This study examines the factors influencing decision-making processes in academic institutions and their impact on faculty members’ academic productivity in Turkish Universities. The evolving landscape of higher education presents both opportunities and challenges for sustaining academic output. The study shows that academic incentives, particularly in terms of academic performance indicators and awards, are insufficient. Low financial support for faculty members decreases motivation and productivity. The lack of interdisciplinary collaborations through strategic research programs creates a less dynamic and productive academic environment. By exploring faculty perceptions of academic productivity, the influence of administrators’ mindsets, and the causality of administrative behaviors, this study aims to fill a critical gap in the literature. The shift towards a liberal management approach in the late 20th century has significantly influenced governance trends and managerial mindsets in higher education (Kaya & Uysal, 2017). Strategic thinking, risk-taking, vision, delegation skills, and networking abilities are among the essential characteristics that define an administrator’s decision-making framework (Bıçak, Yakut, Ulutaş, & Gülbağlar, 2024). Research suggests that administrators’ mindsets shape decision-making processes and influence educational policies and academic production standards (Buchanan & Kern, 2017; Canning et al., 2019). Cognitive theory, as proposed by Neisser (1967), highlights the interaction between cognition and behavior, emphasizing that managers' experiences and perceptions play a crucial role in shaping their mindset and, consequently, their leadership approach. Mindset, as a key individual trait, contributes to both organizational transformation and systemic change (Dweck, 2006). The study categorizes administrative mindsets into three types: fixed, growth, and benefit, emphasizing that the latter two are crucial for institutional adaptability and academic excellence. Faculty members who perceived their administrators as having a fixed mindset reported bureaucratic rigidity, hierarchical decision-making, and resistance to change. Conversely, institutions led by growth mindset administrators fostered a more dynamic, supportive, and research-driven academic environment. Green (2007) argues that many university leaders prioritize immediate institutional tasks over long-term academic development. However, adopting a growth mindset can enhance institutional adaptability and foster a multicultural, dynamic academic environment. Studies indicate that leadership mindsets significantly impact organizational alignment, employee performance, and institutional culture (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dweck, 2006). A comprehensive review of global studies on academic productivity and mindset theory informs this qualitative research, offering new insights into the intersection of these concepts.While much of the existing research on academic productivity addresses managerial influences broadly, interdisciplinary studies specifically examining the role of managerial mindset remain limited. This research contributes to the academic discourse by expanding mindset theory beyond student and teacher contexts to include academic leadership. It underscores the necessity for higher education institutions to prioritize mindset-aware leadership, which fosters strategic adaptability, institutional innovation, and inclusive decision-making. Understanding how administrators’ mindsets influence academic productivity is, therefore, a crucial area for further exploration. This study situates itself within higher education research, mindset theory, cognitive theory, and academic productivity studies.

This study employs an interpretative phenomenological approach, a qualitative research method exploring participants’ experiences and their underlying meanings (Creswell, 2016). The study investigates how faculty members perceive the impact of academic administrators’ mindsets on academic productivity. Therefore, this study utilizes an interpretative phenomenological design to explain how faculty members, who conduct and experience academic work, perceive this phenomenon in the context of academic productivity. The study was conducted in seven universities in Turkey. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, universities were selected from different regions, to understand regional aspects towards the implementation and response to the governance reform. These universities play essential roles in understanding the situation caused by the administration of a university, mirroring government policies in small cities and social affection between academics in meeting the needs of knowledge to see the frame of Turkish universities. Participants were selected through purposive sampling from diverse disciplines in higher education institutions. A semi-structured interview form, reviewed by experts in educational administration and linguistics, was used to gather data. The collected data underwent coding and descriptive analysis. In this study, interviews were conducted with 25 faculty members. The researcher has worked as a faculty member in both public and private universities since 2021 and has established communication with numerous faculty members during this period. Therefore, the researcher’s prior experience and knowledge on the research topic are expected to contribute positively to the study. To ensure internal validity, Merriam (2013, pp. 203-209) suggests strategies such as triangulation, member checking, adequate and appropriate participation in the data collection process, researcher reflexivity, and expert review. This study applied the strategy proposed by Merriam. The study included faculty members with different academic titles to enhance validity through diversity in the sample.

The findings of this study reveal that faculty productivity is shaped by both enabling and inhibiting factors. Supportive elements include intrinsic motivation, academic competence, professional passion, institutional incentives, academic leave, peer collaboration, intellectual curiosity, and career advancement. However, various barriers—such as flawed publication processes, ambiguous evaluation criteria, resource constraints, excessive teaching loads, inadequate institutional support, organizational culture, ethical concerns, and restrictive promotion policies—significantly hinder faculty members’ research engagement and scholarly output. A key determinant of productivity identified in this study is the mindset of the academic administrators. The findings emphasize that academic productivity reforms should integrate leadership development, organizational restructuring, and policy alignment to achieve long-term impact. In the evolving academic landscape of the 21st century, a paradigm shift from traditional, bureaucratic governance models toward one with a growth mindset academic leadership is imperative. Universities should cultivate collaborative, visionary, and research-driven management approaches to enhance faculty engagement, productivity, and institutional competitiveness on a global scale. Expected outcomes of the study is that examining the mindset of academic leaders helps determine their impact on various stakeholders in academia. Adopting strategies to encourage collaborative, process-focused, and adaptable attitudes among stakeholders help academic members align with organizational goals. National higher education and university administrations could take steps to develop discipline-specific criteria for evaluating academic productivity. This would encourage faculty members to produce work aligned with the needs of their fields, fostering a more productive academic culture. Universities should invest in digital resources and provide access to comprehensive digital databases. Furthermore, it is expected that the university management network will systematically track faculty members’ publications and citations, working strategically to measure the quality of academic productivity. Universities are anticipated to enhance research management capabilities by offering training programs focused on research, development, and application, thus strengthening the academic productivity of universities.

Avolio , B. J., ve Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. Bass, B. M., ve Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press, 160-200. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095 Bıçak, M., Yakut, A., Ulutaş, K., ve Gülbağlar, R. (2024). Okul yöneticilerinin liderlik ve girişimcilik özelliklerine ilişkin özyeterlilik algıları. Sage Yayınları, 18-26. Buchanan, A., ve Kern, M. L. (2017). The benefit mindset: The psychology of contribution and everyday leadership. International Journal of Wellbeing, 7(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v7i1.538 Canning, E. A., Murphy, M. C., Emerson, K. T., Chatman, J. A., Dweck, C. S., ve Kray, L. J. (2019). Cultures of genius at work: Organizational mindsets predict cultural norms, trust, and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 626–642. Creswell, J. D. (2016). Araştırma Deseni Nitel, Nicel Ve Karma Yöntem Yaklaşımları. Ankara: Eğiten Kitap. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Physicology Of Success. Random House. Green, M. F. (2007). Internationalizing community colleges: barriers and strategies. Special Issue:International Reform Efforts and Challenges in Community Colleges, 15-24. Kaya, K. ve Uysal, M. T. (2017). Yöneticilerde yönetim zihniyetinin eyleme dönüşmesi. transformation management mentality to action ın managers. İstanbul: Sosyoloji Konferansları - Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 56, 97-115. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel Araştırma: Desen ve Uygulama için Bir Rehber. Ankara: Nobel. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. London: Meredith Publishing Company.