Top 5 lessons for new leaders

In this blog, we share the top five lessons that previous participants on our blended programme for new leaders, Transition to Leadership (TTL) found valuable on their leadership journey.

1. It was crucial to have a safe space to take risks
In order to gain confidence in learning new leadership skills, it is crucial that new leaders have access to an environment where they are encouraged to take risks. No one likes to make mistakes, but mistakes can give us our greatest lessons and having a risk free environment to make them can be insightful.

2. There is not a definitive leadership style
On TTL, we explore a variety of different leadership styles from Commanding to Democratic* and participants noticed that each of them have something positive to offer in any leadership scenario. A good leader will be able to adapt different leadership styles in relation to circumstances or indeed the people they work with.

3. Respect individual differences
Difference within teams is far more useful than homogeneity. If new leaders can understand their colleagues’ different personality preferences, they can adapt their leadership style to steer their team more effectively.

4. Coaching is an undervalued skill
Coaching is essentially about asking the right questions rather than providing the right answers. New leaders will find this an important tool to help build their listening and questioning skills to effectively support the individuals in their team.

5. Clarity is essential when dealing with change
One of the most valuable lessons TTL taught those new to leadership was that whenever change is implemented, it requires clarity in communication and engagement. This isn’t an easy task, however it is important in those situations to find examples of best practice and relate it to their own change experience.

Are you looking for development for your new leaders?
There is still time for your new leaders to take part in Transition to Leadership. The programme takes place through Thursday 16 March 2017– Thursday 22 June 2017 over 3 face-to-face days and 16 hours of facilitated online activities.

If you would like to send colleagues onto the programme please visit our website: www.lfhe.ac.uk/ttl or alternatively you can contact Rita Walters, Marketing and Communications Coordinator, E: rita.walters@lfhe.ac.uk or T: 0203 468 4817.

*The leadership styles mentioned are from a model created by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee in their 2002 book, “Primal Leadership.”

Up for a challenge: self-directed group learning for leaders

nm-v3

If our role as educators of adults is to enhance their capacity for self-directed learning, how does that apply to leadership development training? Doug Parkin, director of the Leadership Foundation’s Future Professional Directors programme, reflects on his experience of designing transformational self-directed group learning activities for leaders.

From work with a thousand students in a thousand lecture halls, we all know how easy it can be to leave learning at the classroom door. The lesson may have been interesting, insightful, even entertaining – but if nothing changes in the learner, their thinking, action or beliefs, then was it learning at all?  Consider the difference between these two statements:

  • I taught them how to tie their shoes, but they still can’t do it!
  • I helped them learn how to tie their shoes and they’ve been doing it ever since.

There is a fascinating idea from social development theory that it is the appreciation, use and application of something by another that gives it true definition. So, if they “still can’t” tie their shoes, then was it really teaching?

Leadership development needs to be transformational in its impact. Whether that is a complete reinvention by someone of their identity as a leader, arising from intense self-reflection, or a new perspective on just one aspect of how to lead, the transformation needs to be fully committed and sustainable. A multi-faceted, experiential learning environment is the basis for such transformations, combining variety, examples, appropriate models, challenging experiences, reflection, individualised feedback, strong opportunities for professional and social exchange, and, critically, opportunities for self-directed learning.

When we designed the Future Professional Directors (FPD) programme we set ourselves the goal of including, among a variety of innovative elements, an entirely self-directed group activity.  We came up with Challenge Groups: groups of three or four participants from different higher education institutions working together on a common area of leadership challenge. Step one would involve each Challenge Group identifying a question of high current relevance to all group members that could become the basis for an active enquiry process. The Challenge Groups would then work independently alongside the eight months of the programme itself to explore the question from multiple perspectives using their own institutional contexts as a resource, and also looking more widely, possibly at other sectors. While we did not have a formal assessment mechanism, we built in the use of feedback. This came from tutors on the original question and proposal (including a tailored stimulus webinar for each group), from peers through a mid-point review, and then from peers and tutors through online comments on the finished work.

As part of their application to join the FPD programme, all participants were asked to identify three leadership challenges: a people challenge, a change challenge and a stakeholder challenge. The information provided formed the basis for deciding the Challenge Groups, clustering participants so far as we could around common themes or areas of interest. It was then a delight to see the questions which emerged as the groups identified their area for shared, collaborative enquiry.

