developing program leader networks and resources … · developing program leader networks and...

DEVELOPING PROGRAM LEADER NETWORKS AND RESOURCES TO ENHANCE LEARNING AND TEACHING IN MULTICAMPUS UNIVERSITIESFINAL REPORT LE8-8102012AUTHORS: KRAUSE, K., SCOTT, G., CAMPBELL, S., LIZZIO, A., SPENCER,D., BATH, D., FYFFE, J., CLARK, J.

Promoting excellence in higher education

Support for this fellowship/project/report has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd., an initiative of the Australian Government. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council or the Australian Government.

This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Australia Licence. This Licence allows you to copy, distribute, display and perform this work and to make derivative works.

Attribution: The work must be attributed to the original authors and include the following statement: Support for the original work was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Non-commercial: This work may not be used for commercial purposes.

Share Alike: If this work is altered, transformed, or built on the resulting work may be distributed only under a licence identical to this one.

For any reuse or distribution, the licence terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of these conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/au/ or send a letter to:

Creative Commons

543 Howard Street, 5th Floor

San Francisco California 94105

USA.

Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:

Office For Learning and Teaching

Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Street address: Level 10, 255 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000

Telephone: 02 9246 0413

Facsimile: 02 6123 6182

Web: www.olt.gov.au

Acknowledgements 1The Project Team 2

Project team Structure .......................................................................................................... 3Executive Summary 4

Project outcomes ................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 1. Project overview: Aims, outcomes, impact and deliverables 7Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7Project aims ........................................................................................................................... 8Research questions ............................................................................................................... 8The multicampus angle ......................................................................................................... 9Project impact ...................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2. Project approach and literature review 17 Importance of Program Leaders: Strategic context ........................................................... 18Literature review and conceptual framework ..................................................................... 20Theoretical framing .............................................................................................................. 21Project approach and methodology ..................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3. Project findings 25Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 4. Lessons learned, dissemination and next steps 47Success factors and lessons learned .................................................................................. 47Impediments and lessons learned ...................................................................................... 49Transferability and scaleability of project approach and outcomes ................................... 49Dissemination, links and evaluation ................................................................................... 50Links with other ALTC projects ............................................................................................ 51Evaluation of project processes and outcomes .................................................................. 51

References 53Selected references on leadership, quality and multicampus universities .................................. 53Appendices 55Appendix 1. Program Leader Survey .............................................................................................. 55Appendix 2. Interview Protocols and Ethics Consent ..................................................................... 64Appendix 3. Interstate Roundtable: Sample program and evaluation form .................................. 76Appendix 4. Griffith University Program Leader Network Proposal ............................................. 79Appendix 5. Griffith University Program Leader Network: Sample flyer ...................................... 81Appendix 6. Program Leader good practice guides: Sample ........................................................ 82Appendix 7. Program Leader Induction Program: Sample workshop outline .............................. 84Appendix 8. Sample Position Description: Director of Academic Programs ................................ 87Appendix 9. Senior Managers’ Guide to Supporting Program Leaders ........................................ 90Appendix 10. Notes from Professor Fred d’Agostino’s presentation ........................................... 100Appendix 11. About the project team ............................................................................................ 105

CONTENTS

Program Leadership in Multicampus Universities 1

The project team would like to thank all contributors to the project. We sincerely thank all the academic staff and institutional leaders who responded to the survey and agreed to be interviewed or to contribute examples of good practice to this project. This project would not have been possible without their willingness to participate and to share their advice and expertise.

We sought advice and feedback from internationally recognised experts in the field of higher education leadership – Professor David Smith (Glasgow Caledonian University, UK), Professor Robin Middlehurst ( Kingston University, UK) and Professor Stephanie Marshall (Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, UK). We acknowledge the expertise and invaluable advice of our Project Reference Group: Professor Phil Steele, Campus Director, Monash University; Professor Wayne Robinson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Ballarat; Professor Sharon Bell, Senior Program Developer, LH Martin Institute, Melbourne Graduate School of Education; Professor Stephen Crump, Pro Vice- Chancellor and Director, Central Coast Campuses, University of Newcastle. Thank you, too, to Associate Prof Peter Hutchings who contributed to the Reference Group in his role as Deputy Director Programs and Networks, ALTC during the first year of the project.

Professor Fred D’Agostino, Associate Dean Academic, University of Queensland has been a wise advisor, critical friend and project evaluator throughout the project. His support has extended well beyond the anticipated evaluation role. We thank him for his invaluable contributions to enhancing the quality of the project each step of the way. We also acknowledge the significant contributions made by the following people and organisations:

* The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) for funding this project.

* The project partner organisations: University of Western Sydney and La Trobe University, along with the senior sponsors in each project team university.

* The program leaders who agreed to be case studies at the partner organisations from University of Western Sydney, La Trobe University and Griffith University.

* The program leaders who attended the project events from Griffith University, University of Western Sydney, La Trobe University, University of South Australia, Flinders University, University of Adelaide, University of Tasmania, Curtin University, Edith Cowan University, and Notre Dame University.

* ALTC Project collaborators Dr Gary Williams and Ms Melody West from the University of Tasmania.

* Professor Sue Spence, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Griffith University for her support in establishing the Griffith Program Leader Network.

* Mr Louis Albert (Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE)) for his data analysis in the early stages.

* Ms Carmel Bauer and Ms Fleur Webb (GIHE) for their help with various aspects of the project management and data analysis phases.

* Ms Cecilia Arrigoni for contributing extensively to the preparation and development of the facilitator handbook resources.

* Associate Professor Heather Alexander for her expert contribution to the Program Leaders’ initiative at Griffith University and the associated resources which are included in the facilitator handbook.

* Ms Claire Barratt (GIHE) for her assistance in the development of the project website.

* The team from Smoke Creative for their assistance in the filming and editing of the videos for the website.

* Griffith University web team.

* iRaw Design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, Griffith University (Project Leader), Professor Geoff Scott, University of Western Sydney, Professor Stuart Campbell, University of Western Sydney, Professor David Spencer, La Trobe University, Dr Jeanette Fyffe, La Trobe University, Professor Alf Lizzio, Griffith University, Dr Debra Bath, Griffith University, and Jo-Anne Clark, Griffith University (Project Officer).

From left to right: Professor Fred D’Agostino (Project Evaluator), Professor Geoff Scott, Dr Debra Bath, Professor Alf Lizzio, Professor Kerri-Lee Krause (Project Leader), Professor David Spencer, Dr Jeanette Fyffe, Associate Professor Peter Hutchings (ALTC representative), and Professor Stuart Campbell.

Citing this report:

Krause, K., Scott, G., Campbell, S., Lizzio, A., Spencer,D., Bath, D., Fyffe, J., Clark, J. (2012.) Developing program leader networks and resources to enhance learning and teaching in multicampus universities. Sydney, ALTC. Available online: www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders

THE PROJECT TEAM

The project team comprised seven project team members from three Australian multicampus universities working in partnership for the project. The three partnership universities were Griffith University, University of Western Sydney and La Trobe University. The team members, pictured below in Figure 1, were:

Figure 1: Project team photo


THE PROJECT TEAM

Project Team StructureFigure 2 outlines the connections among the project team stakeholders.

Figure 2: Project team structure

Griffith University (Lead university)

Prof Kerri-Lee Krause (project leader)

Prof Alf Lizzio

Dr Debra Bath

Ms Joanne Clark (Project officer)

University of Western Sydney

Prof Geoff Scott

Prof Stuart Campbell

La Trobe University

Prof David Spencer

Dr Jeanette Fyffe

Reference Group

Evaluator and Critical Friend

Program Leader participants

Senior university interviewees from project universities

Throughout the project the project team consulted with a reference group and an external project evaluator and critical friend.

Project Reference Group

Professor Phil Steele, Monash University

Professor Stephen Crump, University of Newcastle

Professor Sharon Bell, LH Martin Institute, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Peter Hutchings, ALTC

External Project Evaluator and Critical Friend

Professor Fred D’Agostino from the University of Queensland was the external project assessor. Professor D’Agostino was extensively involved in the project. He attended all project team meetings and project events and presented a professional development session at each reference group meeting. Professor D’Agostino provided advice and feedback on all project events and on the direction of the project at every stage. He also played a lead role in the project website launch at the HERDSA international conference in July 2011.


Leadership “…is not about making clever decisions and doing bigger deals, least of all for personal gain. It is about energising other people to make good decisions and do other things…it is about helping release positive energy that exists naturally within people. Effective leadership inspires more than empowers; it connects more than controls; it demonstrates more than it decides. It does all this by engaging – itself above all, and consequently others.” (Mintzberg, 2004, p.143)

This report provides a summary of the survey and interview data collected from Program Leaders in the three participating universities. The report is framed by nine research questions, emerging from the literature and building on previous studies. In particular, the report acknowledges and builds on the seminal work of the Learning Leaders in Times of Change study (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008). That work explores and identifies productive ways to address the challenges of leadership and change management relating to formal leadership roles in universities, such as Deputy Vice-Chancellor; Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching); Dean; Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching); Head of School/Department; Head of Program; and Director (Learning and Teaching). The approach of that study was to build upon a decade of studying professional capability, development and change leadership in a range of contexts. The present study extends the Learning Leaders findings by delving more deeply into the Program Leader role as a result of the following finding:

The role least recognised for its critical role as the final arbiter of whether a desired change is actually taken up and actioned locally is that of Head of Program. If these people do not engage then they will not focus and assist their staff to learn how to make the desired change work in practice. The development of Heads of Programs Networks led by a PVC (Learning and Teaching) and their early involvement in the learning and teaching change process to test the relevance, feasibility and clarity of what is being proposed was widely recommended in the study’s review workshops. (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008, p.xvii)

Multicampus universities have a key role to play in the university sector, yet there is very little research investigating the unique demands of leaders in these contexts. Multicampus universities typically have distinctive missions and characteristics, with one or more campuses strategically placed to support regional or specific local community needs. International campuses are another dimension

of multicampus universities. Definitions of ‘multicampus’ vary. Some multicampus universities adopt a hub-and-spoke model with a single main campus and several minor satellite campuses. Others, such as the University of Western Sydney (UWS) and Griffith comprise multiple geographically dispersed campuses, each with a substantial student load (Scott, Grebennikov, & Johnston, 2007).

Multicampus universities face many challenges, including fragmentation, duplication, inconsistency and inequity over a range of areas of activity (Winchester & Sterk, 2006). Overcoming these challenges to enhance the quality of curriculum and program leadership is the focus of this study. The primary aim is to equip program leaders to span the many boundaries of multicampus institutions to achieve consistency, equivalence and optimal quality in program-level learning, teaching and quality review across campuses.

The project findings endorse the leadership capability framework of Scott and colleagues in the Learning Leaders project. Program Leaders highlighted a number of key activities associated with the role, including skills in areas such as curriculum design and knowledge of program quality assurance strategies. Personal and interpersonal capabilities such as communication and self-management also featured strongly in Program Leader responses. Various sources of stress were attached to the Program Leader role, including considerable administrative responsibilities, the perceived lack of power of the role and a lack of recognition of the role in university workload formulae and promotion processes. Suggestions for further support of the role include the need for clear role statements, acknowledgement of the complexity of the role in workload allocations, additional administrative support, induction programs and networking with ‘fellow travellers’.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Challenges of managing the Program Leader role in multicampus contexts were highlighted in various ways by both Program Leaders and senior managers, including Heads of School and Deans. Three key challenges emerged: i) managing the quality and consistency of programs across campuses; ii) communicating and maintaining strong relationships with colleagues across campuses; and iii) managing time and workload associated with travel between campuses. Participants identified several strategies for managing these challenges. These included the strategic deployment of campus-based leaders, engendering a greater sense of agency among collegial teams on campuses, planning ahead for whole-of-program team meetings to bring colleagues together across campuses, and creative use of technology to reduce travel time. Although these individual strategies will not necessarily alleviate the multicampus challenges, together they highlight the value of identifying, acknowledging and sharing good practice strategies for dealing with the unique challenges of leading in multicampus universities. The findings of this project have significant implications for university policy and practice and have informed the development of a Program Leader Network at Griffith University.

Project outcomesKey outcomes of the project were:

a) the development and evaluation of a model for capacity-building among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities. This model drew largely on the successful Head of Program Network at UWS. As part of this project, we sought feedback from UWS Heads of Program about the value of the Network for their professional development. We then initiated, developed and evaluated a Program Leaders’ Network at Griffith University. A similar pattern has not yet been adopted at La Trobe University, primarily because La Trobe was engaged in a comprehensive whole-of-institution curriculum renewal process during the course of this project. However, all participants in the project saw value in adapting the Program Leader Network approach as a vehicle for supporting the curriculum renewal process. This continues to be a work in progress.

b) the identification of qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts, based on feedback from supervisors to inform sharing of good practice and succession planning, recruitment and induction for future Program Leaders. These findings reinforced those of the Learning Leaders project and went further to examine the particular qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus settings. This makes a valuable contribution to the sector by raising awareness of the unique challenges and opportunities of curriculum leadership in multicampus universities; and

c] generalisable strategies and resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for learning and teaching occurs. These resources are in the form of a Program Leader website comprising:

° Good Practice Guides for Program Leaders;

° video vignettes in which experienced Program Leaders share their strategies for dealing with critical incidents and challenges arising from program leadership in a multicampus environment;

° a handbook to guide the induction of Program Leaders, including workshop modules, adaptable power point presentations, and resources to guide the establishment of Program Leader Networks;

° a guide for senior university managers that provides suggestions for building Program Leader capacity in multicampus universities, strategies for developing Program Leader Networks, succession planning and supporting Program Leader career trajectories, and implications for policy;

° a compilation of professional development resources to support Program Leadership, based on a desk audit of the comprehensive range of existing resources in the sector.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


RecommendationsOn the basis of the project findings and the extensive consultation processes via interstate and local institutional Program Leader feedback, in conjunction with expert advice from the project team and project reference group, it is recommended that:

1. Universities ensure they develop and regularly review policies to support the Program Leader role, including position descriptions, workload models informed by evidence provided by Program Leaders, promotion policies that recognise the role of Program Leader, and local award and grant schemes that reward the strategic contributions of Program Leaders to the enhancement of program design, delivery and renewal. The particular demands of Program Leadership in multicampus contexts should be evident in all of the above.

2. Program Leader induction programs be included as a standard offering in academic staff professional development programs, with at least one module (or equivalent) devoted to managing programs in multicampus settings.

3. Ongoing professional development programs be offered to support the skill development and career trajectories of more experienced Program Leaders, including strategies for developing the scholarly side of the Program Leader role and advanced skills in program quality monitoring and review.

4. Academic supervisor training include a focus on strategies for supporting the Program Leader role and innovative approaches to deploying program-level resources, including administrative and academic workload allocations.

5. Academic departments and faculties include as a strategic priority local approaches to Program Leader capacity-building, mentoring and succession planning as part of a broader strategy for cultivating academic managers of the future.

6. Program Leader Networks (or equivalent) be fostered at the institutional level, sponsored by senior leaders and include a strategic mandate to consult with Program Leaders with regard to curriculum issues, particularly with respect to quality and standards at the program level. These Networks should be facilitated in such a way as to take maximise accessibility across campuses, including strategic use of technology such as video conferencing and the like.

7. Program Leaders at all stages of their career take responsibility for ensuring they:

a. acquaint themselves with key university policies relating to program design, delivery and review;

b. network across departmental and campus boundaries in order to build connections across the university;

c. seek mentoring support where possible;

d. capitalise on opportunities to document evidence of leadership in the Program Leader role, including leadership in service, community engagement and curriculum development relating to their program.


This chapter provides an overview of the project, its aims, outcomes, impact and deliverables. It also provides details of the project team, who, with the reference group and project evaluator, were instrumental in successfully delivering the project outcomes.

IntroductionThe Program Leader role is a pivotal leadership role in universities, especially with respect to enhancing learning and teaching quality (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008). Curriculum leadership across programs is a significant responsibility. It involves advanced curriculum knowledge as well as the skill to manage academic and professional staff teams. The present study extends the Learning Leaders findings by delving more deeply into the Program Leader role as a result of the following finding:

The role least recognised for its critical role as the final arbiter of whether a desired change is actually taken up and actioned locally is that of Head of Program. If these people do not engage then they will not focus and assist their staff to learn how to make the desired change work in practice. (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008, p.xvii)

This project focuses on the opportunities and challenges of the Program Leader role in multicampus universities, where staff often face the added complexity of managing program quality and standards across more than one campus. The project ran from the end of 2009 to 2011 and was funding by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. It was a collaborative effort between Griffith University (Lead Institution), the University of Western Sydney and LaTrobe University.

The project drew heavily on the work of the Learning Leaders in Times of Change report findings and recommendations, focusing on the Program Leader role as one of the key determinants of effective change management in curriculum. Recommendation 5 in the report recommends:

Leadership development and learning programs be reviewed and aligned with the findings of the study concerning how and what academic leaders prefer to learn, and that the fact that this is identical to the way in which higher education students wish to learn be made explicit. Where possible, programs should be underpinned by evidence-based insights into effective professional practice in the specific leadership roles involved. In doing this it is recommended that universities investigate ways of setting up learning networks for people in the same role, in particular Heads of School, A/Deans and Heads of Program. (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008, p.xix)

This recommendation informed the project aim of developing strategies for capacity-building among Program Leaders. This study sought to focus on the unique characteristics, challenges and opportunities of program leadership in multicampus universities. Australian public universities comprise at least 200 campuses between them, including many transnational sites of operation. This operational context poses particular challenges to those responsible for assuring program quality, standards and outcomes, hence the focus on program leadership in multicampus universities.

CHAPTER 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW: AIMS, OUTCOMES, IMPACT AND DELIVERABLES


Project AimsThe project aim was to build institution-wide capacity among Program Leaders across disciplines in three large multicampus universities. The goal was to enhance learning and teaching by building capacity among those with front-line responsibility for leading teams of colleagues in curriculum design and delivery at department or school level. Based on the experiences of the three participating multicampus Australian universities the project used a systemic, organisational learning framework to:

• identify qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts, based on feedback from Program Leaders, academic managers (e.g. Heads of School) and institutional leaders (e.g. Deputy Vice-Chancellors - Academic);

• gather data in three multicampus universities to inform sharing of good practice and succession planning, recruitment and induction for future Program Leaders;

• develop and evaluate institutional strategies for capacity-building among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities; and

• design resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for learning and teaching occurs.

The project was originally designed to complement the University of Tasmania-led project ‘Enabling and developing leadership in multicampus universities through the development of communities of practice’. This project evolved to focus on developing a quality framework for cross-campus teaching, providing broad support for leaders of learning and teaching. It did not, however, specifically focus on the role of Program Leader. The two projects are, therefore, separate yet complementary, yielding a rich source of data and resources that may be generalisable and adaptable across Australia’s 39 universities.

Research questionsThe current project addresses several of the Learning Leaders project recommendations by further examining the Program Leader role and ways to support it, particularly in multicampus settings. The following nine research questions framed the study:

1. Why are Program Leaders so important in higher education?

2. What makes an effective Program Leader? What conceptions of the Program Leader role are held by the role occupants and their various role senders (e.g., colleagues, managers/supervisors, etc)?

3. What challenges and opportunities does the Program Leader role offer academic staff in multicampus universities? Specifically, what forms of role stress (e.g., ambiguity, conflict etc) are particularly salient to the Program Leader role and the management and coping strategies used to manage these dynamics? Do multicampus variables play any role here?

4. What structural, cultural and governance factors positively and negatively influence Program Leaders’ enactment of their roles, particularly in multicampus contexts?

5. What are the strategic and tactical role episodes or critical incidents that require effective management by Program Leaders? What unique challenges do multicampus contexts pose?

6. How do we build capacity among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities?

7. What is the trajectory of role development for Program Leaders and how might this be more effectively managed?

8. How can senior leaders and university managers support and succession plan for the Program Leader role?

9. What are the implications of these questions for university policy?


The multicampus angleThis project focuses on the opportunities and challenges of the Program Leader role in multicampus universities, where staff often face the added complexity of managing program quality and standards across more than one campus. For the purposes of this study, ‘program’ refers to a whole-of-degree program, comprising multiple units or subjects. In some universities, the term ‘program’ is equivalent to ‘course’. It may be offered at either undergraduate or postgraduate level, on a part-time or full-time basis, and in multiple modes.

Based on the experiences of three large multicampus Australian universities – The University of Western Sydney, La Trobe University and Griffith University – the project used a systemic, organisational learning framework to:

• identify the qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts, based on feedback from Program Leaders, academic managers (e.g. Heads of School) and institutional leaders (e.g. Deputy Vice-Chancellors - Academic);

• gather data in three multicampus universities to inform sharing of good practice and succession planning, recruitment and induction for future Program Leaders;

• develop and evaluate institutional strategies for capacity-building among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities; and

• design resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for learning and teaching occurs.

Key outcomes of the project were:a) the development and evaluation of a model

for capacity-building among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities;

b) the identification of qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts, based on feedback from supervisors, that will inform sharing of good practice and succession planning, recruitment and induction for future Program Leaders; and

c) generalisable strategies and resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for learning and teaching occurs.

Based on project findings, a lifecycle model for building Program Leader capacity and succession planning was developed. This model formed the basis of the resources developed for the project (see Figure 3), including the introduction of a Program Leader Network at Griffith University. This program was based on a Head of Program Network developed at the University of Western Sydney. While La Trobe University project team did not develop a network of this kind, project team members found the resources useful and expect to be able to adapt them upon the conclusion of a major curriculum reform project at their institution.

The identification of qualities of effective Program Leaders was informed by the outcomes of the Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008) Learning Leaders in Times of Change study. Further data were gathered during the course of this project through quantitative and qualitative methodologies and with a particular focus on multicampus contexts. The findings of these investigations are reported in Chapter 3 and they have informed the development of a range of resources, including web resources, good practice guides and a professional development handbook. These resources represent the third key outcome of this project.

CHAPTER 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW:


Project impactThe project sought to achieve a high level of influence by:

• working through project team members, all of whom held strategic leadership roles in their respective universities;

• conducting fieldwork, gathering data and convening various interstate for a to verify the data with Program Leaders within and beyond the three project universities;

• consulting with colleagues at institutional, national and international levels;

• documenting good practice examples through production of high quality, accessible resources for a range of stakeholders including Program Leaders, those who provide professional development for them, and those responsible for policy development, career development and succession planning in relation to Program Leaders; and

• strategic dissemination of resources and project outcomes, together with community building and sharing of strategies to continue this beyond the life of the project.

The project has had an impact in each of the participating universities in different ways. A feature of the project was the recognition that each institution was at a different stage of development with respect to their work with the Program Leader role. The University of Western Sydney (UWS) had a well developed Head of Program Network which was nationally recognised by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) as an example of good practice. Griffith University did not have such a network at the start of the project, but was able to initiate a similar network, drawing on the example of UWS and as detailed in the following case study. La Trobe University joined the project some months after its commencement. The inclusion of La Trobe was particularly valuable given its regional campuses in the state of Victoria. While La Trobe was engaged in a significant whole-of-university curriculum reform project which meant that it did not have the same capacity to devote to initiating a Program Leader Network, much was learned about how La Trobe managed program quality and standards across campuses.

Each university, then, while at a different developmental point with respect to the Program Leader role, experienced valuable lessons to help inform the development of strategies for working with and supporting Program Leaders and program quality enhancement. A brief institutional impact statement for each project university is included after the case study.


