This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of

Education published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier

for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-
commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in
instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know,
and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation

commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are
prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through
Elsevier's permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Middlehurst R, Kennie T and Woodfield S (2010), Leading and Managing the

University – Presidents and their Senior Management Team. In: Penelope
Peterson, Eva Baker, Barry McGaw, (Editors), International Encyclopedia of
Education. volume 4, pp. 238-244. Oxford: Elsevier.
 Author's personal copy
Leading and Managing the University – Presidents and their
Senior Management Team
R Middlehurst, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London, UK
T Kennie, Ranmore Consulting, Ranmore, UK
S Woodfield, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction: Framing the Focus of
Enquiry
Organization, Roles and Context
In some countries and some centuries the idea of leading
and managing a university when linked to the responsi-
bilities of a president and his or her senior management
team might be regarded as something of an oxymoron.
There are several reasons for this. The first concerns
conceptions of the university as an organization. Tradi-
tional conceptions of the university as a community of
scholars, collegial institution, or organized anarchy sug-
gest different expectations of leadership and the role of
leaders from those associated with concepts of the univer-
sity as a business or entrepreneurial venture. The second
reason is associated with the nature of a president’s role.
Election to this position as first among equals suggests a
different view of how the leadership role is conceived and
executed from a situation in which the role is filled
through internal or external selection and appointment
to the top rank in a hierarchy. A third reason is linked to
the term, management, and the role of the senior man-
agement team in leading and managing the university. Use
of this terminology locates our topic broadly in the latter
half of the twentieth and early twenty-first century and
positions it in relation to the political, economic, and
social contexts of that era. This period, then, defines the
parameters of our enquiry.
Diversity of Perspectives
The variables identified above, namely, the university as
an organization, the locus and source of authority for
university leadership, and the context and time in which
leadership occurs are important in framing how leader-
ship is conceived, organized, and delivered. These vari-
ables are all reflected in the analytical framework adopted
by Bargh and colleagues in their empirical and theoretical
study of University Leadership in the UK and in the
5-year study of Institutional Leadership Project (ILP)
conducted by Birnbaum and colleagues in the US. Another
important variable is the national focus of studies – as
Bargh and colleagues recognize and explore – there
remain organizational and cultural differences in the
238
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
role of rector of a continental European university, presi-
dent of a university in the USA, and vice chancellors in
UK. The interplay between processes of leadership and
management within institutions and the wider national
and political context within which universities operate
also features in many studies from different parts of the
world. These studies provide an opportunity to examine
the changing practices, as well as the structures and bal-
ances of power between the state and the institution.
There is diversity, as well, between universities of
different types, historical origin, and legal and financial
status within countries. Such factors also impinge on
expectations and analyses of the task of leading and man-
aging universities. To quote Madeline Green, a US
scholar of institutional leadership, ‘‘With more than
three thousand institutions. . .Diversity is the hallmark of
the American system. Just as there is no recipe for institu-
tional effectiveness, there is no single model of leadership.
And definitions of effectiveness and of leadership require-
ments inevitably change over time.’’
Leading and Managing the University
The literature associated with leading and managing the
university can be separated, in part, from the literature
associated with the role of president and the nature and
responsibilities of a senior management team. The unit of
enquiry in the first of these domains is the institution and,
in the second, the focus is on individual actors. However,
there are also studies that bridge the gap by examining
actual or potential links between an institution and its
performance and the profiles of leaders.
Within the domain of leading and managing the
university, terminology again comes into play. In some
studies, leadership is a dominant concept embracing man-
agement; in other cases, managing is the primary focus,
but embracing leadership. In continental European stud-
ies, the broader term, governance, is widely used to
include the role of rectors and boards within university
decision-making processes. Some studies also specifically
disaggregate concepts of leadership and governance or
leadership and management as well as the associated
roles and responsibilities of each domain. In other cases,
the discussion is of shared responsibilities for leadership
 Author's personal copy
Leading and Managing the University – Presidents and their Senior Management Team
between governors or trustees and presidents. Such differ-
ent approaches facilitate an examination of the dynamics
of relationships between actors and the critical interde-
pendencies of leadership, governance, management and
administration, and indeed, politics, in the running of an
institution.
An important topic in the corporate literature is the
link between leadership and organizational performance.
A recent literature review in the UK has examined
research on leadership and institutional effectiveness in
higher education and has found a dearth of rigorous
empirical work. The most important studies identified
are included below.
