A
U S T
R
A
L
I
A
N
U N
I
V
E R
S I
T
I
E
S
’
R
E V
I
E
W
largely limited to dealing with basic issues such as station-
cal example of this leadership model since, despite the
ery requirements and printing, and so sometimes bore the
requirement for leadership roles, the performance of the
brunt of frustrated academics accustomed to dealing with
group is dependent upon the coordinated knowledge and
‘good old Jim!’ An added complication was that since the
input of all members of the group. In this sense, while
local admin staff were managed by a centralised portfolio
overall responsibility for the performance may ultimately
office, the actual faces behind the desk often changed on
reside with the conductor, it is critical that all members
a weekly and sometimes daily basis according to needs
of the group play their part to the best of their abilities.
elsewhere within the wider portfolio.
This compares with a more traditional academic culture
While this new operating environment initially caused
where authority and power is more closely aligned with
a significant degree of frustration, most staff eventually
one’s level of seniority with key decisions regarding the
adjusted their work habits and accepted the change as a
group’s direction being made by a less collaborative and
matter of fact, replacing old contacts with new as sources
less transparent ‘top-down’ approach.
of vital information pertaining to their weekly activi-
The decision to adopt a distributed leadership model
ties. Heads of disciplines, however, were now faced with
within the Discipline of Medical Sciences at QUT owes
the longer-term challenge of how to build teaching and
as much to the practicalities faced following removal
research within the new operational structure.
of traditional academic support structures as to a con-
Building the discipline
scious decision made by the head of discipline on behalf of the group. An analysis of leadership style, however, for
Despite adjusting to the daily realities of new faculty
the head of Medical Sciences immediately prior to com-
structure, academic staff within Medical Sciences retained
mencing duties using the Life Styles Inventory™ (LSI)
the general concerns regarding access to resources and
survey tool (Human Synergistics) (Cooke, Lafferty, &
career development that are typical of most academics
Rousseau, 1987), revealed a primary trend towards the
working within any academic structure such as:‘How do I
‘blue’ or ‘constructive’ styles ‘humanistic-encouraging’
build my research?, How do I improve my teaching?, How
and ‘affiliative’ which are consistent with a distributed
do I manage the balance between teaching and research?’,
leadership model (Figure 2). As a consequence, the aca-
and ultimately, ‘How do I get promoted?’ Such questions
demic staff assigned to the discipline met regularly as a
would typically be raised directly with the head of dis-
group to discuss the overall direction of the academic
cipline by either e-mail or face-to-face meeting, but the
group. Importantly, any professional staff with whom
relatively small size of the group afforded the opportu-
the academics were required to work with on a daily or
nity to discuss core issues as a combined group through
weekly basis were also invited to attend these meetings
regular discipline meetings. At the same time, the head of
and were effectively regarded as extended members of
discipline was charged with the responsibility of building
the discipline, essential to creating the ‘orchestra’s per-
research through increased number of higher degree stu-
formance’. Notably, the head of discipline only made
dents, research grants and publications. A critical element
important decisions regarding the discipline’s direction
in addressing the goals of the academic manager and man-
after engaging in focused group discussions to consider
aged academics alike was to adopt a management style
all available evidence and to ensure collective owner-
based primarily on a distributed leadership model.
ship of the group’s direction. The aim behind this strat-
While there has been recent interest in studying the
egy was not necessarily to achieve group consensus, but
potential benefits of distributed leadership in higher edu-
to encourage a collaborative, transparent and evidence-
cation (Jones, LeFoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012), it is in our
based approach to decision-making.
experience rare to find this approach being proactively used within academic departments. In brief, the model
Risk analysis
is based upon the individuals within a group ultimately
Having established a model for managing the discipline, a
sharing responsibility and ownership for goal setting and
risk analysis was conducted to identify key priorities for
decision-making. Alternatively, the model can be consid-
the group’s development. For the purpose of this exercise,
ered to recognise the value of knowledge distributed
the level of risk was defined as a combination of:
within and between operational groups. Ultimately, the
• An event or operating environment that either pres-
model encourages respect for the contribution of indi-
ently or in the future would be considered to nega-
viduals to the daily operation and strategic direction of
tively impact on the ability of the discipline to achieve
the combined group. An orchestra provides a practi-
its goals.
86
Redefining & leading the academic discipline in Australian universities, Damien G. Harkin & Annah H. Healy
vol. 55, no. 2, 2013