This paper is part of a Doctorate in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. Focusing on an emerging technological university, the primary research question is “How do stakeholders experience and value change leadership?” Examining the development and utilisation of a suitable conceptual framework, this paper will provide insights into the inter-relationships between organisational context, leadership, culture and change.

A systematic literature review identified that higher education has multiple change drivers, diverse cultures and various leadership approaches and characteristics. Unsurprisingly many of those discussed ‘complexity’ (e.g., Lazaridou 2019; Drew, 2010). Complexity theorists argue that many forces drive complexity, and the underlying factors are greater interconnectivity and redistribution of power resulting from information flows that are facilitating people to link up and drive change in unprecedented ways (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018).

Mason (2008a) states that complexity theory can provide descriptive and pragmatic insights well suited to educationalists and argues that complexity theory’s strength is that it draws existing educational leadership and management theory together using existing and familiar concepts. Hence, this theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens for this research. Mason (2008b) 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.

Grant and Osanloo (2014, p.16) argue that a ‘conceptual framework offers a logical structure of connected concepts that help provide a picture or visual display of how ideas in a study relate to one another within the theoretical framework.’ When reflecting on the purpose of this study, related literature, and gaps in knowledge, as well as the theoretical framework of complexity theory and its limitations, a change leadership conceptual framework has been developed. As well as serving as a suitable conceptual perspective for this study, it also intends to address the limitations of complexity theory identified in this study.

The framework synthesises the core areas relevant for this study. Firstly, it incorporates the themes of change drivers, context and staff identified in the literature review. Secondly, key complexity theory and complexity leadership concepts have been added. These include the primary concepts of continuity (Mason, 2008a, 2008b), emergence (Mason, 2008a, 2008b; Uhl-Bien and Arena 2018), alignment (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018), and adaptability (Mason, 2008a; Uhl-Bien and Arena 2018). Also, sub concepts of diversity (Tsai et al., 2019), feedback (Mason, 2008a; Tsai et al. 2019), networks (Mason, 2008a; Tsai et al. 2019), linking up (Uhl-Bien and Arena 2018) and sponsorship (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018) have been added where appropriate. In addition, complexity leadership components of entrepreneurial leadership, enabling leadership and operational leadership are incorporated (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKevley, 2007; Uhl-Bien and Arena 2018).

Furthermore, change leadership characteristics are important for this study and the change leadership themes of strategy, tactics, relationships, culture, and capability synthesised from literature are central to this framework as they relate to all types of change. Finally, Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) competing values of clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy outlined in have been incorporated and link the central concept of culture and other change leadership themes to the other primary concepts through these values. The competing values framework dimensions have also been included (external focus and differentiation, stability and control, internal focus and integration, flexibility, and discretion).

It is hoped that the proposed conceptual framework will be considered by other HEIs so that a better understanding of the complexities of change leadership in higher education can be gained. 

From a research design perspective, a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods was used in this study. A key feature of this mixed methods approach is its methodological pluralism, which frequently leads to superior results when compared to taking one method (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). This pluralist approach, generally seen as a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, avails of the strengths of both methods and will help identify actionable, practical solutions for the stakeholders to consider. The overall scope of this doctoral research focuses on an emerging Technological University (TU) and consisted for four stages as follows: Stage 1 involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU and assess word frequency and emerging themes. Stage 2 builds on this context and 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). A pre-focus group survey was conducted to gather demographic data of participants and initial insights into change leadership themes as well as culture. The focus of this stage was on obtaining participant perceptions on change drivers, change and leadership as well as discuss culture for the emerging TU. Stage 2 focus groups were recorded and transcribed as well as coded and analysed using NVIVO. Stage 3 involved an online survey (using JISC) for all staff in the three organisations. 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analyse the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also. Stage 4 involved an interview with the new TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages. Note a pre-interview survey was completed by the President like Stage 2, which included culture assessment. The qualitative data from this interview was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO as per Stage 2. The primary focus of this paper is the use of the conceptual framework as a lens to view and understand the research findings from all stages.

Having used the conceptual framework as a lens to gain insights into the findings of this research, a better understanding of the conceptual framework itself has been gained. While the framework proved to be a valuable tool for understanding the inter-relationships between context, change leadership, change and culture, some minor refinements are proposed to facilitate future research in this field. The TU change drivers represent the external organisational context, while culture represents the internal organisational context. Although the conceptual framework had concepts of change drivers, context, and staff located under the concept of continuity, it is proposed that the internal context, including staff perceptions which provide cultural insights, can be represented under the concept of culture. Culture is already located centrally as a change leadership theme and links to the four competing values of compete, control, collaboration and create. Therefore, it is proposed that culture will represent the organisational culture and staff considerations as well as the specific change leadership characteristics directly related to culture. This revision allows for the change leadership themes centrally located in the framework to represent the internal organisation. In addition, the concept of continuity represents the external organisational environment, where the organisation responds to its environment in the marketplace to maintain continuity. Furthermore, some of the subheadings relating to complexity theory and complexity leadership such as ‘sponsorship, linking up, networks, diversity and feedback were useful to test the framework. However, to refine and streamline the framework for future research, it is proposed that these terms are removed as they can be assumed to be contained within the complexity leadership headings of Emergence, Adaptability and Alignment accordingly. It is hoped that this research on a change leadership conceptual framework will act as a catalyst for further research in this emerging and important area.

Burnes, B., Hughes, M., & By, R. T. (2016). Reimagining organisational change leadership. Leadership. doi:10.1177/1742715016662188 Cameron KM & Quinn RE, (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Third edn. Jossey Bass, USA. Drew, G. (2010). Issues and Challenges in Higher Education Leadership: Engaging for Change. Australian Educational Researcher (Australian Association for Research in Education), 37(3), 57-76. doi:10.1007/BF03216930 Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House”. Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2). doi:10.5929/2014.4.2.9 Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 Lazaridou, A. (2019). Reinventing a university principal preparation programme: complexity, change, and leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(2), 206-221. doi:10.1080/13603124.2017.1360947 Mason, M. (2008a). Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4-18. Retrieved from https://login.jproxy.nuim.ie/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ812783&site=ehost-live http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x Mason, M. (2008b). What Is Complexity Theory and What Are Its Implications for Educational Change? Educational Philosophy & Theory, 40(1), 35-49. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00413.x Tsai, Y. S., Poquet, O., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Pardo, A. (2019). Complexity leadership in learning analytics: Drivers, challenges and opportunities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2839-2854. doi:10.1111/bjet.12846 Uhl‐Bien, M., & Arena, M.J. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. Leadership Quarterly, 29, 89-104. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002