Institutional case study: Applying the partnership model in practice at Griffith UniversityThe significant impact of this project is best illustrated through the way in which it has shaped institutional practice in relation to program leadership at Griffith University. At Griffith University, the various phases of the lifecycle model outlined in Figure 3 below, have been adopted and are in the process of being implemented and reviewed as follows:

Program Leader induction workshops are convened centrally by the University’s professional development unit (the Griffith Institute for Higher Education). In addition to twice yearly inductions that are videoconferenced across campuses, online resources have been developed to enable self-paced induction where feasible. The online resources have been developed at the request of Program Leaders who either found it difficult to attend the induction sessions, or wanted supplementary support.

Program Leader

appointed

Program Leader succession planning

Advanced skill development in curriculum leadership, scholarship of program

leadership (if applicable)career building

Program Leader networking, mentoring,

fellow traveler connections

Program Leader induction

A partnership model including:Program Leaders, Heads of School, Deans and Senior executives responsible for

policy and resourcing

Figure 3: A lifecycle partnership model for Program Leader induction and support



A Program Leader Network has been developed. The Network is sponsored by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and endorsed by the University’s Vice-Chancellor and Executive Group. The Network provides important opportunities for Program Leaders to meet with one another across disciplines and campuses. A Network Reference Group was formed and in 2010, three joint meetings of the Program Leader Network were convened. The Network members, having identified several key priorities for action in 2010, including a review of the Program Leader position description and associated promotion policy, agreed that activities in 2011 would be devolved to a Program Leader Working Party which was responsible for coordinating extensive consultation with Program Leaders in each academic Group (equivalent to a Faculty). One joint Program Leader event was held towards the end of 2011. In place of whole-of-university meetings, the Program Leaders requested targeted academic Group-level support in the form of advanced skill development workshops.

Advanced Skill Development Workshops in Academic Groups. These workshops were requested by Program Leaders and strongly endorsed by Deans who saw theme as a key tool for capacity building of Program Leaders in academic groups. Griffith University’s central academic development unit - the Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE) – is liaising with Deans and Program Leader champions to co-facilitate local workshops and seminars on strategic topics designed to further develop Program Leader skill sets. These include understanding the nature of program leadership and skills for conducting program reviews, including analysis of program-level data for the purposes of designing program improvement plans. In some cases, Program Leaders have also expressed interest in workshops on the scholarship of curriculum design and program leadership. In this way, some Program Leaders are exploring the researchable elements of their role with a view to documenting evidence of their scholarly work in the field.

Program Leader succession planning is a priority identified by Program Leaders and senior managers alike at Griffith University. Heads of School and Deans who were interviewed during the course of this project highlighted the significant challenges of recruiting effective Program Leaders. The Program Leader Network and the associated Group/Faculty workshops are seen as avenues for recruiting and developing future Program Leaders. Other strategies include targeted leadership development programs and training of academic supervisors and mentors to support career development of future Program Leaders.

The model outlined in Figure 3 summarises outcomes of the project. Various dimensions of the model have been evaluated, including participant feedback on induction programs and Program Leader feedback on the Network events. Evaluation and data gathering was also undertaken through consultation meetings with Deans on the initiatives outlined in the figure above. Members of the Program Leader Network Reference Group were also consulted to formatively evaluate the success of the initiative and inform decisions about further actions and directions.


University of Western Sydney Impact Statement

Provided by Professor Stuart Campbell (formerly PVC Learning and Teaching)

UWS embarked on the project with an already well established Head of Program (HoPNet) Network and a regular Head of Program Forum. The Network and Forum had been running since 2006 with very positive effects.

Two main impacts of the project at UWS were:

• confirming the challenges of the UWS Heads of Programs experienced were common to their counterparts in other universities; and

• helping UWS clarify its thinking about the position and role descriptions of the Heads of Programs and other positions.

On the issue of cross sectoral challenges, key issues facing the Heads of Programs at UWS had become clear during the first few years of HoPNet, but there was little awareness, if any, that colleagues in other universities faced the same issues. Engaging the Heads of Programs in the cross-university survey and in the joint Program Leader workshop reassured UWS staff they were not alone. More importantly, this benchmarking process helped to reify the Program Leader role at a cross-sector level, thus consolidating and raising the profile of the UWS Heads of Programs in UWS’s strategic planning.

One of the common challenges for Program Leaders is role descriptions. While UWS has a common position description, local variants had developed over the years to suit the circumstances of particular Schools. The Program Leader project provided UWS senior management opportunities to learn from staff at various levels of seniority about their expectations and understandings of the Head of Program role. In 2010, UWS management, through the HoPNet, embarked on a collaborative project to revise the position description. UWS Human Resources staff worked with Heads of Programs and used data from the ALTC Program Leader project to review the role. . A key discovery in this process, resulting from a full analysis of delegations in UWS academic policies, was that Heads of Programs carried a disproportionate burden of policy accountabilities. Similarly, there

was inconsistency in the level of responsibility of Heads of Programs for curriculum development.

Late in 2010, UWS – as part of its preparation for the Cycle 2 AUQA audit – finalised its Academic Standards and Assessment Framework. The Head of Program position description project was then expanded to include other School roles such as Associate Head of School (Learning and Teaching) and First Year Advisor, using the Standards Framework as the organising principle. The outcome is a set of position descriptions for School Learning and Teaching roles that are – for the first time at UWS – properly articulated and complementary; the underlying robust standards framework means that the suite of positions is flexible and amenable to fine-tuning in line with organisational changes. In brief, the ALTC Program Leader project laid the foundation for a new way of generating role descriptions at UWS.

In late 2011, the Head of Program role was reconfigured to form a Director of Academic Program (DAP) role. Each of the nine Schools at UWS has at least one of these roles. The role is designed for senior academic staff at Associate Professor level or above. The position description includes responsibility for staff supervision and for the quality assurance and enhancement aspects of the academic program. This is a significant institutional recognition of the leadership and accountability represented in the Program Leader role.

La Trobe University Impact Statement

Provided by Professor David Spencer (Associate Dean Academic, Faculty of Law and Management and team member)

It is anticipated the Program Leader project will have a significant impact on the recognition, resourcing, management and governance role of Program Leaders at La Trobe University.

Currently La Trobe University does not recognise the role of Program Leader. While it is true to state that the role exists, albeit often by different titles such as Director of Undergraduate Programs, the role has no formal recognition within the management and governance structures of the University. The impact of the current project is



that it highlighted the importance of the role to academic units up and down the University. Further, the project deliverables will provide a template of how to develop the role of Program Leader at La Trobe University and potentially lead to similar program leader networks to those at Griffith University and the University of Western Sydney being developed.

The project has highlighted several deficiencies in the approach La Trobe University takes to the management of its degree course offerings. The quality assurance of courses delivered across multiple campus locations was an area of concern raised by La Trobe University project participants. In this respect, Program Leaders lacked delegated authority to address consistent and quality roll-out of programs across the five Victorian campus locations that La Trobe delivers to.

Training and succession planning for Program Leaders was another area highlighted by the project that is unplanned and ad hoc and does not provide for continuous improvement across our management and governance structures. Professional development is available through organisations such as the LH Martin Institute and various University providers of non-award subjects in generic Graduate Certificates in Higher Education, yet none of the La Trobe participants reported any such opportunities afforded to them that would up-skill them into the position of Program Leader.

A finding of concern from the project was the lack of recognition and reward through, for example, promotion and performance review. La Trobe has however, recently made significant inroads into rewarding academics for managerial, administrative and curriculum development roles through its new promotions criteria and performance review mechanisms. The study did not reflect these recent changes and a further study in two years time would probably net a different result.

All participants in the project raised issues of the position being a ‘thankless job’ which was described by some as being ‘career suicide’. Again, changes to promotions and performance criteria at La Trobe will hopefully turn this perception around. A further impact of this project is the lack of retention of corporate knowledge that occurs through the absence of recording and reporting structures. The lack of such simple structures leads to inconsistent

decision making and questionable quality assurance practices.

The impact of these critical issues cannot be understated and there are opportunities through the completion of this project to invest in the formalisation of the role of Program Leader and integrate it into the operational structures of the University with a view to achieving its strategic goals.

In addition to the concerns raised above, this project has also had a very positive impact on La Trobe University that needs to be reflected upon in terms of the possible benefits that can flow from formalising the role of Program Leader.

Nearly all participants commented about how satisfying the role was despite its time commitment at the expense of other activities. Most felt that they could effect change, but often in a subliminal way, and all participants noted the professional and personal benefits of opportunities to work more collegially with colleagues. . Finally participants were grateful of the opportunity to express their views in a safe environment and be acknowledged in making a contribution to the managerial landscape of the University and the sector.

The Program Leaders Project presents La Trobe University with an opportunity to create a framework of quality assurance, innovation and sound management in a level of the University’s management structures that has been neglected. The importance of this level of management is that it impacts directly on program and curriculum innovations, staff development, quality of teaching and learning and program governance. La Trobe University would be strengthened in these areas if the role of Program Leader was formalised, resourced and certain accountabilities were agreed upon as part of the appointment process. In this respect it is anticipated that La Trobe University will take up the challenge presented by this project and include the role of Program Leader as part of its organisational structures that assist it to achieve its strategic goals.


Griffith University Impact Statement

Provided by Professor Kerri-Lee Krause (former Director, Griffith Institute for Higher Education)

The lifecycle partnership model of program leadership, outlined in Figure 3, represents one of the most significant impacts of the project at Griffith. At a senior level, the project sharpened the focus of the University’s executive on the critical importance of the role of Program Leader. Seeking the University Executive’s endorsement and the sponsorship of the DVC(Academic) for the university’s Program Leader Network raised the profile of the activity in the minds of senior colleagues and represented an important symbol of support and recognition for Program Leaders. Another indicator of the impact of the project is the inclusion of the review of the Program Leader role statement in the university’s Academic Plan and ongoing induction and professional development programs for Program Leaders. This is a three year strategic plan that aims to ensure the Program Leader role continues to receive attention and support at the highest level.

Since initiating the pan-university Network, the Griffith Institute for Higher Education has included in its list of priorities the need to provide more targeted support for Program Leaders in their disciplinary contexts. This has included consultation meetings with the group Pro Vice-Chancellors and Deans (i.e., the senior executive teams responsible for academic staff appointments and ongoing leadership development). Each of the four academic groups has agreed to host one or more professional development workshops aimed at providing specific skill development for Program Leaders. Workshop topics have been negotiated with the Deans and they align with the group’s strategic priorities for learning and teaching. In this way, the Program Leader Network is being fostered at the local level and in response to local needs.

A year after its introduction, the Program Leader Network Reference Group became the Program Leader Taskforce, with a list of identified priorities for 2011. These priorities included: review of the Program Leader position description in close consultation with Program Leaders in each group and School/Department; review of the university’s promotion policy and guidelines relating recognition for the Program Leader role

in promotion processes; development of resources to guide Program Leaders in documenting evidence of their achievements and impact in the role; and skill development workshops on quality assurance and enhancement in annual and five-yearly program reviews – including how to interpret program outcome data as the basis for program improvement plans.

The project has also had a significant impact in that it has provided Griffith University and its Program Leaders with access to colleagues in similar multicampus universities. It has raised the profile of challenges multicampus universities experience and highlighted the need to develop operational and strategic approaches for managing these in productive ways. The project evaluator, Professor Fred D’Agostino, agreed to be guest presenter at the annual Program Leader Forum during Griffith’s Celebrating Excellence in Teaching Week. This celebratory event is now an annual fixture in the university calendar.

These examples provide an indication of some of the institution-level impacts of the project which we expect to be ongoing beyond the project’s conclusion.



Project deliverablesIn summary, the project deliverables include:

1. A Program Leader resource website including nationally benchmarked good practice examples and an evidence-based module for policy makers to encourage a systemic approach to capacity building in multicampus contexts. This website will complement but not replicate existing resources (e.g. the ‘Building academic leadership for course coordinators’ resource at Curtin).

2. A Program Leader Professional Development Handbook (hard copy and online) with evidence-based resources to guide those responsible for inducting and supporting experienced Program Leaders, particularly in multicampus environments.

3. One national Forum involving a professional development and data verification activity with Program Leaders from the three project universities.

4. Two half-day regional forums to widen Program Leader networks and develop a community of practice among key Program Leaders and those who support them.

5. A national launch of the Program Leader website, including lunchtime presentation at the HERDSA 2011 conference.

6. Consolidated Program Leader networks in at least two of the three participating universities, applying strategies of sustainable stakeholder engagement, yielding a model and resources that can be adapted to the wide range of unique multicampus contexts.


This chapter provides an overview of the project approach and the literature informing the study’s design. It opens with an outline of the strategic context in which the project took place. Program Leaders play a key role in addressing national and institutional priorities in relation to program quality, standards and outcomes. In many ways, the Program Leader role is generic across university types; however this study also points out the unique challenges of program leadership in multicampus universities. This focus is particularly significant In a national context where the vast majority of public universities operate in multicampus environments, including transnational sites.

The literature review highlights the limited nature of empirical studies of multicampus universities and the challenges facing leaders in these contexts. The literature review also draws on conceptual frameworks from the vast array of leadership studies in the field, and in particular, the literature on change management and role theory to provide a synopsis of the theories underpinning the study’s theoretical framework. The chapter concludes with a review of the project methodology and the various data collection approaches used to address the research questions.

CHAPTER 2. PROJECT APPROACH AND LITERATURE REVIEW


Importance of Program Leaders: Strategic contextBuilding program leadership capacity in higher education is a priority for several reasons. First, Program leaders are pivotal to shaping institutional change management processes relating to enhancement of learning, teaching and curriculum quality (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008). Second, in Australian universities, there is an imperative to demonstrate that students are achieving program-level outcomes and standards. Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) emphasises the need for a standards-based quality assurance framework and the importance of enhancing the overall quality of the Australian higher education system. This has significant implications for those responsible for designing and leading programs of study in universities. These implications include:

• Program Leaders are responsible for overseeing the design of learning objectives, activities and assessment tasks across the program that will, in turn, result in high quality student experiences and program-level outcomes.

• Program Leaders require knowledge and skills in developing and measuring standards at the program level - see the ALTC Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project.

• When designing and reviewing programs, Program Leaders need to be well acquainted with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and the requirements and standards associated with each level of this Framework.

• Program Leaders need skills to be able to manage the quality assurance and quality enhancement aspects of their programs. These skills and capabilities include: personal capabilities in such areas as self-regulation, decisiveness and capacity to tolerate ambiguity; interpersonal capabilities to assist in managing staff teams who coordinate the units within the program, as well as other key stakeholders within and beyond the university (e.g., in industry and the community); and knowledge of curriculum design, higher education quality frameworks.

Understanding the Program Leader role

Organisations can be understood as systems of interdependent roles. In multicampus universities, this is particularly the case as stakeholders in different roles interact and connect across various role and campus boundaries, both physical and virtual. Role mastery is the ability to effectively perform local or context-specific versions of a role (Collier, 2001). Mastery of the Program Leader role will depend on the extent to which academic staff are able to understand and manage both the explicit and implicit aspects of institutional culture and processes (Collier & Morgan, 2008). Conversely, role strain may occur when Program Leaders are unsure what is expected of their roles (role ambiguity) or hold differing expectations to their academic colleagues (role conflict). Role strain thus impedes meaningful and satisfying engagement with the role.

Adding to role ambiguity and role conflict are the challenges for the Program Leader who must adapt to and manage change in a world of increasingly blurred boundaries between academic and professional roles (Henkel, 2007; Musselin, 2007). This study investigated the world of the Program Leader by asking Program Leaders across three multicampus universities how they conceptualise their role, what capabilities and indicators of effectiveness are most important to them, and what particular strategies they find most productive in their role.

The study drew on the academic leadership capability framework developed by Scott and colleagues (2008) in their Learning Leaders project (see Figure 4 below). In particular, the survey design was informed by the five dimensions of capability and competence; namely personal, interpersonal and cognitive capabilities, along with generic and role-specific competencies. The scales developed as part of that study underpin those used in this investigation, though additional items were added to take account of the multicampus focus.


Scott and colleagues (2008, chapter 3-4) reported several important findings with respect to the Program Leader role. These include:

• Line managers, like the local Heads of Program, tend to opt for analogies that indicate they have less capacity to influence or are unclear on the ‘big picture’. Typical analogies for this group are ‘being a one-armed paper hanger in a gale’; ‘being a small fish in a big cloudy pond’; ‘being a pebble in a shoe’; ‘pushing a pea up hill with my nose’; ‘being an island in a sea of adminis-trivia’; ‘wading through a quagmire of bureaucracy; ‘being the sole parent of a group of adolescents’; ‘climbing a mountain with a team’; ‘dancing on hot coals’; ‘flying a full plane without ground support’; or ‘shielding a candle against the wind’.

• Greater attention needs to be given to the Program Leader role as key changes are being formulated and implemented—because it is local leaders, like Heads of Program, who are the final arbiters over whether any desired change in learning and teaching is taken up and translated into daily practice by line staff.

• Program Heads/Coordinators report spending most of their time on academic activities.

• Heads of Program give much higher priority to developing learning programs than all other roles and, predictably, give top importance to working on student matters and reviewing teaching activities.

• The roles of Associate Dean, Head of Program and Director have less direct authority or control over resources than roles like Head of School or Dean; and, because of this, such people need to be particularly deft at ‘leading through influence’.

• It was noted how important the leadership of the Head of Program is in making sure a desired change actually happens in local practice—participants emphasised again that, if such people fail to engage with a change, they will not work with local staff to translate it into action.

• The development of Heads of Program networks and their more consistent involvement in helping shape the process of L&T change was recommended.

Generic Competencies

Capabilities

CompetenciesRole-specific Competencies

Personal Capabilities

Interpersonal Capabilities

Cognitive Capabilities

Figure 4: Academic leadership capability framework (Source: Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008, p. 18)



• Program Leaders identified the most satisfying aspects of their role as: assisting students and teaching; implementing a new curriculum; and building staff morale and skills

• Most challenging aspects of the Head of Program role included: dysfunctional systems and administration that do not add value to student learning; dealing with difficult staff and inertia; and managing complaints.

The present study set out to test these findings as they relate to Program Leaders in multicampus universities.

Literature review and conceptual frameworkA comprehensive review of the literature informed the conceptual framework, research questions and methodology of this project. Key elements of the review are included here by way of an overview of the theoretical underpinning of the study. As a starting point, we were interested in extending the Learning Leaders (Scott, Coates and Anderson, 2008) project which identified key characteristics of effective Program Leaders. We consulted literature in this regard, focusing on some of the reasons why Program Leaders play such a key role in universities. This included consideration of the findings from the Learning Leaders project, along with a review of role theory and its contribution to addressing the research questions for the project. We also reviewed the relatively limited literature on multicampus universities for this was the primary lens through which we aimed to investigate the Program Leader role. Leadership theories and systems thinking literature also formed a foundation for our thinking about the most appropriate approach for the investigation.

Multicampus universities

The relatively limited literature on multicampus universities was the starting point for this study. While many of the research questions addressed the Program Leader role generically, at all times we sought to view the role through the lens of the multicampus institution.

Multicampus universities have a key role to play in the university sector. They typically have distinctive missions and characteristics, with one or more campuses strategically placed to support regional or specific local community needs. International campuses are another dimension of multicampus universities. Definitions of ‘multicampus’ vary. Some multicampus universities adopt a hub-and-spoke model with a single main campus and several minor satellite campuses. Others, such as Griffith University and the University of Western Sydney comprise multiple geographically dispersed campuses, each with a substantial student load (Scott, Grebennikov, & Johnston, 2007).

Multicampus universities face many challenges, including fragmentation, duplication, inconsistency and inequity over a range of areas of activity (Winchester & Sterk, 2006). Overcoming these challenges to enhance the quality of curriculum and program leadership is the focus of this study. The primary aim is to equip program leaders to span the many boundaries of multicampus institutions in order to achieve consistency, equivalence and optimal quality in program-level learning, teaching and quality review across campuses.

Having reviewed the limited literature on multicampus universities and what makes them distinctive, we turned our attention to the vast literature on academic leadership. We were selective in our focus, paying particular attention to distributed leadership theories as they apply in multicampus contexts to inform the research questions and our approach to the project. Focus was also placed on literature that would inform our understanding of the nature of change management in a rapidly evolving higher education sector, for this is one of the most pressing priorities for Program Leaders.


Leadership theories

The project is underpinned by a distributed approach to leadership (Spillane & Diamond, 2007). Distributed leadership focuses on an analysis of the complex array of interrelationships among key stakeholders contributing to the quality of learning and teaching at program level. Distributed leadership acknowledges that Program Leader responsibilities may span boundaries of all kinds, including physical campus boundaries, disciplinary boundaries, organisational boundaries, vertical management boundaries, year level boundaries, and university/community boundaries. This boundary-spanning activity inevitably stretches over the work of multiple leaders that co-lead and collaborate at different times and in different contexts according to needs and demands of a particular situation.

Theoretical framingThe project draws on various theoretical schools of thought and interpretations of leadership (adapted from Marshall, 2006), all of which apply in university settings at different levels. These are:

• ‘power and influence’ theories: leaders lead or influence by exercising their power (eg French & Raven, 1968)

• ‘social exchange’ theories: leadership is about satisfying the expectations of others and meeting the self-interest of followers, as well as challenging followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization through transformational leadership (see Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Ramsden, 1998)

• ‘leaders as servants of the group’ theories: leadership is an “interactive process of sense-making and creation of meaning that is continuously engaged in by organisational members” (Middlehurst, 1993, p.36); it relies on collegial communities of scholars with a common heritage, shared ideals and consensus decision-making.

Learning organisations and systems theory

Senge’s (1990) work on learning organisations and systems theory sheds light on universities as dynamic learning environments. Learning organizations are:

Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together (Senge, 1990, p.3).

Program Leaders are central to the interrelationships between key stakeholders in multicampus universities. Figure 5, below, outlines the key relationships explored during the study. . The capacity of stakeholders to manage change that simultaneously nurtures complex sets of relationships and enhances the quality of learning for all, especially students, is pivotal. Systems theory and an organisational learning approach



Figure 5: Model of systemic inter-relationships in the program leader experience

community & industry engagement

multicampus communities

Program Leader Networkaccross campuses, disciplines

Academic colleagues

Students

Professional staff colleagues

DVCs/PVCs

Heads/Deans

Program Leader in disciplines - early career & experienced

Inter-university engagement


helps to make sense of these fundamentally systemic challenges that are often magnified in multicampus environments where communication and interconnectedness are crucial. Middlehurst (1993, p.37) points out that leadership development must build individuals’ capacity to see themselves and understand their role in the organisation, and to “mould, reshape and transform culture in line with institutional objectives”.

The project methodology and resources are further informed by change management theories. Scott and colleagues argue that

Change is … a complex learning and unlearning process … and that academic leaders play a key role in supporting change-focused learning and in modifying the environment of universities to facilitate it. Change-focused learning’ is central to the Program Leader role. (2008, p.108; see also Scott, 1999)

In combination, these theories and findings from existing studies played an important part in guiding the project approach and methodology.

Project approach and methodologyCurrent conceptualisations of program-level leadership in higher education are narrowly defined and fail to account for the range of leadership roles, contexts and challenges inherent in the Program Leader role, particularly in multicampus universities. This represents a significant gap in our knowledge about the needs of individuals in these roles and the implications for institution and sector-wide policy and practice.

We investigated the research questions using a combination of surveys and interviews with key stakeholders. We gathered survey data from 176 Program Leaders across four discipline areas and programs in three multicampus universities (see Appendix 1). Interviews were conducted with a sample of 19 effective Program Leaders, nominated by their Heads of School or Deans Learning and Teaching, across four discipline areas and programs

in three multicampus universities (see Appendix 2). Twenty six institutional leaders were also interviewed about their perceptions of the Program Leader role, challenges posed by multicampus settings and strategies for capacity building and succession planning of Program Leaders.