University Presidents
The nature of the presidential role and the factors that
impinge both on expectations surrounding the role and
the way the role is exercised clearly offer a rich vein for
research. UK and Australian studies, for example, focus on
the individuals occupying or seeking presidential roles
and examine their profiles, career paths, and remunera-
tion. These studies shed light on sustained or divergent
trends over time, the social and disciplinary profiles of
incumbents, the characteristics and capabilities sought for
the role, rewards, and recruitment and selection processes.
A number of hypotheses are posited or tested in these
studies including the relationship between disciplinary
and professional backgrounds and social and academic
status, as well as the power and influence of presidents
within the university or with external constituencies such
as government, funding bodies, and sponsors. Other stud-
ies in this territory explore barriers to entry, such as
gender or ethnicity, and examine strategies for develop-
ment and recruitment that seek to eliminate or reduce
barriers. The development routes and learning opportu-
nities offered to or taken by individuals provide another
field for research linked to entry to the role of president or
member of the senior management team. The lens is also
turned on leadership style and approach in studies that
concentrate on how the role of leader and management
team is exercised in practice.
Senior Management Teams
The amount of published work on senior (or top) man-
agement teams in higher education is limited. In the USA,
Bensimon and Neumann provide the most comprehensive
analysis based on several focused dialogs with 15 presi-
dents of US higher education institutions. Gioia and
Thomas undertook an extensive study of how senior
management teams make sense of important issues that
affect strategic change in modern universities. More
recent studies have emerged in the UK: Jarzabkowski
and Wilson provide insights into how one senior team
formulated and implemented strategy at the University of
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
239
Warwick, tracking the process of strategy formulation
through the interplay of various structures within the
institution. In a later article, Jarzabkowski extends the
analysis to three UK institutions: Warwick, the London
School of Economics (LSE), and Oxford Brookes Univer-
sity, exploring some of the micro-practices of strategy.
Further work in the UK by Taylor explores the relation-
ship between the overall organizational structure and
institutional leadership through a case-study analysis of
four UK institutions (all research-led premier league
institutions) that had undergone major institutional level
restructuring in recent years. Most recently, another UK-
based empirical study is investigating the challenges and
changes associated with the composition of top manage-
ment team structures in higher education institutions.
This research identifies changes in roles and responsibil-
ities and examples of good practice, or good processes,
within institutions in the public and private sectors of
higher education.
Types of Literature
The types of available literature in relation to our topic
are wide ranging, which include field research of vari-
ous kinds, scholarly reflections and analyses, personal
accounts, policy reports, and media articles. Both quanti-
tative and qualitative approaches are represented in the
research studies and research is undertaken in a variety of
disciplinary fields as part of the general social science and
management literature and the specific literature relating
to studies in higher education. On the positive side, there
is a rich array of knowledge and insights available. On the
negative side, however, there is an absence of recognized
and cumulative approach to knowledge generation and
many studies lack rigor either in terms of theoretical
underpinnings or methodological soundness. There is
also an imbalance between normative studies and reflec-
tive accounts built on practice and experience, and theo-
retical and investigative research, with fewer studies in the
second category.
Focus of the Enquiry
In the next section, we focus more deeply on two main
areas: the roles and responsibilities of presidents in lead-
ing and managing the university and senior management
teams in order to identify findings, concepts, and issues
arising before concluding with suggestions concerning
future avenues for research. A few key texts are sampled.
These have been chosen for their empirical base, practical
insights, and their connections to the wider leadership
literature so as to give an indication of the types of
study available and their value for different purposes
and audiences.
 Author's personal copy

240 Higher Education – Management, Leadership and Governance

Leading Universities: The Role and studies by combining several types of data. The biograph-
Responsibilities of Presidents ical data are longitudinal, examining the changing career
experiences and backgrounds of vice chancellors for the
Two empirical studies of presidential leadership under-
period 1960–97. A total of 341 cases were collected in
taken in the last 40 years stand out because of the breadth
two linked databases. The study also includes compara-
of methods used, the range of data collected, the theoreti-
tive international data from four countries: the UK, US,
cal perspectives presented, and the new knowledge and
Sweden, and the Netherlands. These data comprised a
insights achieved from the research. The first was under-
literature review examining executive leadership in the
taken in the US over a 5-year period from 1988 to 1992
US and Europe and three questionnaire surveys of uni-
(the ILP); the second was undertaken in the UK over a
versity presidents, yielding more than 100 usable re-
2-year period. An earlier and smaller-scale empirical study
sponses. The third element of the research – aimed at
in the UK by Bargh and colleagues has also influenced both
getting a more grounded view of the day-to-day work of
the practice of leadership and leadership development in
vice chancellors – involved institutional case studies.
