by consensus between professionals	Hierarchical; decision-making by superordinates
Norm/rule creation and enforcement process	Emerge from peer interaction, institutionalized in accreditation organizations and enforced by collegiate bodies subject to peer review	Mainly decision-making by senior management (internal rules) and the state (legislation)
Type of leadership	Covert type, articulating collegial values and norms, and servant type, using resourcing and support to realize institutional and individual member interests	Transactional or transformational, providing resources and strategy for realization of organization’s norms, rules and objectives
Member behaviour	Creative and collaborative knowledge creation and dissemination	Task completion according to management expectations and rules

^a The MB type accommodates different goals and means that encompass various management agendas.

Two dimensions in Table 1 – norm/rule creation and leadership – deserve elaboration. PC norms are generated by academic workers’ values, some of which are more strongly shared (e.g. individual autonomy) than others (e.g. occupational solidarity). Norms are institutionalized in the decisions and rules of various committees, some of which are recognized by the state (e.g. degree accreditation) while others are tacitly accepted by society (e.g. student assessment). MB norms are established by senior management (e.g. research support and class sizes) although the state strongly influences the extent and use of university finances, including academics’ pay and employment conditions. Regarding leadership, the PC type is associated with key elements of covert (Mintzberg, 1998) and servant type leadership (Greenleaf, 2002). The former reinforces academic values and encourages institutional participation by staff and students, while the latter contributes to developing staff and student capabilities. In contrast, the MB type is associated with transactional leadership – i.e. combining rewards and penalties to encourage employee performance including the notion of student-customer – or transformational leadership that is visionary and inspirational, encouraging university employees to embrace change (Odumeru and Ogbonna, 2013).

Several observations about the relationship between the typology and usage by AMs are noteworthy. First, AMs’ familiarity with this typology varies. Specific elements of these ideal types are likely to inform their thinking and behaviour. This applies particularly to the PC type, which is not part of everyday discourse, despite collegiality being ‘an extraordinarily resilient idea’ (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014: 158). Second, AMs experience the university differently: as variable mixtures of these forms, depending on societal location and history, funding, research intensity, disciplinary specialization and size (Burnes et al., 2014; Christopher, 2012; Enders, 2015). Third, because ideal types accentuate particular characteristics, some features (e.g. gender or ethnic equity) of inclusivity (PC value) valued by some AMs remain implicit. Finally, by accentuating differences, overlaps between the ideal types are understated (Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016). For example, both ideal types value the university’s cultural and scientific contribution to society. In sum, shaped by their work identities and rooted in their employment as academics, AMs inhabit two imaginary worlds of varying coherence, assisting us to interpret their attitudes and behaviour.

Methodology

An extreme case design, including theoretical sampling, was adopted to reveal the anticipated tensions in doing AM work (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Respondents were drawn from schools/departments in business schools (university faculties) where AMs were, with few exceptions, more familiar with management techniques and organization than their counterparts in other faculties. Interviews were supplemented by data on strategy, structure, staff status, qualifications and achievements drawn from university and business school websites. Threats to data validity were addressed by triangulating interview and archival findings (Yin, 2011: 81–82) through feedback provided by AMs and six professors who had been AMs in Australian and/or UK business schools.

Interviews were conducted in six research-oriented Australian and UK universities (details below). To minimize disciplinary bias, AMs were chosen randomly from lists of heads available on these business school (faculty) websites. AMs were distributed as follows: five from management; three from accounting; two from economics; three from finance; and seven from other schools/departments including information systems and marketing. Ten of the 17 schools/departments employed 21 to 39 full-time academic staff while most of the remaining schools/departments (seven) had 40 or more staff. Twelve AMs were male and eight were female. Most (17) of the 20 interviewees were 40 years old or more and senior in rank. Professors comprised 16 of the 20 AMs.

The number of interviews was decided when additional interviews were judged to yield few new insights. Twenty heads were interviewed, 18 of whom were current (2019) incumbents at six business schools (faculties). Pseudonyms denote current (H1–H17) and previous (XH1–XH3) heads. Interviews were conversational in form, with questions focusing broadly on their role, identity and social relations. Following university ethics clearance, I sought interviews with the AMs, assuring them of confidentiality and institutional anonymity and explaining the purpose of the research. Questions were semi-structured, inviting elaboration and exploration. Interviews of between one and one and a half hours were conducted in person or via Skype. These were audio taped and subsequently transcribed.