Three of the areas explored by the first cohort of FPD included:

  • Leading potential and performance – particularly the difference between leading performance and managing performance, and the role of personal inspiration.
  • Achieving common goals with influential stakeholders where there may be conflicting priorities – and developing as part of this a model of influence specifically tailored for the higher education context and its values.
  • How to achieve change through a collaborative approach – based on survey responses, a set of overarching recommendations were produced for collaborative, cross-boundary leadership.

Other groups looked at the role of trust and values in authentic leadership, developing a template communication strategy for leading change, and managing the needs of diverse stakeholders through complex change.

As well as the impressive outputs, and the sharing of these, we also invited participants to reflect on the process of engaging in the Challenge Group activity, particularly the group development, the sharing of leadership, and the cross-institutional/cross-service working.  These reflections showed how strongly participants had valued sharing different perspectives, building relationships, working through the uncertainty of defining the task, seeing roles and strengths emerge, and the opportunity for independent working and research.  There was also high value in delivering a tangible outcome, with both group and individual benefits firmly linked to real work-based leadership challenges.

Through self-direction, within the framework of a fully supported programme, the participants found a new gateway to both personal discovery and lasting professional friendships.

In his ambitious model of Vertical Leadership Development, Nick Petrie argues for the importance of ‘colliding perspectives’ (the who), ‘heat experiences’ (the what) and ‘elevated sensemaking’ (the how), and it was rewarding to see how some of the FPD Challenge Group work, alongside other experiential elements on FPD such as live case studies, business simulations and strategic dialogues, went a long way towards achieving this.  As Malcolm Gladwell powerfully observed “we learn by example and by direct experience because there are real limits to the adequacy of verbal instruction”.

As the quote below highlights, one of the other clear benefits of an extended leadership programme with a variety of types of learner engagement, including significant self-directed elements and action learning, is the relationships that form, with a life beyond the programme itself.

“The Future Professional Directors programme content and people were amazing and challenging. Having so many like-minded people in one room gave us the ability to talk freely and openly about the opportunities and challenges we face in the sector. We will remain a close network for years to come. With its mix of presentations, live case studies and visiting externals from academic and professional services, the programme gave us personal confidence and practical insight into what it takes to be an authentic leader in our large complex organisations in the 21st century.”

Chris Parry, University of Nottingham, head of global IT change delivery – academic portfolio

Doug Parkin is programme director of Future Professional Directors, working alongside Tracy Bell Reeves, both at the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Doug is also the author of ‘Leading Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The key guide to designing and delivering courses’.  The book explores contemporary ideas on leadership, engagement and student learning into a practical solutions-based resource designed for those undertaking the challenge of leading a university-level teaching module, programme or suite of programmes, particularly through periods of transformation or change. 

Find out more: Future Professional Directors

Is HE governance the best there is?

dreamstime_m_38242407-governance-300-400

Mary Joyce, Leadership Foundation governance and leadership associate, considers the dynamics and impact of good governance and whether boards should be looking beyond compliance.

What were your experiences of what it was like working with your board this year? How did you manage those strategic discussions before and after the vote to leave the European Union? Are you changing the composition of your board and its ways of working? These are live questions for many boards at the present time, in all sectors across the UK. They represent factors that are an additional disruption to the already delicate and largely unseen dynamics of work on boards.

A glance at the past year’s news stories reveals the extent to which ethics, unchecked egos, financial constraints and increased regulation dominate much of the anxiety felt by non-executives as they discharge their responsibilities on boards. Interest in good governance and its importance in organisational life is only set to increase as the pace and scale of change in the public, private and charitable sectors gathers momentum. And, as more stories of failing and dysfunctional boards appear in news stories and official reports, the typical response is to produce even more formal guidance and codes of conduct.

Yet, in 2009 when Sir David Walker published his findings on corporate governance in banks and other financial industry entities (BOFIs), he found that:

“the principal deficiencies in BOFI boards related much more to patterns of behaviour than to organisation.”

While the focus of the Walker Review was on the financial sector, many of its insights and recommendations for good governance and apply to all sectors. The best strategy for developing the capacity of your board to work well together and use all its talents in decision-making is one that focuses not only on technical know-how (legal, financial and sectoral), but also on boardroom behaviour and leadership. This will ensure you achieve more than simply compliance in the stewardship of your organisation.