the UK and Europe. In the US, the work of Green and
These were based on semi-structured interviews in ten
Green as well as of McDade has had similar impact.
institutions (covering vice chancellors and other members
The US ILP is important for several reasons. First, the
of staff and governors) as well as nonparticipant observa-
authors examined theories of leadership from outside
tion of three further vice chancellors at work over a period
higher education and tested them in the context of uni-
of 2–3 weeks in their institutions.
versities. Second, they adopted an approach to study-
A second reason to value this work is that it focuses on
ing leadership that was closely linked to universities as
the rhetoric and the reality of a historical transition in the
organizations. By combining the two perspectives, the
role of institutional leaders – from academic to manage-
researchers were able to offer an integrated conceptual
rial leadership. This transition is still in progress in many
approach to strategy formulation and execution that made
countries as they experience governance reforms that
sense of the complexity of an institution in its particular
reflect continuing change in the relationship between
context and the stage of development. Building on initial
higher education and the state. Bargh and colleagues
work on the cybernetics of academic organization, the
demonstrate that the assumed trajectory from one form
project concluded with Birnbaum’s analysis of success
and style of academic and collegial leadership to manage-
and failure in the college presidency.
rial and corporate leadership is not so clear-cut. This is
This project is one of the few higher education
partly because of the diversity of institutional missions,
research studies that attempt to tackle the difficult ques-
histories, and cultures and partly because the transitional
tion of how leadership effectiveness can be depicted and
state encompasses both forms, as represented in new titles
evaluated. Birnbaum and his colleagues drew on the three
of vice chancellor and chief executive. The evidence
criteria defined by Cameron, namely, goal achievement,
drawn from their comparative research suggests that the
resource acquisition, and smooth internal functioning, to
British and European leaders and, to a lesser extent, their
arrive at a definition of good leadership in academic
US counterparts shared common experiences. Each in
institutions based around constituent support. The studies
different ways were coping with a complex and often
conducted by Birnbaum and his colleagues are collec-
conflicting set of pressures including the ‘‘the contradic-
tively valuable in emphasizing the importance of context
tions of free-market rhetoric, the apparent retreat of the
for the exercise of leadership and in placing presidential
state from planning and the competing demands of cor-
leadership within a wider framework of institutional
porate control versus creativity and entrepreneurship.’’
players, culture, and history that places limits on the
The authors conclude that the role relies on a set of
influence of a single individual. The individual studies
implicit and negotiated powers that align more readily
undertaken within the project are equally important.
with political organizations and processes than overtly
They focus on different stages of the presidential role,
commercial and corporate ones.
sampling new and experienced presidents. The social and
The study examines university leadership in detail,
cognitive processes that shape the symbolic and substan-
tracing the evolution of the role from 1945 in five succes-
tive aspects of leadership and how presidents learned
sive periods, all of which are closely connected to the
their job and assess their effectiveness are further themes.
prevailing sequential political contexts of consolidation,
The researchers also explored leadership and follower-
growth and innovation, as well as crisis and challenge.
ship as well as leadership, culture, and change. Each of
Through the empirical data and analysis, the authors
these avenues of enquiry is represented in the wider
highlight the impact of this context on the changing struc-
literature on leadership, beyond higher education.
tures of universities as well as the internal and external
The UK study by Bargh and colleagues is significant
role of their leaders. External accountability features par-
for different reasons. First, the research achieves greater
ticularly strongly as part of the new demands of the role.
depth and more comprehensive coverage than many other

International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244

 Author's personal copy
Leading and Managing the University – Presidents and their Senior Management Team
This includes traditional representational functions as
well as managing and redefining the boundaries of the
institution with government and an array of new agencies
set up to assess, guide, or support the internal functions of
the institution. External accountability also encompasses
relationships with the governing body. Since the research
was completed, the role of the governing body has become
more prominent, and the range of business at board level
heavier, more complex, and demanding. This is also true
of the range of external partnerships and collaborative
ventures with which universities engage, from business
and the community to international consortia. The exter-
nal role of the vice chancellor or president is increasing in
most countries, and the balance of time spent on internal
and external roles remains a preoccupation for institu-
tional leaders. However, Bargh and co-workers found
much variation in practice with no agreement among
their respondents about the appropriate balance at any
one time.
