Introduction

Scholars, consultants, and practitioners have developed an endless array of programs and initiatives to facilitate the development of leaders.  Nevertheless, approaches that are effective and prevalent in many other industries might not be helpful in tertiary education.  That is, leaders in tertiary education, especially academic heads of university departments, often experience a raft of distinct challenges. 

 

To illustrate, as Bryman and Lilley (2009) observed, after these authors completed an analysis of interviews with tertiary education leaders, academics often perceive themselves as detached from the institution.  They tend to be more loyal to their field of research than to their department or institution.  They often chose a research career because of a predilection towards autonomy and independence.  Consequently, academics, in general, are not especially amenable to actions that are implemented to manage or to limit their behavior.

 

Besides this impediment in their capacity to manage and to influence academic staff, leaders in tertiary education may experience other distinct challenges.  To illustrate, heads or directors of academic units, such as departments, often experience conflicting demands.  For example

 

• if they do not pursue their research, their credibility in the field might subside; but if they do pursue their research, they might be perceived as unsupportive of their department

• the requests they receive from executives often conflict with the requests they receive from staff

 

These challenges and conflicts may be especially pronounced in female leaders.  To illustrate, as Blackmore and Sachs (2000) revealed, after they interviewed 50 female leaders at Australian universities

 

• because of the neoliberal agenda, many of the values these leaders cherished—such as teaching and service—were superseded by an increasing obsession with research income and ranking

• university rhetoric often underscored the importance of equality and diversity; yet, more established universities actually valued privilege, tradition, and thus male dominance, despite this rhetoric.  

 

Content of leadership development programs in tertiary education: Overview of effective behaviors

To facilitate the design of leadership development programs, some researchers have attempted to identify the leadership behaviors that characterize effective leadership in tertiary education.  For example, after a comprehensive review of the literature, Bryman (2007) unearthed 13 leadership behaviors that are assumed to exemplify or demonstrate exemplary leadership.  Specifically, these leaders

 

• promulgate a clear and inspiring vision or sense of direction, sometimes called visionary

• initiate changes and arrangements that enable the institution or department to pursue this vision—sometimes called initiating structure

• develop mutually respectful and warm relationships that accommodate the needs of other individuals, sometimes called individualized consideration  

• treat other individuals with fairness, impartiality, and integrity, regardless of personal interests

• fulfill their promises and communicate transparently, representing trustworthiness

• grant all staff opportunities to contribute towards decisions—and show a willingness to genuinely debate these choices

• communicate frequently and candidly about the plans, changes, and progress in an institution or department

• act as role models, epitomizing the behaviors they advocate, called idealized influence

• foster a collegial, collaborative, and supportive atmosphere, encouraging staff to communicate honestly and encouragingly

• advocate effectively on behalf of staff, promoting the achievements and seeking the necessary support and resources

• deliver regular and constructive feedback to staff

• manage workloads effectively, to enable academic staff to pursue their research and scholarship

• appoint suitable, productive staff

 

Bryman (2007), however, recognized that few leaders will manage to demonstrate all these exemplary behaviors.  In particular, some behaviors might impede their capacity to demonstrate other behaviors.  For example, to act as a role model, leaders might need to maintain an exemplary track record of research.  Yet, this pursuit of research might limit the time that is available to initiate all the other behaviors. 

 

Rather than depend on a literature review, Hamlin and Patel (2017) undertook a critical incident analysis to uncover effective and ineffective leadership behaviors.  Specifically, the researchers interviewed 37 staff in higher education, living in France, 16 of whom were leaders and managers.  Participants were prompted to describe critical incidents they had observed in which managers or leaders demonstrated helpful or unhelpful behaviors.  The responses were subjected to open coding and then axial coding to identify 17 clusters of effective leadership behaviors and 21 clusters of ineffective leadership behaviors.   