Just over two years ago the Leadership Foundation designed a series of developmental workshop sessions on boardroom dynamics for higher education governors. They were well received, and we built on those foundations to design a special programme for university secretaries and clerks in recognition of their leadership role at the interface between the board and the executive – a difficult role for which there is generally less developmental support. In its launch year 28 people from 25 institutions attended this innovative programme from roles that included not only university secretaries, clerks and registrars but also, directors of strategic planning; the vice-chancellor’s chiefs of staff; and heads of governance.

The programme uses a psychodynamic approach to develop an awareness and understanding of group behaviour and its potential to either hinder or help the board’s capacity to work effectively. Facilitated learning sets offer a unique opportunity for clerks, university secretaries and those working in the governance field to work on their own organisational issues in confidence, and to apply new theories to their practice.

Participants on the programme commented that they were able to make sense of their experiences in a way that helped them to be more effective both in their role and with colleagues. They said:

“A valuable, thought-provoking, supportive and informative programme, putting the role into a wider context.”
Head of Executive Services

“(The action learning experience was) very supportive while being rigorous. It has helped me reflect on my approaches and practice which has been a very valuable element of the programme.”
Director of Strategic Operations and University Secretary

“Great course content and I’ve made great contacts. I would definitely recommend this to all clerks, whether they are new in post or have been appointed for some time.”
Clerk to the Board and Head of Governance

The Leadership Foundation is running the Clerks and Secretaries Programme again in 2017, starting in February, offering another opportunity for governance professionals to develop their skills and leadership. This higher education specific programme consists of three one-day sessions, which will include action learning set meetings, and two additional half-day action learning set meetings.

Join us as we take a look at how higher education governance’s behaviours, roles and remit compare to those of other sectors, and take the opportunity to consider whether higher education is at the forefront of governance as it continuously explores what good governance means and how it can be improved to meet the changing world.

Mary Joyce specialises in leadership development, group dynamics and organisational behaviour, and executive coaching. Her reputation for working ‘beneath the surface’ has developed through a variety of leadership and consultancy commissions in the public and private sectors.

Read our latest Governance Briefing Note – 25: The factors that influence whether governance is effective?

In addition to our highly regarded Governor Development Programme, the Leadership Foundation has a wealth of information, tools and tips on its Governance website, tailored to the specific needs of Governors of Higher Education institutions and colleges. Find out more at: www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance

Why is HE like a Travelling Circus?

dreamstime_m_14986518-ltlt-blog-300x400

Doug Parkin, Leadership Foundation Programme Director reflects on why developing leadership in learning and teaching is critical.

After falling on hard times two brothers went their separate ways.

Ivan said to his brother “you can keep the big top, the caravans, the animals and the cages, and I wish you well with them”. 

Orlov took them and aimed to keep the great traditions alive. Visiting the towns his family had always visited, he had animals doing tricks, stupid clowns being cruel to each other, strong men lifting weights, and lots and lots of dancing girls… and fewer and fewer people came. 

Ivan went to new cities and entertained in venues never visited by a circus before. Humans performed instead of animals, incredible acrobats, jugglers and gymnasts, and in his circus clever clowns created magic and told new stories.

The Travelling Circus – which university are you?

Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching: never more important!

When the Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching (LTLT) programme began the landscape of radical change surrounding learning and teaching in Higher Education appeared significant, and indeed it was, but in the short period of three-years that has elapsed since then the challenges relating to student engagement, transforming curricula, and quality enhancement have become profound. Not just because of the Teaching Excellence Framework, but further catalysed by it and the debate it has fuelled, striving for teaching excellence has become an imperative on all institutional agendas.  And the relationship with students, as partners in not just the learning process but also the on-going development of the institution itself, has created new dialogues, challenges and expectations.  Linked to this there are many other agendas that could be mentioned such as social mobility and fair access, internationalisation, marketisation, technology enhanced learning, employability, expressing learning gain, and needless to say the colossal uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

LTLT is a programme very much of its time. It is aimed at a constituency of academic colleagues whose needs have not been fully recognised by staff development in the past – namely, course and programme leaders, senior course tutors, associate deans and those in similar roles.  A key acknowledgement (and celebration!) this programme makes both explicitly and, perhaps, symbolically is that programme directors and course leaders have become some of the most important people in our universities: if they don’t succeed then neither do their institutions – the traditional travelling circus fades away and is replaced by the nouveau cirque.

