Coaching: The advice I would give my younger self

In advance of the Transition to Leadership programme, which commences this December,  Jean Chandler, programme director, shares her thoughts on coaching as a skill set, approaches to leading others, and her own leadership lessons.

As a young manager in the NHS in the late 1980s, I recall conversations with my late father (who was also a trade union representative), about the challenges I faced early in my management career. Although I felt confident that I had the answers to the challenges my team was facing, I did not have that same confidence addressing those senior to me with solutions, even though they were without the benefit of ‘proper’ management training scheme.

My dad tried to convince me of the benefit of listening first to ensure I understood the challenges of my senior colleagues, before wading in with my advice and latest management thinking. Unfortunately, my dad was up against it, I was on a mission and determined change the face of management and leadership in Support Services in the NHS.

Since that time in my early management career, and now in my role as programme director of Transition to Leadership, I understand the importance of having a coach when you are making the transition to leading and managing others like I had my dad. Coaching is therefore a key programme component as it is a really practical and useable skill, which has earned its place in my management & leadership toolkit.

Why coaching and what can it offer?

What is coaching?
Jonathan Passmore defines coaching as “unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them.”

It is also about future potential and building self-awareness, responsibility and self-belief.  As a leader, building the self-belief of others has the potential to transform the relationship you have with that individual and their performance.

When is coaching useful?
Coaching is particularly useful for people when they are transitioning from one role to another. As coaching can help individuals (coachees) to be more aware of themselves and their impact on others. Coachees become more willing to take responsibility for and be able to respond to situations, and be better able to learn from their experience and increase their self-motivation.

As part of Transition to Leadership, participants also learn about a coaching approach to leading via Daniel Goleman’s research on the six distinct leadership styles and, why a coaching leadership style is recognised as one of the most positive leadership styles. Participants also have the chance to practice coaching skills face-to-face and as part of the programme’s online peer coaching groups.

Once you understand the fundamental principles of what coaching is and, adopt a framework for a coaching discussion, it becomes essentially an exercise in attending to and listening deeply to the coachee to better understand them. To learn to not advise or give answers but to acknowledge that people are inherently resourceful and have the knowledge, insight and motivation within to make a decision.

This is something that we don’t always deploy as we have been schooled to believe we should have and that we must be the expert given our role or status.

I came to coaching quite late in my career, in my mid-40s but how I wish that as a young manager and leader I had listened to the advice of my dad or others to understand there is a better way to do this. I would have then learnt to develop key leadership attributes including listening deeply through asking helpful questions and attending to and allowing others in my team to personally develop while feeling supported with their particular challenges.

I also realise that as a young manager the challenges I found in trying to better connect and understand those I managed, could have been solved by adopting a more coaching approach to leading. This is something I hope that Transition to Leadership, with its focus on coaching and a coaching approach to leading, can help develop for others.

Personally, I apply the skills I have gained through coaching in many aspects of my working and personal life whether it be my ongoing challenges with my teenage son and his life choices about education and the future, or a close friend facing a personal crisis, I ask myself how can I help here? Is it to be in the moment and attend to their issue primarily or what question might help to reframe this or help to look at things a bit differently? I really try not to be the expert or give advice. It invariably does help both them and myself feel that we have made some progress and that they are choosing the best option for themselves.

So, the one piece of advice I would have given my younger self, apart from my dad was probably right about “that guy,” would have been to take his advice and listen hard, seek to understand and ask helpful questions to unearth the inner resourcefulness that we all possess when it comes to our challenges at work and elsewhere in life; to keep myself out of the way and support and enable others to find their own answers.

Jean Chandler is the associate director for membership in Scotland and contributes to a number of other Leadership Foundation programmes. Jean is also a qualified Institute of Leadership and Management level 7 executive coach with coaching experience both within and outside higher education. Get in touch with Jean, jean.chandler@lfhe.ac.uk 

Transition to Leadership is our blended leadership development programme for those who are new to leadership and looking to influence change. The next run of Transition to Leadership will run from Wednesday 6 December 2017 – Wednesday 11 April 2018 with face to face sessions taking place in Manchester.