Using the three case study universities, we analysed the data using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo to identify Program Leader perceptions of their role, along with their professional development needs and implications for ongoing induction, support and succession planning. Some program leaders were also video interviewed, with questions focusing on tricky issues and critical incidents facing Program Leaders in multicampus settings. These videos, with full transcripts, are included as a resource on the project website (www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders). Table 1, below, provides an overview of the research questions and the data collection processes used in the project.

To better understand the complex role of the Program Leader and the particular challenges and opportunities of multicampus university settings, our project also included five opportunities for gathering feedback from key stakeholders, as follows:

• survey of Program Leaders at Griffith, UWS and La Trobe (Sept-Oct 2009),

• interviews with samples of early career and experienced Program Leaders and institutional leaders (2010),

• invitational forum for Program Leaders involved in the project (Sydney: June 2010),

• two national roundtable consultations (WA and SA: August-October 2010), and

• resource development and consultation (June 2010-March 2011).



Table 1: Project research questions and strategies for addressing them

Research question Data collection strategy and sources

1. Why are Program Leaders so important in higher education?

Review of Learning Leaders report and national policy developments relating to program quality, standards and student outcomes

Consultation am

ong project team, reference group and evaluator/critical friend.

2. What makes an effective Program Leader?

Review of Learning Leaders data and follow up survey and interviews with Program Leaders and institutional leaders. Data verification with Program Leaders at national Forum and 2 interstate Roundtable Consultations

3. What challenges and opportunities does the Program Leader role offer academic staff in multicampus universities?

Survey and interviews with Program Leaders and institutional leaders, data gathering from Program Leaders at national Forum and 2 interstate Roundtable Consultations4. What structural, cultural and

governance factors positively and negatively influence Program Leaders’ enactment of their roles, particularly in multicampus contexts?

5. What are the strategic and tactical role episodes or critical incidents that require effective management by Program Leaders? What unique challenges do multicampus contexts pose?

Hypotheticals/critical incidents interviews with Program Leaders

6. How do we build capacity among early career and experienced Program Leaders in multicampus universities?

Survey and interviews with Program Leaders and institutional leaders, data gathering from Program Leaders at national Forum and 2 interstate Roundtable Consultations7. What is the trajectory of role

development for Program Leaders and how might this be more effectively managed?


9. What are the implications of these questions for university policy?


CHAPTER 3. PROJECT FINDINGS

The project findings confirm the validity of the capability framework proposed by Scott and colleagues (2008). This study extends the work of Scott et al by examining the unique qualities and capabilities required of effective Program Leaders in multicampus settings. Where relevant, these findings are highlighted and implications drawn.

Data snapshot

Survey

The survey respondents were spread across disciplinary contexts with varying representation across the three institutions. University 1 had the highest representation from the Health group while Universities 2 and 3 had highest representation from Arts, Education and Law. Academic levels were also reasonably spread with the majority of respondents from level B through to Associate Professor. The respondents from Universities 1 and 2 were mostly level B or C while University 3 respondents were mostly Level C or Associate Professors. Participants at Universities 1 and 2 completed the same survey and participants at University 3 completed an abbreviated version of the survey. An outline of the sample characteristics from each university is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 2: Survey respondent characteristics

Discipline Academic Level Total

University

Art

s,

Educ

atio

n

and

Law

Hea

lth

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Bus

ines

s

Leve

l A

Leve

l B

Seni

or

Lect

urer

Ass

ocia

te

Pro

fess

or

Pro

fess

or

University 1 32 (29.6%)

35 (32.4%)

25 (23.1%)

16 (14.8%)

2 (1.8%)

34 (31.2%)

49 (45.0%)

11 (10.1%)

13 (11.9%)

108


6 (17.1%)

8 (22.9%)

10 (28.6%)

1 (2.9%)

15 (42.9%)

12 (34.3%)

5 (14.3%)

2 (5.7%)

35


4 (12.1%)

10 (30.3%)

5 (15.2%)

1 (2.6%)

8 (21.1%)

16 (42.1%)

12 (31.6%)

1 (2.6%)

33


Interviews

Interviews were conducted with a sample of Program Leaders and institutional leaders across the three participating universities. Characteristics of the interviewees are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Interviewee characteristics

Griffith University


LaTrobe University

Total no. of participants

Program Leaders

Experienced 4 2 5 11

Early Career 4 2 2 8

Number of participants per university

8 4 7 19

Institutional Leaders

11 8 7 26

The interview transcripts were analysed using NVIVO software and thematic analysis. The analysis below focuses on the key themes that emerged from the interviews.

Key findingsWhat follows is an overview of the feedback received on the surveys distributed among the three sample universities and from the interviews conducted with program and institutional leaders. Recognising the institutional differences, the report seeks to share and demonstrate examples of good practice rather than compare and contrast institutional practices. For the most part, data are aggregated, with illustrative quotes included as appropriate. Data relating to each research question are presented in turn.


1. What conceptions of the Program Leader role are held by the role occupants and their various role senders (e.g., colleagues, managers/supervisors, etc)?

In responding to this research question participants were also asked to rate the level of importance of a suite of characteristics of effective Program Leaders (see Table 4). The respondents generally concurred that the Program Leader role is an academic leadership role. It was also evident that the role of Program Leader requires the incumbent to wear many hats. The activities the respondents identified within the role of Program Leader included:

• curriculum design;

• quality assurance;

• pastoral care;

• mentoring for staff;

• communications (internal);

• promotion;

• collaboration;

• external relations (eg with industry partners and professional bodies);

• trouble shooting and;

• administration.

Skills and capabilitiesProgram Leader respondents identified certain skills and capabilities required to effectively fulfil the role (see Table 4). In rating the importance of these skills and capabilities to the role of Program Leader the overwhelming majority of respondents rated ‘personal and interpersonal capabilities’ and ‘intellectual capabilities’ as important. To a lesser degree, respondents rated the capabilities related to ‘leading in a multicampus context’ as important although respondents at University 3 considered this more important (94 percent) than respondents at the other 2 universities (83 percent). On an interpersonal level ‘being honest in dealing with others’ and being able to ‘empathise and work productively with others from a range of backgrounds’ were considered important by the overwhelming majority of participants. Across the three universities, ‘knowledge of how to manage staff across campuses’ was also seen as important to the role of Program Leader (83 percent).

To expand understandings of the list of capabilities, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Program Leaders and senior institutional executives to investigate their views on the skills and capabilities required by Program Leaders. Several key themes arose from these interviews.

Key characteristics of effective Program Leaders, identified through interviews include: interpersonal skills, team management skills, organisational skills, problem solving skills, knowledge of programs, having institutional commitment and holding positive personality traits such as resilience and self-management. Interpersonal skills were identified as the most important and included diplomacy, compassion, communication, listening, and negotiation skills, open mindedness, tolerance, transparency and being observant.



The weight of administrationWhile the majority of respondents identified leadership aspects as the primary role of a Program Leader, almost a quarter of all respondents (23 percent) across the three universities nominated administration as the primary role of the Program Leader. A much smaller proportion of respondents (5 percent) indicated they had limited scope to act as academic leaders, mainly because so much time was dedicated to completing administrative tasks.

Given time restrictions and the amount of compliancy, paperwork, accountability administration and survey administration required, while the ideal would be a role of academic leadership, the reality is one more closely aligned with administration. (University 1 Respondent)

Program Leader interviewees confirmed a large component of the role involved purely administrative tasks. These tasks range from participating in student program-level orientation sessions, handling enrolments, admissions, examinations, and graduation responsibilities, managing

timetabling and practicums, attending school meetings and organising sessional staff. Program Leaders also reported being involved in budgeting and the distribution of funds within the School. Promoting and marketing of programs was a further dimension of the Program Leader role. One participant who has only been in the role for six months, reported this was an enjoyable task.

One [task] that I really enjoy which probably isn’t part of the description but that’s promotion and marketing, so I’ve been doing some fun videos, some marketing style videos, presenting it at open days. (Progam Leader - Bachelor of Information Technology and Bachelor of Computing, University 3)

Other respondents saw their role as a ‘coordinator’, somewhere between being a leader and an administrator. As a coordinator, a few participants described a critical role for facilitating the staff/student relationship. Some also identified the role provided leadership opportunities through managing and promoting collaborations between the university and external stakeholders, principally professional accreditation bodies and employers/ industry.


Table 4: Capabilities and skills important to the role of Program Leader* %

Capability or Skill University 1 %*

University 2 %*

University 3 %*

Mean across universities

Being transparent and honest in dealings with others

100.0% 96.9% 100.0% 99.4%

Making sense of and learning from experience

99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 99.4%

Being able to organise my work and manage time effectively

99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 99.4%

Understanding my personal strengths and limitations

98.1% 100% 100.0% 98.9%

Remaining calm under pressure or when things take an unexpected turn

98.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9%

Empathising and working productively with staff and other key players from a range of backgrounds

99.1% 96.9% 100.0% 98.9%

Diagnosing the underlying causes of a problem and taking appropriate action to address it

98.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9%

Personal and interpersonal capabilities

98.5% 98.1% 100.0% 98.8%

Intellectual capabilities 98.2% 98.1% 99.5% 98.4%

Identifying from a mass of information the core issue or opportunity in any situation

98.1% 96.8% 100.0% 98.3%

Being true to my personal values and ethics

97.2% 96.9% 100.0% 97.7%

Thinking creatively and laterally 96.3% 93.8% 97.3% 96.1%

Skills in achieving cross-campus consistency in assessment and standards

88.4% 77.8% 100.0% 89.4%

Leading in a multicampus context 87.9% 86.1% 95.8% 89.4%

Strategies for ensuring cross-campus program consistency

85.5% 77.8% 100.0% 87.5%

Knowledge of how to manage staff across campuses.

82.2% 88.9% 83.3% 83.5%

* % represents respondents who selected ‘important, ‘very important’ or extremely important



The helicopter viewInstitutional leaders perceived the role in much the same way as Program Leaders. Some, however, indicated the role as including a helicopter view, in terms of overseeing the whole of a program. This view enables Program Leaders to track the way the curriculum fits together from the entry point through to graduation. Some institutional leaders expressed the view that the role could include monitoring staff in their relative roles in terms of workload and performance.

These positions are critical to the university for the future, but currently underdeveloped. (Institutional Leader, University 2)

Strategic responsibilities for curriculum design, development and reviewProgram Leaders recognised a responsibility for curriculum development and ensuring the integrity and consistency of assessment, grading, and marking across campuses.

On a longer term it’s involved with curriculum development, changes to the programme structure in line with any kind of policy directives, there’s now some new graduate attributes so making sure that they are actually integrated into the programme. (Program Leader - Bachelors of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University 3)

Institutional leaders agreed with Program Leaders on the issues relevant to curriculum, particularly in relation to ensuring consistency and quality in program delivery. In discussing the role of the Program Leader, an institutional leader posited part of the role was:

To ensure consistency and quality control across programs, particularly if you are in a multicampus environment, across the campuses. (Institutional Leader, University 2)

Another issue institutional leaders raised was the role of Program Leaders in accreditation. Many courses require professional accreditation for which the Program Leader is responsible.

The Program Leader role was viewed as a powerful role in terms of ensuring both student progression and quality of programs. It was also seen as a leadership role in its capacity to lead junior academics and new colleagues in their roles. The Program Leader role was also reported to involve leadership in terms of involvement in annual reviews of programs. Respondents also believed it had the potential to change the way universities do certain things.

Program Leaders reported a sense of ownership in the role:

I’m a big one about ownership, like it’s my program. If I’m the program director it’s my program and I’ll take that personally and take personal responsibility for it. It won’t be the university’s program that I happen to be signing forms for. That’s a huge difference in terms of one’s motivation and attitude to what they’re doing. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Commerce, University 1)


Pastoral CareA further role of Program Leader was advising and supporting students. This included providing advice about programs and courses and extended to managing student queries and issues. It sometimes also involved managing conflicts between staff and students and addressing staff issues that arise, as one Program Leader shared.

You have to exercise all your skill in negotiating with staff over their workloads and their research trips and advising them about balancing various life issues, and leave ratios and whatever, so yeah. It’s part of the job that I enjoy, but it is incredibly time consuming. (Program Leader - English Program, University 1)

Institutional leaders also identified managing and resolving student issues through advice and support within the purview of Program Leaders. Although some did not include the role of managing the quality of the student experience at university.

They’re [Program Leaders] involved in providing advice to students on their progression within the degree program; they’re involved in looking at students that are performing poorly and might come up for probation or exclusion and providing some of the advice related to students that are showing signs of difficulty with their program. (Institutional Leader, University 3)

Another point raised by institutional leaders included the need to ensure student outcomes were achieved against the stated aims of the program. This included achieving graduate attributes.

Managing relationshipsThe Program Leader role also involved liaising with various internal and external stakeholders and therefore, managing these relationships. This included managing relationships with various departments within the university, for example, student administration, university libraries and liaising with the Marketing Department. The role sometimes extended to helping colleagues with professional development and/or applying for grants.

I see it as part of my role to move people forward with their research and with their teaching. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Accounting and Bachelor of Business, University 1)

The institutional leaders who were interviewed supported the views of the Program Leaders with respect to managing relationships.

Perceptions of other stakeholdersRespondents from Universities 1 and 2 were consulted on their views about how staff and students perceived the role of the Program Leader. Eighty one percent of respondents from University 1 and 71 percent of respondents from University 2 agree that administrative staff understood the purposes of the Program Leader role. Table 5, elaborates these findings. Despite this relatively positive finding about the effectiveness of administrative staff support, only a minority of Program Leaders expressed satisfaction about the amount of administrative support provided (see Table 6). Program Leaders felt colleagues’ perceptions of the role were slightly lower with approximately two-thirds of the respondents from each university indicating that teaching staff understood the purpose of the role. Students’ understanding of the Program Leader role did not rate very highly, particularly in University 2.



Table 5: Program Leaders’ working relationships

Program Leader working relationships

University 1 (% represents

respondents who Agree/Strongly

Agree)

University 2 (% represents

respondents who Agree/Strongly

Agree)


The administrative staff in my program clearly understand the purposes of my role

81.6% 71.4% 79.8%

The administrative staff effectively support me in implementing the work of my role

69.7% 81.0% 71.7%

The administrative staff in my program clearly value the work of my role

69.4% 76.2% 70.6%

My academic supervisor clearly understands the purpose of my role

66.3% 85.7% 69.7%

The students in my program make appropriate use of my role

65.7% 61.9% 65.0%

The teaching staff in my program clearly understand the purpose of my role

63.6% 66.7% 64.2%

The teaching staff effectively support me in implementing the work of my role

60.6% 76.2% 63.3%

My academic supervisor effectively supports me in implementing the work of my role

56.3% 61.9% 57.3%

The teaching staff in my program clearly value the work of my role

54.5% 66.7% 56.7%

The students in my program clearly understand the purpose of my role

41.4% 28.6% 39.2%

The students in my program have unrealistic expectations of my role

34.0% 38.1% 34.7%

My academic supervisor has unrealistic expectations of my role

28.9% 28.6% 28.8%



The findings summarised in Table 5 highlight some institutional differences in respondents’ views across different areas of the Program leader role, for example, the extent to which Program Leaders felt supported by teaching staff and their academic supervisor. Some institutional differences are also evident in the respondents’ views regarding personal effectiveness, resourcing and recognition for the role. The data, collected from all three universities, show that although the majority of respondents across the institutions felt effective in the role of Program Leader (83 percent) and found

the work personally satisfying (71 percent), they did not feel “the demands of [the] Program Leader role are appropriately recognised” (60 percent). Fewer than half of all respondents felt they “have received satisfactory professional development in this role”. This trend is reinforced by the respondents’ observations that they do not “receive sufficient administrative support.” Forty four percent of respondents from Universities 1 and 2 and 56 percent from University 3 agreed with this statement.

Overall, there appears to be a strong shared sense of the importance of a range of capabilities and skills important to the role of Program Leader (see Table 4). The majority of respondents expressed feeling effective in their role as Program Leader, however they did not feel the demands of the role were recognised appropriately. This is discussed in more detail in the next section.


Table 6: Recognition and support available to Program Leaders

Support available to Program Leaders

University 1 %*

University 2 %*

University 3 %*


Overall, I feel effective in this role 80.7% 87.5% 83.8% 82.6%

I find this role professionally stimulating

72.5% 77.4% 73.0% 73.4%

I find the work of Program Leader personally satisfying

67.9% 77.4% 75.0% 71.0%

I find this role stressful 44.0% 61.3% 62.2% 50.8%

I would like more advice and guidance on implementing the role

49.5% 32.3% 64.9% 49.7%

I don’t really have time to do justice to this role

48.6% 41.9% 59.5% 49.7%

I receive sufficient administrative support to assist me in this role

39.4% 48.4% 18.9% 36.7%

Managing programs across campuses is more demanding than I expected

33.9% 26.7% 34.8% 33.0%

The demands of my Program Leader role are appropriately recognised (e.g. in workload formulas, staff promotion)

17.6% 32.3% 32.4% 23.3%

I have received satisfactory professional development in this role

21.3% 41.9% 11.1% 22.9%

* % represents respondents who Agree/ Strongly Agree



Program Leaders reported a significant number of challenges associated with the role. An experienced Program Leader who had been in the role for over 8 years reflected:

The role has many dimensions to it, and in the first six weeks I liken them to a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, because there are so many aspects that you have to understand. (Program Leader - Master of Commerce, University 3)

Communication was an issue mentioned frequently and one that contributed to making the role of Program Leader more challenging, particularly as Program Leaders need to keep abreast of policy and curriculum changes. Also, in some cases, Program Leaders had difficulties in finding key information and policies or experienced confusion about the expectations of the role. Some Program Leaders also indicated the role was not respected among colleagues.

Participants identified further challenges of the role of Program Leader. These included prioritising tasks and time management, inadequate training for the role, a lack of administrative support and formal mentoring. All the Program Leaders interviewed advocated the need for a formal mentoring program.

If you look at the program convenor policy it is a very long document but it’s actually quite tricky in terms of well, what are your responsibilities, what are the responsibilities of the individual course convenors, what are the responsibilities of the head of school, the dean et cetera. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Information Technology, University 1)

The role often took Program Leaders away from their teaching and other duties. It also significantly impacted their workloads and was described by some as work overload.

Leadership without powerProgram Leaders reported the role was a leadership one with many significant responsibilities but it lacked authority. This lack of power extended to decisions being made without consulting the Program Leader or, in some cases, to decisions being made without informing the Program Leader.

If things are happening with the program that they’re directly responsible for and they’re putting all their energy into it and they’re not informed about big decisions that have been made concerning them, how undermining that feels. And you just feel, “Why am I doing this? Why should I bother? Why should I care when things can be changed at the last minute?” And that’s not a good place to be when you want to care about what you’re doing. (Program Leader - Media and Cinema studies, University 2)

The need for improved role descriptions and workload recognitionMany respondents reported the role of Program Leader was stressful; 44 percent at University 1 and 62 percent at University 3. The data identified various sources of role stress. Notably, in open-ended comments, many respondents identified the need for role clarification and clear role descriptions. It seems that Program Leaders, their supervisors and colleagues do not always hold shared understandings of the responsibilities and authority of the Program Leader which can impact the individual’s ability to fulfil the role.

2. What opportunities and challenges does the Program Leader role offer academic staff in multicampus universities? What forms of role stress (e.g., ambiguity, conflict etc) are particularly salient to the Program Leader role and the management and coping strategies used to manage these dynamics?


Program Leaders in the sample identified the need for clearer role descriptions, including a greater recognition of workload issues, the importance of induction, ongoing professional development and support, particularly training and preparation for the interpersonal interactions required for the role and administrative support. Overall, fewer than 30 percent of respondents from each university (University 1 – 25 percent, University 2 – 29 percent, University 3 – 16 percent) agreed they received appropriate induction and support upon commencing as a Program Leader.

Multicampus challenges and benefitsBetween one quarter (University 2) and one-third (University 1 and 3) of respondents found managing programs across campuses more demanding than expected. Maintaining the quality and consistency of programs across campuses was reported as a multicampus challenge. A Program Leader who was relatively new in the position observed:

So looking at moderation particularly is a big issue, and trying to ensure that the course outlines and the delivery are consistent across campuses, looking at the assessment items, and there are, there has to be some flexibility because of the way each campus operates differently. (Program Convenor - Bachelor of Early Childhood, University 3)

The participants reported other challenges of working in a multicampus context. These included travelling time between campuses, communication issues, managing difficult staff and timetabling

errors and experiencing different academic cultures on different campuses.

If you go down to another campus you don’t know the people as well, are they going to work with you when you’re trying to do things? That’s one issue. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Commerce, University 2)

Benefits of multicampus contexts were also recognised. These included the ability to allow for cross fertilisation and cross pollination of ideas. Program Leaders reported they were able to learn more skills by operating within a multicampus university, including the management of facilities. As one Program Leader who had been in the role for three years articulated:

There’s benefits in being able to tie ourselves with expertise and facilities etc that are at the [main] campus. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Science, University 1)

The different cultures across campuses was mentioned but this time it was recognised as a benefit rather than a challenge. Universities with multicampuses provide regional students with opportunities to study locally rather than having to relocate to a city campus.

You do get to offer students who are stuck in quite different parts of the regions at least some opportunity to study, and get a good experience of teaching with and engaging with other students. (Program Leader – English Program, University 1)

For more on this topic see responses to question 3 (p.39).


Interpersonal interactions, workload and role recognitionSome Program Leaders identified that a significant level of interpersonal interaction was required in the role, which was sometimes a source of stress. Interpersonal communication was not an issue for all participants, but for those who experienced issues, interacting with academic staff was a particular challenge.

Some Program Leaders made a link between the lack of appropriate workload recognition and the pressure this placed on building relationships with colleagues. One respondent from University 2, for example, noted: ‘Recognition in my workload of the actual number of hours per week demanded to operate effectively in the role’ as an area for improvement. Responses on this topic indicated that Program Leaders are ‘compromised’ in these working relationships because many of their peers and ‘junior’ colleagues, do not perceive the role of Program Leader as having much real authority. Thus Program Leaders felt they could only gain support by persuasion and not through the power of the position to delegate and reward.

A clear position in the chain of command. Currently we are outside normal program-schools chain of command and are only consulted rarely. (Program Leader, University 3)

Managing staff across programs and campusesThe perception that the Program Leader role holds little authority is linked to the concern that it is particularly difficult for Program Leaders to manage staff performance in relation to the quality of learning and teaching. Some respondents noted an apparent lack of commitment of some colleagues or the underperformance of staff as role stressors. In some cases, this stress was further complicated by a perceived lack of support or empathy from supervisors and academic managers such as the Head of School. This issue in particular is exacerbated in multicampus settings where one must connect with program staff across campuses, often using electronic forms of communication or telephone as it is often not feasible to meet face to face.

Strategies for addressing role stressProgram Leaders employed a range of strategies to help them overcome some of the forms of role stress. These are summarised in Table 7. The top five strategies included:

• being accessible to colleagues and students,

• consulting with relevant staff before coming to a decision,

• trying to be as evidence-based as possible,

• consulting, listening and following due process when working with colleagues, and

• listening to the perspectives of key players.

A minority of respondents identified with “playing a key role in aligning resources and rewards for implementation of agreed change”. This may be linked to the lack of authority many respondents felt the role carried to engage in such activities. Of interest is the marked institutional difference in views about the value of networking. This highlights the need to develop induction and professional development strategies that are fit for purpose and aligned to the unique needs, characteristics and experiences of each university.

Overall, respondents highlighted a number of areas which may create role stress for a Program Leader. These can be summarised as a perceived lack of role clarity, authority, and support for the role. The respondents utilised strategies which are primarily about being available to staff and students and consulting staff through the decision making process.



