insights

Leadership

Higher Education
Leadership and
Management
Survey (HELMs):
The results in brief

August 2016
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Overview
The Leadership Foundation’s Higher Education Leadership and
Management survey (HELMs) aims were to explore the key current
(and emerging) issues and challenges for UK HE leaders. HELMs is a
survey of over 7,000 staff working in higher education, with nearly 1,000
respondents, which was carried out in April 2014. It provides invaluable
insights into what motivates staff, what good leadership looks like
and the most press-ing challenges that lie ahead for higher education
institutions (HEIs).
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of four prominent themes was
undertaken by experts in leadership research and qualitative analysis
(Kim Peters, Michelle Evans and David Greatbatch). The HELMs outputs
were four separate, but linked reports:

• Leading higher education;

• Motivating and developing leaders;
• Leadership and work-life balance; and
• Governors’ views of their institutions, leadership and governance.
For those daunted by reading the four separate reports, this Leadership
Insight makes it easy. It outlines the key findings from each report in
a summary form, draws out a number of cross-cutting themes and
considers the implications for developing leadership capacity in higher
education.
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Approach
The survey was sponsored by the Leadership Foundation
and designed in collaboration with Ashridge Business
School and the University of the West of England. It was
sent to over 7,000 individuals who had previously had some
involvement with the Leadership Foundation. The survey
was placed online and distributed via email. The overall aim
was to generate a picture of leadership across the sector
to help institutions gauge where they are compared to
the rest of the sector and compared to other sectors. The
questionnaire had eight sections (seven for governors). It
featured closed questions with a specified response scale
and asked respondents for information about their role and
responsibilities, views about higher education, experiences
of leadership and management, learning and development,
motivation, developing future leaders, equality and diversity
and information about follow up. The survey additionally
provided many open questions and opportunities for
respondents to give more detailed explanations for their
responses or to share related thoughts.
There was a higher proportion of women and staff over the
age of 41 years in the sample than there is in the general
population. It also over-samples from academics relative
to professional services staff. Academic respondents are
on average much more likely to occupy a professorial or
leadership role than is the case in higher education generally.
Consequently, it is important to consider that the results
summarised in the reports may not entirely apply to more
junior segments of the UK higher education population.
Although the responses were dominated by senior staff and
those in professional service roles, the survey nonetheless is
broadly aligned with HESA data, reflecting the heterogeneity
of the sector in terms of institutional type, job role, and
demographic characteristics. Respondents’ gender, job role
and cross-sector experience were reflected in the expression
of different concerns. Levels of engagement with the open
questions in HELMs were generally very high (typically
between one-third and two-thirds of the sample), which
yielded rich and detailed insights.

Some 969 responses were received (13% response rate),

including 848 from staff working at higher education
institutions, 54 working for a higher education agency (or
other institution) and 67 governors of a higher education
institution.

Job Roles
Figure 3: Distribution of job roles across the sample

60
Percentage respondents

40

20

0
Academic Leadership Professional Academic & Academic &
services leadership professional
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Leading higher • Respondents suggested that leadership in HE could be

education
This report focuses on the data relating to respondents’
perspectives on the skills and experience that are necessary
to lead in higher education, on the attributes and skills that
they look for in their own leaders and their views around the
• A significant minority that provided critical commentary
challenges that lie ahead for HEIs.
improved with better HR processes, staff appointments
from outside the sector, better structures for leadership
development, a focus on the mission of HE and better
management of diversity (p4, p37)
on their own institution’s leadership mentioned autocratic,
controlling and disconnected top leaders. Criticism of this kind
of leadership aligned directly with respondents’ appreciation of
consultative and collaborative leadership styles (p18)