Find out more: www.lfhe.ac.uk/ttl

11 Key Insights from Higher Education Governors



Following the recent launch of our updated Framework for Supporting Governing Body Effectiveness Reviews, Helen Baird discusses some of the findings emerging from analysis of survey data from our governing body effectiveness reviews, and outlines our new comparative analysis and insight service. 

Last year we reviewed and updated the Framework for considering the effectiveness of higher education governing bodies. The drivers for the review were changes to higher education governance since the Framework was first introduced in 2010, broader sectoral developments and the evolution of ideas on good governance more generally.

The main conclusion from our research with the sector was that the three elements of the Framework remain an effective basis for considering governing body effectiveness. These are enablers of effective governance (processes), working relationships and behaviours, and outcomes of an effective governing body. We also found that as well as looking internally at their own governance, universities would value better comparative information to assess the relative effectiveness of their governing bodies and learn from peers. However, they required meaningful information and insights, rather than simply comparisons of what can be easily measured, such as size or composition of governing bodies.

Consequently, the Leadership Foundation has developed a new and unique comparative analysis and insight service, making use of the growing dataset we are building from the anonymised results of surveys as part of effectiveness reviews we undertake. As our new dataset develops, there will be potential to add other more ‘descriptive’ data from providers or from that collected by HESA, to enable more sophisticated analysis to benefit the sector and individual universities.

While our current dataset is relatively small at present, early analysis (carried out by Kay Renfrew, a Leadership Foundation associate consultant) has enabled us to produce some emerging findings which are worth sharing. These should be treated with caution and they will be subjected to further testing and analysis as the dataset grows. Some notable findings from surveys of 232 governors within eight institutions are as follows.

  1. While in some areas questions remain, there is almost universal agreement amongst the governors surveyed that there is a genuine and shared commitment by the governing body and the executive to ensure effective governance.
  2. There are variations in the extent to which governing bodies review their own performance and demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement, from a low of 60% of governors agreeing that this takes place at one institution to 92% in another. Governors in small institutions (65%) were less likely to agree that this takes place, compared with those at medium-sized or larger institutions (80% and 81%).
  3. Although there are high levels of agreement that there are effective arrangements in place for involving staff and students in the governing body, this view is more prevalent amongst lay and co-opted members (93% and 100%) than with staff and student members (83% and 80%).
  4. Staff members are less likely to agree that there are mechanisms in place to give the governing body confidence in the arrangements for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning. Only 67% of staff members agree with this statement, compared with 78% of lay members and 80% of student members. There is also variation between institutions in terms of their size, with governors in larger institutions more likely to agree this is the case (82%), than in medium or small institutions (62% and 69%).
  5. Governing bodies were confident there are mechanisms in place to enable assurance to be derived about financial stability, data integrity and value for money, with 100% of governors from four of the institutions agreeing this was the case. The lowest figure for an institution was 74%. However, there was variation between the views of lay and staff members with 93% of lay members agreeing compared with 78% of staff members.
  6. There was considerable variation in the views of lay and staff members that there are processes in place to ensure the recruitment of governing body members addresses equality and diversity requirements. While 90% of lay members agree, only 56% of staff members do.
  7. There is also variation at institutional level on whether recruitment, succession planning and reward is effectively undertaken, with only 56% agreeing in one institution and 92% at another. Lay members are more likely to agree this is the case than staff members, but the difference is less pronounced than in the case of equality and diversity.
  8. Individual institutions varied greatly as to whether the contribution of all members is reviewed regularly (lowest 35% of governors agreeing and highest 75%). Variation was also found in the responses as to whether regular performance reviews of the Vice Chancellor are undertaken. At one institution only 54% of governors agreed, rising to 92% at another (although at most institutions under 70% agreed).
  9. Most governors agreed that the governing body was provided with reliable and up-to-date information to ensure it is fully informed of its legal and regulatory responsibilities. However, they were less convinced that there is effective communication between the governing body and key stakeholder bodies. In one institution only 46% agreed, with the highest percentage agreeing reaching 83%. While staff and lay members had similar levels of agreement (78% and 74%), only 33% of student members agreed.
  10. There is also variation at institutional level on whether the governing body actively reviews the extent to which existing corporate governance arrangements will be appropriate to meet long term strategic plans, ranging from 45% of governors agreeing at one institution to 90% at another. Lay members are more likely to agree than staff members, and in this case small sized institutions are most likely to agree.
  11. It seems existing arrangements for academic governance to meet long term strategic plans are not reviewed in the same way as matters of corporate governance. In one institution only 36% agreed that they were reviewed, with the highest level of conformation being 75%. Lay members were slightly less likely to agree (61%) than staff members (67%). A higher percentage of respondents at large institutions agreed (72%) compared to medium (56%) or small institutions (53%).