 

Many of the 17 effective leadership behaviors overlapped with the inventory that Bryman (2007) had proposed.  However, Hamlin and Patel (2017) did uncover some effective leadership behaviors that Bryman (2007) had not revealed.  These disparities might reflect differences in the nations and methods across studies.  According to Hamlin and Patel (2017), effective leaders also

 

• recognize and reward staff who contribute effectively and work assiduously

• are attuned to the personal challenges of staff and supports their staff in these circumstances

• grant staff autonomy on how to fulfill goals or solve problems

• empower staff to assume leadership roles, such as chair meetings, propose recommendations, or reach decisions

• inspire staff to seek opportunities that could facilitate their learning and development

• chair meetings effectively; they prepare helpful agendas, allot a reasonable duration to each item, and generates decisions or actions

• clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff

• resolve the problems that staff experience, such as conflict with colleagues, as soon as possible

• monitor the performance and progress of staff effectively, with reference to suitable reports, evaluations, and feedback

 

Similarly, Hamlin and Patel (2017) unearthed some ineffective leadership practices—practices that are not merely the converse of the effective leadership practices.  For instance, ineffective leaders often

 

• favor some members of staff unfairly, exhibiting discrimination or prejudice

• speak deceitfully or uncivilly, such as shouts at staff

• defer important decisions or shifts their decisions erratically

• disregard the novel or unconventional suggestions of staff—or disregards the decisions of staff

• overlook the resource implications of their decisions

• communicate information hurriedly or unclearly, at inappropriate times and places

• impose unreasonable demands on staff, augmenting their workload substantially

 

Content of leadership development programs in tertiary education: Key topics

Leadership development programs in tertiary education institutions cannot inculcate all the effective behaviors that studies indicate are effective.  Instead, within the timeframes that are usually available, the programs must be confined to some key themes.  Some of the most important topics, according to researchers who have conducted a needs analysis in this field, include some insights on

 

• how to promote changes in culture and practices as well as manage the performance of academic staff (Deem et al., 2007)

• communication during crises, such as funding cuts, including how to balance the need to communicate regularly but to choose courses of action decisively (Haddon et al., 2015)

• financial management, risk management and entrepreneurship (Deem et al., 2007)

• how to balance and integrate the diverse, and often conflicting roles of academic leaders (Rowley & Sherman, 2003; McGivern et al., 2015)—such as academic pursuits and management responsibilities or tensions between collaboration and competition (Akbulut et al., 2015)

• how to prioritize the various responsibilities of academic leaders (Vilkinas & Ladyshewsky, 2012; Wolverton et al., 2005)

 

Content of leadership development programs in tertiary education: The Bass taxonomy

To inform these topics, the specialists who design leadership programs often invoke leadership theories and frameworks that have been developed outside the education sector—primarily because researchers have not developed leadership theory or frameworks that are specific to tertiary education.  Indeed, according to Dopson et al. (2019), to develop a leadership development program, specialists should ask four questions:

 

• what are the strategic goals and aspirations the institution wants to achieve

• what are the models or theories of leadership that could enable the institution to achieve these goals and aspirations

• what leadership development programs—and potentially other interventions—can enable the institutions to inculcate or apply these models and theories

• how can institution evaluate whether these programs facilitate the achievement of the strategic goals and aspirations

 

Accordingly, these specialists should be cognizant of the range and validity of leadership theories that scholars have proposed.  To facilitate this pursuit, researchers have attempted to reduce this vast array of leadership theory or frameworks into a few main approaches (see Antonakis & Day, 2017; Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2016). 

 

To illustrate, Bass (1990) proposed that most leadership theories, framework, and models can be divided into five constellations.  The first constellation of theories, called the trait approach, tended to ascribe leadership to outstanding or helpful personality traits.  These theories assumed that leadership was predicated on greatness—on qualities that were either inherited or developed over an extended time.  The research in this field attempted to characterize the traits or tendencies that epitomize great leaders, such as intelligence, confidence, determination, integrity, and charm.