Table 7: Strategies for the role of Program Leader

Strategies for the Role of Program Leader University 1 %*

University 2 %*

Mean across

universities

Be accessible to colleagues and students 99.0% 95.5% 98.4%

Consult with relevant staff before coming to a decision 95% 100% 95.5%

Try to be as evidence based as possible in all that you do 87.0% 90.5% 87.6%

Ensure you consult and listen, are evidence based, problem focussed, and follow due process when dealing with staff

84.7% 95.2% 86.6%

Always listen to the perspective of key players individually before launching a proposal in a public meeting

85.3% 89.5% 86.0%

Make sure staff are properly informed on what really counts, and what the top priorities are for the faculty and university.

83.2% 81.0% 82.6%

Send confirmation email following key discussions outlining agreements, division of tasks, responsibilities and timelines

80.4% 85.0% 81.2%

Understand motivation of relevant line and senior staff to ensure support and ownership for proposed changes

77.3% 90.0% 79.5%

Recognise the importance of peer groups as motivators and collective responses to proposed change.

78.6% 80.0% 78.8%

Recognise that culture (the way we do things around here) counts

82.5% 57.1% 78.0%

Become particularly deft at calling meetings only when they are needed and at chairing them.

76.0% 75.0% 75.9%

Negotiate expectations, goals and evidence with relevant staff member/s when setting up projects or work plans

72.0% 61.9% 70.2%

Clearly identify, based on evidence, justification for, engagement in, and ownership of change for staff members

67.4% 68.4% 68.4%

Use a team based approach to test solutions to agreed change priorities to ensure success before scaling up

67.0% 66.7% 67.0%

Utilise knowledge of strategies used in other universities for problem solving

56.3% 55.6% 56.2%

Play a key role in aligning resources and rewards for implementation of agreed change

42.4% 43.8% 42.6%

Develop a network of people who are in the same role and whom you see as doing an effective job

35.9% 73.7% 42.3%

* % represents respondents that Agree/ Strongly Agree


3. What structural, cultural and governance factors positively and negatively influence Program Leaders’ enactment of their roles?

On average respondents across two universities indicated the Program Leader/Director/Convenor role was allocated just under 10 hours per week. On average however, they spent 16 hours per week on the role. The ratio between allocated versus actual hours was relatively consistent across discipline groups but seemed to increase even further as Program Leaders took on responsibility for convening postgraduate and honours programs or programs across multiple campuses. The number of staff to be supervised also played a role in workload, with mean number of work hours increasing as the number of fulltime staff increased. Sessional staff supervision responsibilities also correlated positively with the number of work hours per week.

Workload, allocated and actual, seemed to be related to multiple campus responsibility, size of student cohorts (particularly first year) and experience in the role. Early career convenors, that is those with 2 years experience or less, reported more allocated and more actual hours. So although the number of hours allocated to the role tends to decrease with experience, the decrease in actual hours spent is not as great. It was noted by some respondents that this difference in actual allotted hours impacts negatively on the Program Leader’s

ability to meet teaching and research obligations which, in turn, is believed to affect promotion opportunities. This is highlighted by a comment made by a respondent from University 2:

As well as academic leadership which includes staff support and curriculum development there is an ever increasing administrative load which leaves little time for teaching and research. (Program Leader, University 2)

The negative or positive view of this additional workload may be exacerbated by the Program Leader’s mode of selection into this role (refer to Table 9 below). Overall, just under half (45 percent) of respondents from Universities 1 and 2 indicated their Head of School suggested they undertake the role. For University 3, only 18 percent were selected this way. The most common mode of selection at University 3 (29 percent) was as a result of nomination or an approach by colleagues. There is some indication that academic status may play a role in mode of selection: lecturers and senior lecturers are more likely to have been approached by colleagues or to have been ‘instructed’ by the Head of School than professorial staff. This highlights that the majority of respondents did not offer to undertake this role, rather it was more often a suggestion from the leader of the faculty or from a colleague.


Although identified in section 2 as a role stressor, ‘workload’ emerged a key issue influencing Program Leaders’ capacity to carry out their role effectively. Table 8 provides a summary of the average number of hours per week Program Leaders spend on the role across two universities in the sample. The third university did not ask this question in their survey. A distinction is drawn between the number of hours “allocated” as part of a workload formula (or equivalent), and the “actual” hours spent, on average.

Table 8: Average time spent in the Program Leader role each week

Number of hours per week in the Program Leader role

University 1 University 2 University 3 Mean across 2 universities

Number of hours/week allocated as part of workload (mean)

10.05 8.79 not asked 9.75

Number of hours actually spent/week (mean)

15.49 17.08 not asked 16.28


During the course of interviews, Program Leaders confirmed that they came to be in the role by being approached by their respective Heads of School: “I was persuaded by the head of school at the time” (Program Leader - Bachelor of Information Technology, University 3). Others either covered for another person whilst they were on leave or in some cases, volunteered for the position.

Multicampus opportunitiesAs previously identified, one of the greatest challenges posed by multicampus convening is managing time and the need to spend more time on communication and travel and the associated costs. There are also challenges in team building, communication, academic and administrative coordination, negotiating the different cultures and student diversity on each campus and the issue of maintaining consistency across multiple campus programs in terms of quality of resources, including staffing.

Some respondents appreciated the opportunities that multicampus convening offers. These included:

• opportunities for enhancing professional capabilities as academic managers and leaders;

• scope for pooling resources and sharing knowledge with colleagues; and

• benefits for students, such as better access and equity.

In summary, workload is one of the key issues influencing the enactment of the Program Leader role. This is further complicated if the convening runs across multiple campuses. While multicampus programs provide greater access and equity for students, they often also require additional work to ensure a quality experience for both students and staff.

Table 9: Selection methods for the role of Program Leader

Methods of selection for the Role of Program Leader

University 1 University 2 University 3 Mean across universities

My Head of School suggested it to me 44.5% 45.7% 18.4% 39.3%

I nominated myself for the role 26.4% 34.3% 21.1% 26.8%

I was approached /nominated by colleagues 23.6% 25.7% 28.9% 25.1%

No one else wanted to/ was available to do it 13.6% 37.1% 15.8% 18.6%

My Head of School instructed me to do it 11.8% 8.6% 13.2% 11.5%

It was my turn / was expected at my level 2.7% 2.9% 10.5% 4.4%

Other 10.9% 0.0% 26.3% 14.2%


4. What are the strategic and tactical role episodes or critical incidents that require effective management by Program Leaders?

A fourth area of interest in this project was to identify and share strategies that effective Program Leaders use to manage tricky situations along with typical scenarios they face in their role each day. We approached several experienced Program Leaders who shared their stories of success, their challenges, and lessons learned in the role. We posed several hypothetical scenarios to these Program Leaders, based on the data gathered from surveys and interviews.

Key themes emerging from the Program Leader ‘hypotheticals’ include:

1. Advice for new Program Leaders from Fellow Travellers

Program leaders suggest strategies to avoid common pitfalls faced by incoming Program Convenors. They emphasise the importance of mentoring relationships and the value of negotiation.

I think then it’s important for an outgoing program convenor to mentor the incoming program convenor but in a way that allows them to develop their own style and their own flair because it will be different and I think that it would be helpful if you knew who that person was and you were usually aware of the politics and the dynamics within your own work environment... (Marion Tower, Program Leader)

2. Program leadership across campuses: Challenges and strategies for success

Issues that arise when taking over from a Program Leader at another campus are discussed, such as gaining credibility and cross campus politics.

... listening to what’s in place and acknowledging good things that are happening on the second campus...perhaps getting them to identify the things that they would like to remain unchanged and the things they hold near and dear to their heart and then the things that perhaps they’d like to see changed. It might be a place to start, and then move forward with a plan that they have input in, in how we can review the program and move forward. (Bev Fluckiger, Program Leader)

3 Using data to enhance program quality in multicampus contexts

Program leaders speak about the merits of using student survey data for improving the quality of their programs, and how to interpret it across multiple campuses. Using data as a motivation for change and to maintain cross campus consistency is also discussed.



4. Achieving cross-campus consistency in your program

Program leaders suggest different approaches to overcoming the difficulties encountered when managing cross campus consistency. Emphasis is given to setting and following guidelines for consistency when implementing programs, such as individualised delivery of courses.

I think if consistency is ... something we need ... it’s really a question of how we implement that. Do we implement it the most cost efficient and effective way or do we say “well you can still have consistency but do it through a more expensive avenue and maintain the quality of outcome and the skills building of the students”. It’s too easy to ... go the simplistic road in terms of assessment and delivery. Where the alternative might be more expensive to deliver, more expensive to assess and mark, but will deliver a better outcome, and that I think is where the rubber hits the road in terms of consistency. (Mark Brimble, Program Leader)

5. Strategies for expanding programs across campuses: Tips for success

Expanding a program to a new campus requires the examination of all available information. This includes accounting for campus culture, student demographics, existing course profiles and the team of academic staff.

6. Managing tricky situations: Dealing with student complaints about a staff member in your program

The hypothetical scenario of receiving a complaint about a staff member is discussed by Program Leaders. Appropriate responses are discussed, as well as the effect of a complaint on a whole school.

I suppose sometimes you do get complaints about academic staff members and we have to deal with them...I suppose the first thing is if the head of school has asked you to take on this task ... then the first thing I would want to know is that I’ve got the full support of that head of school or the senior management people within the school to actually... perform that task. (Christopher Love, Program Leader)

7. Succession planning for the Program Leader role

Program leaders speak about the importance of succession planning and the required attributes of a new Program Convenor.

More information about strategies for managing critical incidents as a Program Leader in a multicampus university, is available in the “Program Leaders speak” section of the resource website. You may view video vignettes online (www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders), or download the transcripts.


5. What is the trajectory of role development for Program Leaders and how might this be more effectively managed?

In order to understand more about the Program Leader role and its trajectory, respondents were asked their views about the most effective strategies for developing and enhancing key capabilities (see Table 10).

The top five strategies for developing as a Program Leader are:

• learning on the job,

• informal conversations about work with people in similar roles,

• self-guided reading on leadership,

• examining real-life problems related to the role, and

• involvement in mentoring or coaching.

Table 10: Strategies for developing Program Leader capabilities

Strategies for developing Program Leader capabilities

University 1 %*

University 2 %*

Mean across 2 universities

Learning on the job 99.1% 100.0% 99.2%

Ad hoc conversations about work with people in similar roles

85.0% 100.0% 87.5%

Undertaking self-guided reading on leadership

77.1% 73.3% 76.5%

Study of real-life workplace problems

75.3% 80.0% 76.3%

Being involved in informal mentoring/coaching

73.2% 78.6% 74.0%

Participating in peer networks beyond the university

68.1% 75.0% 69.0%

Participating in higher education leadership seminars

67.1% 76.9% 68.5%

Attending learning and teaching conferences

68.6% 64.3% 68.0%

Participating in peer networks within the university

64.7% 73.7% 66.3%

Completing a tertiary qualification relevant to leadership

55.6% 75.0% 58.5%

* % represents respondents who selected Somewhat Effective, Effective or Very effective



Motivations for taking on the roleProgram Leaders reported different motivations for taking on the role of Program Leader. Delivering quality programs and teaching was a key motivation. Career advancement, contributing to making a difference in terms of student outcomes and the progression of students to graduate were also motivating factors for undertaking the role of Program Leader.

I think that you know the Program Convenor really has overall responsibility for ensuring the quality of that programme, the quality of the teaching, of pulling all the teaching together and making sure that our students have the best possible experience in line with others elsewhere in the sector. (Program Leader, Bachelor of Criminology, University 3)

Some Program Leaders felt a sense of responsibility by being in the role. Being involved in key decisions and discussions at school/faculty level was also an important factor.

I like the feeling that maybe I can be making a difference to the way things work around the place, making a difference to our programs and the experience of students. (Program Leader - English Program, University 1)

In proposing key improvements that would most enhance role productivity and satisfaction, respondents reiterated earlier points:

• better acknowledgment in the workload formula of the effort and time it takes to be effective in the role of Program Leader;

• more administrative support which would allow Program Leaders to get on with more of what they view as core work of academic convening and leadership; and

• greater clarification of the Program Leader role.

There were also calls for a peer mentoring network, better rewards in the form of promotion for effective performance, succession planning as well as improved resourcing and support, including professional development events. One respondent summarises suggested improvements in the following way:

Support and encouragement. Things run smoothly so difficulties are not recognised by managers. Recognition by immediate managers of the complexity of the task, the time involved, its impact on other aspects of the job such as teaching, research and publishing. Recognition in terms of promotion and appropriate rewards for the job done. (University 3 Respondent)



In terms of rewards, Program Leaders nominated allowances to teaching loads along with extra allocations for research funds. Many Program Leaders felt taking on the role did not lead to career advancement or progression. Some felt the role was not valued as it should be and it was just an administrative function that took them away from conducting research.

I suspect it’ll be detrimental in that it’s you know it’s taking time away from research which still is the premier thing for promotion. (Program Leader of Bachelor - Information Technology and Bachelor of Computing, University 2)

The role was also perceived by some as de-skilling. As one Program Leader expressed it:

At the moment it’s too administrative which is very good in a sense of a learning curve because you really understand teacher and student issues but I can see, if you were in this role for several years that could not benefit your skills. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Commerce (Marketing), University 3)

On the other hand, some Program Leaders felt the role could lead to promotion:

I found since I’ve been program coordinator that I’ve actually been more integrated into the whole faculty I guess, or the whole [university] thing. (Program Leader - Spanish Program, University 1)

Program Leaders felt they would benefit from formal mentoring and induction sessions when commencing the role. A suggestion of mentoring junior staff, perhaps as a job share was also made. As an early career Program Leader expressed:

If a junior member of staff actually sat in the role with you for, you know if you can share the role, and I think it would be easy to share the role in terms of allocating different tasks and things like that. (Program Leader - Bachelor of Criminology, University 3)

Program Leaders want to raise the role profile across the university. Role clarification was again raised as an issue and as a suggestion for improving the role. A further suggestion was offering a website where all relevant policies and information pertaining to the role of Program Leader could be accessed to make the role easier. The site could also contain information on upcoming professional development opportunities and include quick links to the most frequently used policy documents. Another suggestion was to have a three year roster to rotate staff in and out of the role. Program Leaders also proposed leadership training be offered in skills such as time management, supporting and mentoring colleagues, interpersonal skills and building links with industry.

Meetings and workshops on strategies for dealing with difficult and aggressive staff, I think, is really important. (Program Leader – Bachelor of Media and Cinema Studies, University 2)

Experienced Program Leaders felt it would have been beneficial to know the expectations of the role, for example being strategic, before starting the role.

I guess something that I’ve learned about in this role is that you need to be strategic. (Program Leader – Bachelor of Nursing, University 1)

The discussion in this chapter has addressed the project’s research questions. The findings and suggestions have been verified through national roundtables and an invitational forum for Program Leaders. They have also prompted seven recommendations, as altered in the section to follow.



Recommendations

Based on the project findings and the extensive consultation that has taken place via interstate fora, local institutional Program Leader feedback, as well as expert advice from the project team and project reference group, it is recommended that:

1. Universities ensure they develop and regularly review policies to support the Program Leader role, including position descriptions, workload models informed by evidence provided by Program Leaders, promotion policies that recognise the role of Program Leader, and local award and grant schemes that reward the strategic contributions of Program Leaders to the enhancement of program design, delivery and renewal. The particular demands of Program Leadership in multicampus contexts should be evident in all of the above.

2. Program Leader induction programs be included as a standard offering in academic staff professional development programs, with at least one module (or equivalent) devoted to managing programs in multicampus settings.

3. Ongoing professional development programs be offered to support the skill development and career trajectories of more experienced Program Leaders, including strategies for developing the scholarly side of the Program Leader role and advanced skills in program quality monitoring and review.

4. Academic supervisor training include a focus on strategies for supporting the Program Leader role and innovative approaches to deploying program-level resources, including administrative and academic workload allocations.

5. Academic departments and faculties include as a strategic priority local approaches to Program Leader capacity-building, and mentoring and succession planning as part of a broader strategy for cultivating academic managers of the future.

6. Program Leader Networks (or equivalent) be fostered at the institutional level, sponsored by senior leaders and including a strategic mandate to consult with Program Leaders with regard to curriculum issues, particularly with respect to quality and standards at the program level. These Networks should be facilitated in such a way as to take maximise accessibility across campuses, including strategic use of video-conferencing and other virtual technologies.

7. Program Leaders at all stages of their career take responsibility for ensuring that they:

a. acquaint themselves with key university policies relating to program design, delivery and review;

b. network across departmental and campus boundaries in order to build connections across the university;

c. seek mentoring support where possible;

d. look for opportunities to document evidence of leadership in the Program Leader role, including leadership in service, community engagement and curriculum development relating to their program.


CHAPTER 4. LESSONS LEARNED, DISSEMINATION AND NEXT STEPS

As outlined in earlier parts of this report, the study has built on several outcomes of the Learning Leaders in Times of Change (2008) study in institutional contexts. It has confirmed the capability framework emerging from that study, as it applies to the Program Leader role. Further, it has addressed one of the main recommendations of that study, namely the importance of developing communities of practice and networks to support the capacity building of leaders in learning and teaching.

The study takes into account one of the most potent, yet under-investigated, factors shaping academic work and student learning, that is, institutional type. Its focus on multicampus learning leadership complements selected other ALTC projects that have examined multicampus issues. However none has explored the challenges facing Program Leaders in multicampus contexts.

Success factors and lessons learnedSeveral factors were critical to the success of the project.

Experienced project team

The project team brought a wealth of experience to the project and this was a key success factor. Each member of the project team was responsible for strategic leadership of learning and teaching in some capacity within their university. These were important levers for successfully recruiting participants and for shaping institutional policy and practice.

Participation from program leaders across Australia

Program leaders representing over ten Australian universities participated in this project. A number of dedicated Program Leaders from each of the research partner universities, The University of Western Sydney, La Trobe and Griffith, devoted time to become actively involved as case study participants. These Program Leaders participated in two in-depth interviews and a number were video-recorded for the project’s website resource. The videos included Program Leaders responding to hypothetical tricky situations that Colleagues may face in the role. Over 150 Program Leaders participated in the project events, for example, the invitational forum in Sydney, the national roundtables held in South Australia and Western Australia and the Griffith Program Leaders Network events held in Brisbane. The willingness of Program Leaders to participate in the project ensured the success of Program Leaders.


Ability of project team to adapt and respond to feedback

A key to the success of the project included the project team’s ability to listen, adapt and respond to the feedback the Program Leaders provided at various project forums, thus evolving the project in a more rigorous way.

Collaboration with other ALTC projects

Sharing the project dissemination strategy with the project entitled Enabling and developing leadership in multicampus universities through the development of communities of practice was important to the success of the project. The University of Tasmania project team members attended a roundtable at the University of South Australia to share project findings with the program leader community. Professor Kerri-Lee Krause then presented the project findings at the Multicampus Project Residential Retreat organised by the University of Tasmania project team members.

Infrastructure support

The project was led by a team based at Griffith University in the Griffith Institute for Higher Education. This was a critical success factor in terms of administrative support and providing additional support for research and data analysis.

Dissemination and networking opportunities: HERDSA 2011

Opportunities to disseminate the research findings and establish networks have contributed to the success of the project. Griffith University hosted the HERDSA 2011 Conference. Thus Griffith hosted a Program Leaders luncheon and launched the project website during the conference. These opportunities to network with colleagues in the sector have been critically important for buy-in from the sector. Another networking opportunity arose at the 2010 Informa Conference which resulted in colleagues from three universities asking for more information about the project and its outcomes. These universities were the University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Charles Sturt University.

Experienced project evaluator and critical friend

The experience and expertise of Professor Fred D’Agostino in the area of curriculum leadership was a key success factor in the project. Professor D’Agostino’s work has added considerable value in this field and has contributed to enhancing the project outcomes.

Experienced Reference Group members

The Project Reference Group played a key role in providing wise advice during the course of the project. They, along with the Project Evaluator, reminded the project team of the importance of emphasising the unique aspects of this project with its focus on multicampus challenges for Program Leaders. The role of the Project Reference Group was integral in enhancing the quality of the project.


Impediments and lessons learned

Changing positions

One of the main impediments to the progress of the project was the secondment of the project leader to an acting PVC role for 8 months during the course of the project. Consequently. the project lost momentum at a crucial point in time and opportunities to maintain strong connections among the Program Leaders in the three participating universities were hindered for a time. Other impediments included the loss of one original project partner (the University of Tasmania) which also delayed progress and staff turnover at the project officer level which also threatened the momentum of the project.

Geography

Geographical impediments also inhibited group communications at times, although information and communication technologies greatly assisted group collaboration and communication throughout the project.

Despite these various impediments, the team worked well together. This collaboration has led to several important outcomes, including the opportunity to work together on a related project examining unit and program level peer review and standards.

Lessons learned

One of the most important lessons learned was recognising the need to maintain the project focus. It was particularly tempting to focus on the generic capabilities of Program Leaders, rather than on the unique context of the multicampus university. Many times we strayed from this focus and our Evaluator and Reference Group played important roles in bringing us back to the focus on the project research questions and deliverables.

Another lesson learned was the importance of regular communication among the project team, particularly given the tyranny of distance. Our teleconferences served very important purposes but there may have also been further value in organising one or more skype (or equivalent) conversations to add a visual dimension to the communication.

The importance of ensuring sufficient infrastructure and administrative support to promote the success of a project is a critical lesson learned, as is the need to recruit project staff with the appropriate skill sets.

Transferability and scaleability of project approach and outcomes

This project was designed with a focus on transferability of outcomes to institutions both nationally and internationally. Even though the focus of the project has been on multicampus issues, the outcomes have both multicampus and single campus applications. Colleagues representing at least four universities, other than those involved in the project roundtables, have requested information about the project survey and findings. Participants from the various dissemination events have provided strong feedback indicating that the outcomes from the project are applicable for implementation in their own institutions.

All the website resources are considered transferable and scaleable. These include:

• adaptable Program Leader network proposals;

• a handbook for Program Leader induction;

• guides for senior managers on how to support Program Leaders in their universities;

• sample evaluation sheets and good practice guides that can be integrated into Program Leader professional development workshops.


Dissemination, links and evaluation

Resources for the sector

Project website http://www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders

The project website, which went live in April 2011, is one of the main deliverables of the project. The website has been designed with nationally benchmarked good practice examples and an evidence-based module for policy makers to encourage a systemic approach to capacity building in multicampus contexts. It comprises:

• good practice guides for program leaders;

• professional development modules for program leader induction and career development;

• experienced program leaders sharing tips for managing tricky situations in the role, particularly in multicampus settings (see Figure 6 below);

• data on conceptions and realities of the program leader role;

• multicampus musings – reflections on the challenges of program leadership across campuses and strategies for success;

• commentary on the strategic significance of the program leader role in managing program-level quality, standards and outcomes; and

• resources for university policy-makers, senior managers and those responsible for supporting and recruiting program leaders.

Dissemination events

Members of the project team have presented at a series of events beginning with the Invitational forum held in Sydney in June, 2010. The forum was an opportunity for Program Leaders to meet other experienced Program Leaders from different universities in order to network, share experiences, and provide input into the project to improve program leadership and support within their own universities.

The Griffith Program Leader Network was established in 2010 and the inaugural meeting was held in September. The meeting was video-conferenced to allow for multiple campuses to engage.

Two national roundtables were held at both the University of South Australia and at Curtin University in Western Australia. Strategies and ideas were shared on how to manage the role effectively. Input was sought on the development of web-based resources designed to enhance capacity-building and professional development support for Program Leaders, particularly for those working across multiple campuses.