At-a-glance Key quotes

• Over three-quarters of the sample listed a lack of financial (and
other) resources as a major challenge for higher education
“They expected their leaders
leadership. Other highly ranked challenges included changes
to manage upwards and
in government policy, increasingly competitive markets and
outwards, standing up for their
the need for a global perspective (p2, p12)
constituents and championing their
• A quarter cited the challenges of boosting institutional
performance, supporting research and developing a positive
cause. Being able to do this was seen
to require a deep understanding of the
institutional identity (p2, p13)
higher education sector and belief in its
• Over two-thirds listed attracting and keeping high quality
students and staff and managing different aspects of higher
social mission. For some, especially those
who had never worked outside of higher
education culture (p2, p15) education, it required having academic
• In questions relating to what makes a good top leader, 65%
of respondents emphasised the right personal characteristics,
credibility. ”
(p.4).
including assertiveness, competence, relatedness, morality and
a passion for higher education. Twenty four percent said top
leaders had to relate to people in the right ways, emphasising
“Respondents perceived
consideration, collaboration and equality rather than a top-
down approach (p3, p21)
that leadership in higher
education could be improved
• The themes that emerged for top leaders were very similar to
those that emerged for line managers (p23)
through a range of institutional
structures — particularly the creation
• The majority (66%) stated that higher education requires
leadership skills and attributes that differ from those needed
of transparent HR processes that do a
better job of fostering diversity, a greater
in other sectors. Respondents who had never worked outside openness to cross-sector leadership
higher education, particularly male ones, were more likely to
expertise and the deeper internalisation
hold this view (p3, p25)
of the mission of higher education.”
• To lead effectively in this context, respondents said leaders
needed to have particular personal skills - people skills,
(p.37).
patience, an ability to drive change - a capacity for collaborative
influence, a deep understanding of the higher education sector
and academic credibility (p3, p32)
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief
Motivating and
developing leaders
This report focuses on three sets of questions that relate
to the motivation and development of leaders in higher
education. The survey revealed a high level of consistency in
the factors that motivated respondents (although there were
some differences as a function of gender, age, and job role).
At-a-glance
• Intrinsic factors (including work that is challenging or
interesting, provides opportunities for learning and
development, and provides autonomy) are the most
motivating (p5)
• Social factors (including being treated respectfully and
having inspirational colleagues and leaders) are the next
most important motivators (p5)
• The remaining factors, which relate to making a
contribution (to society or students) and to career concerns
(salary, incentives, career path clarity, job security and formal
recognition) are relatively less important but still matter (p5)
• There is a great deal of evidence that jobs that are varied,
that provide autonomy, and that staff see as meaningful,
are associated with increased motivation, higher job
satisfaction and lower burnout (p7)
insights
• A large minority of respondents took up additional
leadership responsibili-ties for multiple reasons. These
included: learning and development, a desire to contribute
to the institution or HE more generally, career pro-gression,
and a desire to exert influence on institutional strategy (p23)
• Nearly a third of the sample reported that they had a
mentor and nearly 90% reported benefitting from this,
particularly where the relationship was formalised rather
than informal. Women were more likely to say that they
have a mentor than men (40% versus 20%) (p37)
• 88% of respondents had participated in one or more
learning and devel-opment activities in the preceding
12-months e.g. Professional Develop-ment Activities,
Internal Leadership and Management Courses and Lead-
ership Foundation Courses (p6)
• 35% said that their institution did not allocate sufficient
resources for their learning and development and that their
institution did not prioritise the career progression and
development of staff (p6)
• A large minority (41%) reported that their institution did
have a leadership talent identification programme, while
52% said it did not (p33)
• Many respondents wanted to see more formalised and
comprehensive succession planning processes and
programmes across HE institutions, as long as these were
open to individuals of different ages, genders, job roles and
locations (p34)
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Key quotes
“This data shows that it is “Staff at two-thirds of the
simply not enough to motivate sampled institutions reported
and develop HEI staff in their satisfaction with levels of
current roles; Institutions must keep institutional support for their
their eye on the future, on the learning and development. However,
leadership skills that will been to be among staff at the remaining one-third
developed among current staff to fill of institutions, perceptions that their
emerging gaps and to provide staff institution did not prioritise their career
with the opportunities to develop and development or provide a clear career
put these skills into practice in their path were associated with a belief that
day-to-day jobs.” they would need to exit their institution
to get ahead. Institutions who are
(p.37).
concerned with retaining their high
potential staff should attend to these
factors.”
(p.7).

Motivation at work
Figure 5: Average Ratings of the Importance of Motivating Factors in Higher Education.