 

During the 1950s, however, researchers challenged the assumption that leadership can be ascribed to enduring traits and instead directed attention the specific behaviors and practices that differentiate effective leaders from ineffective leaders.  Many researchers attempted to enumerate the behaviors that effective leaders exhibit (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2009; Stogdill, 1963).  For example, exemplary leaders tolerate uncertainty, inspire productivity, encourage collaboration, resolve conflicts, grant autonomy, and devolve responsibility when appropriate. 

 

Subsequently, researchers attempted to divide these behaviors into clusters (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2009).  For example, scholars recognized that effective leaders tend to direct or coordinate the activities of other individuals, called initiating structure, but offer support and encouragement to help individuals complete these activities and overcome challenges, called consideration (e.g., Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004).  Because of this emphasis on behaviors, leadership programs, designed to enhance the leadership skills of many staff, burgeoned. 

 

Over time, scholars began to question whether these leadership practices are indeed useful in all circumstances.  This pursuit engendered a range of arguments, epitomized by leadership contingency theory (Fiedler, 1971), the path-goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1997), and substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).  These theories, in general, attempted to characterize the circumstances in which leadership should not be as directive, but instead grant staff more discretion over the goals they pursue and the methods they apply.  According to the situational-leadership model, for example, leaders should impose progressively less direction as staff mature and assume responsibility (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977).

 

Thompson and Vecchio (2009) distinguished three main variants of this situational-leadership model.  According to the first variant, before employees have matured in their role, supervisors should be very prescriptive. As employees mature, supervisors should attempt to be more persuasive rather than prescriptive. Eventually, quite mature employees should be encouraged to participate in decisions. Finally, supervisors should delegate important tasks to very mature employees. In this variant, maturity is primarily defined by a combination of commitment and competence.

 

The second main variant of situational leadership theory distinguishes commitment and competence. According to this variant, supervisors of employees who are committed but not competent, called the enthusiastic beginner, should be more directive. In contrast, employees who are not especially committed or competent, but feel disillusioned, may benefit from coaching. Third, employees with reasonable competence, but varying commitment, may benefit from supportive leaders. Finally, supervisors should delegate tasks to employees who exhibit both competence and commitment.

 

The third main variant of situational leadership theory, in essence, assumes that maturity primarily depends on experience. The main premise is merely that experienced individuals should be granted more autonomy.

 

Past research has uncovered some, but limited, evidence of these variants of situational leadership. The first variant seems to be valid, but almost only in recent recruits (for a review, see Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). The second variant has not been tested as extensively and initial tests have not been encouraging (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). Furthermore, this variant does not describe how supervisors should behave for every combination of competence and commitment. The final variant has received tentative support. As Thompson and Vecchio (2009) showed, for example, autonomy is more likely to be effective, as gauged by the relationship between supervisors and subordinates, in experienced rather than inexperienced employees.

 

These contingency theories, however, did not clarify how leaders should direct or influence their staff.  This shortfall inspired the power-influence approach (Bass, 1990).  This approach explored the tactics and strategies that leaders invoke to sustain power and to influence other people

 

Finally, this emphasis on influence evolved into the transformation approach.  This approach underscored how the role of leaders is to promote an inspiring vision of the future and then enable people to transform the culture and practices of the organization.

 

According to Bass and Avolio (1990, 1994, 1997), transformational leaders tend to initiate four main behaviors.  First, these leaders invite followers to challenge conventional practices and reflect upon issues from a novel perspective, called intellectual stimulation. Second, rather than follow these traditional customs and conventions, transformational leaders promulgate an inspiring, challenging, and shared vision of the future, called inspirational motivation. Third, to enable followers to adopt and embrace this vision, these leaders strive to understand and accommodate the unique preferences, concerns, perspective, motives, and qualities of each individual, offering coaching and support, called individualized consideration. Finally, these leaders demonstrate the vision and values they convey and they show respect towards followers, called idealized influence (attributes), and maintain exemplary conduct, called idealized influence (behavior).  The notion of inspirational motivation and idealized influence were borrowed from a previous leadership theory, called charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998)

 

Content of leadership development programs in tertiary education: The Antonakis and Day (2017) taxonomy

In their attempt to outline the main theoretical contributions to leadership, Antonakis and Day (2017) also recounted the history of trait theories, behavioral theories, the contingency or situational theories, and the transformational theories.  Antonakis and Day (2017) then outlined some of other key schools or approaches that have significantly permeated and shaped the literature on leadership.