Figure 6: Video stills from project leader interviews


ALTC Events

Project team members represented the project at the ALTC Leaders meeting in Feb 2010 and 2011. Project posters were presented at these events.

Report publication

The final report, detailing project outcomes will be disseminated both nationally and internationally. The workshop manual, one of the main project outcomes will be available for download via the project website: http://www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders.

Conference presentations and national dissemination

Project outcomes have been shared nationally across the sector at two events; Professor Kerri-Lee Krause presented project outcomes in the form of a keynote presentation at the Informa Inaugural National Learning and Teaching Forum and at the Multicampus Project Residential Retreat. Project outcomes and a resource launch took place at the HERDSA Conference 2011, where the project evaluator, Professor Fred D’Agostino presented on the project. National Program Leader for uni is planned for March 2012. At least one international conference presentation and two internationally refereed journal publications are planned, along with a book chapter that will draw on the project findings.

Links with other ALTC projects This project is closely connected to the Learning Leaders in Times of Change (2008) project. It also draws heavily on the very helpful outcomes of Professor Fred D’Agostino’s curriculum leaders project at the University of Queensland, as well as several project that have been undertaken on the program/course leader role (see www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders for a full list of links to these projects). The project also had strong alliances with the University of Tasmania led project Enabling and developing leadership in multi campus universities through the development of communities of practice in terms of sharing dissemination strategies. The two projects have shared progress throughout the duration of the project and have met several times to develop a shared dissemination strategy. This resulted in the project team attending a national roundtable to disseminate project findings and the project leader, Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, attending and presenting the project findings at two separate events. The two projects have also shared project updates over the course of the study.

Evaluation of project processes and outcomesThe External Evaluator for the project, Professor Fred D’Agostino from the University of Queensland, agreed to contribute to both formative and summative evaluation of our project. The formative evaluation throughout the project involved Professor D’Agostino commenting on various plans and processes related to the project. Professor D’Agostino spoke about the project at the 2011 HERDSA Conference website launch in July at the Gold Coast. The final evaluation report will be submitted in 2012.

CHAPTER 4. LESSONS LEARNED, DISSEMINATION AND NEXT STEPS


REFERENCES

Selected references on leadership, quality and multicampus universitiesBadaracco, J. (2002). Leading quietly: An unorthodox guide to doing the right thing. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Brown, R. (2010). Comparability of degree standards? London: Higher Education Policy Institute Occasional Paper. Available online: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1838/Comparability-of-degree-standards.html

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Collier, P. J. & Morgan, D.L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55, 425-446.

Collier, P.J. (2001). The differentiated model of role identity acquisition. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 217-235.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: TimeWarner.

Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (2010). (Eds.), Academic and professional identities in higher education: The challenges of a diversifying workforce (pp. 245-256). London: Routledge.

Henkel, M. (2007). Can academic autonomy survive in the knowledge society? A perspective from Britain. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 87-99.

Katz, D & Kahn, R. L. (1978) The social psychology of organisations (New York, Wiley).

Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (Eds). (2007). Key challenges to the academic profession. UNESCO Forum on Higher Education. Available online: www.uni-kassel.de/incher/v_pub/cap1.pdf

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krause, K. (2010, July). The ‘wicked’ problem of quality in higher education. Paper presented at the Higher Education Close-Up 5 Conference 2010, Lancaster, UK, 20-22 July.

Krause, K. (2010, Sept). Inaugural Informa Learning and Teaching Conference, Melbourne, Victoria. Keynote address: Quality and Academic Leadership: The pivotal role of program leader.


Marshall, S. (2006). Issues in the development of leadership for learning and teaching in higher education. A Carrick Institute Occasional Paper. Available online: http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/users/siteadmin/public/grants_leadership_occasionalpaper_stephenmarshall_nov06.pdf.

Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading academics. Buckingham: SRHE Open University Press.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Musselin, C. (2007). The transformation of academic work: Facts and analysis. eScholarship Repository, University of California. Available online: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cshe/CSHE-4-07.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester: Wiley.

Schuster, M., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The restructuring of academic work and careers: The American faculty. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Scott, G. (1999). Change matters: Making a difference in education and training. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic capabilities for Australian higher education. An ALTC leadership project report. Available online: www.altc.edu.au/.../grants_leadership_uws_acer_finalreport_june08.pdf

Scott, G., Grebennikov, L., & Johnston, K. (2007). Study of Australian multicampus universities. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 1-23.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Watson, D. (2009). The question of morale: Managing happiness and unhappiness in university life. Berkshire: Open University Press.


APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Program Leader Survey

Email invitation to participate (sample used at Griffith)

Subject line: Your feedback on PC role please

Distribution: all PCs

Dear Colleagues

As a key leader of learning and teaching in your discipline, you are pivotal to the University’s growing focus on the quality of learning, teaching and assessment. But we realize that this brings with it increasing responsibilities and challenges.

In 2006, we conducted a survey of Program Convenors which led to several activities including the GIHE Program Convenor Induction Sessions and resource kit. A lot has changed since 2006 and we would like to know about the key issues and challenges you are facing in your role at the moment, so that we can tailor ongoing support for you.

We would be most grateful if you would take the time to complete a brief survey so that we have up-to-date information to inform discussions about the best ways to support your role.

Click here for online survey (Control +click to follow link): http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?A88CE0FDACE9FFFC

A paper-based version will also arrive on your desk shortly, so you have a choice!

More information on the survey and its purpose is included on the survey (online OR paper-based).

How will we use the data?

1. We will form a reference group of Program Convenors so that we can plan a professional development program for you, similar to that currently underway for Heads of School.

2. We would like to facilitate Group-based workshops involving Heads of School, Program Convenors, Deans L&T and others to discuss shared challenges and issues.

All good wishes for all the exam marking and grading that lies ahead of you at this very busy time of year. We know your time is limited and precious but would really appreciate your feedback.

Kerri- Lee and colleagues


Introductory Letter – used for UWS survey

June 2009

Dear Colleague

A recent national study on academic leadership identified Program Leaders as one of the most critical roles in the University (Scott and colleagues, 2008).

We recognise the crucial role that Heads of Programs and staff in similar roles play in leading program development at UWS, and we are keen to know how we might better support your career development. In particular, we would like to know more about the strategies you use to manage the many dimensions of your work in a complex multicampus context.

This survey is part of an ALTC leadership project on Program Leaders in multicampus universities, hosted by Griffith University, with UWS and LaTrobe University as partners. It builds on a previous study of Griffith Program Convenors in 2006. As you know, UWS has supported Heads of Programs for the last three years through the HoP Forums and HoP Network. However, we know there is much more to be done to support you and we would value your input on this strategic agenda.

Our ultimate goal is to improve the level of support and recognition for Heads of Programs and staff in similar roles. Your responses to this survey will be used to inform developmental strategies for Heads of Programs. As a first practical step we will provide you with a report summarising findings and recommendations.

We appreciate the demands placed on your time and we have designed this anonymous survey to be as brief as possible. It should take about 10 minutes of your time. Of course, your participation is voluntary and the confidentiality of your response is assured. No one outside the project team will have access to the survey data. Results will be reported in aggregated form with no identification of individuals or programs. Please complete the survey online at: http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?A88CE0FDACE9FFFC

This project has been granted ethics approval (GU Ref No: GIH/01/09/HREC). If you have any questions about this survey or the project please contact the Project Leader Professor Kerri-Lee Krause on (07) 3735 5985 or email [email protected], or the UWS Team Member Professor Stuart Campbell on (02) 9678 7453.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this important study.

Yours sincerely

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause and Associate Professor Alf Lizzio

Griffith University

on behalf of the project team

1. We are aware that the Head of Program role at UWS may overlap with that of Unit Convenors and Associate Heads of Schools, and that numerous staff work simultaneously in more than one role. For that reason, this survey is directed to the broad invitee list for the HoP Forum.

2. Project team members: Griffith University – Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, Associate Professor Alf Lizzio, Dr Debra Bath. University of Western Sydney – Professor Geoff Scott, Professor Stuart Campbell. LaTrobe University – Professor David Spencer, Professor Tom Angelo.


Email invitation to participate in the study (sample used at La Trobe)

APPENDICES

Dear ___________

Thank you for recently responding the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s request to fill out the survey for the Australian Learning & Teaching Council funded research project entitled “Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Program”.

This survey is part of an ALTC leadership project on Program Leaders in multi campus universities, hosted by Griffith University, with UWS and La Trobe University as partners. It builds on a previous study of Griffith Program Convenors in 2006. We know there is much to be done to support you as Program Convenors and we would value your input on this strategic agenda.

Our ultimate goal is to improve the level of support and recognition for Heads of Programs and staff in similar roles. Your responses to the survey will be used to inform developmental strategies for Heads of Programs.

The proposed study will investigate first-hand the “world’ of the Program Leader by asking Program Leaders across three multicampus universities how they conceptualise their role, what capabilities and indicators of effectiveness are most important to them, and what particular strategies they find most productive in their role.

The next stage of the project is in readiness and I would like to ask you to be involved in this crucial next stage which involves the following commitments:-

1. Attending an interview with Professor David Spencer or Dr Jeanette Fyfe at your home campus where your experiences will be developed into a case study for use by the project team to draw appropriate conclusions (approx 2 hours in February-March 2010). The interview will be digitally recorded for transcription purposes;

2. Attend a Program Leaders network meeting to further document and share experiences of key stakeholders in the running of programs (approx 2 hours probably held at Bundoora in April-May 2010);

3. Attend a seminar with all of the Program Leaders from the three different participating universities in Sydney to share beliefs and understandings of the roles of Program Leaders and the needs of academics holding down such positions (full day with one overnight stay in June-July 2010).

Travelling, catering and accommodation costs will be covered for the above research activities.

I hope you will be able to continue your involvement in this important ALTC research project of which La Trobe is a partner.

Kind regards, Professor David Spencer La Trobe Coordinator.


ECTION 1 – About You as a Head of Program (or similar role)

SECTION 1 – About you as a head of program (or similar role)

In this section please tell us about the context in which you are working as a Head of Program or similar role this year.

1. Your School?

2. Your academic level of appointment:

Lecturer A Lecturer B Sen Lecturer Ass. Prof. Prof.

3. How many degree programs do you convene this year?

1 2 3 more than 3

4. Do you currently convene a degree program on more than one campus?

If yes,

a. how many multicampus programs do you convene this year?

1 2 3 more than 3

b. maximum number of campuses involved?

1 2 3 more than 3

5. Total number of staff [including academic/professional/sessional] you supervise in your program(s):

1-4

5-10

11-15

More than 15

6. Number of sessional staff you supervise in your program(s):

1-4

5-10

11-15

More than 15

7. Type(s) of programs you coordinate this year:

Undergraduate Postgraduate Honours

8. For how many semesters have you undertaken the Head of Program or similar role?

1 2 3 4 more than 4: please specify ____________


APPENDICES

9. Approximately how many students are enrolled in the program(s) you convene?

(If more than one, please specify in text box below)

1st year students

less than 50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-300

300-400 400-500 more than 500: please specify ____________

Continuing students

less than 50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-300

300-400 400-500 more than 500: please specify ____________

SECTION 2 – Beginning in the role

In this section please tell us about your early experiences in the Head of Program or similar role.

10. How were you selected for the role? (You may select more than one)

I nominated myself for the role

I was approached/nominated by colleagues

My Head of School suggested it to me

My Head of School instructed me to do it

It was my turn/ was expected at my level

No one else wanted to/was available to do it

Other, please specify____

11. Which of the following, if any, were part of your preparation or early experience in the role?

(You may select more than one)

I received a written position description/statement of my duties as a Head of Program or similar

I was offered an induction session

I was involved in a ‘hand over meeting’ with the previous Head of Program or similar

I met with my academic manager to clarify the role

I met with key staff (e.g., admin) to clarify procedures and policies

I was linked with a senior mentor who had previously done the role

Any other comments


12. I received appropriate induction and support when I started as a Head of Program or similar.

Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

SECTION 3 – Conceptions of your role

In this section we ask you to reflect on how you currently approach the Head of Program or similar role, particularly in the multicampus context.

13. Some universities describe the Head of Program role as an ‘academic leadership’ role. How do you see your role as a Head of Program or similar in a multicampus university?

14. How important to your role as Head of Program or similar role are the following areas?

Extremely Important

Important Not at all Important

Not applicable

Helping/advising students 5 4 3 2 1 0

Managing staff relationships with senior staff

5 4 3 2 1 0

Managing relationships among teaching staff

5 4 3 2 1 0

Program review and planning 5 4 3 2 1 0

Developing new programs 5 4 3 2 1 0

Ensuring cross-campus consistency in my program(s)

5 4 3 2 1 0

Participating in meetings 5 4 3 2 1 0

Liaising with external stakeholders

5 4 3 2 1 0

Scholarly research 5 4 3 2 1 0

Influencing facility/university policy

5 4 3 2 1 0


APPENDICES

15. How important to your role as Head of Program or similar role are the bedewing skills and capabilities?

Extremely Important


Not applicable

Personal and interpersonal capabilities

5 4 3 2 1 0

Understanding my personal strengths and limitations

5 4 3 2 1 0

Remaining calm under pressure or when things take an unexpected turn

5 4 3 2 1 0

Being true to my person values and ethics

5 4 3 2 1 0

Being transparent and honest around others

5 4 3 2 1 0

Empathising and working productively with staff and other

key players from a range of backgrounds

5 4 3 2 1 0

Intellectual capabilities, knowledge and skills

5 4 3 2 1 0

Making sense of and learning from experience

5 4 3 2 1 0

Thinking creatively and laterally 5 4 3 2 1 0

Identifying from a mass of information the core issue or opportunity in any situation

5 4 3 2 1 0

Diagnosing the underlying causes of a problem and taking appropriate action to address it

5 4 3 2 1 0

Being able to organise my work and manage time effectively

5 4 3 2 1 0

Having sound administration and resource management skills

5 4 3 2 1 0

Leading in a multicampus context

Extremely Important


Not applicable

Knowledge of how to manage staff across campuses

5 4 3 2 1 0

Strategies for ensuring cross-campus program consistency

5 4 3 2 1 0

Skills in achieving cross-campus consistency in assessment and

standards

5 4 3 2 1 0


SECTION 4 – Recognition and reward

This section invites you to reflect on your personal experiences of the Program Leader role.

16. To what extent do you agree with the following as they relate to your current work as Head of Program or similar role?

Extremely Important


Not applicable

The demands of my role are appropriately recognised (e.g.,

in workload formulas, staff promotion)

5 4 3 2 1 0

I receive sufficient administrative support to assist me in this role

5 4 3 2 1 0

I have received satisfactory professional development in

this role

5 4 3 2 1 0

I would like more advice and guidance on implementing the

role

5 4 3 2 1 0

I find this role stressful 5 4 3 2 1 0

I find this role professionally stimulating

5 4 3 2 1 0

I don’t really have time to do justice to this role

5 4 3 2 1 0

Managing programs across campuses is more demanding

than I expected

5 4 3 2 1 0

I find the work of Head of Program personally satisfying

5 4 3 2 1 0

Overall, I feel effective in this role 5 4 3 2 1 0

17. What changes or improvements, if any, would be helpful or useful to you in this role (e.g., policy, statement of duties, support such as mentoring, training etc)?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. What, if any, are the main relationship issues and challenges that you have in working with staff in your role as Head of Program or similar role?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDICES

SECTION 5 – Program leadership in multicampus settings

Please reflect on your experience of the head of program or similar role in a multicumpus university.

19. What are the main challenges or difficulties, if any, of Program Leadership in a multicampus university?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20. What are the main benefits, if any, of convening a program in a multicampus university?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

19. If there was one thing that the university could do to make a major difference to your productivity and/or satisfaction in the Head of Program or similar role, what would it be?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

END OF SURVEY


APPENDICES

Appendix 2. Interview Protocols and Ethics Consent

1. Interview Protocol: Questions for Program Leaders Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus Universities

Project Context (Background)

Project aims to build institution wide capacity among Program Convenors (PC) across disciplines in 3 large multicampus universities. The universities involved are:

• Griffith University

• University of Western Sydney

• La Trobe University

Outcomes of the project

• Development and evaluation of a model for capacity-building among early career and experienced PCs.

• Identification of the qualities of effective PCs with a particular focus on multicampus contexts.

• Generalisable strategies and resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for learning and teaching occurs.

Interview Protocol Introductory comments

In this first part, we’ll be focussing on your experience and journey in the role of Program Leader.

• Part 2 focuses on your views of program leadership in a multicampus context.

• Part 3 gives us an opportunity to learn a bit more about your management strategies as a program leader.

• We’ll finish with a focus on support for your role and a few suggestions about succession planning.

Part 1. About the role and where it fits into your career path

INTERVIEWER: As we consider your role and the various relationships and connections you have across the University, you might like to use this sheet of paper to provide a visual representation of your role and its connections and dimensions.

1. Just to clarify - what do you call the role in GBS? [adapt as appropriate]

2. How did you come to be in the role of PC? (i.e., briefly describe your academic career path journey to this point)


APPENDICES

3. Tell me more about your PC role.

Probes

a. How long have you been in the role?

b. What are your main responsibilities?

c. Tell me more about the various relationships and connections that are integral to this role – students/academic staff/admin etc. [you may like to present these visually on the sheet of paper to demonstrate the connections]

4 How does this role fit into your academic career path?

Probes

a. Is this a role that forms a key milestone in your academic career path?

b. If not mentioned: what are your motivations for being in the role?

c. What motivates you to continue in this role?

5 In summary,

a. What do you think are the top three qualities of an effective program convenor? [try to limit to three]

Probe

[Interviewer notes: If they don’t mention leadership ask: ]

• In what ways do you see the PC role as a leadership role?

• What are the main challenges you have found with the role?

Part 2. The PC role in a multicampus context

INTERVIEWER: We are particularly interested in the challenges and opportunities of the PC role in MULTICAMPUS universities.

1. Do you think there is anything distinctive about being a PC in a multicampus university?

2. How would you describe some of the benefits of working as a PC in a multicampus university?

3. What sorts of challenges has the multicampus context created for you in your PC role?

Part 3: PC Situations and Strategies

Think about one or two “key events or critical incidents” that stand out in your experience as a PC. These might be situations that you’ve found particularly tricky as a PC, or they might be everyday challenges that you encounter in this role.

[Interviewer notes}

i. If possible, encourage PCs to think about a multicampus scenario.

ii. We don’t need names of people, rather we are interested in hearing about the management strategies used to deal with these events and the kinds of skill sets PCs might need. E.g., who did they talk to? How did they manage tricky situations? In what ways did they demonstrate leadership? etc.

iii. The focus is on strategies and skill sets deployed.

iv May limit to one only, depending on time. We will come back to these in interview 2.]

NOTE: AT THIS POINT YOU MAY NEED TO CLOSE, DEPENDING ON TIME. SEE NEXT STEPS BELOW.

Part 4. Supporting the PC role and succession planning

1. What succession planning strategies do you have in place in your Group/School/Department to foster future PCs?

a. [If relevant] What suggestions do you have for improved succession planning strategies?

2. Have you had a mentor to guide you in your role?

a. If yes, please tell me about your experience with your mentor.

b. If no, would you consider this an effective method of supporting PCs?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how this might be more effectively managed?

4. How could we help PCs develop into effective leaders at Griffith University? What additional forms of support would you like to see?

5. What sort of resources would you like to see offered – on the new website (one of the deliverables of this project)?

END OF INTERVIEW


2. Interview Protocol: Questions for Institutional Leaders - DVCs/PVCs/ DeansIntroductory comments

* The main aim of these questions is to give us some idea about your views on the role of whole-of-degree program directors/convenors across disciplines in your university.

* We have interviewed a sample of program convenors across three multicampus universities. Now we would like to hear the perspective of more senior leaders and managers.

* Please feel free to speak generically, or to identify particular disciplinary examples and distinctions where relevant.

* In your responses, please let us know of any particular issues arising from the task of managing degree programs across multiple campuses.

Questions

1 Thinking about the whole-of-degree program level across disciplines at your University, how would you describe the key functions and responsibilities of program convenors?

a. Follow up prompt if applicable: what do you see as the most important responsibilities of this role?

b. If they don’t mention responsibility for quality and standards please ask: do you see program convenors playing a role in assuring quality and maintaining standards in your University’s degree programs?

c. If yes, in what ways does this manifest itself?

2. In your view, what are the key challenges facing academics in these roles?

a. Follow up: Do you think program convening in a multicampus university poses any particular challenges for program convenors? If yes, please comment further.

3. Some of the feedback we have had from program convenors in our study suggests that they see the role as a career inhibitor rather than as a career enhancer.

What policies and strategies does your University have in place to reward academic staff for taking on the role of program convenor?

4. Another issue raised by program convenors is the value of mentoring and professional development support.

° In what ways does your University seek to support program convenors in their role?

° Is there anything else you would like to see happening by way of support for this role?

5. How important do you think it is to depict the program convenor role as a leadership role in the University?

6. Do you have any other comments about the program convenor role and ways you would like to see it develop in your University?

END OF INTERVIEW


3. Interview Protocol: Questions for Heads of Department/School

Introductory comments

• The main aim of these questions is to give us some idea about your views on the role of whole-of-degree program directors/convenors in your department/school.

• We have interviewed a sample of program convenors across three multicampus universities. Now we would like to hear the perspective of more managers and supervisors.

• Please feel free to speak generically, or to identify particular disciplinary examples and distinctions where relevant.

• In your responses, please let us know of any particular issues arising from the task of managing degree programs across multiple campuses.

Questions

1. Thinking about the whole-of-degree programs in your department/school, how would you describe the key functions and responsibilities of program convenors?

a. Follow up prompt if applicable: what do you see as the most important responsibilities of this role?

b. If they don’t mention responsibility for quality and standards please ask: do you see program convenors playing a role in assuring quality and maintaining standards in your University’s degree programs?

c. If yes, in what ways does this manifest itself?

2. How do program convenors come into the role in your department/school? Are they nominated? Do they self-nominate? Do you select them?

3. What types of succession planning strategies do you have in place to prepare program leaders of the future?

4. What are the key qualities and characteristics of effective program leaders in your department/school?

5. In your view, what are the key challenges facing academics in these roles?

a. Follow up: Do you think program convening in a multicampus university poses any particular challenges for program convenors? If yes, please comment further.

6. Some of the feedback we have had from program convenors in our study suggests that they see the role as a career inhibitor rather than as a career enhancer.

What policies and strategies does your department/school have in place to reward academic staff for taking on the role of program convenor?

7. Another issue raised by program convenors is the value of mentoring and professional development support.

In what ways does your department/school seek to support program convenors in their role?

Is there anything else you would like to see in place by way of support for this role?

8. Do you see any value in depicting the program convenor role as a leadership role in your department/school? If yes, in what ways do you do this in your department/school?

9. Do you have any other comments about the program convenor role and ways you would like to see it develop in your department/school?

END OF INTERVIEW

APPENDICES


4. Program Leader Hypotheticals Used in Video InterviewsDrawing on evidence from the survey and interview data gathered, we posed the following hypothetical situations to a sample of program leaders. Their responses may be viewed on the resource website (www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders), along with transcripts of their responses.

Hypothetical 1

You have been in the role of Program Convenor for five years. You have been recognized as very successful in this role by students and colleagues. A more junior staff member comes to you, having been approached by the Head of School who has asked him to take on the PC role for next year. This staff member asks if you would be willing to mentor him in the role during his first year.

How would you respond to this request?

What advice would you give him?

If you do agree, what key incidents would you prepare him for in his first year in the role?

Themes from the data: mentoring, role clarification

Hypothetical 2

You have been the Program Convenor for Program XYZ for a couple of years now on Campus A. After assessing the feasibility of expanding the program, the Faculty Board has decided to offer the program on both Campus A and Campus B. The main reason given is to increase student numbers. You have been asked to take the lead in preparing the program for delivery on both campuses.