Performance-based pay
Clear advancement
High basic salary
Job security
Formal Recognition
Inspiring leader
Inspiring Colleagues
Respectful treatment
Contributing to society
Engaging with students
Challenging work
Autonomy
Growth opportunities
1 2 3 4

Less important More important

Intrinsic Contribution Social Career

Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Leadership and
work-life balance
This report looks at the data in HELMs on respondents’
perceptions of work-life balance, including their workload,
their ability to cope, the extent to which they feel valued
and rewarded, and the availability of flexible working. It also
examines consequences of work-life balance and proposes a
series of recommendations based on the data.
• Most participants were able to manage their workloads but
a significant minority said they were not able to cope with
the pressure and stress associated with their jobs (13% of
men and 18.3% of women)
• Respondents with supervisors or line managers who
provided a positive working environment, empowered
staff and provided support and appropriate recognition
and reward were more likely to be satisfied with work life
balance (p26)

• Satisfaction with work-life balance is associated with

greater institutional pride, a willingness to help contribute
At-a-glance to institutional success, and a desire to continue working

• A culture of long working hours is clearly evident. 73.2% of

within the institution (p28)

men and 65.4% of women frequently work more than 48

hours per week, and this was particularly true for academic
• Workloads should be monitored across the organisation
within a fair and equitable workload management system.
women and academic leaders (p20) Leaders should set reasonable and clear targets and value

• Overall only 66.2% of men and 52.7% of women were

and reward output, rather than time spent at work (p29)

satisfied with their work-life balance. Female academics

(36.7%) and female academ-ic leaders (37.6%) were much
• “Family-friendly” policies, while an indicator of support for
staff work-life balance, should be utilised with caution to
less satisfied with their work-life balance than their male ensure they do not exacer-bate workload (p28)
counterparts (p21)
• A supportive and positive work environment should be
• Only a small minority of participants, 11.9% of men and
14.3% of women, reported that their institution did not
instilled, one that does not promote a long-hours culture
and one that listens to staff (p29)
allow them to work flexible hours (some say in the days/
times they worked). However, for many having flexible
hours did not lead to lower levels of stress. Academics who
were more likely to report flexibility in their hours were also
more likely to not be satisfied with their work-life balance
and were less likely to be able to cope (p23) (p22)
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Key quotes
“For higher education in “Importantly, many of the
particular, due to specific identified antecedents of a
pressures and modes of working, positive work-life balance are
the work-life balance of staff readily influenced by leadership
should be a key concern for leadership teams. While commitments outside of
teams. Work-life balance most obviously work and personality and demographic
impacts on job satisfaction, but it also has variables may be outside the gift of
an effect on broader motivational and leaders, issues of workload and time
attitudinal aspects of work-life and on management, organisational cultures,
actual staff performance. Moreover, it has as well as issues of inclusion, may all be
been shown to have a direct impact on staff shaped by leaders.”
perceptions of stress and burnout on their
(p.7).
actual physical health. These are all factors
that are of great importance to leadership
teams if they want to attract and retain
motivated and productive staff.”
(p.7).

% agree satisfied with life balance

Figure 6: Percentage agreement that participant is satisfied with work-life balance,
by gender and job role.

100

90

80
70

60

50
40

30
20

10

0
Overall Academics Academic Leaders Professional Services

Men Women
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Governors’ views of • HEI staff were far more likely than governors to agree that it

their institutions,
was ‘harder for women to succeed’ at their institution – 42%
compared with 17%. Fewer governors (16%) than HEI staff

leadership and (27%) thought it harder for black and minority ethnic (BME)
staff to succeed (p7)

governance • Common challenges facing university leaders were

This report summarises the HELMs responses from 63
governors from UK HEIs. It offers a rare insight into HEI
governors’ views about their institutions and leadership
and governance more broadly. Included, also, are some
comparisons between the views of governors and those of
leaders within institutions on a range of issues arising from
HELMs. The governors who responded were predominantly
male (75%), white (87%), British (91%), and aged 51 or
over (96%). A majority (59%) were governors at post-
1992 universities, 32% per cent at pre-1992 universities
and 9% were at other types of HEI (a private university, a
conservatoire and three colleges). While the sample is small,
compared to the estimated 3,000 governors across higher
education, the findings are important because there are few
systematic, empirical studies on governance in HEIs in the UK
or internationally.
At-a-glance
• Respondents’ main reasons for becoming governors were a
desire to contribute to society (49%) and a commitment to
higher education (48%). They were proud to be contributing
to HE and thought their HEIs worked hard to deliver a
positive experience for students (p3, p5)
identified by governors as financial sustainability, student
recruitment and the volatile policy environment (p3, p12)
• There was little mention of the challenges of ethics and the
management of reputational risk, sustainable development
and corporate social responsibility, offshore campuses
and transnational education, partnerships with other
organisations, and equality and diversity (p14)
• Governors largely felt that leadership required a style
which reflected the distinctive higher education culture
and took into account the importance of concepts such as
academic freedom, collegiality and scholarship. A number
of governors felt institutions could benefit from increasing
the number of leaders from other sectors (p14)
• When asked what they were looking for from the chair of
the governing body, the most commonly given responses
were “an effective relationship with the senior management
team (SMT)” (47%), “strategic acumen” (34%) and “an
inclusive approach” (31%) (p17)
• 62% of those that emphasised the importance of the chair’s
relationship with the executive also stressed the importance
of the chair, where appropriate, challenging and prompting
the vice-chancellor and other senior managers (p17)