 

The first approach is sometimes called the relational school and revolves around the notion of leader-member exchange theory (Gerstner & Day, 1997).  In contrast to the transformational approaches, in which leaders are perceived as charismatic vehicles of change, this approach underscores the significance of individual relationships between each staff member and the leader.  As research on this theory has revealed, leaders need to develop trusting, respectful, and reciprocal relationships with their followers.  These relationships, called leader-member exchange, tend to improve the satisfaction, dedication, performance, and wellbeing of staff (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

 

Presumably, leaders who are empathic—and can appreciate the feelings and perspectives of other people—are more likely to develop these trusting relationships, sometimes called empathic leadership.  To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Cornelis et al. (2013), participants believed they had been assigned to a group of six people, who would interact over computer. They were assigned the role of team leader, supposedly because of their scores on a questionnaire. To evoke an empathic leadership style, they were told that successful leaders empathize with their subordinates. They were also encouraged to consider how the other people experience the task. In the control group, participants were told that successful leaders are rational and focus objectively on tasks and goals. They were told to maintain a rational and detached perspective.

 

In this study, the participants then learnt information about one of their supposed team members. This team member indicated that he or she either needs or does not need to be accepted by other people, indicating high or low need to belong respectively. Finally, participants indicated the degree to which they would like to know the perspectives of their team members, called voice.

 

If leaders were empathic, they wanted to know the perspectives of their team members, especially if they recognized the team members show a need to belong. Accordingly, empathic leaders are sensitive to the needs of followers. Followers who experience a need to belong are especially sensitive to procedural justice. That is, they perceive justice as a sign of respect and acceptance. Empathic leaders, aware of this sensitivity, will thus offer more voice to people who need to belong.

 

The notion that leaders may not always transform organizations is augmented in the skeptics-of-leadership school.  In particular, the skeptics-of-leadership school presupposes the role of leadership may have been overstated and is primarily a construction that people utilize to explain productive and unproductive performance (e.g., Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978).  Indeed, some variants of this theory assume that perhaps leadership does not appreciably shape the performance of individuals, teams, or organizations (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987).

 

Although this school has waned in recent decades, some of the assumptions that underpin this skepticism have permeated other theories.  To illustrate, as this skepticism implied, leadership behavior is partly a construction of followers: Whether a leader is effective is primarily a function of the cognitions and thoughts of followers and is not an inherent attribute of this leader.  Specifically, the information-processing perspective, as defined by Antonakis and Day (2017), examines the thoughts and beliefs of staff that explain why some managers are perceived as legitimate leaders.  According to some variants of this perspective, individuals develop expectations of a prototypical leader.  Managers who match this prototype tend to be perceived as a legitimate or effective leader (e.g., Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991)

 

The biological and evolutionary school, as delineated by Antonakis and Day (2017), explored how these leadership traits, behaviors, or prototypes may have evolved.  That is, this school examines the evolutionary benefits of these qualities to consider why these characteristics might have evolved (see Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009)

 

Content of leadership development programs in tertiary education: The Northouse (2016) taxonomy

Northouse (2016) also outlined some more specific leadership theories that have surfaced in the last few decades.  First, the notion of authentic leadership partly emanated from concerns about transformational leadership.  One concern was that perhaps transformational leadership, such as an inspiring vision, might not always reflect communal values.  Instead, the motivation to maintain power or to attract rewards and recognition might sometimes motivate the behaviors of transformational leaders.  In contrast, authentic leaders pursue meaningful, moral values—pursuits that overlap with the intrinsic needs of staff. 