Where would you start? Who would you need to talk to?

What sorts of issues would you need to consider?

What strategies would you use in setting up this new configuration?

Themes from the data: leadership – academic and curriculum, multicampus challenge, role clarification, workload recognition, admin support, relationships across campuses and elements of the institution, program profile, staff issues.

Hypothetical 3

You have been the Program Convenor for Program XYZ for a couple of years now on Campus A. Another colleague has been convening the same program on campus B. The Program Convenor on Campus B has announced her resignation, with very short notice. You have been asked by the Head of School to coordinate the program across both campuses in order to bring about more effective cross-campus consistency in the year ahead.

What strategies would you put in place to manage this task? (assuming you have no choice but to take it on!)

Themes from the data: leadership – academic and curriculum, multicampus challenge, workload issues, admin support, relationships across campuses and elements of the institution, reward and recognition, perceived lack of authority.

Hypothetical 4

You have been the Program Convenor for program XYZ for three years. Your application to take a one-year sabbatical has been approved on condition you can ‘persuade’ and prepare a colleague to take the role for the year you’re away.

How would you manage this task?

What strategies would you apply?

Themes from the data: succession planning, staff commitment, training and support, administrative bureaucracy, role clarification, recognition and reward.


Hypothetical 5

You have just looked over the CEQ data and other program-level student feedback. It highlights some positive aspects of your program, but also points to several areas for improvement that really need to be addressed. One area of complaint comes from students who feel that those on Campus A have a better course experience and better teachers than those on Campus B and C.

What strategies would you use to share these data (both the areas working well and the areas for improvement) with your program team?

What challenges and opportunities would you expect to encounter in this process?

Themes from the data: leadership – academic and curriculum, multicampus challenge, relationships across campuses, managing staff teams, perceived lack of authority.

Hypothetical 6

One of your course convenors is the subject of several student complaints. The student evaluation data underscores this problem also. Two sessional staff on the course have also indicated that they don’t wish to work with this course convenor next year as they don’t really feel supported. The Head of School has asked you to talk with the staff member and to manage the situation and report back to her once you’ve “fixed” it.

How would you respond to this request?

What steps would you follow?

Themes from the data: leadership – academic and curriculum, managing staff teams, perceived lack of authority.

Hypothetical 7

You are a Program Leader in a multicampus school. This means you need to collaborate with colleagues on other campuses to achieve cross campus consistency in your program. You might consider such areas as curriculum delivery and assessment.

How do you manage this?

What are the challenges?

If you had to manage this, what sorts of strategies would you employ?

Themes from the data: multicampus challenge - consistency of delivery and standards across campuses, managing relationships across campuses.

END OF INTERVIEW

APPENDICES


INFORMATION SHEET - SURVEYS

Chief Investigator

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause Griffith Institute for Higher Education Griffith University Phone: 07 3735 5985 Email: [email protected]

Co-Investigators

Assoc Prof Alf Lizzio School of Psychology Griffith University Phone: (07) 555 9280 Email: [email protected]

Prof Geoff Scott Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality) University of Western Sydney Phone: (02) 9678 7452 Email: [email protected]

Prof Stuart Campbell Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) University of Western Sydney Phone: (02) 9678 7453 Email: [email protected]

Dr Debra Bath Griffith Institute for Higher Education Griffith University Phone: (07) 5552 7054 Email: [email protected]

Professor David Spencer Associate Dean (Academic) La Trobe University Phone: (03) 9479 3449 Email: [email protected]

Dr Jeanette Fyffe Learning and Teaching Development Unit La Trobe University Phone: (03) 9479 3872 Email: [email protected]

Why is the research being conducted?

This project aims to build institution-wide capacity among Program Leaders across disciplines at Griffith University, University of Western Sydney and University of Tasmania. It will focus on one leadership role in particular – that of Program Leader (or equivalent), and will road test the online leadership tool developed by Scott, Coates & Anderson (2008). It will also investigate one factor shaping academic work and student learning, that is, institutional type. The outcomes for this project are:

• to develop and evaluate capacity building among Program Leaders in multicampus universities;

• identify the qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts; and

• develop generalisable strategies and resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for teaching and learning occurs.

Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus Universities


What you will be asked to do

You will be asked to complete a series of questions, in either a paper based, or an online survey about your experiences as a Program Leader in your institution. Your participation in this survey is anonymous. All data collected remains confidential.

The basis by which participants will be selected or screened

Participants will be invited to complete the paper based survey during staff meetings and online surveys by invitation to Program Leaders by email.

The expected benefits of the research

This study will enhance learning and teaching by building capacity among those with front-line responsibility for leading teams of colleagues in curriculum design and delivery at department/school level.

Risks to you

Participation in this research poses no risks.

Your confidentiality

The conduct of this research involves the collection, access and/or use of identified personal information. If you decide to participate in this project, identifiable data in the form of good practice examples and resources will be developed from initiatives discussed during the interviews. Participants will be identified in the web and paper-based resources as an endorsement of their good practices so that other academics can contact them for further information about the initiative, if they so wish. Participants are given the opportunity to express consent to indicate whether they are willing to be identified. Information collection is confidential.

Your participation is voluntary

Your participation is voluntary and you are under no obligation to consent to participate in this study. Your decision will in no way impact upon your relationship with your University or your Department. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time.

Mechanism for distribution and return

This survey may be completed either as a paper based survey (to be distributed and returned at staff meetings), or online by invitation. Your participation is voluntary and all data collected is confidential.

Questions/further information

For additional information about this project, please contact Professor Kerri-Krause, Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE), Griffith University, email: [email protected], telephone: (07) 3735 5985.

The ethical conduct of this research

Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of this research project, please contact the Manager, Research Ethics on (07) 3735 5585 or [email protected]

Feedback to you

A report of the general findings from the study will be made available to participants, in addition to the resources described above. Please visit the Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE) website under Current Projects (www.griffith.edu.au/gihe/research).

Privacy Statement

The conduct of this research involves the collection, access and/or use of your identified personal information ( e.g., personal opinion, teaching case studies). The information collected is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/au/aa/vc/pp or telephone (07) 3735 5585.

Expressing Consent

If you complete and return this survey, you will be deemed to have consented to your participation in this research project. Please detach this sheet and retain it for your later reference.

APPENDICES


Why is the research being conducted?

This project aims to build institution-wide capacity among Program Leaders across disciplines at Griffith University, University of Western Sydney and University of Tasmania. It will focus on one leadership role in particular – that of Program Leader (or equivalent), and will road test the online leadership tool developed by Scott, Coates & Anderson (2008). It will also investigate one factor shaping academic work and student learning, that is, institutional type. The outcomes for this project are:

• to develop and evaluate capacity building among Program Leaders in multicampus universities;

• identify the qualities of effective Program Leaders in multicampus contexts; and

• develop generalisable strategies and resources for developing the broader organisational environment in which leadership for teaching and learning occurs.


INFORMATION SHEET - INTERVIEWS

Chief Investigator


Co-Investigators








What you will be asked to do

You will be asked to answer a series of questions in a face-to-face individual interview with a member of the project team. You will be asked to sign a consent form outlining the conditions of your participation in this project. If you agree, the interview will be audio-recorded for later transcription. After transcription, all recordings will be destroyed.

The basis by which participants will be selected or screened

Participants will be given information about this project at staff meetings and online. Participants may choose to volunteer to be interviewed or may be recommended by their Head of School. Participation in interviews in voluntary.

The expected benefits of the research

This study will enhance learning and teaching by building capacity among those with front-line responsibility for leading teams of colleagues in curriculum design and delivery at department/school level.

Risks to you

Participation in this research poses no risks.

Your confidentiality

The conduct of this research involves the collection, access and/or use of identified personal information. If you decide to participate in this project, identifiable data in the form of good practice examples and resources will be developed from initiatives discussed during the interviews. Participants will be identified in the web and paper-based resources as an endorsement of their good practices so that other academics can contact them for further information about the initiative, if they so wish. Participants are given the opportunity to express consent to indicate whether they are willing to be identified. Information collection is confidential.

Your participation is voluntary

Your participation is voluntary and you are under no obligation to consent to participate in this study. Your decision will in no way impact upon your relationship with your University or your Department. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time.

Questions/further information

For additional information about this project, please contact Professor Kerri-Krause, Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE), Griffith University, email: [email protected], telephone: (07) 3735 5985.

The ethical conduct of this research

Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of this research project, please contact the Manager, Research Ethics on (07) 3735 5585 or [email protected]

Feedback to you

A report of the general findings from the study will be made available to participants, in addition to the resources described above. Please visit the Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE) website under Current Projects (www.griffith.edu.au/gihe/research).

Privacy Statement

The conduct of this research involves the collection, access and/or use of your identified personal information ( e.g., personal opinion, teaching case studies). The information collected is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/au/aa/vc/pp or telephone (07) 3735 5585.

APPENDICES



CONSENT FORM - INTERVIEWS

Chief Investigator


Co-Investigators








• By signing below, I confirm that I have read and understood the information package and in particular have noted that:

• I understand that my involvement in this research will include participating in an individual and/or group interview and verifying the accuracy of any examples or case studies developed as a result of initiatives described during the interview;

• I have had any questions answered to my satisfaction;

• I understand the risks involved;

• I understand that there will be no direct benefit to me from my participation in this research;

• I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary and my participation will in no way impact on my relationship with the University or School/Department;

• I understand that if I have any additional questions I can contact the research team;

• I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty;

• I understand that I can contact the Manager, Research Ethics, at Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3735 5585 (or [email protected]) if I have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

• I agree to participate in the project;

• I consent to this interview being audio-taped; and understand that the recording will be destroyed after transcription;

• I give consent to be identified in web and paper based resources for examples of initiatives arising from this project.

Name: _____________________________________

Signature: __________________________________

Date: _____/_____/______

APPENDICES


Appendix 3. Interstate Roundtable: Sample Program and Evaluation Form

ALTC Invitational Roundtable for Program Leaders


Thursday September 16, 2010, University of South Australia, 12.30pm – 3.30pm

Program Outline

12.30pm Complimentary lunch and networking

12.55pm Welcome and overview of the project Prof Kerri-Lee Krause, Griffith University

Your experiences as a Program Leader

Hints and tips for surviving and thriving as a Program Leader

Prof Fred D’Agostino, University of Queensland

How your experiences compare with the national data

Brief coffee break

Managing course quality in multicampus universities

Dr Gary Williams and Melody West, University of Tasmania

Managing course quality in multicampus universities

Your views on resources to support Program Leaders

Roundtable evaluation and next steps

Discussion Points for Invitational Roundtable Sessions

1. We would value your input on whether our findings resonate with your experience.

2. In particular, we would like to hear your suggestions for supporting Program Leaders at different points in their career path.

3. You will have the opportunity to discuss these issues with your colleagues at the Roundtable.

Discussion Points

1. What are the top 3 issues and/or challenges you face in your role as Program Leader?

2. What are the most significant multicampus challenges you have faced since taking on the Program Leader role?

3. What are the top priority areas for induction and professional development of Program Leaders in your view?

4. Any other comments or observations?


Program Leaders’ RoundtableALTC Leadership Project: Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus Universities

Thursday September 16, 2010

ALTC Leadership Project: Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus Universities

Thursday September 16, 2010

EVALUATION FORM

Your Overall Reflections on the Forum

Feedback on the Roundtable 1 Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly agree

1. Overall, I found the Roundtable helpful for my role as Program Leader.

2. The Roundtable has given me some good ideas and strategies that I plan to use when I get back to work.

3. I now have a better understanding of strategies for managing the multicampus aspects of my role.

4. The Roundtable provided me with opportunities to network with other Program Leaders.

5. I plan to contact people I met at this Roundtable to follow-up on ideas we discussed.

6. I plan to share the ideas from this Roundtable with others who did not attend.

7. Which aspects of the Session were most valuable for you as a Program Leader?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. What improvements could we make to ensure that this Session is more practical and useful for Program Leaders in the future?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Any other comments or observations.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your feedback. We will provide you with a summary of the feedback and will keep in touch as we develop our Program Leader resources based on your comments.

APPENDICES


Indicative evaluation feedback from RoundtablesFollowing is a summary of indicative feedback from the Roundtable evaluations. Overall, the satisfaction was relatively high, but there is scope for ensuring that program leaders receive follow up sessions that provide specific, practical strategies to assist them in their work. This was the area that program leaders felt needed most work in their respective universities.

• Mean overall level of satisfaction: 4.18

• The Roundtable provided good ideas and strategies: 4.18

• It gave me a better understanding of strategies to assist with my role: 3.00

• It provided good opportunities for networking: 4.00

• I plan to follow up with people on ideas discussed in this session: 3.55

• I plan to share ideas from this roundtable with others: 4.55

Most valuable part of the session

• Seeing everyone was in the same position

• defining the role of a program leader and identifying the commonalities across disciplines/ universities

• It was a good mix of ‘listen and discuss’ and have input from experienced people

• Opportunity to meet with other program leaders and hearing ideas

• Hearing range of views of PLs ~Summary of key issues for PLs ~Summary of findings so far (For Q 1. Not me at the moment but is helping to inform my role in supporting PLs)

• Fred’s thumbnail of outcomes and data very helpful Networking!

• Opportunity to discuss issues with PLs from other programs.

• Realisation of the universal nature of many of the issues we face as program leaders

• Recognition of common issues and you can tell

I am a female when I say that it was good to realise that ‘its not just me’.

• Extremely useful for me as someone currently standing in for a program director - and potentially being offered this post in the future

• understanding that problems are not unique

Areas for improvement

• target different levels of teachers

• The practical stage comes next- I’m looking forward to it

• As a very new PD I ‘m not sure if I should run or welcome this with open arms but knowing there is so much support there is a huge help.

• As project progresses there will be more opportunity to share strategies as they emerge and take form

• Early days! Continuing network (Pre _ HERDSA workshop) will be very beneficial

• Good as is

• Bring in university leaders to listen to the issues

• I found the focus and goals a bit fuzzy

Other comments

• It is good to hear someone trying to do something for Tasmanian section. Deans of teaching and learning may be able to help more

• Thank you

• Well paced session

• Am looking forward to development and final outcome of the project. Will encourage my Div PL’s to attend HERDSA PL session next yr.

• No

• Thank you for opening up this important conversation

• Very well presented - thought provoking Thank you !

• Many of the issues identified are not mulitcampus


Appendix 4. Griffith University Program Leader Network Proposal

Proposal to Establish a Program Leader Reference Group

Terms of Reference

Context

Griffith is leading an ALTC project on leadership development for program leaders in multicampus universities. Informing this study is a comprehensive set of data gathered from program leaders and First Year Advisors in 2006/7. These data, along with a follow up survey conducted during 2009, highlight the need for professional development, network and mentoring support for program leaders. A coordinated approach to establishing a Program Leaders Network is proposed, comprising sponsorship from the DVC(A) and endorsement from the Executive Group, along with leadership from a Reference Group of key University stakeholders (see below). This pattern follows the very successful Head of Program Network at UWS, coordinated by the PVC(L&T) and commended recently by AUQA.

Composition of Reference Group for planning purposes

• Project leaders

• 4 program leaders (possibly drawn from case studies in the ALTC project and representing each Group)

• 1-2 Deans L & T

• 1 Dean Academic

• 1-2 Head of School representatives

• Human Resources Offices representative

• Director Information Services (Learning and Teaching)

Purpose

The main aim of the Network is to provide a professional development opportunity for Program Leaders, similar to the UWS Head of Program Network. This Network will supplement existing GIHE induction sessions for Program Leaders and will provide ongoing opportunities for Program Leaders to share good practice, to mentor one another, to meet with senior university leaders and to engage in informed discussion about whole-of-program curriculum enhancement issues pertaining to their role.

Outcomes

• Increased visibility and recognition of the curriculum leadership role played by Program Leaders within their Schools and Groups.

• A revised Program Leader position description, taking account of the range of responsibilities and program configurations across Groups and based on consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the Reference Group.

• Enhanced professional development and mentoring opportunities for early, mid and later career Program Leaders that include sharing of good practice in such areas as program level curriculum development and program team management in a multicampus context.

• Semi-regular professional development sessions on such topics as interpreting and responding to program-level data and Staircase indicators to enhance program quality.

APPENDICES


• Productive engagement with senior university leaders through opportunities to contribute to discussions of key learning, teaching and curriculum enhancement issues across disciplines.

• Succession planning for the Program Leader role as well as capacity building for potential Heads of School, following the widely recognised Listen-Link-Lead model of leadership development (Scott, 2009).

• Opportunities to develop Group-based Networks involving Program Leaders and Heads of School, particularly in relation to curriculum-focussed strategies for addressing learning and teaching performance indicators (with respect to the Staircase).

• Enhanced whole-of-program approaches to curriculum development and improving the quality of the student experience.

Proposed process

• Follow a similar pattern to the Head of School leadership program – a series of meetings informed by input from Reference Group, in close consultation with HRM, Deans Academic, Deans L&T and other relevant stakeholders

• Consult with variety of stakeholders including the NTEU and Academic Groups

• Key input will be findings of program leaders’ study from 2006/2007 and current ALTC Program Leader surveys and interviews

Accountabilities and sponsorship

• Sponsored by DVC (A) Sue Spence

• Managed by Dean (SO)/Director GIHE

• Proposal to Executive Group for endorsement

Implementation and review timeframe

• Initial reference group meeting mid 2010

• First network meeting semester 2 2010. It is expected that one network meeting per semester will be integrated into the GIHE professional development program from 2011. Additional Group-based meetings with Heads of School and Program Leaders may be convened through negotiation at the Group and School level.

• The Program Leader Network will be reviewed at two milestone points with a view to embedding it into the core professional development program for academic staff:

i) in March/April 2011 the ALTC project external evaluator will facilitate an evaluation of the Network initiative with the project team and Reference Group; and

ii) in November 2011 the impact and value of the Network will be reviewed from the perspective of key Griffith stakeholders. This review will inform decisions about the relative value of embedding the Network into GIHE core business.

iii) If the decision is made to continue the Network within GIHE core business in 2012, it will be evaluated routinely as part of the GIHE professional development program.


Appendix 5. Griffith University Program Leader Network: Sample Promotional Flyer

You are invited to attend two special events for Program Convenors this semester:

Program Convenors’ WorkshopProgram convening is an important leadership role at Griffith. It is also an opportunity for staff to advance their career in higher education. Effective program convening is based on a thorough knowledge of complex institutional processes and skills in develop relationships across a range of academic and administrative elements.

• To support Program Convenors as leaders of learning, the GIHE offers workshops which include sessions on:

• Practices of effective program convening;

• Tips for navigating University policies and processes;

• Strategies for establishing and sustaining effective connections with other operational units; and

• Developing your career path as a Program Convenor.

Who should attend?

This session will be particularly useful for new Program Convenors and those who have not received an induction into their role. They also provide an opportunity for experienced convenors to pick up tips for streamlining activities in a changing curriculum environment.

Date: Tues, 2 Sept Thurs, 4 Sept

Time: 1.00pm – 4.00pm 10.00am – 2.00pm

Venue: M15_1.13, G16_1.15 (Mt Gravatt) (Gold Coast)

Griffith Program Convenor’s NetworkA new professional network for Program Convenors at Griffith will be inaugurated in October. The network aims to provide an opportunity for all Program Convenor to connect with colleagues and with key leaders of the University, including Professor John Dewar and Professor Sue Spence. The Network is being hosted by the GIHE to provide an ongoing forum for Program Convenors to meet twice each year to engage with each other and with University leaders.

Who should attend?

All Program Convenors are encouraged to attend.

Date: Tuesday, 14 October

Time: 10.00am – 1.30pm

Venue: Hub Link (L07) 4.07 (Logan)

APPENDICES


Appendix 6. Program Leader Good Practice Guides: Sample

A Quality Framework for Program Leadership in Australian Universities

Quality is about essence and transformation. It is about the dialectical process of deconstruction and reconstruction … To transform quality assurance in the direction of the improvement of the student experience requires … creating conditions for bringing about sustained change and improvement in universities. (Harvey & Newton, 2007, pp.235-6)

The following quality framework highlights the multi-level nature of activities designed to assure and enhance the quality of academic programs in universities. It is informed by the data gathered during the course of this ALTC project on program leadership in multicampus universities.

Dimension 1. Institution levelUniversities committed to enhancing the role of program leader are characterised by:

• program leader position descriptions and titles that are collegially reviewed and applied across the institution and that capture the scope of the role and its leadership elements.

• academic staff promotion policies and guidelines that recognise and reward evidence of program leadership, particularly recognising innovative approaches to program leadership across campuses, and including the domains of program-level curriculum leadership, scholarship and administration.

• university-sponsored program leader induction, mid-role professional development programs and opportunities to engage with senior leaders regarding strategic directions of the institution in curriculum, learning and teaching. Particular emphasis is given to skill development relating to areas such as cross-campus consistency, managing large program teams across campuses, and reviewing program-level data as part of a commitment to continuous improvement.

• budget models that recognise the resource implications associated with the program leader role, including student advising and engagement, quality assurance and enhancement, curriculum transformation, community engagement and administrative responsibilities.

• approaches to workforce planning that are sufficiently flexible and visionary as to enable, where appropriate, creation of new professional roles to complement those of program leaders (e.g., program administrative officers, blended learning advisors – see Gordon & Whitchurch, 2010).


Dimension 2. Department levelDepartments committed to enhancing the quality of their programs through effective program leadership are characterised by:-

academic staff recruitment processes that include recognition of successful program leadership experience.

succession planning and selection processes that signify the experience, status and value attached to program leadership in the Department.

allocation of appropriate administrative resources, including resource allocation in recognition of the challenges of working across campuses. This is supported by the university’s budget model (see iv above) to enable program leaders to devote maximum time to addressing strategic-level issues, particularly program-level curriculum quality and standards.

program leader access to relevant and timely data-sets that inform evidence-based practice.

reciprocal and supportive relationships between department heads and program leaders.

department heads who facilitate department and/or campus-based program leader networks, including sharing of good practice and strategic curriculum planning and review.

Dimension 3. Program leader level Effective program leaders are characterised by:-

fit-for-purpose capabilities (personal, interpersonal, cognitive) and competencies (role specific, generic) (see Fullan & Scott, 2009), particularly in such areas as:

program design, assessment, quality assurance and enhancement skills;

emotional intelligence and self-care capabilities;

capacity to lead by influence and example;

boundary-spanning and networking capabilities across program teams, campuses and university elements; and

knowledge of the university, its management, governance and budgeting structures.

understanding of the broader higher education and industry-level strategic and policy influences on program design, development and review.

an evidence-based approach to assuring and enhancing program quality.

a strategic approach to working with department heads (or equivalent) to achieve demonstrable, positive outcomes for the program and for oneself, particularly in relation to staff management, career goals etc.

References

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco: Wiley.

Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (2010). (Eds.), Academic and professional identities in higher education: The challenges of a diversifying workforce (pp. 245-256). London: Routledge.

Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: Moving on. In D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. 225-246). Dordrecht: Springer.

Massy, W., Graham, S., & Short, P. (2007). Academic quality work. Bolton, MA: Anker.

APPENDICES


Appendix 7. Program Leader Induction Program: Sample Workshop OutlineMulticampus Challenges Workshop – Facilitator Guide

Overview

This guide provides a brief outline for running the Multicampus Challenges Workshop as well as a discourse behind slides in the PowerPoint presentation. There are discussion activities scattered throughout the presentation, represented by a ‘’.

Welcome & Introductions

Post introductions, include the following icebreaker activity.

Concerns/Hopes/Fears

• Each participant is asked to consider and write down any concerns/hopes/fears they may have about the workshop or particular Multicampus issues they have experienced.