• Compared with responses from HEI staff to the main HELMs

survey, governors described the culture of their institution
more positively, thought change was better managed and
equality and diversity policies were more effective. When
asked to described the culture the most commonly chosen
phrases were “forward thinking” (77%) and “innovative
(71%). Words most commonly selected by HEI staff were
Bureaucratic (58%), Hierarchical (55%), High pressure (52%),
(p7)
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Key quote
“Many governors emphasised that it was important for the chair to ensure a positive
relationship with the executive, and to adopt a facilitative and supportive role between
the board and executive. Two-thirds mentioned the need for chairs to adopt a challenging
stance in relation to the executive and/or to play an active role in shaping the strategies of their
institutions. Some suggested that the governance of HEIs is often characterised by a ‘heavy
dependence on the executive’ and a ‘correlating absence of significant challenge’.”
(p.20).

Reasons for becoming a governor

Figure 1: What initially attracted you to becoming a governor in higher education?

To contribute to society 49
Commitment to HE 48
Invited to apply 19
Existing links with HEI 14
Experience of governance 9
Looking for a non-executive role 3
Opportunity to extend network 3
Elected student representative 3
Local reputation of HEI 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Note: Based on responses by 63 governors; some governors provided two or more reasons
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief
Cross-cutting themes
In this section, four cross cutting themes of equality
and diversity, leadership challenges, developing future
leaders and motivation are looked at in more detail. They
were chosen because they were repeating and prominent
themes across all four reports. They are unpacked further
here through the comments and voices of respondents.
Equality and diversity
The equality and diversity agenda generally has become
more important in recent years and this is reflected in the
survey findings from higher education staff. Responses to
questions, and comments made by staff, outline concerns
about the treatment of different groups as well as the extent
to which the leadership of their own institution reflected the
diversity of campus or society generally. For example one
respondent said that “a real commitment to equality and
diversity beyond the basics” ranked as a significant leadership
challenge.
On gender, 42% of HEI staff thought it was harder for women
to succeed in their institution than their male colleagues.
A clearly evident gender difference also emerged from the
report on work-life balance, with female academics reporting
that they worked longer hours than male respondents.
Respondents raised concerns that their family commitments,
or the fact that they worked part-time – both factors most
likely to affect women -- were a barrier to career progression
because of how these were perceived by (mostly male)
managers. Female academics (30.6 %) and female academic
leaders (23.3 %) also felt most stressed and least able to cope
with their workload.
Participants who perceived that equality and diversity
practices were fair were more likely to report satisfaction
with their work-life balance, and this was related to
greater commitment to the institution. This highlights the
importance of ensuring equality and diversity initiatives
are visible at all levels of the organisation, particular in top
leadership teams.
insights
The HELMs findings also suggest mentorship could be
particularly beneficial to women. Women rated the presence
of inspiring leaders and colleagues more highly than
men, and those who did not have a mentor had higher
expectations of the possible benefits of such a relationship
than men (70% versus 58%).
The similar profile of senior leaders – white, male, middle
aged - led to some questioning about whether leadership
development programmes at some insti-tutions can be fair
and open. Staff expressed concern over equity of access,
suggesting that stereotypes around age, gender, job role,
and location (inter-nal or external to the institution) affect
perceptions of leadership potential.
One described a “prevalent old boys network” which made
the organisation look “very old fashioned compared to other
sectors”.
Another warned that the idea of identifying “highly talent
individuals” would benefit men “who may be better at
maintaining a very assertive profile”. This same respondent
said: “I think it is wiser to run programmes that are at least
potentially open for people to apply for, according to
transparent criteria. I do think there is a need for programmes
for women, as the proportion of women in senior leadership
in higher education has fallen over the last few years.”
One participant in the survey hinted at age discrimination,
with a plea to “stop assuming that only those in their 20s
and 30s are the only talented individuals who should be
supported”.
The survey revealed a clear mismatch between the views of
university governors and staff on the question of equality
and diversity. It barely registered as a concern in governors’
responses to open-ended questions about the challenges
facing leaders in their HEI. Only 9% identified ‘increasing
diversity’ as a means by which the sector could improve
leadership and only 3% highlighted this as a key challenge
facing leaders in higher education.
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief
Only 17% of governors believed it was harder for a women to
succeed at their institution and fewer governors (16%) than
HEI staff (27%) thought it harder for black and minority ethnic