The study provides valuable insight into the internal
role of vice chancellor. Classic leadership responsibilities
are examined including developing the mission, strategy
building and strategic planning, creating structures in
support of strategy, and balancing continuity and change
in relation to the values of the organization. The vice
chancellor’s role in academic leadership is also analyzed.
This is seen as central to strategy and mission and, in a
modern university, involves managing the interface
between governors and senior academic colleagues. The
unique features of the vice chancellor’s role are described
as combining academic and symbolic leadership with
managerial expertise. Further fine-grained detail is
provided of how the social practice of leadership is exer-
cised. There are clear parallels here to the earlier US
study – both sets of researchers, drawing on their data –
that emphasize the need to think of university leadership
in terms of the language and metaphors of complex polit-
ical systems, ‘‘rather than engineering and simple linear
models of command and control.’’
The comparative data collected in the Bargh study
highlight further points of convergence. For presidents,
rectors, and vice chancellors there are shared preoccupa-
tions: with strategy, with finding appropriate mechanisms
to link control with entrepreneurship and competitive
advantage, and in dealing with the consequences of dwin-
dling state resources for higher education. However,
beyond being subject to similar environmental forces,
there remains great diversity of leadership style and
behavior reflecting both situation-specific agendas as
well as the individuality of the incumbent. To provide a
further check on similarities, differences, and possible
convergence in presidential roles and responsibilities,
we need to look outside Europe, North America, and
Australasia. Transforming and transition countries are an
important source of data. Cloete and co-workers provide
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
241
an overview of the contexts and challenges facing South
African institutional leaders, particularly those in histori-
cally disadvantaged institutions (HDIs). Some presidential
roles are the same: developing mission, strategic planning,
mobilizing support, increasing efficiency, and financial
planning and management. However, the contexts are sig-
nificantly different in terms of resources, political, social,
and economic challenges, leading in a strongly unionized
environment and dealing simultaneously with a variety
of crises.
Further useful contributions from this region have
focused on the role of South African vice chancellors in
institutional transformation. Bell explores an African per-
spective on transformational or transformative leadership
through interviews with ten vice chancellors of HDIs. No
commonality of perspective on leadership, or an African
style of leadership, emerged. Instead, Bell’s study high-
lights several conflicts that illustrate the tensions experi-
enced in moving from scholarly notions of leadership
(Scott’s donnish phase of governance) to a managerial
phase with strong expectations of democracy built into it.
Kulati’s study is also about tensions; this time between
reliance on governance transformation at the structural
level while neglecting the role of institutional leadership
in shaping change. He too explores the shifting balance
between collegial and managerial forms of leadership,
arguing the case for transformative leadership that facil-
itates effective institutional management in the context
of a professional culture that eschews being. At the end
of his paper, Kulati raises important questions for fur-
ther research, namely, the agency versus structure tension
and the personality versus environmental fit challenge.
In other words, to what extent are individual leaders and
their senior teams critical to achieving success in challeng-
ing times?
Senior Management Teams
Both the studies cited above not only consider the role,
style, and impact of individual leaders in leading and
managing the university but also the part played by senior
staff in the collective process of leadership. Other studies
also contribute to the picture: Gardiner surveyed a small
focused sample of presidents to explore their role in team
building and the characteristics of an effective presiden-
tial team. Middlehurst takes a wider view of group dimen-
sions of leadership by examining the contribution of
senior administrators, lay officers, and committees, as
well as senior management groups, describing the inter-
actions, relationships, and dimensions of symbolic, stylis-
tic, and substantive institutional leadership as a complex
drama. Major studies of senior management teams in
higher education are, however, more limited than studies
of presidents. Two are selected: the first arose from the
ILP in the US and examines teams and teamwork as part
 Author's personal copy
242 Higher Education – Management, Leadership and Governance
of leadership, whereas the second is a UK-based study
recently completed by Woodfield and Kennie.