In summary, it seems that not all institutions regularly undertake reviews of their own performance, including the contribution that individual members make. Similarly, there is variation in whether reviews of the vice chancellor’s performance or the quality of teaching and learning take place, or are reported to the governing body. There is however general agreement that governing body members are committed to effective governance, and that working relationships are in the main positive. Interestingly, the views of Lay and Staff governors can vary considerably. Overall, Staff members were less positive than Lay members, perhaps suggesting that they perceive the governing body to be less effective in its role.

Further analysis will be undertaken and the results disseminated as we develop our comparative analysis and insight service. For further information please visit www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/governance-new/governing-body-effectiveness/index.cfm

Helen Baird is a Managing Consultant in the Leadership Foundation’s strategic consultancy team and led the recent review and revision of the Framework for Supporting Governing Body Effectiveness Reviews.

Take a look at our next Governor Development Programme, Governance professionals in higher education for clerks, secretaries and staff in the professional support teams. The programme starts on Tuesday 5 December 2017, London. For more information, click here

 

Research impact: the importance of effective research management

Tunnel Image

Striving to achieve impact from academic research may appear to be a wholly good thing, but how research leaders and managers interpret what impact means is vital to ensuring they can generate outstanding impact. Catherine O’Connell, lecturer, Liverpool Hope University, asks whether current formulaic interpretations of research impact have a limited, rather than enabling, effect on higher education institutions.

The introduction of research impact to the Research Excellence Framework 2014 prompted significant consternation in the academic community at the time. For some it was perceived as an erosion of academic freedom and increased government control of research agendas. However, a cautious optimism has been evident in some quarters on the potential to broaden the concept of research excellence in a constructive way. The Million+ group, in its response to the Stern Review consultation, indicated that the process would be ‘valuable even if no funding decisions were associated’. The importance of this policy formulation is emphasised by newer universities in recognising and supporting a broader range of applied and translational research, and increased attention paid to delivering on universities’ civic duties. Even more telling is the recently announced decision by Hefce to increase the weighting of impact from 20% in 2014 to 25% in 2021.

So, how do higher education leaders and managers make strategic decisions on how to identify, nurture and select impact examples from research? And how could the Leadership Foundation contribute?

Tunnel vision

Research conducted by Watermeyer & Hedgcoe mid-way through the last REF cycle (2009-2014) highlighted local responses to impact policy in research-intensive institutions. They observed a tendency to frame impact around the activities of individual (and commonly senior-level) academics which can affect the level of resources and support available for earlier career academics in impact-related activities. Watermeyer also identified a tendency among academics to interpret impact in relation to interactions with government, reflecting ‘a rather one-dimensional form of impact as emergent from interactions with a singular research beneficiary/user’. For example policymakers, who are only one specific type of beneficiary from academic research, overlooking industry, public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as the higher education sector itself.

Panoramic view

What is needed is a more critical debate around what impact means, how it can be supported and how broadening the definitions, mechanisms and support for impact planning can ultimately enhance research impact for public and institutional good. The Leadership Foundation has published research on a data mining exercise of impact from REF case studies on leadership, governance and management, which has informed the development of a toolkit. The toolkit aims to assist research leaders, managers and individual researchers to develop an embedded and strategic approach to research impact, covering a broad spectrum of impact areas to enable different staff groups and stakeholders to coordinate their approach to impact. One such tool (Tool 8, Anticipating the horizon of possible benefits) stimulates thinking about where impact might occur across a whole spectrum of categories – from Culture to Policy, and Technology to Environment – and uses prompt questions to discern the nature of such potential impact.

Analysis of the 46 impact case studies in my area of higher education -focused educational research demonstrated greater diversity of impact activities than anticipated by earlier research. There is only limited information in the public domain on those studies which achieved 3 and 4* but, of the case studies where grading can be determined, several reflected pedagogic research and impact strategies aimed at broader policy communities.