The overall aim of LTLT is:

To support participants to develop the skills, approaches and insights needed to lead course and programme teams through processes of transformation and innovation.

LTLT is an inspirational programme in itself. Not because of its content or its pedagogy, although there is much to be appreciated there, but because of the community of practitioners it brings together from across the sector and the quality of dialogue, interaction and exchange it promotes.  This rich thinking environment, with a focus on transformation, innovation and new approaches, helps participants to develop the energy for change in an ever-evolving learning and teaching environment.

Reflecting on the LTLT experience and its impact, the following is some participant feedback:

  • I learned a very great deal about investment by stakeholders, partnership with students, and the crucial importance of negotiation in relation to the curriculum and much else besides. This is the most exciting (and exacting) leadership course I have ever undertaken.
  • I used one of the tools within days of returning to work.
  • I feel empowered to be a consultant/critical friend (in learning, teaching and assessment) within the workplace. This role is essential.
  • I have found this programme to be extremely useful, extremely enjoyable, an excellent networking opportunity, a great way of sharing best practice, crammed full of useful information, and at all times run by experts who are incredibly helpful and supportive. I cannot recommend this programme highly enough.
  • An excellent programme for which I am grateful.
  • The sessions were quite simply the best example of CPD I’ve been on and perfectly pitched, thoroughly prepared and delivered in an engaging manner.

Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching is a development programme offered by a sector partnership between the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and the Higher Education Academy. It has been running very successfully since 2013 and the next cohort begins in March 2017.

Delivered through three modules and two-on-line action learning sets over a period of 6 months, the structure of LTLT is simple. The first module called ‘Getting Started’ is a two-day residential focussed on firstly leading change and enhancement and secondly leading through inquiry and influence. The second one-day module called ‘Getting Going’ is centred around leading engagement and challenge. The final one-day module, ‘Going Forward’, uses action learning to focus fully on the participants’ own transformation pilots, initiatives they are leading in their own institutions, and how to plan for sustainable impact. To continue discussion around progress of the transformation pilots there are then two further on-line action learning set meetings. Key features of the programme include:

  • A Strategic Toolkit of organisational development tools to help support and facilitate transformational change, some of which have been developed uniquely for the programme;
  • A live case study involving a university team part way through a significant change initiative;
  • Engaging with key perspectives on leadership in an academic context, and linked to this a range of relevant change theory;
  • Considering how to lead with influence rather than through authority;
  • Opportunities to develop the skills necessary to become an effective internal consultant;
  • Exploring new approaches to curriculum design;
  • Sessions on quality and pedagogic innovation; bringing students to the centre of the transformation process; the use of narrative for change; and building communities of practice;
  • The opportunity for participants to work on and develop a current transformation initiative, with further support through action learning;
  • Use of Yammer as a social site to provide resources and allow for on-line discussion;
  • Gaining evidence towards professional recognition against either level 3 of level 4 of the UK Professional Standard Framework.

The programme espouses a number of important values and principles including working to a non-deficit model of academic development, the importance of mutual learning through the live case study and working with an appreciative spirit of inquiry. The importance of open, collaborative working and engagement is emphasised throughout.  And above all the programme illustrates how leadership is generative and endorses the notion that transformational change is iterative, emergent and intensely negotiated.

So, the travelling circus must reinvent itself to survive. Why?  Because the world is changing and audiences move on.  To change the course of history we must change the course of leadership, and if universities are to play their role in answering the big questions of tomorrow, then transformational leadership needs our full support.

Those that are excellently inspired have the capacity to inspire excellence. 

Doug Parkin is co-programme director of the Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching programme, working alongside Steve Outram from the Higher Education Academy. Find out more and book your place here. Doug is also the author of ‘Leading Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The key guide to designing and delivering courses’.  The book explores contemporary ideas on leadership, engagement and student learning into a practical solutions-based resource designed for those undertaking the challenge of leading a university-level teaching module, programme or suite of programmes, particularly through periods of transformation or change. 

A future focus for higher education

futurist-illustration

Vijaya Nath, director of leadership development reflects upon leadership, the future and working with influencers in higher education.

