Development of departmental leaders in Hong Kong higher education

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are the powerhouse of a knowledge-based society. The core of their activities takes place at the academic departments. Considerable studies show that departmental leaders play an instrumental role in enhancing students' learning performance through effective resource management and construction of an organizational environment conducive to the betterment of teaching and research (Chin, 2007; Kok & McDonald, 2015, p. 2; Pounder, 2011; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). While the significance of departmental leadership has become prominent (Bush, 2008), leadership of HEIs in Hong Kong was rated below satisfactory level by academic staff (Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, & Meek, 2010). Development of departmental leaders is thus a pertinent issue. Unfortunately, departmental leaders in many countries and regions, including Hong Kong, generally received little training to cope with a myriad of challenges (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Burgoyne, Mackness, & Williams, 2009; Sirkis, 2011; Vilkinas & Ladyshewsky, 2012). Thus, leader development is put at the top of agenda for policy making in countries like the UK for example (Burgoyne et al., 2009). To develop a deeper and richer understanding of the leader development experiences of departmental leaders, a qualitative study of eight departmental leaders from eight Hong Kong HEIs was conducted through one-to-one, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Deploying Kegan's (1982) constructive-developmental theory as the theoretical lens, five major themes were identified through an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach: (1) top-down approach in leader selection and promotion, (2) advancing leadership expertise through reflective practice, (3) rich developmental experience as catalyst for growth, (4) personal drive as impetus for growth, and (5) leader maturation through cumulative learning. The findings supported that leader development is a multi-level, longitudinal, adaptive learning process grounded in the social environment, in which individual leaders construct and advance their leadership expertise and develop broadened leader identities over time through accumulative lived experiences. The findings call for both personal commitment and organizational commitment to a systemic approach to leader development. Their profound implications on leader development research and practice are discussed.