(BME) staff to make their mark. None of the small number of
governors who identified themselves as belonging to BME
groups felt it was harder for BME staff to succeed compared
with their colleagues.
Leadership challenges
According to both higher education staff and governors,
higher education finance is the most challenging issue that
the sector’s leadership has to face. Staff provided a series
of comments to illuminate the problem of simultaneously
keeping finances on an even keel while coping with change.
One respondent said the pressing issue was: “Working out
how to balance the books effectively while retaining its drive
to improve.”
Another talked about the need to provide sound financial
management “without choking off dynamism and creativity”.
Yet another highlighted the precarious balancing act of
ensuring stable finance at a time when student recruitment
rules were changing.
Staff were all too aware of the competitive market
environment they were operating in. The biggest challenge
for one respondent was: “Securing a strong competitive
position in an increasingly challenging environment as
a consequence of both dramatic funding changes and
increasing competition”
Another saw “Getting to grips with the increasingly
competitive global and national environment for universities
with the associated revenue uncertainty” as a problem.
The most prevalent sub-theme related to HEI’s performance
- such as the struggle to sustain league table positions,
protect quality in research and teaching while maintaining or
increasing student numbers, or build research capacity.
Respondents seized the opportunity to highlight perceived
shortcomings in higher education leadership, citing failures
to deal with low staff morale, bullying deans and leaders
insights
whose “personal career ambitions took precedence over the
well-being of the institution”. While some staff mentioned the
remoteness of senior management, others complained about
“micromanaging on an unbelievable scale.”
One respondent commented: “I feel there is a serious
disconnect between the senior executive and the rest of the
institution, which is almost toxic. Communication is poor and
there is a lack of trust and shared vision. Steps need to be
taken to re-engage staff at all levels.”
Governors’ assessment of the challenges facing leadership
accorded to a large degree with that of staff. Three
quarters mentioned financial sustainability and/or student
recruitment and competition.
There were also widespread concerns about the volatility of
the policy environment, with 37% of governors mentioning
lack of clarity and time to respond.
Developing future leaders
Previous research has highlighted a potential lack of clarity
in higher education on career paths. While there is a clear
academic trajectory from PhD student through to Professor,
the pathway to formal leadership positions is often less clear.
HELMs produced similar findings and there was unanimous
agreement in the staff survey that institutions could do
more to develop the next generation of institutional leaders.
Around 40 per cent of the respondents said their universi-
ty had leadership programmes, but around a third of the
sample did not know if they existed.
Many respondents wanted to see a comprehensive cross-
institutional approach to succession planning, rather than the
more ad hoc approach that character-ised arrangements in
many institutions.
Staff also emphasised the importance of universities ‘walking
the walk’ of leadership development, such that leadership
training is accompanied by on-the-job growth opportunities.
Some respondent raised concerns that certain groups,
such as administrative staff or internal candidates, were
overlooked in the process of appointing leaders.
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

One respondent said: “Despite having leadership
programmes, all appointments at or above Head of School
are externally advertised, and in recent years almost all are
external appointments.”
Training was identified as an essential component of the
development of future leaders but what was available was
seen as patchy.
“I would like to see a scheme whereby future leaders are
moved around the organisation to gain a range of experience
in how different parts of the organisation work, thereby
better preparing them for more senior roles which require
broader knowledge,” one respondent said.
The development of governors was also touched upon. A
quarter of governors had not received any training within the
previous 12 months. Only 10% of governors had a mentor.
Over half (52%) reported that they were mentoring other
individuals, but none of the mentoring relationships involved
governors mentoring other governors in HE.
insights
programmes aimed at nurturing and developing talent
outperformed institutions that did not.
Mentoring programmes, which were generally seen in
a positive light by contributors, could be part of this by
providing support, challenge and inspiration.
At the same time as providing opportunities for development
and encouraging staff to take them, senior managers need
to be mindful of the self-motivated nature of staff in HEIs and
their need for personal autonomy over their work.
Respondents’ sense of work-life balance was also important.
Higher levels of satisfaction with their work-life balance was
linked to a higher level of motivation to help the institution
succeed.
Younger staff had slightly different triggers. Evidence from
the survey suggests career factors, such as the formal
recognition of achievements, job security, clear advancement
routes, and high basic salary are especially important.
Staff who had taken on additional leadership responsibilities
did so for a varie-ty of reasons. As well as the intrinsic factors