 

According to recent conceptualizations of this style, authentic leaders exhibit four main clusters of behavior: balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and self-awareness (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008, 2010). Balanced processing refers to the capacity of some leaders to integrate all information, rather than merely sources that confirm their preferences or assumptions, to reach a decision. Internalized moral perspective relates to the extent to which the personal values of leaders—instead of other pressures or tangible rewards—govern the choices and behaviors of these individuals. Relational transparency concerns the tendency of leaders to disclose and share information, thoughts, and feelings candidly. Finally, self-awareness reflects the degree to which leaders rate their strengths, limitations, motives, and reputation accurately. 

 

Walumbwa, Wang, et al. (2010) confirmed that authentic leadership enhances work attitudes and performance in followers. Specifically, when leaders were authentic, followers reported elevated levels of engagement. They also tended to show more organizational citizenship behavior, including activities like helping colleagues, behaving courteously, and accepting unpleasant changes. The extent to which employees experienced a sense of identity with the supervisor as well as feelings of empowerment, representing a feeling of choice, meaning, competence, and impact, mediated these associations.

 

Second, rather than inspire their staff, some leaders primarily strive to cultivate the conditions that support their staff, called servant leadership.  As several researchers argue (e.g., Graham, 1991; Greenleaf, 1977, 1996; Hale & Fields, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2010), moral considerations tend to govern the decisions of these servant leaders.  Because of this moral stance, these leaders attempt to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders, including customers and suppliers. In pursuit of this goal, servant leaders strive to facilitate the growth and well-being of employees as an end in itself—and not merely to pursue some grand vision of the future, like charismatic, transformational leaders.  Finally, these leaders attempt to maintain humility and overcome hubris, by reflecting upon their limitations.

 

Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) conducted a study to explore the reasons that servant leadership tends to enhance the performance of organizations.  Employees rated the extent to which their supervisor demonstrated servant leadership. Three weeks later, they also evaluated the degree to which the procedures were just, represented by items like "To what extent are procedures in your workgroup based on accurate information", and the degree to which a service climate prevails, corresponding to items like "How would you rate the recognition and rewards employees receive for the delivery of superior work and service". Furthermore, they evaluated their own self-efficacy and commitment to their supervisor. Finally, two weeks later, supervisors rated the extent to which these employees enacted citizenship behaviors, such as helping colleagues.

 

Some leaders not only serve their followers but even sacrifice their personal needs to benefit their organization, called self-sacrificial leadership. These leaders experience a profound sense of duty to fulfill workgroup goals, even willing to engage in risky behavior to achieve this objective (De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Dijke, & Bos, 2006). De Cremer, Mayer, van Dijke, Schouten, and Bardes (2009) developed a measure of sacrificial leadership that comprises four items: "goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group," "considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions," "emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission," and "specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose".  These leaders tend to boost the self-esteem of followers, especially in staff who feel a strong connection to the team: Presumably, when leaders sacrifice their personal interests to benefit the team, members feel their work must be important and valuable.   

 

Other leaders not only pursue these ethical or moral values but instill these ethical beliefs in followers and reinforce ethical behavior (Brown & Trevino, 2006). They underscore the significance of ethics and values, even offering incentives to shape the ethical conduct of individuals. Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) developed a measure to assess ethical leadership, with items such as "...disciplines employees who break ethics rules".

 

Procedural justice, a service climate, self-efficacy, and commitment to the supervisor partly mediated the association between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). In addition, the positive association between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior, as well as the positive association between a service climate and organizational citizenship behavior, was more pronounced when employees were committed to the supervisor. This commitment, presumably, increases the extent to which the culture of organizations governed the behavior of employees.

 

Third, in contrast to servant leadership, the psychodynamic approach to leadership explores the origins of irrational behaviors and beliefs in both leaders and followers.  This approach explores the rich and paradoxical motivations and urges that shape the decisions and interactions of leaders and followers in organizations.  Without these insights, many of the causes of unproductive patterns of behavior are overlooked (for a review, see Northouse, 2016).   