Why the narrow face?

To understand this better, I have interviewed academics who have suggested that instead of a broad interpretation of impact, a more formulaic response to impact was described in many cases which seemed to prioritise particular forms of research (based on prevailing hierarchies of research reputation) and effectively narrow the parameters of national REF impact policy:

My university wants impact supported only by 3 or 4 star research – I think that’s a mistake. 

Several interviewees, in senior academic positions, reflected on the advice they were inclined to pass on to early career researchers; effectively to advise against pursuing particular forms of research, such as research conducted with policy communities rather than policy makers. The disenchantment expressed was troubling and reflected largely negative experiences of local management of REF impact policy:

So we’ve got this mad game playing now where you start to decide what is and what isn’t impact in quite draconian ways…  so they’re already starting to be shaped up and crafted, and then anything else that’s outside those case studies, whether it has impact or not, it doesn’t really matter because they’re not important…

Impact leadership to enable

Impact brings a new element to research evaluation policy that gives conceptual and managerial space for interpretation. The Leadership Foundation 2014 report ‘Academic leadership: changing conceptions, identities and experiences in UK higher education’ emphasises the qualities of management and leadership sought by the academic community: of enabling environments which can nurture the next generation of researchers; fostering academic citizenship and reflecting different ways of making a contribution. Potentially, impact can value a broader range of research activities and give recognition to different types of research contribution. In the Research Leader’s Impact Toolkit, emphasis is placed upon the importance of understanding context, engagement and collaboration at an institutional and research team level.

However, the formulaic and normative interpretations of REF impact policy identified in several organisational contexts suggest that impact policy is having a limiting rather than enabling effect. There are clear challenges but also opportunities at organisational level in responding to this indicator constructively and in defining institutional policy responses which foster inclusion rather than exclusion within the academic community.

As highlighted in my study, in some organisations impact policy is being interpreted in ways that resonate with, and build upon, academics’ research practices in departmental and faculty contexts:

I actually became quite a fan. I thought it was something significant and important and it brought to light some of the research people were doing that was having really significant effect in people’s lives […]  That kind of research hasn’t necessarily been valued.

Having a critical debate to develop and define local impact policies and practices, from the strategic to the operational, can be an important first step in this journey – and resources like the Research Leader’s Impact Toolkit will be a valuable companion.

Catherine O’Connell is a Lecturer in Education Studies at the Centre for Education and Policy Analysis, Liverpool Hope University.

Find out more about our Research Leader’s Impact Toolkit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/RIT

Download Dr Elizabeth Morrow’s report on The Impact of Higher Education Leadership, Governance and Management Research: Mining the 2014 Research Excellence Framework Impact Case Studies: www.lfhe.ac.uk/Morrow5.2

Bringing something to the (coffee) table: the mutual benefits of sponsorship

Participants on the Diversifying Leadership Programme are assigned a career sponsor. In this post, programme director Jannett Morgan reflects an early sponsorship encounter.

When a senior leader invited me to “go for a coffee”, little did I know it would be the beginning of a fruitful and long-lasting sponsorship relationship. I met “Kevin” (not his real name) many years ago while on a career development programme for aspiring BME leaders. I was a young(ish) ambitious manager in a successful further education college and highly respected by my colleagues. Kevin was one of the keynote speakers, clearly someone with clout in the sector. And unbeknown to me, I was on Kevin’s radar, hence the coffee invitation.

We would meet up every once in awhile in the foyer of a local hotel. While our meetings were informal in nature, there was always an underlying business brief. I learned to appreciate Kevin’s directness and his desire to discover what made me tick. At first glance one might think a white male and black female had little in common, but our love of family, passion for teaching and belief in social justice revealed similar values. The fact I’m a Spurs fan and he supports that other North London team could have been a deal breaker but we’ve managed to work through this. So far.

As our relationship evolved, Kevin began inviting me to senior-level business meetings and (knowing I was someone who could deliver results) putting my name forward for work. He also invited me to leaving drinks and other social functions – a fascinating study of how leaders behave when off duty.