Bensimon and Neuman report the difficulties of lan-
guage (e.g. ‘‘a team is not always a team’’) and summarize
the advantages and disadvantages of teamwork. The au-
thors also offer valuable insights into how presidents do or
do not make use of their teams. They find that effective
team builders construe the work of their teams in terms of
three functions: utilitarian, expressive, and cognitive. The
first is formal and task oriented, assisting the president in
achieving a sense of rationality and control over institu-
tional functioning. The second is social and integrative,
reinforcing a sense of connectedness between individuals
involved in joint ventures. The third involves sense-
making with the purpose of enabling the group to behave
as a creative or corrective system able to see problems
from multiple perspectives, to question and challenge.
Bensimon and Neumann differentiate between real
teams that focus on all three dimensions and illusory
teams that focus only on the utilitarian function. They
note that the key difference between the two is how the
team thinks together and again offer a useful conceptuali-
zation of eight thinking roles for a presidential team.
These include five core roles, namely definer, analyst,
interpreter, critic, and synthesizer, as well as three roles
that support the core, disparity monitor, task monitor, and
emotional monitor. Understanding and balancing differ-
ent roles is an important contributor to effectiveness
in teams’ thinking, learning, and acting together. The
authors suggest that while they observed the process of
team learning at the micro-level, it was likely also to be
reflected in the wider organization. These insights locate
this study in relation to wider research on the learning
organization and also to the burgeoning field of shared
leadership and distributed leadership.
Woodfield and Kennie’s study of top team structures is
similarly empirically based and practically orientated
toward helping institutional leaders and their teams ana-
lyze their role and performance. Two conceptual frame-
works have been created from evidence drawn across the
UK sector. The authors relate these frameworks to the
range of functions that top teams typically undertake and
suggest their suitability for different institutional contexts.
From their desk research and interviews (to be supple-
mented by questionnaire data), the researchers highlight
key issues related to the formation and operation of top
teams that are likely to impinge on their operational
effectiveness. These include:
1. clarifying the criteria for membership of the top team;
2. understanding the meaning of team work in a top team;
3. deciding on the focus of top team activities and func-
tions;
4. outlining agreed working practices;
5. dealing with conflicts and competing priorities;
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
6. evaluating both personal and team effectiveness;
7. relationship building and interaction;
8. reviewing succession planning, training, and develop-
ment; and
9. providing relevant support and resources for top team
activities.
The findings from the UK study are already beginning to
identify not only different modes of team operation but
also the range of challenges that top teams face in differ-
ent types of institutions. The research also provides fur-
ther evidence of tension, transition, and the need for
alignment in the ways that universities are led and man-
aged through a variety of formal and informal structures
and groupings.
Future Research
There are many gaps and avenues for further work in
the general territory covered above. First, the higher
education literature is more limited in range and scope
than the corporate literature on chief executive leadership
and the operations of senior teams. Equally, bespoke
research in higher education would benefit from wider
and deeper comparisons with other sectors, by including
interdisciplinary perspectives and by examining institu-
tions as organizations. The dynamics of change, transition,
and transformation (as well as continuity) could usefully
be examined more fully, both in terms of stages of organi-
zational and historical development and from the per-
spective of different cultures and traditions.
At a macro-level, the interplay between university
leadership and the wider political, economic, and social
system are worth exploring as institutions and their lea-
ders are drawn more deeply into the rhetoric and reality
surrounding the role of universities in developing or
transforming societies. However, micro-level treatment
of this agenda is also needed for a deeper understanding
of the part played not only by the president and his or her
team, but also by other leaders, including professional
managers, senior academic managers and professors, and
teachers and researchers. While the career routes of pre-
sidents continue to be charted and examined, the wider
career and developmental experiences of members of
senior teams are not so well researched. In this context,
the particular experiences of those leaders who move into
and out of higher education should be explored. At the
individual level – and at the level of structural and cul-
tural processes – there remains a pressing need to
research the experiences of would-be or could-be leaders,
including women and ethnic minorities; Eveline’s recent
work is a welcome contribution in this territory.
There are also disconnects that require bridging.
There is a gap between: (1) theory and practice, (2) policy
 Author's personal copy
Leading and Managing the University – Presidents and their Senior Management Team
interests and the agendas of researchers, (3) macro- and
micro-level studies, and (4) empirical and normative lit-
erature. There are also fruitful areas for combining inves-
tigation and evidence, for example, between the world of
practitioners and consultants working in higher educa-
tion. Ultimately perhaps, research should reflect the land-
scape in which the subjects operate and make their
contribution to the development of higher education; it
should more fully examine the interplay between aca-
demic, symbolic, managerial, and societal terrains.