While 9 November 2016 will forever be associated with tumultuous political change in the US, it also brought into stark relief the change process that political decisions unleash across all sectors – and the relationship between our two higher education sectors. In such circumstances, leadership and the ability to think interdependently becomes increasingly important.  On 9 November I was with colleagues from across HEIs – my first formal engagement with the higher education community – at the annual Staff Development Conference. My session was on Higher Education: Future Focus, which fitted with the theme of the conference, Future Fit, and the commitment to developing excellent practice that staff developers share with those of us from external development organisations.

Exploring the five main forces driving change globally “now and next” (using the ideas of futurologist and personal colleague Richard Watson), we first looked at the potential impact of demographic change, including an aging population and aging workforce, for the UK and the challenges and opportunities this brings to higher education. Just hours after Trump’s election victory, the next of the five forces – power shifts east – was also a stimulus in a post-Brexit world that most staff developer colleagues agreed was in sharper focus. The impact caused through being better connected globally (the third force) and sustainability (the fourth force) were concepts that most colleagues found familiar. The last of the five forces, GRIN technologies (genetic prophesy, robotics, intuitive internet, nano materials and artificial intelligence), was found to be of topical relevance as many staff developers were focused on new learning technologies and the impact of these on teaching and learning in HEIs.

When hypothesising about the impact of two of the five forces – demographics and GRIN technologies – staff development colleagues expressed the importance of up-skilling themselves. They also recognised the need to extend their influence to enable a greater number of academic and non-academic colleagues to appreciate the change process necessary for HEIs to face the future with confidence and maximise the potential benefits and challenges.

This session, in tandem with the following session, enabled staff development colleagues to focus on a future that gives priority to growing a learning culture within their organisations and enabling their HEIs to foster cultures which are responsive to changes in their domain and in which innovation will thrive. This is Future Focus.

More recently, following the SDF Conference, I was pleased to facilitate a morning with Richard Watson for senior strategic leaders in HEIs. With Richard’s expert input, it was an opportunity to initiate a conversation with a group of senior leaders on how the five forces Richard associates with global change will impact higher education in the four countries of the United Kingdom.

Richard reminded us of the challenge that leaders in higher education face, contrasting the pace of volatility, uncertainty and ambiguity that characterise this current period with the mindset, tool set and agility needed to tackle the issues this period brings. This is sometimes matched by a cohort of leaders who are anxious and who may appear slow to react as events unfold.

Richard set out the process he follows for building an exploration of the future. This begins with identifying the big questions you believe you might face as leaders in your sector. From these ‘‘burning questions” come a series of trends and patterns related to the questions.  These trends and patterns lend themselves to scenario planning (an activity with which many sectors engage but to which few give enough time). The generation of these future scenarios is often predicated on leaders being able to look at what would need to disappear and, conversely, what new innovative practices and mindsets may be needed for the new possibility to become a reality.

We applied this process to a short guided exploration of the future for higher education from the perspective of this senior leadership group. Reflecting on the burning questions generated by the senior leaders, a number of these were focused on the impact of future demographic trends on higher education. These questions included the impact of declining fertility rates, and an ageing population. In the ensuing discussion, the opportunities and challenges of demographic change led to a possible future trend of growing higher education provision targeting the silver surfer generation and an explosion of concepts such as the University of the Third Age alongside more catastrophic predictions eg university closures due to falling UK student numbers.

Leaders were keen to explore the impact of technology and innovation made possible through the growth of artificial intelligence and the “industrialisation” of learning via enhanced smart technology, as Richard referred to a blurring between digital and physical. This leadership activity requires the strategic change leaders to take a step back and engage in bold thinking. Higher education leaders may not be able to predict all that the future holds in the next 30 years but they can and should be able to influence it.

As the minutes ended on my second interaction with leaders in my new sector, I recalled and shared a philosophy I have held as a developer of leaders for 26 years and across a number of sectors: if we can understand how we learn, then we can understand how we lead.

We are committed to using the insights that this senior leadership group produced in co-creating new innovative leadership development interventions. The graphic above demonstrates the possibilities of working in new ways as we continue to support the Future Focus for higher education.