Sponsorship is not mentorship

Back then I’d not heard the term ‘sponsor’ applied in this way. Mentoring is one of, if not the most favoured development activities offered to BME and other minority ethnic staff groups. Certainly, mentoring from a senior member of staff can be effective in terms of boosting confidence and career upskilling –  a bit like having your own personal Master Yoda at work. So what’s the difference? Sponsorship can be more of a career game changer than mentorship because the sponsor uses his (or her – usually his) influence and power to open doors for you. For me, the spoils of sponsorship to date include visibility, more lucrative contracts and access to a much wider network of associates.

BME staff tend to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. And yet, a study by the Center for Talent Innovation found employees from ethnic minorities who had sponsors were two-thirds more likely than their unsponsored peers to be satisfied with their career progression rate. Sponsorship doesn’t just benefit the protégé, either. What’s in it for the sponsor? Well, Kevin’s interest in me wasn’t based on altruism; the return on his ‘investment’ in me was my technical expertise, cultural capital and operational capacity. Most of all, he knew I was a loyal and trustworthy colleague.

For this reason, participants on the Diversifying Leadership Programme have the opportunity to work with a sponsor and develop a mutually rewarding ‘quid pro quo’ relationship. Like the one I continue to enjoy with Kevin.

Actually, Kevin and I are due another coffee very soon. Given Spurs are ahead in the table, I guess I’m buying.

The Leadership Foundation has published a Sponsor Toolkit for use by senior leaders in UK higher education who are sponsoring participants on the Diversifying Leadership. Diversifying Leadership offers targeted leadership development support to early career BME academics and professional services staff.  The Sponsor Toolkit is available at www.lfhe.ac.uk/DLSponsorToolkit

For details of the next run of the Diversifying Leadership Programme click here

Challenges facing good governance

We are delighted to have launched our 2017-18 governance year with a joint event with HEPI, the leading policy institute of higher education in the UK. In this blog post we provide a summary of the debate on the challenges facing good governance that took place last month, which included contributions from governors and governance specialists from within and outside of higher education.

Following adverse comments in the press on its leadership and speculation about changes to the future funding of the English higher education system, the panel session organised by the Leadership Foundation and Higher Education Policy Institute on the challenges facing good governance in higher education proved timely.

The panel brought together individuals working in higher education, those who had chaired and served on governing bodies and those involved with regulation and governance in other sectors of the economy. Panel members offered different perspectives on higher education governance, noting areas of strength, but also highlighting aspects of governance that needed attention.

The context of the discussion was the scale of change facing institutions. ‘Winners’ and ‘losers’ were emerging from competition for students and funding. Balancing the academic and business aspects of running an institution had become more challenging. A dynamic environment made conventional five-year strategic plans a thing of the past. The changes were placing greater demands on governing bodies, changing the manner in which they needed to operate.

Central to good governance was the relationship between the head of the institution and the executive team and the governing body. A culture of openness and trust, was needed to encourage governors to act as ‘critical friends’; able to question and support the institution’s leadership as appropriate. There should be ‘no surprises’. The role of governors was summed-up as ‘noses in; hands out’.

Good governance meant that it was insufficient to focus on structure: attention needs to be paid to processes. In this context, it was important to examine how governance really operated, and not how it was described on paper.

Engagement of the governing body with the institution was critical: ‘lazy’ governance should be avoided. Governors need to hear about issues, while being mindful that the actions to address any issues raised would normally fall to the executive. Effective engagement might mean, for example, participating in staff and student forums held outside of the formal meetings of the governing body. Similarly, in the reverse direction, academic staff might need to be educated about the work of the governing body and its members. Each needed to understand the other.

The composition and orientation of a governing body was key to underpinning effective governance. As governing bodies were now expected to seek assurance about academic governance, the need to have lay governors with an understanding of the higher education sector had grown. Equally, it was important to have members who would forensically examine matters in great detail (e.g. in relation to matters of audit and compliance) as well as individuals who had a deep understanding of finance. Similarly, a governing body should have individuals amongst its membership who had a creative mindset, thereby helping to avoid a governing body becoming overly risk-adverse.

Governors must be able to demonstrate that they are competent in discharging their responsibilities. There should be a process of governor evaluation allowing a conversation between, say, an independent governor and the chair of the governing body to take place at regular intervals. Where a governor was unable to contribute effectively, the individual should be asked to step-down from the governing body.