• A short discussion follows where the replies are written on separate pieces of butcher paper headed ‘Concerns’, ‘Hopes’, ‘Fears’.

• This exercise permits

° participants to air their ideas, anxieties and queries about the workshop

° participants to develop a sense of ownership in what they are about to learn

° presenters to gauge group diversity and modulate emphasis on different topics.

• Revisit outcomes from this icebreaker throughout the workshop. Deleting any topics covered and adding new ones.

Proceed to PowerPoint Presentation

The following provides and explanation of the PowerPoint slides.

Multicampus Challenges

Points for discussion:

° Ask participants to write down their Multicampus challenges.

° Review the responses and compare with the list below

• There are many Multicampus challenges; the list compiled here is based on findings from the ALTC Leadership Project (2009). These include

° Communication: may be lacking or incomplete. There may be difficulties communicating with several people across campuses, logistically and technically.

° Consensus: getting everyone to agree or reach an agreement requires leadership. Compromise may be seen as defeat.

° Consistency and Equivalence: the challenge is to develop consistency and equivalence of the program being delivered

° Culture, local autonomy: each campus has different histories, strengths, weakness, and demographics. These are real and must be considered in cross campus exchanges.

Multicampus Activity

The following activity illustrates the concept of “equivalent outcomes rather than identical programs”. Aeroplanes represent a degree program. Each team represents a university, with members representing different campuses. Consensus is reached as to which aeroplane is the best based on criteria set by the team.


PAPER AEROPLANES (4-6 people)

Running time: 20mins

Materials: A4 sheets of paper (plain or coloured), paperclips, pens

Task:

• Separate group into teams of 4-6 people

• Use only A4 paper to keep variations on the theme to a minimum

• Each team member is to fold a paper aeroplane, but not fly it yet, (this aeroplane represents the degree program at their campus)

• Once everyone has folded an aeroplane the team is to decide the criteria for flying’. For example, distance travelled, arc length, complexity of design. (The criteria represent program equivalence).

• Now it is time for everyone to launch their aeroplane and observe the outcome.

• Following further discussion, each team member may need to adjust their aeroplane to meet the ‘criteria for flying’ more closely.

Points of discussion:

° How did you communicate?

° Who took control?

° Was it easy to make adjustments?

Solutions to Multicampus Challenges

• This section discusses solutions to each challenge separately.

• Points for discussion:

° Invite participants to contribute any ideas/feedback/challenges they have faced with these solutions.

Communication

• Overcoming communication challenges may require thinking outside the box. People are often swamped by emails, are there other solutions?

• Discuss compromises for arranging cross campus meetings

• Have backup plans in place

Consensus

° Achieving cross campus agreement requires leadership

° Build a cross campus team where everyone has tasks and common goals

° Manage achievable workloads that can be completed effectively

° Keep everyone in the loop, communicating continually

Consistency and Equivalence

° “So, sometimes differences in the way things are designed and delivered can be done within cross campus consistency policy, but people think it means identical rather than equivalent.”

° Head of School, ALTC Leadership Project (2009)

° The target is to aim for equivalent outcomes rather than identical programs

° Factors such as university culture and history, demographics, facilities, etc influence consistency and equivalence

Culture, local autonomy

° Factors such as university culture and history are embedded in university establishments. These are not to be undermined or ignored.

° Familiarise yourself with student demographic data, student experiences, campus differences

° Take time to understand how each campus works and support the local culture in cross campus transactions

ATLC Program Leader Project: Good Practice Guide

APPENDICES


Running Sheet

Time Activity Resources

15mins Introduction/Welcome

Concerns/Hopes/Fears

Butcher paper/markers Notepad or paper/pens

10mins Multicampus Challenges Points for discussion:

o Ask participants write down their Multicampus challenges.

o Review the responses and compare with the list below

PowerPoint Notepad, pens

20mins PAPER AEROPLANES

Elicit participants’ views and ideas.

Revise concerns/hopes/fears.

Teams 4-6 people.

A4 Paper (plain or coloured), paper clips, pens.

Facilitator guide.

20mins Solutions to Multicampus Challenges

• Communication • Consensus • Consistency and Equivalence • Culture, local autonomy Points for discussion: o Invite participants to contribute

any ideas/feedback/challenges they have faced with these solutions.

PowerPoint

10mins Conclusion & Thanks PowerPoint

References

ALTC Leadership project: Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus Universities (2009). http://www.griffith.edu.au/education/program-leaders

ALTC Program Leader Project: Good Practice Guide


Appendix 8. UWS Sample Position Description: Director of Academic Programs

POSITION STATEMENTPOSITION DETAILS:

Position Title Director Academic Programs

Establishment No:

School/Office:

College/Division:

CONTEXT:

The academic structure of UWS comprises 10 Schools which are organisational groupings of staff and students which may be located over several campuses. The Dean of each School is responsible for school planning, management and academic quality and reports formally to the Vice-Chancellor.

The School leadership team is made up of the Dean of the School, Deputy Dean, Directors of Academic Programs and the School Manager, and for some schools, a Technical Manager.

The School leadership team has overarching responsibility for:

• Creating and maintaining a high quality and productive educational environment for coursework and research students;

• Developing and implementing the School’s plans for its academic programs, research activities and engagement consistent with the University’s strategic plans;

• Ensuring the efficient and effective management of School resources in accordance with its budget.

PURPOSE/MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

The Director Academic Programs has a key role within the School in providing academic leadership and direction for the course (or suite of courses) that comprise an academic discipline.

The Director Academic Programs works closely with the Dean and Deputy Dean of the School, the Pro Vice-Chancellors (Education, Research, International/ Engagement, and Students) and the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellors in managing the development of the curriculum for the course(s), assuring course and unit quality within the UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework, and ensuring compliance with UWS policies.

The Director Academic Programs will be assisted by an Academic Advisor who will take responsibility for many of the student-related matters in the course (or suite of courses).

REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS:

The Director Academic Programs reports to the Dean or Deputy Dean of the School.

The Director Academic Programs is responsible for the line management of one or more groupings of staff within the School and for specific strategic priority areas as may be determined by the School.

KEY FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES/DUTIES:

• Work closely with the Dean, Deputy Dean, Pro Vice-Chancellors (PVC) (Education, Research, International/Engagement, Students) and Associate Pro Vice-Chancellors in providing academic leadership and direction for the Programs.

APPENDICES


• Ensure that Program design and delivery are consistent with the expressed aims and learning outcomes of the Program within the context of University and School objectives, and in particular the UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework for Learning & Teaching. Activities include:

° Manage the development of the curriculum for the Program, including new and revised units, pathways, majors, cross-school initiatives, and incorporation of UWS policy objectives;

° In collaboration with the relevant Associate PVC (Education), establish and meet annually with the External Advisory Committee;

° Represent the School at broader UWS forums and provide ongoing and updated information relating to the development and direction of the Programs;

° Hold regular Program meetings for all relevant staff and provide minutes of these meetings to the Dean of the School, School Academic Committee, and the PVC (Education);

° Liaise with technical and administrative staff on implementation and maintenance of effective systems and processes towards the quality delivery of Programs;

• Exercise responsibility for:

° Human Resource management within the academic Program. This involves taking either direct or shared responsibility for:

° Negotiation of workloads, supervision and feedback on performance, and fostering the professional development of academic staff;

° Ensuring staff understand their roles and responsibilities in accordance with codes, policies, procedures and timelines for the completion of tasks;

° Supporting and developing staff, including mentoring where appropriate, and the effective induction of new staff;

° Meeting with individual staff members at least twice a semester to review performance outcomes;

° In collaboration with the Dean and Deputy Dean of the School, ensure that casual staff who work in the Programs are appropriately selected, trained and supervised.

° Quality control and improvement for unit outlines, learning guides and curriculum materials across the Programs;

° Implementation of the UWS Assessment Policy – Criteria and Standards-Based Assessment and associated procedures across the Program(s), including participation in meetings of the School Academic Committee;

° External relations and communication with potential students, the profession, employers and other stakeholders, both within and beyond UWS.

° Advise the Dean and/or Deputy Dean on

° Issues affecting individual staff performance;

° Current and future staffing requirements, including casual staff;

° Specific tasks and projects which should be carried out by individual staff for quality management and planning.

• Ensure that student issues in all Programs are handled appropriately and consistently by

° Co-ordinating and working with the Course Advisers (where these exist) for the Programs;

° Exercising academic delegations and giving advice under the Academic Advising Policy;

° Advising the Dean and School Manager about the administrative requirements for managing student enquiries about the Programs.

° In conjunction with Course Advisers, liaise with teaching staff each semester to ensure that professional and learning experiences for students are planned, implemented and evaluated in accordance with the Program design.

° Exercise such other functions or responsibilities as may be assigned from time to time by the Dean or Deputy Dean of the School.


SELECTION CRITERIA:

• Doctoral qualification or equivalent accreditation and standing;

• A demonstrated ability to provide academic leadership and direction for the Program(s) and to promote and represent the Program(s) in all forums;

• A demonstrated record of innovation and achievement in teaching;

• A capacity to work collaboratively with relevant staff to implement and maintain effective systems and processes for ensuring the quality delivery of Programs, and for leading continuous quality improvement;

• High level leadership capabilities in managing people and relationships, including developing others;

• Demonstrated and proven commitment to high ethical, personal and professional standards in all aspects of leadership and work;

• Capacity and demonstrated willingness to work cooperatively with other organisational units and staff to achieve the University mission and objectives; An ability to foster external relationships and communication with schools, potential students and other stakeholders;

• A demonstrated record of involvement with student advising and ability to assist students to resolve problems at School level and an understanding of the relevant legislative requirements that apply to students and Higher Education providers;

• A demonstrated ability to be organized and set and meet priorities and timelines in relation to the Program(s);

• Excellent knowledge and understanding of the principles underpinning, and a demonstrated commitment to and capacity to implement the principles and plans for, anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, affirmative action, student equity, occupational health and safety, and all other relevant legislation.


Appendix 9. Senior Managers’ Guide to Supporting Program Leaders

Supporting Program Leaders in Multicampus Universities: Senior Managers’ Guide SNAPSHOT: 10 Strategies for Senior Managers

1. Recognize the strategic significance of the Program Leader role

2. Design policies and guidelines to support the role

3. Provide induction, networking and mentoring opportunities

4. Engage your Program Leaders

5. Recognize and reward the Program Leader role

6. Encourage curriculum leadership and innovation

7. Implement succession planning strategies and leadership development

8. Resource the Program Leader role

9. Proactively articulate and address multicampus challenges facing Program Leaders

10. Foster change-capable cultures to support Program Leaders

Overview

This guide is designed to provide senior university managers, including Deputy- and Pro Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Heads of Department, with practical strategies for support Program Leaders in their universities. The Program Leader role is increasingly recognised as pivotal to successful change management, quality enhancement and assurance of standards in the curriculum. These strategies are derived from interviews and survey data gathered during the course of the ALTC Program Leader project. While many of the strategies and principles in this Guide apply to program leadership in mono-campus universities, particular implications for multicampus universities are noted throughout. The project team recognises the many challenges and opportunities of working in multicampus institutions. Our goal is to raise awareness of ways in which these challenges and opportunities might be addressed and celebrated, respectively. The 10 strategies are based on interviews with 26 senior university managers and 19 Program Leaders across three multicampus Australian universities. Survey data gathered from a further 176 Program Leaders in multicampus settings.


1. Recognise the strategic significance of the Program Leader roleIncreasingly, university leaders and managers are recognising the importance of Program Leaders and their role in assuring the quality and standards of programs of study across disciplines. In an age of accountability and the need to demonstrate explicitly the ways in which academic achievements standards are being addressed and assured, much of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of Program Leaders.

I think the program convenor role is actually fundamental to the quality agenda in our courses and also the issues to do with pedagogy and blended learning, how we deliver and inspire students and how we actually are consistent with what are professional expectations and obligations to our discipline. (Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellor)

Scott and colleagues observed:

The role least recognised for its critical role as the final arbiter of whether a desired change is actually taken up and actioned locally is that of Head of Program. If these people do not engage then they will not focus and assist their staff to learn how to make the desired change work in practice. (2008, p. xvii)

Several key reasons for the strategic significance of the Program Leader role are outlined below. In each case, there are implications for senior managers who need to recognise the multi-faceted nature of these roles and actively support and enable the strategic contributions that Program Leaders make to universities.

1.1 Cross-campus consistency of program delivery and outcomes

One of the most pressing challenges facing multicampus universities is the assurance of consistency in program delivery and outcomes across campuses. One Dean summarised this priority as follows:

It’s about ensuring that there’s equity and quality in the delivery across those three campuses and that’s pretty critical.

Program Leaders need skills and knowledge in a range of areas to be able to address this challenge. They need people management skills to be able to build coherent and collaborative teams of people across campuses. They need to be equipped with knowledge and data about campus differences, including student demographics, campus-based data about student enrolments and performance, along with relevant knowledge about the communities surrounding each campus and their respective influence on campus identities.

Several multicampus universities have developed guidelines to support cross-campus consistency. Two examples are:

• Central Queensland University Multicampus Guidelines

• La Trobe University Different Instances Policy

APPENDICES


1.2 Standards

Program Leaders have oversight of the standards of provision, delivery and outcomes of their program. While the assurance of these standards is dependent on teams of professional and academic staff working together, the Program Leader is one of the few people who has a whole-of-program perspective on the inputs and outcomes of the academic program.

The Griffith University cross-campus consistency policy specifies the following standards of provision for programs offered across campuses:

Where a program is offered on more than one campus, it will have identical admission requirements. The program will also have identical degree requirements which prescribe the program’s length, total credit points and general organisation. The structural framework of the program (not content), in terms of core requirements, the contribution of academic plans (majors, minors, specialisations, strands, streams, teaching areas) and the credit points available for elective study, should be consistent.

Responsibility for monitoring and assuring academic achievement standards forms another important dimension of the Program Leader role. There are several levels at which academic standards should be addressed:

• At the subject/unit level university assessment policies need to articulate the importance of subject or unit moderation of assessment in order to monitor standards of achievement at the subject level. See, for example, the UWS Assessment Policy. This is particularly important when subjects are delivered across campuses. The Program Leader should monitor the effectiveness and frequency with which moderation is occurring in subjects across the program. This includes ensuring that sessional staff are ‘calibrated’ and trained to engage in moderation.

• Moderation and peer review between universities is another important way to assure academic achievement standards. This may involve benchmarking and sharing of sample assessment items among colleagues in comparable subjects across universities.

• Standards-setting through accreditation processes is another way in which Program Leaders might monitor and assure the standards of their program. This often includes an international dimension which provides important data about program performance compared with international benchmarks.

These are just some of the ways in which Program Leaders might monitor academic achievement standards. Data sources such as the Graduate Destination Survey and the Course Experience Questionnaire Good Teaching Scale and Overall Satisfaction item also provide Program Leaders with important information about the relative standing of their program compared with those in other Australian universities.

1.3 Quality

Quality assurance and enhancement processes represent another suite of Program Leader responsibilities. One Head of School observes:

For me the Heads of Programs are there to take the ownership and carriage of all of the quality issues associated with delivery of coherent programs that meet the needs of the students and of the institutions to basically to turn out scholars who can meet Australia’s needs.

Quality assurance at the program level typically involves annual and three- or five-yearly program reviews. Program Leaders need to have full knowledge of the performance of their program across a range of indicators, including student demographics and entry characteristics, student evaluation data for each subject in the program, and student satisfaction and outcome data.

Senior managers have a responsibility to ensure that Program Leaders receive data in accessible formats and in a timely way to support effective program review. In particular, campus-based data should be provided to ensure that Program Leaders are equipped with as much information as possible about campus differences and ways to address these in achieving cross-campus consistency in delivery and outcomes across the program.

For more information, see the Program Leader induction module on Monitoring Program Quality: www.griffith.edu.au/education/program-leaders/inducting-program-leaders.


1.4 Connections to industry, community, disciplinary and professional bodies

Program Leaders should be recognised as important ambassadors for the university as they connect with industry, community stakeholders and professional bodies. They play key roles in staying abreast of the latest disciplinary developments, both nationally and internationally. In many cases, particularly for professional programs, they convene program advisory boards which bring industry and community representatives in close contact with the university and its offerings. These ambassadorial roles should not be under-estimated. They are time-consuming but represent important opportunities for the university to engage with key external stakeholders through the work of Program Leaders. In particular, there is merit in considering ways to acknowledge this dimension of the Program Leader role in workload allocation and resourcing initiatives.

1.5 Marketing the program

Program Leaders are both ambassadors and marketers on behalf of their universities. Many Program Leaders interviewed for this study highlighted the importance of the marketing role. This includes marketing the program to local schools, liaising with the vocational education and training (VET) sector to determine pathways between VET and higher education programs, and promoting the program via a range of avenues including in online promotions, university open days and the like.

Once again, these are significant responsibilities carried out on behalf of the university. A large part of the Program Leader role involves recruiting students and ensuring that the program remains viable and attractive. To achieve this goal, Program Leaders need to understand what appeals to future students of all ages and backgrounds, and they need to read the job market and connect with industry to maximise students’ employability opportunities. At the same time they are responsible for maintaining the academic integrity of their program and its standards, including ensuring intellectual challenge and stimulation for students at all levels of the program.

These are just some of the many strategic contributions that Program Leaders make to their universities. Senior managers need to recognise, support and celebrate these contributions.

2. Design policies and guidelines to support the roleOne strategy for recognising and supporting the role of Program Leaders is to ensure that the value you attach to the role is reflected in institutional policies, role statements, workload allocations models and guidelines.

I think that recognition in the promotions policy would be one [way of supporting Program Leaders]. At the moment promotions policy recognises teaching or it recognises research. Governance is not a strong feature in its promotion policy. (Dean)

We need to have a bit of a look at the way we deal with promotions and see whether we can accommodate people like Heads of Programs that made this decision to take on what’s a critically important role for us. (Head of School)

Effective senior management support for Program Leaders will be reflected in:

• promotion policies and guidelines should mention explicitly the range of leadership responsibilities;

• workload allocation models that take account of the multidimensional nature of the role, including the fact that many aspects do not necessarily align with traditional approaches to allocating hours for teaching and research. The service and leadership dimensions of academic work need to be given more considered attention in these workload models;

• clear Program Leader role statements that are regularly reviewed, based on wide consultation with key stakeholders and informed by the data available on the many dimensions of the role.

APPENDICES


3. Provide induction, networking and mentoring opportunitiesIn many cases, the Program Leaders we interviewed and talked with across several Australian universities, identified the pressing need for induction programs to equip new Program Leaders with the skills and knowledge needed for the role. Some universities do offer such programs and we encourage senior university managers to consider ways to endorse and promote such initiatives.

One Head of School noted the importance of developing and supporting the role through more coordinated induction arrangements:

These positions are critical to the university for the future, but currently underdeveloped. They are key designers, coordinators and managers of one of our two central functions (the other being research) (Head of School)

The following comment is reflective of the kinds of skills Program Leaders would like to develop through induction programs:

… having some leadership training…you would look at managing time, and looking at how do you support and mentor someone, how do you deal with the interpersonal skills, how do you build links in industry. (Program Leader)

There are several resources to guide development and review of Program Leader induction programs at your university. These may be found at: www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders which comprises sample induction modules and guidelines for workshop facilitators, along with a wide range of professional development resources resulting from various national projects.

Learning from fellow travellers in the role and having the opportunity to engage in mentoring is another opportunity that you might foster as a senior manager.

We do have some informal mentoring arrangements which individual staff have arranged and sometimes they talk to faculty leadership about it but it is very informal and discretionary in terms of usually being initiated by the program convenor him or herself. Whereas I think probably the time has come for us to formalise that much more (Academic Pro Vice-Chancellor)

It would really be about Heads of Schools taking on that mentoring role with those Program Convenors. And while it’s certainly a supervision role, to be honest, I don’t get the impression that there’s a formal mentoring necessarily going on between Heads of School and Program Convenors. (Dean)

Two examples of successful university-wide Program Leader networks, sponsored by senior university leaders are:

• The University of Western Sydney Head of Program Network which received an AUQA commendation for good practice. The achievements of this Network have been documented.

• Griffith University Program Leader Network. This network is endorsed by the University’s Executive Group (Claire please hyperlink to DVC_Memo.pdf) who fully supported the proposal. to establish a university-wide network to support and engage Program Leaders across campuses. A sample agenda for the first meeting is also available, along with a sample flyer promoting the first Network meeting. This endorsement from senior levels has proved to be a vital success factor in the network initiative.


4. Engage your Program LeadersWhile inducting Program Leaders is a key to success, ongoing engagement is equally important. This is particularly valuable when Program Leaders are included in strategic conversations about the university’s teaching and learning priorities and plans. One Head of School commented: One of the things that I’ve done is actually held program convenor meetings to try and position them in a way that will work.

There are various ways to engage with Program Leaders, including ensuring that they are involved in the governance of Schools and Faculties through membership of Learning and Teaching Committees and the like. When policies and guidelines relating to their role are being reviewed (e.g., the Program Leader role statement or promotions policies), they need be included in consultation processes. They also need to have an important voice in institution-level governance and committees, such as Quality and Standards Committees, Assessment Committees, Programs Committees, or equivalent.

5. Recognise and reward the Program Leader roleThis position requires time and commitment and there are few rewards. The idea that taking on this responsibility will support promotion applications is still debatable. I suspect convening a course is still seen as less valuable than a publication and it is likely to be more difficult work (PVC)

A prominent theme emerging from the data was the importance of recognising and rewarding the Program Leader role. Several suggestions were made by institutional leaders and program leaders alike. These are summarised below:

• celebrate the achievement of middle managers, which is what program convenors are, to make the role more attractive (Head of School)

• recognise the multidimensional nature of recognition and reward: recognition isn’t just money. It’s also promotion. It’s also issues around job satisfaction, autonomy. It’s about not only having the informal authority to make decisions and move things forward, it’s also having the formal authority to be able to do that. It’s you know, basic stuff that you would do in an organisation to make sure that a role has teeth (Dean)

• ensure a whole-of-university approach to recognising the role

• reward the work they do and ensure that they are not discriminated against as a result of their curriculum leadership contributions: They’re missing out on, you know, developing their research and so on. But their feeling is that that cost to their career is a price that’s worth paying to make sure that the course runs well. (Head of School)

• review workload allocation models to take account of the unique nature of the Program Leader role and its emphasis on program leadership, external stakeholder engagement, service to the university and considerable administrative responsibilities: we have to try to get a better classification on workloads, and what convenorship means. (Head of School)

• ensure that the promotions policy appropriately recognises the Program Leader role and associated accountabilities; educate promotions committees to ensure that they take account of the unique nature of the role:

• when you look at the overall requirements to get promotion, I don’t think being a Program Convenor features prominently in staff committees or promotion committees saying, “Wow, that person’s been a Program Convenor, so therefore he or she’s going to be promoted.” (PVC)

APPENDICES


6. Encourage curriculum leadership and innovationAs indicated above, the Program Leader is a unique one given its respective responsibilities for quality assurance and standards-setting, alongside the need to innovate and ensure that the program is responsive to changes in the discipline and/or industry, changing student demographics and expectations, and emerging technologies, to name a few.

One Head of School observed:

They [Program Leaders] need to feel supported… one of the staff came to me yesterday and said what she loved about working in this school was that you were given opportunities to run with ideas but if you fell over, they knew I’d take the blame for it, not them, which I thought was really interesting.

This statement highlights the importance of standing by Program Leaders as they seek to innovate and enhance the quality of program design and delivery. This may involve new approaches and some experimentation and the support of senior leaders is particularly valued in these contexts.

