Academic Leadership: Fundamental Building Blocks
258
minimal control over resources. Many also reported an ‘us’ and ‘them’ relationship with
University management, which was seen as overly, even gratuitously, bureaucratic.
In another study of academics, Vilkinas (2008) reported that when supervising their
research students academics were not able to deliver all of the roles identified under the
ICVF. That is, they did not display the behavioural complexity which is needed in such a
role nor did they critically observe or reflect on their behaviour. Robertson (2005)
explained in his paper that if individuals are capable of operating in the domain of
generative paradox they will gain insights through reflection about their behaviour that
will enable them to learn and develop. It would seem that the research supervisors do
not operate in this domain. As Robertson said, ”I believe paradoxical thinking is a habit
worth choosing” (p. 192). So the question remains: can these academics, when
operating as academic coordinators, think and behave paradoxically if they are not
capable of doing so when supervising research students?
Implications
Simplistic solutions are unlikely to help if the problem is as multifaceted as it appears.
The successful realisation of academic leadership will span levels, and is likely therefore
to be a distributed problem. If the barriers to the development of academic leadership
are to be overcome then several strategies need to be put in place. There are
implications for practice, theory and policy within universities and for research.
Implications for Practice
While the implications for practice are contingent on the results of the research
underway, some cautious commentary is warranted. Given the results of academic
supervisor research noted above and findings elsewhere in the CVF and ICVF
management literature (Vilkinas & Cartan, 2001, 2006) it is plausible to speculate that
academic coordinators will have difficulties facing the contradictions inherent in their
roles. If this is borne out by the analysis of the interviews and a subsequent
questionnaire, then it implies that for academic coordinators to display academic
leadership developmental opportunities need to be made available. Ryan, Fraser,
Bryant, and Radloff (2004) argue that academic development is a complex and evolving
area of professional practice that is heavily dependant on current trends in higher
education. It has, however, traditionally been focussed on aspects of teaching and
learning rather than management and leadership development. As Winter and Sarros
(2002) argued, there needs to be a ‘reframing process’ (p. 255) where the ‘benefits of
leadership practice that empower academics to develop their knowledge and skills’ (p.
255) are supported by senior management. To support such development, there is a
need for a community of scholars (Marshall, 2006). The outcome of such development
being academics who are able to think and behave paradoxically (Vilkinas, 2008), who
use critical reflection (Fisher, 2003) and are able to influence using reference and expert
power when they lack formal power (French & Raven, 1959).
Implications for Theory
The leadership in learning and teaching literature is currently under-theorised. The
benefits of the kinds of causal theory represented by the ICVF are that factors may be
uncovered that explain phenomena, rather than merely describing them. Additionally,
and importantly, these factors may be beyond the current awareness of academic