Ends

Vijaya Nath leads the Leadership Development operation at the Leadership Foundation. The portfolio of development for higher education institutions include options that are delivered face-to-face, online only and also in a mix of both formats (blended learning). They are designed for leaders, managers and those that aspire to such roles from across all disciplines and types of institutions. Programmes and events include one-day events for governors; the flagship Top Management Programme, that has over 700 of the most senior people in higher education in in its alumni including 60 current vice-chancellors. There is also Aurora, the women-only development scheme that has already seen almost 2,500 participants in its first three years.

Watch Vijaya Nath discuss the future of higher education and the need to create political powerbrokers on our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVUzlTtfCUI 

Future Professional Directors: The Case Study

collaboration

Canterbury Christ Church University needed to change the way it interacted with its students – from first enquiry to graduation and beyond. Could discussing the issues in real time with our new Future Professional Directors group help the university lead the necessary cultural change and achieve its aims? Dr Keith McLay, lead for the project, reports back on a fruitful collaboration.

In March 2016 Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) contributed a live case study to the Leadership Foundation’s new Future Professional Directors (FPD) programme. CCCU was 18 months into a project to re-engineer its business processes for the student journey from enquiry, application, arrival and delivery of the degree programmes to graduation and alumni relations; it was a timely moment to collaborate during the programme’s module focusing on leadership in a culture of change. We used the analogy of a GUM Department store in the former Soviet Union whereby customers joined a different queue for the three stages (selection, payment and collection) of buying something to explain CCCU’s current problem – that separate, multifarious and factional business processes support the students. Our ambition was a seamless student journey throughout, from first engagement to leaving the university.

The challenge

The Christ Church Process Improvement Programme (CC PIP) project had made significant progress and gained momentum in the 18 months since the first diagnostic review and scoping of business processes had been undertaken. However, as we settled upon four separate, but linked, project streams – data and administrative processes, enquiry and recruitment, attendance and participation tracking and access to student support – it became apparent to colleagues on the programme board that there were significant challenges ranging across the four streams. These challenges, which all coalesced under the banner of organisational culture and the need for cultural change, lay in the way of transferring the projects to “business as usual” for the university.

Rigid local work practices and processes had to be tackled and colleagues needed to be encouraged to appreciate and also embrace the new business processes and procedures. This was the task facing CC PIP. The key question was how to lead that necessary cultural change which underlay the transactional business processes.

The journey

Following a presentation to the FPD group, which set out the road we had travelled so far, we decided to orientate the three themes that would be subject to “live” discussion on this question of fostering and leading cultural change.

The first theme – Demonstrating Benefits and Settling Priorities – asked for assistance in maintaining the programme’s focus and momentum while also holding on to realistic expectations of what could be delivered in the given time scale.

The second theme – Building Capability and Capacity – sought from the participants a route to the future-proofing of the project in a higher education environment that has been subject to fundamental change in recent years.

The third theme – Challenging Established Behaviours and Ways of Working – focused on cultural practices. Here we were seeking from the FPD group insight into reversing decades-old cultural working practice of “doing the nice thing” rather than “doing the right thing”.

Preparing the presentation and working on these three themes, including the outcomes sought, proved in itself cathartic and informative for CC PIP.

It forced those involved to reflect on and analyse the principal obstacles now being faced after what had been a rapid 18 months filled with project industry, endeavour and a number of quick wins. The preparation had revealed a confidence and a positive narrative for the project, needed to avoid looming institutional and organisation stasis of the programme. The CC PIP team looked forward to the “live” partnership with the FPD group, tackling the organisational cultural inertia that was threatening the programme.

The outcomes

The collaboration with the FPD participants proved fruitful and, in essence, that was the key highlight for CCCU. The three themes were each accompanied by three learning outcomes, which were robustly discussed by the participant groups. The discussions resulted in suggestions, comments and specific actions for all of the learning outcomes. CCCU colleagues took these back to the CC PIP programme board for further consideration and, as appropriate, implementation.

On the broader and overarching question of successfully providing leadership of cultural change, the two key action points embraced effective communications and the normative embedding of the new business process in the work life of colleagues across the university. Reflecting on these two broader action points, the CC PIP programme board revised its communications strategy by increasing the frequency and form of communications across the university about the programme. The board also decided to identify a number of other “quick wins” across the project, which should help build colleagues’ confidence in the programme outcomes and increase the willingness to assume responsibility and provide capability for the revised business processes.

