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?” The following sub research question with be the core of this paper: “What are the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics.”

In addition to dramatic disruptions because of Covid 19, major issues exist in Irish Higher Education, which 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 Higher Education Institutes (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) having recently merged to become Technological Universities (TUs), change and leadership have never been so important.

While both the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics are important factors for change (Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017), a review of literature indicated that the topic of change leadership is not well defined and there is little consensus on the associated characteristics needed for leading change. This paper utilises a diverse selection of sources to compile a total of 25 characteristics deemed important for leading change. These embrace key findings from change management and change leadership fields of research as well as the Burke Litwin organisational change model (Burke and Litwin, 1992). These characteristics were created from a total of eight sources identified, which were analysed and mapped against each other. The eight sources are as follows: Higgs and Rowland (2000), Gilley (2005), Fullan (2020), Magsaysay and Hechanova (2017), Guerrero et al. (2018), Burke and Litwin (1992), Burnes (2020) and Kotter (2012). They can been grouped into themes of strategy, culture, relationships, capability, and tactics.

Strategy involves strategic thinking and allows a clear vision to be established that inspires individuals to change and is achieved through effective communication and consultation, while understanding that change can be complex (Fullan 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). The second theme is culture which relates to developing an inclusive, supportive, and democratic culture that encourages creativity and innovation, while being able to deal with conflict in a constructive way (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Fullan, 2020; Magsaysay and Hechanova 2017). Relationships is the next themes that focuses on developing and maintaining relationships with colleagues, building effective teams, rewarding staff, and celebrating milestones (Burnes, 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). Another theme is capability associated with the overall capability of staff in terms of having adequate change management and leadership knowledge and abilities, resources, and training (Burnes et al. 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al. 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Kotter, 2012). The final theme is tactics associated with developing plans, removing barriers, implementing change gradually, and dealing effectively with organisational resistance to change (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017).

Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens for this research. 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 hoped that this research will be timely and relevant to other researchers and HEIs across Europe undergoing significant change. 

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 (Burke 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 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 similar to Stage 2, which included culture assessment. The qualitative data from this interview was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO as per Stage 2. The primary source of data utilised to respond to this paper’s research question was from the Stage 3 staff survey. This survey captured respondents’ perceptions on the 25 change leadership characteristics. A 5- point Likert scale was used for the importance and presence of these characteristics. Findings from the other stages were used to support these findings.

Data from 371 respondents were compiled and analysed for 25 questions relating to change leadership characteristics. Findings have shown that the characteristics associated with strategy are the most important followed by culture, relationships, capability, and tactics. Overall, respondents believed consistently that the characteristics are in between ‘very important’ and ‘absolutely essential’ for change leaders to exhibit. While the emerging TU is being integrated from many levels from three previous Institutes of technology, it is no surprise that strategy and culture are the most important areas of concern to stakeholders at present. However, findings for the presence of these characteristics were more varied and spread and participants were between ‘undecided’ and ‘agree’ for the presence of these characteristics within their organisation. This finding suggests that staff are unclear about the presence of these characteristics being exhibited by change leaders, which could suggest that respondents are not aware of leaders exhibiting them or that there are issues present, which are either restricting leaders from demonstrating these characteristics. Alternatively, all leaders may not possess them or be able to apply them. It could also be related to a lack of resources, which is negatively impacting the ability of staff to delegate, have time to train and effectively manage and lead staff. Fostering a supportive change culture is important for change leaders as well as leading with strategy and tactics. Leaders also need to ensure they focus on developing relationships between staff as well as growing staff capabilities, to equip them for current and future changes. It is hoped that this research has provided useful findings for researchers as well as HEI’s across Europe and that through ECER 2023, this research will act as a stimulus to carry out comparative cultural and contextual analysis internationally with other researchers to further develop this research area.

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. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. Journal of management, 18(3), 523-545. doi:10.1177/014920639201800306 Burnes, B. (2020). The Origins of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32-59. doi:10.1177/0021886319892685 Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (Second ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass. Gilley, A. M. (2005). The manager as change leader. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers. Guerrero, J. M., Teng-Calleja, M., & Hechanova, M. R. M. (2018). Implicit change leadership schemas, perceived effective change management, and teachers’ commitment to change in secondary schools in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(3), 375-387. doi:10.1007/s12564-018-9545-6 Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for change competence’. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 116-130. doi:10.1080/714042459 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] Kotter, J. (2012). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Magsaysay J.F., Hechanova M.R. (2017). Building an Implicit Change Leadership Theory. Leadership and Organisational Development Journey. Vol. 38 No. 6 pp 834-848. 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.