Further Reading
Askling, B. (2001). In search of new models of institutional governance:
Some Swedish experiences. Tertiary Education and Management 7,
197–210.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2006).
The Report of the Task Force on the State of the Presidency in
American Higher Education: The Leadership Imperative.
Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges.
Baimbridge, M. and Simpson, C. (1996). Rewards to academia: The
remuneration of vice chancellors and principals. Applied Economics
28, 631–639.
Bargh, C., Bocock, J., Scott, P., and Smith, D. (2000). University
Leadership: The Role of the Chief Executive. Buckingham: Society for
Research on Higher Education/Open University Press.
Bauer, M., Askling, B., Marton, S. G., and Marton, F. (1999).
Transforming Universities: Changing Patterns of Governance,
Structure and Learning in Swedish Higher Education. Higher
Education Policy Series 48. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Bell, C. and Mitchell, B. (1991). Vice-chancellorships since Collison and
Millen: A research note and comment. Sociology 25, 521–522.
Bell, D. (2001). Leading change: African conceptions of leadership and
transformation in higher education in South Africa. Paper Presented
at the Higher Education Close-Up 2 Conference. Lancaster
University, UK, 16–18 July 2001.
Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Five approaches to think about: Lessons
learned from experienced Presidents. In Bensimon, E. M., Gade, M.,
and Kauffman, J. (eds.) On Assuming a College or University
Presidency: Lessons and Advice from the Field, pp 1–12.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Bensimon, E. M. (1990). The new president and understanding the
campus as a culture. In Tierney, W. G. (ed.) Assessing Academic
Climates and Cultures. New Directions for Institutional Research,
No. 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M. (1991). The social process through which faculty
shape the image of a new resident. Journal of Higher Education 62,
637–660.
Bensimon, E. M. and Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning Collegiate
Leadership: Teams and Teamwork in Higher Education. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., and Birmbaum, R. (1989). Making
sense of administrative leadership: The ‘‘l’’ word in higher education.
ASHE-ERIC Reports on Higher Education, No.1. Washington, DC:
ASHE.
Birnbaum, R. (1986). Leadership and learning: The college president as
intuitive scientist. Review of Higher Education 9, 381–395.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic
Organization and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). Leadership and followership: The cybernetics of
university governance. In Schuster, J. H. and Miller, L. (eds.)
Governing Tomorrow’s Campuses: Perspectives and Agendas,
pp 27–41. Washington, DC: American Council on Education/
Macmillan.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The implicit leadership theories of college and
university presidents. Review of Higher Education 12, 125–136.
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
243
Birnbaum, R. (1990). How’m I doin’?: How college presidents assess
their effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly 1, 25–39.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding
Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2008). Developing Collective
Leadership in Higher Education. London: Leadership Foundation for
Higher Education.
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective Leadership in Higher Education. London:
Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Cameron, K. S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges
and universities. Academy of Management Journal 24, 25–47.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Cloete, N., Kulati, T., and Phala, M. (2000). Leadership and institutional
change in higher education. Papers from a Seminar in Gordon’s Bay,
South Africa, 16–19 May, 1999, Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education
Transformation.
Coaldrake, P. (1999). The changing climate of Australian higher
education: An international perspective. Higher Education
Management 11, 117–134.
Coaldrake, P. and Stedman, L. (1998). On the Brink: Australia’s
Universities Confronting Their Future. St. Lucia: University of
Queensland Press.
Cohen, M. D. and March, J. D. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The
American College President, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Collison, P. and Millen, J. (1969). University chancellors, vice-
chancellors and college principals – social profile. Sociology 3,
77–109.
Conraths, B. and Trusso, A. (2007). Managing the University
Community: Exploring Good Practice. Brussels: European University
Association.
Eggins, H. (ed.) (1997). Women as Leaders and Managers in Higher
Education. Buckingham: Society for Research on Higher Education/
Open University Press.
Eveline, J. (2004). Ivory Basement Leadership: Power and Invisibility in
the Changing University. Crawley: Western Australia Press.
Gardiner, J. J. (1988). Building leadership teams. In Green, M. F. (ed.)
Leaders for a New Era: Strategies for Higher Education, pp 137–153.
New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Gioia, D. A. and Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue
interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41, 37–403.
