This presentation is a comparison between two projects associated with the topics of change and leadership in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although the projects focused on different contexts of leadership and were conducted pre-Covid (UK) and during/post-Covid (IE), several key identical questions on stakeholders’ views of change and leadership were used to facilitate comparative analysis. The presentation will use the data from the two countries to draw comparisons on several diversity issues, such as gender, professional status (academic and/or professional services), and a changed higher education environment post-Covid. Both projects focused on the connections between leadership and change in the dynamic, complex and progressively more uncertain context of higher education.

The UK based project titled “Leading Change Together” (Authors, 2018) was a UK-wide exploration of how academic and professional services staff, university leaders and managers viewed and coped with change. The project took place in 2016 when the UK voted to leave the European Union and in the context of major changes determined by the increase in tuition fees, the increased use of accountability and performance regarding teaching, research and enterprise, and the diminishing authority of academic leadership in favour of a managerialist approach (Mansour, et al., 2015; Lumby, 2012, Deem and Brehony, 2007). The project aimed to develop an understanding of the dynamics of formal and informal leadership practices and strategies using change management and shared leadership theory.

The Irish Project is part of a Doctorate in Education (EdD) at Maynooth University and also focused on change and leadership within a similar context of change in the Higher Education (HE) sector, but, more specifically, in the context of the merger of three institutions into a single one to form a new Technological University (TU).  Specifically for the Irish context, significant issues currently face Higher Educational Institute’s (HEIs) in Ireland. Similarly, to the UK context, issues include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). Several key areas for development in Ireland’s HEIs have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) merging to become Technological Universities (TUs), the focus of this project was the change and leadership perceptions of staff to gain insights into the topics of change, culture, change management and change leadership. The primary research question is “What do stakeholders consider important for change leadership.”

Conceptually, both projects acknowledged that change is complex, and that current leadership research still lacks theorisation and a fuller understanding of the dynamics of leadership in HEIs since there still is a lack of literature, which explores the human and emotional aspects of change, and little on the dynamics of identity development in a workplace under conditions of change (Reissner 2010). As Trowler (1998: 150) argued, ‘a precondition for effective change in universities is to understand the multiple cultures within universities and to ‘conceptualise organisations as open systems and cultural configurations within them as multiple, complex and shifting.’  Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.

It is envisaged that through this comparative study between two countries in Europe, further HEI’s and researchers will engage with similar studies in other countries and provide a deeper insight across European higher educational landscape.

Both projects utilised a pragmatic mixed method approach to data collection to achieve both breadth of views and an in depth understanding of change and leadership using a variety of methods appropriate to the circumstances (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). The UK-based study applied a sequential 2-phase mixed method approach using focus groups (11 participants), a cross national survey (356 responses) and semi-structured interviews (11 participants). Visual aids were also used to elicit participants’ experience of the change process and as probes to elicit views on change leadership. To increase reaching a wider group of participants, the project also hosted a LTHE Tweetchat @LTHEchat which was attended by 168 participants. Whereas the UK project had a national scope, the Irish project collected data only on the three colleges that were in the merging process, for a total of 2,215 members of staff, 53% on an academic contract. The overall scope of this doctoral research consisted for four sequential stages as follows: Stage 1 of this research involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU. Stage 2 involved an online focus group with a representative sample of senior management (both academic and support staff) from each of the three merging organisations (18 participants). Stage 3 involved a survey for all staff in the three organisations. Perceptions of change and leadership were gathered, and 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analysis the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also. Stage 4 involved an interview with the TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages, including the topics of change drivers and culture. The data for this presentation is drawn primarily from the stage 3 survey data relating to two question areas that probed the participants to reflect on how change was impacting them and on how they viewed leadership and the role of the leader in managing change.

Analysis to date indicates that there were broad similarities, and some differences in regard to both change and leadership. UK participants felt more empowered by contributing to change, felt their managers enabled them to take part in leading change, they were positive about the resources at their disposal, and held a more positive view about being part of a supportive team when compared to Irish participants. However, Irish participants felt better able to cope with change and felt their jobs were more secure than UK participants. No major difference was found regarding participants ability to make their voice heard. Regarding leadership, there were more commonalities of views between the two countries in which most participants in the UK and Ireland believe leadership develops in a context, it can be found at all levels of an institution, leadership can be learned and makes change happen. However, a minority of participants in both countries believe that leaders are born that way and that everyone can be a leader. Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. There is support for the contextual nature of leadership and a denial of ‘great man’ theories or theories, which espouse the notion that leadership is an innate feature. Rather, leadership can be learned, and anybody can become a leader given the right support. In addition, the data relating to change is more nuanced, as several factors contribute to its complex nature. However, adequate resources, effective management, supportive teams and having a voice all seem to contribute to how participants can cope with change. Further research across European HEI’s is recommended to get a broader understanding of change and leadership perceptions post Covid and the influence of gender and role will also be investigated further.

Burke Johnson, R, Onwuegbuzie A, 2004. ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,’ Educational Researcher, vol.33, no. 7, pp. 14-26. Deem, R. and Brehony, K. J. 2007 Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 2. 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827 Higher Education Authority 2017, Higher Education System Performance 2018-2020. Higher Education Authority, Available from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/higher-education-system-performance-framework-2018-2020.pdf [Accessed on 27 Dec 2019]. Lumby, J. 2012 What do we know about leadership in Higher Education?. London: LFHE Mansour, H.F., Heath, G. & Brannan, M.J., 2015 Exploring the Role of HR Practitioners in Pursuit of Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Change Management, 15(3), pp.210–230. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14697017.2015.1045539 . Mason, M. 2008, ‘Complexity theory and the philosophy of education’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40(1), pp. 4-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x. QQI, 2016, Quality in an era of diminishing resources, Irish higher education 2008-15,’ QQI. Available from: https://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Publications/Quality%20in%20an%20Era%20of%20Diminishing%20Resources%20Report%20(FINAL%20March%202016).pdf