The role of academic middle management is crucial for the functioning of universities. Middle level academic managers, typically heads of departments or schools, are representing a nod between academic administration and senior leadership on the one side, and between academics and other professionals on the other side (Thornton et al. 2018, Clegg, McAuley, 2005). However, the role typically lacks clarity, combining both strategic and operational management with continuing research and teaching and leadership of both. Furthermore, the expectations are rising lately with increased monitoring of staff performance, growing demand for external funding, and a larger and more diverse student population (Thornton et al., 2018). Altogether these factors lead to an overwhelming number of demands that academic leaders need to attend to. This burden commonly results in rather low motivation from academic staff to apply for the managerial positions:  having on mind potential negative consequences for one’s academic career and personal life (Deem, Hillyard, and Reed, 2007, Floyd, 2012). As Thornton et al. (2018, pg. 208) comment regarding someone’s announcement of commencing an academic leadership role „the reaction of most academic peers is uncertainty about whether congratulations or commiserations are more appropriate“.

These ambivalences are reflected in a broader scholarship on academic leadership. For instance, Floyd and Dimmock (2011) are taking into account more immediate and also long-term career impact and investigated experiences of department heads through looking into their career capital more in detail. These authors divide the career capital into two categories: internal aspects– such as job role, internal networks, and standing within the institution and external aspects – such as research outputs, conference presentations, and external networks. Further, Floyd and Dimmock (2011) have built their analysis employing concepts of socialization, identity, and career trajectoryand as a final step in their analysis formulated a threefold typology of department heads: jugglers, copers, and strugglers. This typology suggests a variety of ways through which department heads cope with the competing demands of their role, while at the core there is both ability and opportunity to balance the tensions and accumulate the most useful capital for their further career journey. More specifically, the group of jugglers tends to enjoy the leadership position and is even open to more senior posts, signaling good identity fit and ability to use advantages of the managerial role. The group of copers finds the post less enjoyable, its impact more ambiguous, but are still determined to continue, despite these struggles, to finish a predetermined period. Finally, the group coined as strugglers find it impossible to balance competing demands of the role, experience strong identity mismatch, and seriously consider not only the option of stepping down from the position but even think about a more significant career change.

Inspired particularly by the work of Floyd and Dimmock (2011) we will examine the experiences of our group of research participants who have served or still do serve as department heads at the public universities. We hope for providing a space for a reflection of this important academic role and perhaps inspire also a policy change aimed at easing the struggles linked with this middle management position in higher education.

This paper is developed from the qualitative interviews-based research, that was commenced in the two phases in Prague, the capital of Czechia. Phase 1 (2015-2016) consisted of 32 semi-structured interviews with academic middle managers (typically heads of departments). Most of them were active with their department for a longer period (average 11 years, ranging from 1 year to 26, but most between 10-15), the shortest experience in the managerial position was 1 year, longest 17 years. Most typically they were determined to serve for a limited period, which would range from 4-6 years (with varied possibility to apply for the following term). In the sample 7 respondents achieved the academic ranking of professor, 9 of docent, 19 were with Ph.D. (however some already started a habilitation procedure). It indicates that our sample tended to consist of academics at earlier stages in their career. Most of the departments would be under 30 staff members. All departments were placed at public research-intensive universities. Interviews typically lasted 60-90 minutes and followed a structured list of open-ended questions. The questions included three focal areas: HoDs’ perceptions of their leadership roles, job satisfaction, and perceptions of the current transformation of the Czech higher educational system. Phase 2 of the research was realized in 2021 when we approached all of the initial respondents with the offer to participate in the second interview. This interview focused on their career development specifically around the leadership post, and perception of the current trends in the Czech Academia such as changes in research evaluation. 26 of the participants of the original study provided us with the interviews, interviews typically lasted 60 minutes. The current situation of the respondents was (1) Remained in the position of the head of the department: 7 (2) Deputy head of the department: 4 (3) Returned to the academic position or head of research group: 13 (4) More senior managerial position: 2 While majority of those who did not continue as department heads did so either voluntarily or because the number of terms was restricted, there were cases of respondents who applied for the position for the next term, but someone else was successful. Some are already accepted for a higher-ranking managerial position. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, an analysis was facilitated by MAXQDA software. The analysis method was reflexive thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, 2013, 2021).

In the analysis, we will explore the complexities of academic leadership experience. We will particularly focus on the motivations to enter and to (not) pursue further academic leadership positions. 1) We will discuss personal motivations for the role, while it is known that the roles are often accepted because of external factors, we want to follow the reasoning more closely. We will argue that a strong relationship with the particular department is often a key factor in the decision, making a case for a potentially positive impact of academic inbreeding. 2) Following this, we will discuss how our research participants negotiated between the more operational perception of the role and the more strategic view of it. In other words, looking at the different justifications beyond focusing more on running the department smoothly and on crafting the department according to a particular vision. These are not mutually exclusive approaches and we will explore their interactions more closely, particularly taking into account (restricted) temporality of the role. 3) We will specifically explore the differences between those who are mature academics or even nearing the end of their academic career, to those in early/mid-career phases, and what were the advantages and disadvantages that the leadership career phase brought to them and how it had influenced their career development. We will review factors that play into the ability to be able to use the leadership role to career advancement as opposed to a career-derailing or slowing down. While acknowledging the concept of internal and external career capital, we will suggest that already existing strong external provides a better platform for utilizing internal capital in a further career of the individual.

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research. SAGE. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis. A practical guide. SAGE. Clegg, S., & McAuley, J. (2005). Conceptualising Middle Management in Higher Education: A Multifaceted Discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27, 9-34 Deem, R., Hillyard, S., Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism. Oxford University Press. Floyd, A., Dimmock, C. (2011). ‘Jugglers’, ‘Copers’ and ‘Strugglers’: Academics’ perceptions of being a head of department in a post-1992 UK university and how it influences their future careers. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(4): 387-399. Thornton, K., Walton, J., Wilson, M., Jones, L. (2018). Middle leadership roles in universities: Holy Grail of poisoned chalice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 40(3): 208-223.