Goodall, A. H. (2006). Should top universities be led by top researchers
and are they? A citations analysis. Journal of Documentation 62,
388–411.
Green, M. F. (ed.) (1988). Leaders for a New Era: Strategies for Higher
Education. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Green, M. F. and McDade, S. A. (1991). Investing in Higher Education:
A Handbook of Leadership Development. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.
Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The
organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of
Management Review 9, 193–206.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: An activity theory
perspective on continuity and change. Journal of Management
Studies 40, 23–55.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D. C. (2002). Top teams and strategy in a
UK university. Journal of Management Studies 39, 355–381.
Johnson, R. (2002). Learning to manage the university: Tales of training
and experience. Higher Education Quarterly 56, 33–51.
Kulati, T. (2003). From protest to challenge: Leadership and higher
education change in South Africa. Tertiary Education and
Management 9, 13–27.
McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise:
The changing cultures of universities. In Schuller, T. (ed.) The
Changing University?, pp 105–115. Buckingham: Society for
Research on Higher Education/Open University Press.
Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Buckingham: Society for
Research on Higher Education/Open University Press.
Middlehurst, R., Pope, M., and Wray, M. (1992). The changing roles of
university leaders and managers: Implications for preparation and
development. CORE 16, Fiche 5 E 11.
 Author's personal copy
244 Higher Education – Management, Leadership and Governance
Mignot-Gerard, S. (2003). ‘‘Leadership’’ and ‘‘governance’’ in the
analysis of university organisations: Two concepts in need of
de-construction. Higher Education Management and Policy
15, 135–163.
Neumann, A. (1990). Making mistakes: Error and learning in the college
presidency. Journal of Higher Education 61, 386–407.
Neumann, A. (1990). On the making of ‘good times’ and ‘hard
times’: The social construction of resource stress. Report OP 90:18.
College Park, MD: Center for Higher Education Governance and
Leadership.
Neumann, A. and Bensimon, E. (1990). Constructing the presidency:
College presidents’ images of their leadership roles: A comparative
study. Journal of Higher Education 61, 678–701.
O’ Meara, B. and Petzall, S. (2005). Vice chancellors for the 21st century?
A study of contemporary recruitment and selection practices in
Australian universities. Management Research News 28, 18–35.
Pearce, C. L. and Conger, J. A. (eds.) (2003). Shared Leadership:
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. London: Sage.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London:
Routledge.
Scott, P. (1996). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. London:
Wiley.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Leading
the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shattock, M. (2003). Managing Successful Universities. Maidenhead:
Society for Research on Higher Education/Open University Press.
Shavlik, D. and Touchton, J. (1988). Women as leaders.
In Green, M. F. (ed.) Leaders for a New Era: Strategies for Higher
Education, pp 98–117. New York: American Council on Higher
Education/Macmillan.
International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), vol. 4, pp. 238-244
Sloper, D. W. (1984). A social characteristics profile of Australian vice-
chancellors. Higher Education 14, 355–386.
Sloper, D. W. (1989). The selection of vice-chancellors: The Australian
experience. Higher Education Quarterly 43, 247–265.
Smith, D., Bargh, C., Bocock, J., and Scott, P. (1999). New leaders
at the top? The educational and career paths of UK university
vice-chancellors (1960–1996). Higher Education Management
11, 113–135.
Taylor, J. (2006). ‘‘Big is beautiful’’. Organisational change in universities
in the United Kingdom: New models of institutional management and
the changing role of academic staff. Higher Education in Europe
31, 251–273.
Taylor, J. and Machado, M. (2006). Higher education leadership
and management: From conflict to interdependence
through strategic planning. Tertiary Education and Management
12, 137–160.
van den Bosch, H. and Teelken, C. J. (2000). Organisation and
leadership in higher education: Learning from experiences in the
Netherlands. Higher Education Policy 13, 379–397.
Watson, D. (2000). Managing Strategy. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Weil, S. (ed.) (1994). Introducing Change from the Top in Universities
and Colleges: 10 Personal Accounts. London: Kogan Page.
Wilson, R. and Melendez, S. E. (1988). Strategies for developing
minority leadership. In Green, M. (ed.) Leaders for a New Era:
Strategies for Higher Education, pp 118–136. New York: American
Council on Education/Macmillan.
Woodfield, S. and Kennie, T. (2007). Top team structures in UK higher
education institutions: Composition, challenges and changes.
Tertiary Education and Management 13, 331–348.