Interviewees’ opinions, statements and incidents were grouped using NVivo 12 software according to interviewees’ responses to specific questions (categories). Further coding made it possible to identify major and minor themes within the codes (sub-categories) which were subsequently analysed according to axial codes, prompting consideration of relationships between the main types of opinion, statement and incident. Biographical and institutional data, referred to earlier, formed part of the analytical process which included each AM interview being read in its entirety to obtain a holistic perspective and engagement with the relevant literature, searching for comparable findings and explanations. This process helped to generate the typology that enables a more convincing interpretation of how AMs perceive and enact their role.

Findings

In this section I examine how heads are appointed, their objectives, sources of disquiet and satisfaction and their social relations with senior managers, colleagues and peers. I show that heads identify primarily as academics rather than as managers, arguing that this is key to understanding how they interpret their role.

Discussion

AM researchers, both past and present, have interpreted heads’ attitudes and behaviour through the ‘one world’ prism of hierarchy, a perspective that understates the AM’s dominant professional orientation (Bryman and Lilly, 2009; Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019; Smith, 2002). Instead, I intend to show how a ‘two worlds’ perspective provides a more insightful interpretation of the findings reported above.

We noted that AMs, who are mainly professors with administrative experience, accept the role for a variety of reasons, but rarely to pursue a management career. Echoing Bryman and Lilley’s (2009: 341) findings, their average tenure is short and most return to an academic role. The common rationales of ‘obligation’ and ‘duty’ are consistent with the notion of servant leadership associated with the PC ideal type. Overall, senior academics show little enthusiasm for the AM role, an attitude that is difficult to explain from a hierarchical perspective, which encourages ascent up a job ladder. From a ‘two worlds’ perspective, becoming an AM is rarely celebrated because AMs perceive themselves as scholars, not managers.

As office holders associated with the PC ideal type, AMs favour policies that benefit their school and individual members, a finding similar to Smith’s (2002), except that contemporary AMs no longer have time to consider personal research and publications as a realistic priority. AMs’ behaviour can usefully be compared with Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) dominant ‘umbrella carrier’. While there were some references to protecting colleagues, especially junior academics, in the present study, AMs more frequently strived to advance school members’ interests. Absent comparable data, the following three reasons are offered as possible explanations for these differences. First, in 2019, when I interviewed the AMs, there was no crisis, financial or otherwise, in the relevant business schools. Consequently, protection was not a strong theme. More challenging conditions may have existed in Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) sample of universities at the time of their study. Second, the protection theme may also have reflected differences in sample composition. The authors’ sample targeted heads who were critical of management (Gjerde and Alvesson, 2019: 7) while AMs in my study were randomly selected. Third, the proportion of junior academics in each of the two study samples may have differed. A high proportion would imply an emphasis on protection and vice versa. In the present study, this proportion was low: only 22.3% (121 of 542 full-time academics in this study) were junior academics (lecturers and assistant professors). Gjerde and Alvesson’s sample may have included a higher proportion of junior academics.

AMs complained of limited autonomy, a value central to the PC ideal type. This restricted AMs’ strategies to incremental improvements or simply defending the status quo. Having to prioritize senior management’s requirements above their personal objectives caused frustration. Working contrary to their values and identity sometimes led to perceptions of inauthenticity. Echoing previous research, these findings indicate limited control over work (Preston and Price, 2012), being reactive rather than proactive (Pepper and Giles, 2015) and experiencing conflict between senior management’s priorities and their own (Smith, 2002). However, unlike Smith’s (2002) AMs, who claimed that ‘volume of work’ and ‘meeting deadlines’ were amongst the three main causes of stress, these aspects did not attract the same criticism. Three reasons may account for this difference: most AMs had administrative experience; work was delegated to members of a school management team; and there were sufficient resources for AMs to undertake their role.

Having accepted the position, AMs prioritize school and member interests, in line with collegial values. However, being required to follow senior management directives diverts attention away from pursuing these objectives, leading to frustration and stress. In addition, member participation in polyarchal governance – associated with PC organization – is vitiated in two respects: senior management either do not consult AMs on policy-related decisions; or the latter’s views are disregarded and are excluded from the decision-making process.

Smith (2002) found that ‘personnel issues’ featured as one of three main causes of stress. The present study provides complementary evidence that individual staff problems are often performance-related and are usually confined to a small minority of ‘difficult’ colleagues. Addressing personnel issues places AMs in a hierarchical position over school members, having to endorse and enforce metrics devised mainly by senior management (Kallio et al., 2016). This positioning creates tension among colleagues and contradicts AMs’ notions of fairness based on inclusivity and peer-generated standards that characterize PC values and norms (Knights and Clarke, 2014). A PC approach would emphasize academic development and support, including enforcement of collectively developed norms (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012). More disturbing are conflicts between factions or disciplinary groups. These signify governance failure that is likely to encourage senior management intervention, including AM replacement. Intra-school conflict contradicts the PC value of collegial collaboration, creating a climate detrimental to research and teaching.

