An Integrated Framework for Leadership: The Case of Higher Education

Complexity Of Leadership In Higher Education

Most of Australia’s 42 universities are public institutions, with only 5 private universities. While there is a larger number of non-university higher education providers (NUHEPs) in Australia, mostly operating as private for-profit institutions, these account for only 10% of student enrolments, though the number of enrolments at NUHEPs is slated to increase (TEQSA, 2019). Public universities were generally established with a traditional collegial leadership model, but later moved to a more contemporary managerialist model due to the significant impact of neoliberalism on the sector since the 1980s. The overtly profit-driven non-university higher education providers, on the other hand, were established more explicitly in a prevailing commercially focused economic environment and had thus generally adopted a corporate managerialist model (Bryman, 2007). Perhaps understandably, therefore, leadership practices can differ significantly between institutions.

Not only is leadership in HE claimed to be unique relative to other organisations (Jarrett & Newton, 2020), but leadership itself is also often ambiguous and contested (Juntrasook, 2014). This points to the depth and breadth of challenges faced by HE leaders. Institutions operate in multifaceted environments which are often influenced by a range of different and sometimes conflicting factors. These can include a vast array of issues including, for example, advances in technology, globalisation and intensive institutional competition driven to some extent by student demands and expectations which can have resultant impacts on the academic workforce.