 

Finally, rather than explore the effects of individual leaders, many researchers have explored the impact of shared leadership—leadership that is distributed across teams. That is, teams perform more effectively, fulfilling their goals and targets, when most or all the individuals demonstrate leadership behaviors (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007).  To illustrate, Solansky (2008) showed that shared leadership confers a sense of team efficacy—a sense the team has developed the necessary skills to be competent and effective. In addition, shared leadership was also positively related to transactive memory or the extent to which members recognize the talents, skills, and knowledge of each other (Solansky, 2008).  Carson et al (2007), however, argue that shared leadership is more likely to be beneficial when the culture is egalitarian, rather than hierarchical, when the tasks are complicated rather than routine, and when the roles in the team are interdependent.

 

Designs of leadership development programs in tertiary education: An overview

Rather than delineate the content of leadership development programs in tertiary education, other studies have explored the features of these programs that could benefit participants (e.g., Scott et al., 2010; Tolar, 2012; Turnbull & Edwards, 2005).  Collectively, these studies indicate that

 

• leadership development programs should be tailored to the distinct needs of each academic leader—or at least customized to their management level—and delivered just before these skills are relevant (Scott et al., 2010);

• leaders should be granted opportunities to discuss the matters they need to manage with their experienced and successful academic counterparts (Scott et al., 2010)

• leaders should be able to access case studies on how past individuals in their role managed challenging circumstances (Scott et al., 2010)

• leaders should be granted the time to develop rather than feel inundated with trivial and menial demands (Scott et al., 2010)

• the most senior leaders of the organization should be inspired to practice transformational leadership—in which they promulgate an inspiring, moral vision, pursue this vision with determination and integrity, encourage innovative suggestions on how to pursue this vision, and coach individuals on how to achieve these goals, customizing their advice to accommodate the needs of each person; this leadership style grants other staff opportunities to lead effectively (Turnbull & Edwards, 2005)

• the program should grant leaders many opportunities to apply and to practice their skills (Turnbull & Edwards, 2005)

• the institution must encourage a subset of staff to assume ownership over this leadership program (Turnbull & Edwards, 2005)

• to sustain these changes, the institution must identify how to inculcate the lessons of this program into the fabric of this organization; role modeling, networking, succession planning, and delegation are crucial to this endeavor (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).  Leadership development should not be conceptualized as an attempt to transform individual leaders, but to develop and support a distributed network of staff.

 

These recommendations were derived from interviews and focus groups with participants of leadership programs.  Consequently, whether all these features actually enhance the efficacy of leadership development programs in tertiary education warrants further research. 

 

Consequences of leadership development programs in tertiary education

Despite the extensive literature on leadership development programs in tertiary education, Dopson et al. (2019) bemoaned the scarcity of studies that have explored the consequences of these programs over time.  Only a few studies have shown some lasting benefits of these programs, but the designs of these studies tend to preclude definitive conclusions.

 

To illustrate, Chibucos and Green (1989) conducted a longitudinal evaluation of one leadership program—the American Council on Education Fellows, designed to enhance the leadership capabilities of aspiring university and college leaders. The study showed that 56% of these participants were later appointed to positions of Dean or higher—sometimes even university president.  Yet, because these participants may have been a selective elite, whether they would have achieved this success without this program remains contentious. 

 

Subsequently, McDaniel (2002) showed the same program did enhance the leadership competencies of participants, such as their understand of academic administration and their capacity to communicate effectively.  However, participants evaluated their own behavior before and after this program.  Whether these perceived changes translated to observed improvements in their behavior was not determined. 

 

Similarly, Ladyshewsky and Flavell (2011) showed that one leadership program, implemented at an Australian university, did improve the confidence and empowerment of these program coordinates.  This improvement was sustained at least 12 months.  However, this finding was not derived from an objective measure but from interviews of over 10 participants. 