By positioning the head as a middle manager vis-a-vis professional workers, it is difficult from a ‘one world’ perspective to explain why AMs identify with ‘subordinates’. Thus, Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019: 16) umbrella carrier identifies with subordinates because ‘[it] allows them [AMs] to uphold a consistent self-view as a collegial academic doing management without becoming a manager or a leader wannabee’. This psychological dissonance coping argument does not do justice to AMs’ dominant identity. A ‘two worlds’ perspective does so by interpreting academics’ entry into the AM role as signalling reluctant or qualified acceptance of a managerial identity. As shown earlier, in undertaking their role, AMs tend to retain their primary identity as academics, adopting a secondary, managerial identity that enables the role to be enacted. This explains Winter’s (2009) ‘managed academic’ whose academic identity dominates the incumbent’s manager identity because AMs subscribe to particular values and norms associated with the PC ideal type. Their most satisfying activities including processes to achieve their ends are characteristic of this organizational type (Parker, 2004; Pepper and Giles, 2014). It is in collegiate, collaborative institutional settings – committees and meetings – that AMs enact PC values and norms (covert leadership) and promote and defend school interests (servant leadership). However, the presence of senior management reminds AMs of a dominating hierarchy whose requirements are facilitated by maintaining a secondary managerial identity. These findings align with Lumby’s (2012) contention that academics eschew quasi-heroic leadership. Contra Bryman and Lilley (2009), AMs do agree on several key principles of good leadership: collegial consultation and transparency and a vigorous pursuit of school and individual member interests.

As noted above, Gjerde and Alvesson’s (2019) ‘umbrella carrier’ includes elements of covert and servant type leadership but there is little evidence of their ‘performance driver’ and ‘impotent’ manager in the present study. A few AMs preferred inertia, identifying with colleagues and choosing to defend the status quo because change was seen as unnecessary. Similarly, Winter’s (2009) ‘academic manager’, whose managerial identity is dominant, is also an exception.

Relations between AMs and senior managers were mainly civil and sometimes friendly, despite an underlying tension reflecting the presence of collegial values and norms in the shadow of hierarchy. These differences remain subterranean but may surface depending on individuals, schools and the institutional context. These findings are consistent with the wider literature on middle managers which indicates that cooperation with senior managers varies according to position in the hierarchy and resource dependence (Harding et al., 2014). Other reasons include senior managers’ dependence on AMs to maintain stability and implement policy and shared interests in school performance by attracting talented staff, research funds and capable students.

AMs’ relations with most colleagues are cautiously friendly, indicating AMs’ position as colleague and manager (Alvesson and Gjerde, 2021: 10). AMs’ authority over colleagues induces caution among school members. AMs must demonstrate their collegial commitment by successfully defending or advancing school members’ interests. With limited discretionary resources, assisting individuals is easier than achieving collective objectives. But this assistance is limited and usually conducted unseen by most school members. Consequently, AMs must also rely on discursive power to allay suspicion and maintain trust among school members (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014). Relations with colleagues require constant attention. Because group membership is conditional, AMs seek temporary affiliation with heads in the same faculty, persons who are likewise embedded in the ‘two worlds’ of collegiality and hierarchy.

Conclusion

Grounded in academia rather than management, AMs favour collegiality, a perspective formalized as the PC ideal type, yet only grasped in fragmented form by most AMs. Nevertheless, these elements influence how AMs respond to hierarchy and enact their role – cautiously and conscientiously, with qualified commitment. AMs mainly manage but they occasionally lead. In doing so they are restricted by their intermediate hierarchical position and by membership of a professional collegiate. They rely more on influence than authority (Bush, 2008). In short, AM embeddedness in the ‘two worlds’ of collegiality and hierarchy provides a superior understanding of AM behaviour than the prevailing ‘one world’, hierarchical perspective, a proposition that may also apply to analogous roles in the further education sector (Corbett, 2017).

Finally, four implications for learning and development and future practice are worth noting. First, the AM role needs to be more widely understood by academics and managers in the context of the ‘two worlds’ framework. Second, following discussion and agreement among these and other stakeholders (adjunct and technical staff and students), principles could be established for future practice. Third, clear role expectations would then need to be developed. These would be based on a legal contract of employment and a psychological contract of engagement. Fourth and finally, the currently under-utilized knowledge and capabilities of experienced AMs would be leveraged to promote peer-related communities of practice (Wenger, 2004), providing tools for more effective school leadership and management.