Curriculum leadership and innovation is a chance to make your mark, to actually show to shape, to achieve, to get some things going that you think are a good idea; rather than just a tick off of these are your duties (Dean Learning and Teaching). This perspective highlights the value of encouraging Program Leaders to ‘make their mark’ by engaging in curriculum review and reform. A feature of curriculum innovation in a multicampus setting might include ways in which a Program Leader managed teams effectively across campuses, or engaged in curriculum and assessment reform to enhance the cross-campus consistency of the program. Demonstrating evidence of the impact of these innovations should be a key feature of Program Leader resumes and promotion applications, but senior level support and endorsement is required. The value of strong partnerships between Program Leaders and their more senior colleagues, including Heads of School, Deans and PVCs, cannot be under-estimated.

7. Implement succession planning strategies and leadership development A significant gap in current practice, identified by the vast majority of institutional leader interviewees, is the approach to recruiting and succession planning in relation to the Program Leader role. On the whole, Program Leaders and their supervisors admitted to a relatively uncoordinated approach to Program Leader appointments, with relatively little forward planning on the whole. Various strategies were suggested for addressing this gap, including the use of local level leadership development programs to identify and foster early career leaders of learning and teaching.

One PVC expressed the following perspective:

We probably need to revisit that title to make sure it is afforded the status it requires, and it is a leadership area. And it should be treated as a leadership area because it is fundamental for that person to sign off on what are the courses in this program, do they work together, is it consistent with the international expectations of quality in the discipline … they should have that authority and responsibility, but on the flip side be given then recognition of it is a leadership role.

Leadership development may take many forms. One example of a local program for identifying and supporting early career leaders is as follows:

We’ve got now effectively six workshops, mentoring and a research project for a group of ten future leaders that we are piloting this year to start to give them leadership skills that we think will be helpful for their professional development in this role, and particularly beyond, to use the program convenor role as a stepping stone to demonstrate their leadership to perhaps take the next step to be a head of school.

When designing leadership programs, the unique needs of leaders working in multicampus environments need to be taken into account. This involves a range of skills workshops relating to managing one’s self, time and program teams across campuses, along with management of the program quality and outcomes in multicampus settings.


To find out more about succession planning strategies, visit the website to see video vignettes featuring experienced Program Leaders and their suggestions for effective recruitment and succession planning. Find the resource at: www.griffith.edu.au/education/program-leaders/program-leaders-speak.

8. Resource the Program Leader rolePart of rewarding and recognising the Program Leader role involves reviewing resources to maximise the effectiveness of the role. While additional funds are hard to come by, these are not necessarily the only solution. Some respondents talked of the need to redistribute and realign resources, taking account of the need to invest in the work of Program Leaders in order to achieve the best possible program-level outcomes for students, staff and the university as a whole.

One Head of School commented on the symbolic significance of financial support for the role:

I think if we paid program convenors an allowance in the same way we do deputy heads of school and heads of school and all the rest of it that would immediately put it in a valued position. Whether that payment was in the form of research admin support, I don’t know, but something that went back to say look we value you and what you’re doing in these roles and something so staff who weren’t doing the jobs could see that those who were doing the jobs were being valued. (Head of School)

Other examples of resource support included: additional salary support; appropriate workload allocations (i.e., resourcing in terms of time); teaching relief; and professional development funding. One Head of School was planning to provide all Program Leaders with laptops as an incentive – a symbol of support and recognition of the challenges of working and travelling between campuses to enact the role.

The importance of reviewing the level of administrative support provided was a theme raised by many:

if you really want it to work well, you would provide admin support, you would provide them with an allowance, like you do Heads of Schools and Deans and other people to do the sort of things that they need to do. You’d give them a budget so they could bring Convenors together and have meetings and lunches. So, you do all those things that would give the role formal recognition. (Dean)

Addressing inconsistencies in workload policies across an institution was another common theme. The following comment highlights the importance of sharing good practice in workload modelling for the Program Leader role as part of managing cultural change in this regard:

There are some schools that have clear workload policies and they give [the Program Leader role] sufficient weighting in their formulas. And we have other schools where it’s just a one on one negotiation and that leads to inconsistencies and problems. Where we have explicit, transparent recognition of program convenorship and give it sufficient weight, those are to be commended and followed. What we need to do is clarify what the role entails, give it appropriate weighting and in service provide teaching support reduction if possible, and reinforce where schools are doing it well. We need to share that knowledge with other schools so they can learn from it and make those hard decisions because we’re dealing with years and years of cultural practices in schools. And what was going on 15 years ago is quite different today in terms of the expectations of effective program convenorship. (PVC)

APPENDICES


9. Proactively articulate and address multicampus challenges facing Program LeadersSeveral multicampus challenges were identified by Program Leaders and senior managers during the course of interviews and survey data collection. Three key issues are addressed in the Program Leader Good Practice Guide on managing multicampus challenges (see: www.griffith.edu.au/education/program-leaders/good-practice-guides-program-leaders). These are:

• Managing consistency and equivalence across campuses

• Balancing local autonomy, campus identities and cultures with program-level priorities across campuses

• Managing time and travel

Institutional leaders endorsed these issues and provided further comment in many areas. Of particular interest to the project team was the fact that many institutional leaders and Program Leaders alike failed to mention the challenges posed by multicampus environments until the interviewees probed further. In other words, the multicampus issue is often a ‘sleeper’ – it is a tacit issue that is not always addressed directly by way of articulating challenges and seeking productive solutions.

We encourage institutional leaders to be proactive in raising awareness of the need to manage multicampus challenges and constraints, while celebrating the many opportunities these environments afford by way of diversity of experience, widening study options and enriching the study and work environment for students and staff alike.

In terms of opportunities, one Head of School observed:

I think the most important feature, and it’s really an opportunity if it’s understood well, is that tension between cross-campuses consistency and campus distinctiveness. So, sometimes differences in the way programs are designed and delivered can be done within cross-campus consistency policy, but people think it means identical, rather than equivalent.

Several strategies for managing multicampus challenges were suggested, including,

• fostering a sense of agency:

The main challenge I think is to be able to nurture a sense of agency, where we’ve got really good academics with particular resources available, to capitalise on those rather than feel restricted by an identical approach in the name of cross-campus consistency. (Dean)

• managing cross-campus communication with care:

one of the things that I am insisting on since I’ve been in this role...is that any decisions or discussions that are made on one campus are copied to the people on the other campus. So there is always a sense of a whole of school approach to things. (Head of School)

• ensuring that Program Leaders have a presence on each campus involved in their program, and are resourced to do so:

it’s a commitment to have a presence on the different campuses where programs cover campuses. So it can’t be something just once or twice a month, it has to be a weekly presence on the different campuses, so that means you need a program convenor who is committed to do that and support it. You need to get a car for this person, you can’t expect him or her to be driving between the three campuses that the programs might be on. Schools need to budget for that, so there is a responsibility for schools to step up and say, well if we took a ground up approach to how best we ensure quality, what would be best practice, I think we’d have a whole different model. We’d be funded differently, we’d resource differently, and we’d value it differently. (Head of School).


10. Foster change-capable cultures to support Program LeadersIn order to enact these strategies, senior leaders need to partner with colleagues across the university to develop change-capable cultures (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008; Fullan & Scott, 2009). This involves supporting cultural change for the purposes of quality improvement. Several examples were provided of initiatives that reflect recognition of the need for cultural change relating to the Program Leader role:

We need to try to shift the culture and if people can see a reward for this through either the promotions or getting recognised through their annual performance reviews, commended for their service, etc. I think that would be worth doing. (PVC)

We are implementing a new academic governance model that puts program convenors at the centre of quality assurance processes. Workload allowance for program convening is in place. A full time first year coordinator to lead the common first year has been appointed. Educational support staff have been appointed. Training programs are in place. A full time Associate Dean Academic has been appointed. An overall evaluation model of Faculty’s performance in teaching and learning is being implemented. (Dean)

One Head of School recognised the need to reconsider the ways in which the academic Program Leader role is defined, arguing that we need to create new types of roles:

We almost need to be consciously recruiting another group of academics who are recruited for their management and leadership skills, to take on these sort of roles, who may not be hot shot researchers in other areas, but have a set of skills that we are increasingly relying on the academics to somehow develop, and that is staff management, even without line management responsibilities, the vision for a program, the amount of work that they have to do particularly in our area with professional accreditation, they are all management responsibilities that really fall outside the traditional academic role. And I think we are only just starting to value those roles, and to think about ways that we can provide professional development for people we desperately need.

These strategies and efforts to manage cultural change require whole-of-institution approaches. Senior leaders need to be actively involved in casting the vision for change, drawing on evidence such as that outlined in this study. At the same time they need to collaborate with senior colleagues in Departments and Faculties to enable the kinds of cultural shifts required for program quality improvement. Program Leaders, too, have a responsibility to partner with senior colleagues as the sector reconsiders the strategic value of this role to universities.

APPENDICES


Appendix 10. Notes from Professor Fred d’Agostino’s presentation on Program Leaders

The role of a program leader: a presentation for Developing Program Leader Networks and Resources to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Multicampus UniversitiesFred D’Agostino The University of Queensland

12 October 2010

What do we know about learning and teaching?

• Income from domestic and international students cross-subsidizes research and makes a major contribution to university overheads.

• Teaching-related income vastly exceeds research-related income even at research-intensive universities.

• Student learning and satisfaction with student learning is crucial to reputation and to recruitment.

Your work is therefore of crucial institutional importance.

What do we know about the program leader?

• No role description, usually.

• Not part of a “line management” system.

• Little institutional recognition of the significance of the role—e.g. in relation to promotion.

• From our interviews: “It’s an odd role as I said. It doesn’t appear as a leadership role in the university structures.”

• Poorly resourced in terms of time, funding, and assistance.

• Has few carrots or sticks.

• “You’re supposed to manage courses but you don’t actually have a lot of push so to speak. At the end of the day unit coordinators can tell you to go jump and what are you going to do about it?”

• “I’d say being the meat in the sandwich that my responsibility is to both answer to the administration above me and answer to, but also protect, the staff below me, so represent their interests to those higher up and then sort of filter down what’s coming from above, and be somewhere in between which is a reasonably uncomfortable administrative position I think.”

• If it’s different where you are, then your university is almost unique in the Australian system.

• (Notice the “disconnect” with the budgetary and reputational significance of learning-related activities!)


What does/could the program leader do?!

(some data from our survey)

• curriculum design;

• quality assurance;

• pastoral care;

• mentoring for staff;

• communications (internal);

• promotion;

• collaboration;

• external relations (e.g. with industry partners and professional bodies);

• trouble shooting; and

• administration.

What qualities are important?

Some data from our interviews

• The Program leader needs to be:

• Effective Communicator

• Enthusiastic

• Organised

• Observant

• Confident (speak with authority)/Assertive

• Creative

• Compassionate and ruthless

• Even handed

• Knowledgeable

• Honest

• Tolerant

• Tactful and diplomatic

• Responsive

• Persuasive

“I see the Program Convenor role as an extremely important one and pivotal one with the university teaching area…”

Why not just start the canonization process now and avoid the rush?!

Some “missing” elements

- Most of your colleagues have little understanding of “the strategic environment” and it’s part of your job to mediate that for them. E.g.

• The sector and government policy

• The local environment and competitive pressures

• How funding works

• How learning and teaching is managed and how relevant policy get sets in the Faculty or University

How do/should we choose program leaders?

• Too often program leaders are

- left standing in a game of musical chairs;

- too junior to have the capabilities identified;

- “senior” but “not to be trusted with anything more important”.

(Of course, nobody in the room is in category 3.)

• They are chosen haphazardly in many cases, and without reference to selection criteria, which, indeed, have not even been devised.

What does the program leader need?

- Institutional recognition, in formal policy.

- Workload recognition—UQ all-schools estimate of 20percent of an EFT workload.

• This is less than the hours spent, according to your survey.

• And it’s about the same as the hours allocated according ...

- The backing of the Head of School/Program who does command carrots and sticks.

- The respect of their colleagues.

- Some professional development opportunities related to the role responsibilities.

• Most survey respondents nominated “learning on the job”

- These are conspicuous by their absence in the Australian system.

APPENDICES


Findings from our survey

• About 30percent of respondents believed their supervisor had unrealistic workload expectations

• “I have to admit I put in an awful lot of hours which were outside of the university time and at home ...”

• Less than a quarter of respondents believed

• the demands of their role were properly recognised

• they had proper professional development

Some interview data

• The program leader’s key challenges include

• Often little/ No preparation

• Often little/ No handover

• Often little/ No training

• Often no Position Description/ role definition

• Not recognised as a leadership role in the university structure

• Succession planning

• You said it!

“If the people running those programs have got responsibility and mandate to be leaders, if they mess that up there are serious consequences for university.

That means it’s not a Mickey Mouse role that we appoint someone three weeks after they should have started with no experience, no induction, no handover, just off you go...”

The issue of stress

• We know, in the case of our students, that

- Many of them are “stressed out”

- Stress degrades performance

- They don’t seek help for their stress

• The importance of self-care

- You can get advice about this

- Some universities recognize the significance of staff stress and offer opportunities for staff to develop coping strategies

- Take these opportunities and where they don’t exist, lobby for them.

Opportunities for program leaders

- What’s in it for me?

- Program leaders have a career pathway.

• Program leader Chair, School T&L Comm Associate Dean ...

• Where there is proper institutional recognition of this leadership role, being a program leader can contribute to your promotion prospects.

- Program leaders are ideally situated to

• engage in scholarship of learning and teaching,

• seek internal and external funding for their projects.

Where does the program leader sit?

How do program leaders scope their tasks?

• We know what the headline issues are for program leaders.

- Recruitment

- Retention

- Student Satisfaction

- Graduate Attributes ... and Academic Standards

- Accreditation

- Graduate Outcomes

- Articulation with honours/postgraduate study

• These are headline issues, everywhere, because they are linked to important funding streams, quality assurance mechanisms, and university-level strategic planning.


Which of these is especially salient will vary of course, from program to program and from university to university.

• Also important, and widely acknowledged, are

- learning/research links

- flexible delivery

- use of innovative technologies

- work-integrated learning

- internationalisation

- reconciliation

- stakeholder engagement

Specificities of the multicampus leader’s role

• We need to understand better what is specific to the multicampus situation

• We have some ideas:

- Creating a community of practice when people don’t encounter one another

- Moderation of assessment

- Diversity of student cohorts

• We need more data:

- We need to know where and who

- The diary model

- This can help you make visible your own multi-locational situation!

What are the strategies for success?

From our interviews:

• Identifying mentors including peers

• Targeted training / professional development

• Supportive leadership

• Defined role

Some of these depend on institutional change.

What can you do in the meantime?

What to do?

• You can think about your Program Leadership Role the same way you’d think about teaching or research roles you’re already familiar with.

• Treat your role as being defined by a system of projects you’ll undertake during your tenure of office.

• These projects will tap into the locally-relevant headline issues.

An exercise

• What is the most important single issue for your program/plan?

• What and where are the data you need to inform a proper analysis of this issue?

• What additional enquiries will you need to undertake?

• How will they be resourced?

• When can you get started?

• When do you need a result?

• What will you DO with it?

• Your answers to these questions delineate a project that might be critical for your work as a program leader.

• What do we know about such projects?

Program Projects

• A program project, e.g. to improve recruitment or retention or student satisfaction, is a collective project.

• Especially in a multicampus setting, such a project is not something you conceptualize let alone undertake without the participation of others.

• A program project is a collective project.

• Especially in a multicampus setting, a program project is something that unfolds over time, involves the recruitment of champions, the assimilation of critical perspectives, and the engineering of concrete outcomes.

APPENDICES


Values and interests in Program Projects

• A program project is intended to produce change.

• Many people are uncomfortable with change.

• Many changes have been contrary to traditional academic values.

• Some changes have been badly managed.

• People have change fatigue.

• It’s vital to identify the “value-adding” that your program project might supply, and to do so in terms which your constituents will be able to identify with.

• What improvement will your renewal yield?

• It’s also vital to identify the value-threat that your renewal constitutes.

• What is it? Who will see it that way? What is their nuisance potential? Do they have a point?

• How can you leverage on your abilities and standing to rally your colleagues?

Emotions

- Positive feelings

• Some people will be enthusiastic about the project.

• Who are they?

• Can they be given a role in the project that will harness their energy?

- Negative feelings

• Some people will oppose the project.

• Who are they?

• Can their opposition be overcome, neutralised, or accommodated within the framework of the project? How?

- This may be the key to success, especially in relation to the longer-term outcomes—e.g. genuine on the ground change to curriculum, pedagogy, student experiences, or whatever your project is focused on.

A message to “management”

- You can have a paper change or you can have a real change.

- If you don’t resource, recognize, and otherwise empower your program leaders, you’ll end up with a purely paper change.

- If program leaders can’t rally the collegium, you’ll end up with a paper change.

- Paper changes don’t produce better outcomes for students.

- The key to securing uptake is taking the collegium seriously:

• What are the problems they care about?

• How can we make these problems more visible to the collegium generally?

- How can we give institutional recognition to the perception that these problems matter?

- How can we resource local (but strategic) projects to address these problems?

• Acknowledgements

• Thanks!

• Questions?


APPENDICES

Appendix 11. About the Project Team

The project team members were from three large multicampus universities in Australia: Griffith University - Griffith Institute for Higher Education (Queensland), the University of Western Sydney (New South Wales) and La Trobe University (Victoria).

Project team members

Griffith University

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause (Project Director) is Dean of Student Outcomes at Griffith University, Chair in Higher Education and the Director of the Griffith Institute for Higher Education. She is nationally and internationally recognised for her research on the contemporary undergraduate student experience and implications for quality and standards in institutional settings. Her institution-wide leadership role connects the quality of the student experience and outcomes with capacity-building for academic staff responsible for curriculum enhancement. Her research expertise spans broadly across higher education policy areas, with a particular focus on the changing student experience, the evolving nature of academic work and implications for quality and standards in higher education. She has a commitment to evidence-based enhancement of institutional performance and quality enhancement in higher education. She regularly provides advice to the sector on implications of her research for national and institutional policy and practice. She has managed several national projects including the national study of the first year experience in Australian universities and the ALTC project on the teaching-research nexus. She currently co-directs the ALTC project entitled: A sector-wide model for assuring final year subject and program achievement standards through inter-university moderation.

Professor Alf Lizzio is former Head of the School of Psychology at Griffith. In that role, he was responsible for the overall effectiveness of teaching and learning and the quality of the student experience in the School. He has extensive experience of managing learning and teaching teams and programs across multiple campuses. He has a distinguished track record in the design and implementation of large-scale organisational change and improvement projects. He has held University-wide leadership roles focusing on enhancing the student experience and outcomes. With Paul Ramsden he developed the 360º Leadership for Academic Work process which has been widely used in AVCC leadership programs. He recently conducted a review of the roles and effectiveness of Griffith Program Convenors and First Year Advisors to guide planning of program-level leadership development to support these key roles. He brings to the project expertise and experience in the areas of organisational culture and change management, group dynamics and performance of teams in workplace and learning environments. Of particular importance is his significant work in the area of role theory and its applications in academic work environments. Alf recently completed a project on an ALTC Priority Project on assessment in the first year.


Dr Debra Bath is a senior lecturer in the Griffith Institute for Higher Education. She is a qualified psychologist and has particular expertise in the first year experience. She has received national recognition for her teaching expertise through a national ALTC citation for enhancing learning and teaching. Her research areas include applied cognitive psychology, educational psychology and grief and loss support in the workplace. She has particular expertise in the area of blended learning and has successfully developed extensive resources for academic staff in this area. As an academic developer, she has worked with academic leaders of learning and teaching, including heads of program, to support their work. She has also provided leadership to the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education.

Ms Jo-Anne Clark was the Project Manager for this national project. She has extensive expertise in the area of IT and has taught in the area. She has completed a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education and has provided support for several national projects.


Professor Geoff Scott is Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality) and Provost, University of Western Sydney. In 2005 Geoff was director of the national CEQuery project: “Accessing the student voice”. This involved using a new qualitative analysis tool – CEQuery- to study more than 280,000 comments from 95,000 students in 14 Australian Universities with a view to identifying what engages them in productive learning and retains them in different fields of education. From 2002-4 he initiated a series of studies of successful graduates in a wide range of professions. His research on the distinguishing capabilities of 322 effective school leaders has been used to underpin leadership selection and development strategy of the NSW Department of Education and Training. In 2006-7 he was director of a UWS-ACER ALTC project which is investigating the challenges, roles, key capabilities, selection and professional development needs of more than 500 Leaders in 20 Australian Universities. This work is being benchmarked with parallel studies in the UK, Canada and South Africa. In recent years he has been a member of advisory groups to the Federal Minister for Education on quality assurance for Australia’s offshore higher education programs and the $250 million national learning and teaching performance fund, along with being a member of the national organizing committee for the Australian Universities Quality Forum. He was also one of the leaders of the 2007 ACODE-Educause Australasian Leadership Institute. Geoff works with the higher education systems in a number of overseas countries on capacity development for effective change management, leading change, quality assurance and the use of tracking and improvement systems for learning and teaching. Geoff’s specific areas of research and writing are in strategic change management and leadership in post-secondary and higher education; quality audit, tracking and improvement in universities; student engagement and retention; flexible learning design and delivery; and assessment of professional capability. He gives regular conference addresses on this work, is the author of a wide range of refereed journal articles and his book Change Matters: making a difference in education and training is widely referenced.


Professor Stuart Campbell was at the time of this project Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning & Teaching), University of Western Sydney. He began his teaching career in NSW TAFE, where he taught ESL and translation for seven years. He has worked at UWS (and its predecessors) for 24 years, and has held management positions throughout that time, including foundation Head of the School of Languages and Linguistics. He has a track record of leading change and development in learning and teaching, including establishing programs in languages, interpreting/translation and teacher education. His experience of working in the multicampus environment is extensive. Stuart’s main research specialisation is the psycholinguistics of translation, and he is internationally known in translation studies for his work in developing psycholinguistic models of translation competence as the basis for curriculum and assessment. He was appointed to a special position in 2005-2006 to assist with quality management and the organisation of UWS’s successful AUQA audit. He took up the role of PVC (Learning & Teaching) in 2007. In this role he has responsibility for policy and strategy in learning and teaching, as well as oversight of the Teaching Development Unit, Student Learning Unit and Badanami Centre for Indigenous Education. Notably, he developed and coordinates the UWS Head of Program network, an innovative and highly successful entity that earned an entry in the AUQA Best Practice Database.

La Trobe University

Professor David Spencer was appointed Associate Dean (Academic) of the Faculty of Law and Management in July 2008. Previously he had been Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning) for the Faculty of Law Macquarie University. David is responsible for the academic outcomes in the Faculty of Law and Management and is responsible for mapping and redesigning the curriculum across more than 50 degree programs in the Faculty as well as setting teaching and learning standards and managing a first year experience program for the approximately 8,000 students enrolled in the Faculty. Further, David has built a team of work integrated learning coordinators that are expanding the authentic learning opportunities open to students within the Faculty as well as managing the conversion of traditional didactic teaching across the Faculty to a blended and flexible model with the help of dedicated academic and e-learning developers. David has introduced peer observation of teaching and facilitated the implementation of student mentoring schemes across the Faculty. David’s strengths are managing people and process and he has a record of achieving high quality outcomes in the higher education sector.

Dr Jeannette Fyffe is an Academic Developer in the La Trobe University Curriculum, Teaching & Learning Centre. Jeanette coordinates tutor and demonstrator training across La Trobe University in addition to coordinating the welcome for new academic staff. Her background is science and theoretical physics, and her research interests focus on doctoral students and early career academics.

APPENDICES

www.griffith.edu.au/programleaders

developing program leader networks and resources … · developing program leader networks and...

Documents