We’d be thrilled to contribute to, and share with, another Leadership Foundation programme. The experience was mutually beneficial, positively reinforcing and resonating with respect to our programme and the organisational cultural change it entails. We would highly recommend this collaboration to other organisations seeking innovative interventions in the higher education sector.

Dr Keith McLay is dean of the faculty of arts and humanities at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU). Keith led the team from CCCU to work in collaboration with the Future Professional Directors group to help the university reinvigorate this cultural change project.


More information

  1. The next cohort of Future Professional Directors launches in March 2017. The application deadline is Friday 24 February 2017. To find out more and for details on the application process visit: lfhe.ac.uk/fpd
  2. If you would be interested in working with the next Future Professional Directors cohort as a live case study please contact Lucy Duggal E: lucy.duggal@lfhe.ac.uk
  3. Future Professional Directors has been created in collaboration with nine sector bodies. This collaboration represents its aim to bring together professional service colleagues from across organisations in higher education. Contributing sector bodies include: AUDE, AHUA, AMOSSHE, ARC, BUFDG, HESPA, SCONUL, UCISA and UHR.

Has the governing body given attention to the institution’s policies and actions in relation to students’ mental health?

the-invisible-problem_cover-graphic-002

David Williams the Leadership Foundation’s governance web editor, highlights one area where governing bodies may need to give increased attention following the recent report from HEPI, on the students’ mental health.

Governing bodies have overall responsibility for the strategic direction and sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs). Governors are concerned about all matters fundamentally affecting the institution and its sustainability. Typically, amongst the many matters that a governing body will exercise oversight is student recruitment, retention and achievement. An emerging concern will the potential to impact significantly on student retention is mental health.

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), ‘The invisible problem? Improving student mental health’, suggests that increasing numbers of HE students are experiencing mental health problems. The report highlights that the matter has significant implications not just for the student, but also the institution. Students experiencing mental health issues are at greater risk of not completing their studies, and the institution facing a loss of tuition fee income. Given the rising incidence of mental health issues, the report suggests governing bodies could consider giving one governor a specific remit to track their institution’s progress in improving mental health support.

The majority of higher education students in the UK enter full-time undergraduate education aged 18 or 19. While these students are classed as adults and able to vote in public elections, less attention is paid to the major transitions they face when entering higher education for the first time.

The HEPI report points out that unlike many other countries the UK has a ‘boarding school model’ of higher education. This means students normally live away from home for the first time.

At precisely the point when they face significant academic and personal changes, including the need to come to terms with new forms of learning and build new friendships, students are separated from their support networks. The increasingly demanding nature of the graduate labour market and rising student debt levels add further pressure on students to do well at university.

Student distress is particularly centered on feelings of stress, anxiety and unhappiness. The report highlights the need for students to develop emotional resilience and learn how to become more compassionate to themselves and others. Cognitive ability on its own is insufficient to ensure student survival and achievement.

Although the data is incomplete and increased levels of disclosure and awareness may account in part for the rising demand falling on university counselling services, the HEPI report suggests there is clear evidence that mental health issues are becoming more common amongst higher education students. The assessment is supported by the responses from HEIs to recent freedom of information requests made by The Guardian newspaper.

The HEPI report questions the level of current support for mental health being provided by some HEIs. Expenditure to support students shows marked variation.

The report cites examples of institutional good practice, but equally suggests that governing bodies need to seek assurance that the institution has a formal mental health policy and associated action plan. A pre-condition for assessing such policies and plans is ensuring the scale of the problem at the institution is understood together with the current level of support offered. Data about the scale of students’ mental health problems tends to be patchy.

If they haven’t already addressed the issue, a governing body should examine the provision provided by their institution to support students with mental health difficulties. Above all, governing bodies need to ensure mental health issues affecting students are understood and appropriately addressed.

David Williams has been by the Leadership Foundation’s governance web editor since 2013. He has worked with the governing bodies and senior leadership teams of different higher education institutions for over 20 years.

Editor’s notes

  1. For a full set of briefing guides on governance edited by David, please go to www.lfhe.ac.uk/govbriefings
  2. Read the latest news on governance, including the latest newspiece by David on students’ mental health and the role of governing bodies, click here
  3. Other blogs on governance include:
    Book Review: What can governance in higher education learn from other sectors?Book review: Nonprofit Governance
    How can universities enhance the strategic development of the academic portfolio?Poland’s rapid response to change in higher education makes it a hidden gem