Motivation such as those related to learning, they expressed a desire to

contribute to the institution or HE more generally, a concern
For academic staff, challenging work and the opportunity for with career progression and a desire to exert influence on
growth and autonomy, rather than personal career ambitions, institutional strategy.
were the most important motivators. Nearly as important
Comments mentioned the desire to “give back” to the sector,
was the contribution to society, being respected and working
supporting other staff, “developing my team” and getting a
with inspiring colleagues and leaders.
better insight into governance.
The authors see effective job design as the key. Jobs that
The governors’ survey found similar motivations at play.
are varied, that provide autonomy and are regarded as
Respondents’ main reasons for becoming governors were a
meaningful are associated with increased motivation, higher
desire to contribute to society and a commitment to higher
job satisfaction and lower burnout.
education.
Accordingly, institutions need to take a strategic view of
the development of roles and projects to make sure they
give staff the scope to stretch and challenge themselves.
Equally important is training and development programmes
that allow opportunities for growth. In a recent study of
the performance of UK universities, McCormack, Propper
and Smith (2013) found that institutions that embedded
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

Pulling the
threads together
The HELMs findings have clear implications for higher
education institutions that are interested in motivating
and developing future leaders, and for leaders and aspiring
leaders themselves.

Universities with motivated and inspired staff, some of whom

are ready and able to step up to the leadership plate, will be
better placed to meet the challenges of an uncertain future.
But it is clear from these findings that the extent to which
institutions give sufficient thought to succession and provide
clear and fair routes to leadership that are understood by all
is variable.

HELMs gives institutions clear advice on how to maximise

the potential of the workforce and get the best from staff,
whether that be by ensuring that the roles they undertake
are well-designed and meaningful, that the creeping
long-hours culture is kept in check, or that the equality and
diversity agenda is given the high status that they think it
deserves.

The views of staff and what they want from their managers
can feed into the kind of training that institutions make
available to leaders and potential leaders, as can the findings
showing the most pressing challenges to UK HE leadership
going forward.

The governors survey, although small, is a valuable addition

to an under researched field. Its contrasting findings in some
areas, which paint a more positive picture than the one
outlined by staff, suggest governors might find it illuminating
to gain a better sense of the reality of everyday practice.
Higher Education Leadership and Management Survey (HELMs): The results in brief

insights

The Leadership Foundation says:

This is the first large scale and comprehensive survey of leadership carried out by the
Leadership Foundation. A common core of questions allows us to triangulate and
compare views on leadership from multiple perspectives- governors, senior leaders,
academic and professional staff working in a diverse range of institutions across the
UK. Because of the very large return of qualitative data, the results yield novel insights
into views on current and emerging issues and challenges for leaders and it helps to
build evidence for the sector on the conditions within which academic and professional
services staff feel they can best perform.
Like all surveys it is a snapshot – and needs to be understood in context, which was of
policy uncertainty, increasing financial pressure and a sector waiting for results of the
2014 REF. However, overall the HELMs findings offer useful messages about leaders and
leadership. But of course there is more to do. First, the million dollar question arises how
to better understand organisational culture, how it influences workforce development
and whether there is a relationship with performance. Secondly, and perhaps more easily
done, it would be useful to learn about talent management from other sectors. Thirdly we
should consider whether higher education has an appetite for system wide assessment
of staff views and engagement. National benchmarking would add depth and granularity
to the statistical reports provided by HESA and the Equality Challenge Unit. And finally a
debate about how to best support the academic and professional workforce to deliver the
challenges of Brexit, the TEF and rapid change is timely.
Professor Fiona Ross
Director of Research
Leadership Foundation

Authors:
Leading Higher Education: Dr Kim Peters, University of Queensland, Australia; Michelle K. Ryan, University of Exeter, UK and
University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Leadership and Work-Life Balance: Kim Peters & Michelle K. Ryan

Motivating and Developing Leaders: Kim Peters & Michelle K. Ryan

Governors’ views of their institutions, leadership and governance: Professor David Greatbatch, Durham University

This research was commissioned by the Leadership Foundation. The full reports are available at www.lfhe.ac.uk/HELMs

This paper has been produced in collaboration with HEi-know, the HE intelligence platform from Media FHE Ltd.

Published August 2016