Chairs and heads of institutions should discuss and agree how the governance within the institution would operate. Setting the right ‘tone’ in the boardroom was crucial. This could, for example, mean encouraging the executive to share ideas, as part of a process of testing and development, with the governing body at a formative stage, rather putting a chosen and well-developed option to the governing body for endorsement.

There was a high-risk that following the most recent criticism levelled at higher education, the sector would respond in a defensive manner: this would be a mistake. The danger was that the sector ‘feels sorry for itself’. Far better to reflect on the matters raised, consider carefully and then respond. Universities also had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in other sectors, and to avoid making the same mistakes. The observation was made that ‘universities don’t have the right to be silent’. Accountability was an essential part of autonomy. The risk was that if institutions did not take early and effective action, someone else would.

It was noted that in comparison to other professions such as law and medicine, academic staff were in an easier place in relation to professional codes of practice. For these other professions, there were explicit codes of behaviour, and an individual was at risk of facing sanctions if they failed to adhere to them.

An element of radicalism was needed in relation to institutional governance. The following conditions needed to be met:

• Governance needed to be perceived as honest and independent
• The role of a university, including the balance between teaching and research, needed to be made clear
• The processes of governance needed to be sufficiently open and transparent
• ‘Active’ trust needed to be achieved

Critically it was important to invest time into making the board process meaningful.

As one speaker noted, being a governor might be characterised as ‘intelligent people, asking stupid questions’.

David Williams is the editor of the Leadership Foundation’s governance website. We are hosting a major governance conference Governance: Improving Effectiveness for a New Age on Thursday 30 November. To book places for this conference or on our other governance development programmes and events, or to access our governance resources please go to www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance

To find out more about the work of HEPI, and also whether your institution is a member of the HEPI University Partnership Programme (providing advance embargoed access to all HEPI reports and briefing papers), please contact Sarah Isles, s.isles@hepi.ac.uk at HEPI.

Do university leaders really understand how they are creating value in their universities?

In advance of the Leadership Foundation’s announcement of the universities that will be taking part in the new Integrated Thinking and Report project, Kim Ansell, managing consultant, sets out why the time has never been so important for getting to grips with creating and communicating value. 

Setting out long-term plans in the face of sector-wide turbulence is a challenge for every executive team and it is clear that given very recent government policy commitments, many of the assumptions underpinning institutional strategies have to be revisited, even if they were written as recently as a year ago.

These strategies are often being pursued in isolation without a real understanding of the wider risks and potential to destroy rather than create value. At a time when universities are facing ever more scrutiny and public accountability some have started to embrace a new way of thinking and reporting based on the Integrated Reporting Framework. This framework goes further than simply describing an organisation’s financial performance and among other things describes its contribution to society, the environment and its own community and stakeholders.

One of the challenges that universities face is summed up in a recent article on Media FHE by Professor Nick Talbot, deputy vice-chancellor for research and impact at Exeter University, on how higher education can defend itself from critics.  He asserts that, “It is almost as if there were two higher education sectors – the ‘schooly’ bit and the ‘researchy’ bit, which exist as separate islands”.

Although written in the context of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), this remark makes the case perfectly for integrated thinking, and the Leadership Foundation believes that if universities can create a joined-up approach to thinking and reporting, aligned to clear business and value creation models, they will more successfully navigate the journey ahead and overcome barriers to sustainable strategic planning.

In particular, the need to be able to communicate to all stakeholders (from employees and governors to students and strategic partners) that the institution is creating value in the short, medium and long term is critical to leadership success.

With this in mind we are planning to unpack the concept of Integrated Reporting and facilitate the journey; to think about the full range of resources (or capitals), for example:

  • Intellectual Capital
  • Human Capital
  • Social and Relationship Capital
  • Financial Capital
  • Environmental Capital

Understanding the trade-off between such resources when making strategic decisions is something which could be more successful and provide more sustainable outcomes if done in the context of an informed and disciplined approach to integrated thinking.