 

References

• Akbulut, M., Nevra Seggie, F., & B√∂rkan, B. (2015). Faculty member perceptions of department head leadership effectiveness at a state university in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(4), 440- 463.

• Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child's play!. Science, 323(5918), 1183-1183.

• Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (2017). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In J. Antonakis & D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. pp. 3–26). Log Angles: Sage.

• Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-318.

• Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

• Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2000). Paradoxes of leadership and management in higher education in times of change: some Australian reflections. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(1), 1–16

• Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.

• Brown, M., Trevino, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

• Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693– 710.

• Bryman, A., & Lilley, S. (2009). Leadership researchers on leadership in higher education. Leadership, 5(3), 331– 346.

• Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234.

• Chibucos, T. R., & Green, M. F. (1989). Leadership development in higher education: An evaluation of the ACE Fellows Program. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(1), 21– 42.

• Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). When leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders' adherence to procedural fairness rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 605-613. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.016

• De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., van Dijke, M., Schouten, B. C., & Bardes, M. (2009). When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers' prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 887-899.

• De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M. H., & Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Self-sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification matters. Group Dynamics, 10, 233-245.

• Debowski, S. (2015). Developing excellent academic leaders in turbulent times. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 2221– 2223.

• Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

• Dopson, S., Ferlie, E., McGivern, G., Fischer, M. D., Mitra, M., Ledger, J., & Behrens, S. (2019). Leadership development in Higher Education: A literature review and implications for programme redesign. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(2), 218–234.

• Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological bulletin, 76(2), 128.

• Gallant, A. (2014). Symbolic interactions and the development of women leaders in higher education. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(3), 203– 216.

• Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

• Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

• Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.

• Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

• Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Haddon, A., Loughlin, C., & McNally, C. (2015). Leadership in a time of financial crisis: What do we want from our leaders? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 612- 627.

• Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397-417.

• Hamlin, R. G., & Patel, T. (2017). Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within higher education in France. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 292– 314.

• Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Harris, C. A., & Leberman, S. I. (2012). Leadership development for women in New Zealand universities: Learning from the New Zealand Women in Leadership program. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(1), 28– 44.

• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

• House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Path-goal theory of leadership. In R. P. Vecchio, (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 259-273). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

• Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones: The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.

• Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational behavior and human performance, 22(3), 375-403.

• Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Flavell, H. (2011). Transfer of training in an academic leadership development program for program coordinators. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), 127– 147.

• Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument behavioral repertoire. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 87-102.

• Liu, W. (2021). Higher education leadership development: an international comparative approach. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(5), 613–631

• Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing. New York: Routledge.

• Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & de Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343‚àí378.

• Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343‚àí378.

• McDaniel, E. A. (2002). Senior leadership in higher education: An outcomes approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 80– 88.

• McGivern, G., Currie, G., Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., & Waring, J. (2015). Hybrid manager-professionals' identity work: The maintenance and hybridization of medical professionalism in managerial contexts. Public Administration, 93(2), 412- 432.

• Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management journal, 30(1), 91-109.

• Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angles: Sage.

• Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership. Management Decision, 41(10), 1058- 1063.

• Scott, G., Bell, S., Coates, H., & Grebennikov, L. (2010). Australian higher education leaders in times of change: The role of Pro Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(4), 401– 418.

• Solansky, S. T. (2008). Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 332-341.

• Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 407- 417.

• Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Form XII. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

• Tolar, M. H. (2012). Mentoring experiences of high-achieving women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 172– 187.

• Turnbull, S., & Edwards, G. (2005). Leadership development for organizational change in a new UK university. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), 396–413.

• Vilkinas, T., & Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2012). Leadership behaviour and effectiveness of academic program directors in Australian universities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), 109- 126.

• Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.

• Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-529.

• Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901-914.

• Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 227- 238.

• Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Louw, I. (2014). Academic leadership development programs: A model for sustained institutional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(6), 1008– 1102.