University leaders need information that assists them in making sense of a complex world and the direction of travel their institution is likely to take. There have been a plethora of articles recently, referring to changing business and financial models in universities, public value and value for money. Equally there continues to be events, conferences and articles ‘talking’ about institutional strategy, but the Leadership Foundation aims to take the talking one step further: to test and evaluate what works and to provide some real examples of how universities can mobilise integrated thinking and reporting to drive value creation and to implement a sustainable and  successful strategy. With the support of an expert steering group, and building on previous work done by British Universities Finance Directors Group, we will consider what universities need to do

In this new work we aim to tackle sensitive issues with objectivity and equip institutions and their governing bodies with the skills, knowledge and insights to be able to evidence and report on holistic value creation and contribution, and provide necessary assurance on this key topic.

The time has never been better for universities to look to integrated thinking and integrated reporting to help them on their journey through these turbulent times in UK higher education.

For more on the Leadership Foundation’s Integrating Thinking and Reporting project visit www.lfhe.ac.uk/IntegratedThinking 

How effective are simulation experiences for leadership development?

One of the most effective techniques we use in our leadership development interventions is to provide leaders with a simulated environment. This challenges them to confront complex, highly interwoven performance management and operational issues. But how effective is this in practice? We spoke with Paul Hessey, Leadership Foundation associate, who leads on this activity on our Leading Departments programme for new heads of department.

How does a simulated environment work?
Based on a very realistic university scenario, this usually involves the programme participants working in groups of six along with three actors who take on the roles of stakeholders and the dean. The simulation is designed to present participants with realistic scenarios they might encounter in their day-to-day work as a head of department. This gives the facilitators the opportunity to help participants’ identify their weaknesses and strengths and enables us to offer guidance and best practice on how to approach difficult situations.

What are the three main benefits of using a simulated environment on a leadership development programme?

  1. Participants are reminded of some simple, robust and powerful theory of influence and learn the skills they need to put that theory into practice in a safe environment.
  2. Reflect and receive tailored feedback on strengths and development opportunities.
  3. Be part of a rich and diverse range of colleagues from both professional service and academic roles, and benefit from observing a wide range of approaches to influencing in action.

Have participants ever surprised you with how they reacted to this type of role playing style activity?
Our approach is more ‘real play’ than ‘role play’ because essentially the participants are experimenting with being themselves in the scenario, rather than taking on a character. In terms of being surprised by how participants react to these activities I am always taken aback by the way participants are committed to a mythical department. They really immerse themselves into the activity and come up with creative ideas and solutions. During a programme’s coaching sessions I found that many participants realised that they want and need to take a more strategic view of their role; in particular delegating more so they can take a step back to better develop and promote their own department through running events and engaging with a pool of stakeholders. These scenarios also increase their awareness of the importance of owning their professional profile and reputation.

What would you say to those who are sceptical about real playing on a leadership development programme?
Real play has an interactive approach which means participants can take a very practical look at how people communicate and influence, and then experiment with different approaches. Real play gives participants the chance to safely assess and practice an expanded range of influencing, management and leadership techniques to help them better engage their own diverse stakeholder base.

Higher education is a very unique sector. In your years of experience of working in different sectors, do you notice any similarities?
Many! People face the same challenges other sectors do in terms of politics and culture. However, in higher education people are perhaps more motivated by their desire to achieve their professional objectives rather than financial incentives. In higher education environments in particular, I’ve noticed that leaders may have less access to organisational benefits and consequences to motivate those around them. They are therefore often seeking to achieve action in their institutions by influencing others without any direct authority or power to demand action. Instead they must find a way to overcome resistance and challenge and encourage staff to buy-in and commit to the mission in a positive way. Many participants have said that they leave the Leading Departments programme feeling more equipped and confident to do exactly that.

Paul Hessey is the programme director for the Leading Departments programme, designed to develop the leadership skills of heads of department. The booking deadline is Friday 6 October, to find out more about Paul or to book onto the programme visit www.lfhe.ac.uk/leaddepts

He is also a facilitator on the Introduction to Head of Department programme for new and aspiring heads of department. The booking deadline is Friday 27 October, to find out more and book visit www.lfhe.ac.uk/ihod

Other Leadership Foundation programmes that use simulated learning environments include:

Top Management Programme: www.lfhe.ac.uk/tmp

Future Professional Directors: www.lfhe.ac.uk/fpd