Leadership development in academia in the UAE: creating a community of learning

ABSTRACT

Leadership development in academia is generating a lot of interest due to its idiosyncrasies and complexities, as well as recent studies highlighting the neglect of systematic leadership development in academia. The purpose of this qualitative research study is to discover the subjective experiences of academic leaders enrolled in leadership development. Following a leadership development program and focus groups, the main finding is that the subjective experience of academics enrolled in leadership development is positive, leading to greater knowledge, self-awareness, self-reflection, and the development of emotional intelligence, leadership styles, and skills in building high performing teams. The subjective experience is shaped by leadership development through experience, communication, and interaction with other leaders in a community of learning. Practical and theoretical implications, together with recommendations, in this study are a source of useful information for higher education institutions recognising the need to nurture the core competency of leadership within their academic cadre.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education institutions
• leadership development
• social constructivist theory
• systemic theory
• community of learning

Introduction

Leadership development in academia is a research topic currently generating a lot of interest, especially due to recent studies highlighting the neglect of systematic leadership development in academia (Haage, Voss, Nguyen, & Eggert, 2021). As a result of such neglect, academic leaders are often not prepared for leadership roles: they experience difficulties making the change from the performance requirements of a professor to those of an efficient leader in a complex higher education environment. Moreover, although there have been some recent studies in the UAE and Gulf states (Kemp et al., 2017; Yaghi, 2021), local academic leadership development is under-researched (Yaghi, 2017). The current study contributes to the contemporary need for further research in the field of leadership development in the higher education sector by exploring the experiences of academics in an intensive leadership development program in the UAE.

The purpose of this exploratory research study is to discover the subjective experiences of academic leaders enrolled in an experiential leadership development program in a higher education institute in the UAE. The research question is: what are the subjective experiences of academics enrolled in a leadership development program?

Universities and higher education institutions recognise the need to nurture the core competency of leadership within their academic cadre. This is part of the corporatisation of universities and the need for trained managers with technology, business acumen, and leadership skills (Zuber-Skerritt & Louw, 2014). Leadership development opportunities are widely available. However, they often fail to reach their objective due to the adoption of a traditional classroom format as opposed to the best practice of experiential learning with the opportunity to apply skills and reflect on one’s action (Tsoh et al., 2019). The context of this research is a higher education institution in the UAE offering academic leaders, spanning from junior to more senior leadership positions, the first systematic provision of leadership development: a 25-hour experiential program, comprising five 5-hour workshops spread over a 7-month period, based on the application of skills and self-reflection. Choice of workshops is based on a needs analysis of the academic leadership cadre. This program is part of the university’s strategic plan designed to develop leadership competencies as well as in line with governmental accreditation requirements. The UAE higher education system is relatively new; however rapidly expanding and very complex sector, made up of federal and public universities along with private foreign institutions (ElKaleh, 2019).

Literature review

Higher education institutions today

Higher education institutions are unique organisations with multiple stakeholders and diverse goals which lead to complex management requirements (Spendlove, 2007). Globalisation, industry needs, cultural shifts, changing technologies, the battle for global rankings, and the volatile disruption of events, not least the pandemic, add to the shifting, wide-ranging and often ambiguous institutional needs (Dinh, Caliskan, & Zhu, 2021; Zhu & Caliskan, 2022).

Within higher education institutions, the complexities deepen. The traditional academic culture of intellectual freedom and autonomy can come into conflict with organisational efficiency and productivity (Altbach, 2014). Furthermore, Altbach (2014) goes on to state that, higher education institutions’ primary goal is that of education: they are a societal, public good. Governmental policies need to be adhered to, while stakeholders of industry, higher management, students, families, teachers and administrators all require their needs to be met (Bradley, 2016), needs which may contradict those of other stakeholders. Leaders in such entities need a diverse range of knowledge, traits, capabilities and experience.

Higher education institution leaders are expected to deploy knowledge, skills and abilities from both academic and business realms (Henkel, 2002). On the one hand, they usually need to have academic specialisations and lengthy research backgrounds alongside an in-depth knowledge of academic administration, student issues and areas such as facilities management (Fumasoli & Stensaker, 2013). On the other hand, business management practices around issues such as data analysis, metrics, human resources, financial decision-making, quality assurance and innovative leadership need to be met in various roles (Altbach, 2014; Spendlove, 2007). The challenge is how we get leaders with such extensive and wide-ranging skills.

The need for academic leadership development

There is a significant need for leadership development in higher education institutions (Butler, 2020; Hiasat, 2020; Komives & Sowcik, 2020). Research shows that a common issue is that higher education institution leaders are typically promoted from academia, but have very little managerial or leadership development. There are those too who may be brought in from industry, but with less experience of the academic institutional issues (Altbach, 2014; Bradley, 2016; Mathews, 2018; Rowley & Sherman, 2003).

While research shows that academic leaders learn on the job (Anderson & Johnson, 2006), there are arguments that state that experience in the leadership post is not enough: the complexities and load of the work mean that ‘leadership in higher education can’t be learned on the job but deserves the same course of study that academics have pursued in their own disciplines’ (Mathews, 2018, p. 19). In roles which are often characterised as being time-pressured and bureaucratic (Hare & Hare, 2002), having time and space for leadership development can be challenging(Henkel, 2002). While Spendlove (2007) finds there are very few systematic approaches for identifying or developing leadership in higher education institutions, these needs and challenges have generated a wealth of leadership development modalities.

Systemic leadership development

Systemic leadership development is one approach to leadership development that is well suited to academic organisations in that they are open systems facing various complexities that influence organisational effectiveness. Leadership development from a systemic perspective emphasises the social capital, namely the social relationships and networks within the organisation, collective leadership, and human capital, more specifically the knowledge, skills, and abilities of every individual that lead to the creation of personal, social and economic well-being. Leadership development creates and mobilises human and social capital to contribute to the systemic growth of an organisation (Douglas, Merritt, Roberts, & Watkins, 2021).

Leadership development within a systemic framework leads to greater knowledge sharing, shared goals, and standard frames of reference; relational wealth through organisational social networks7; organisational affinity and effectiveness; coherent employee actions, flowing from shared understanding, organisational citizenship behaviours and maximum productivity (Hitt & Ireland, 2002).

Leadership traits and capability development, emotional intelligence and authentic leadership, communication, and systemic thinking are the foundation of the leadership development program referred to in this study that explores the subjective experiences of leaders in leadership development. The delivery models selected for such a development program are the experiential and social learning models that form part of the social constructivist theoretical framework, which is the concluding section of this literature review.

Experiential learning

Another approach to leadership development is experiential learning which means a chance for leaders to actively connect real-world to simulated experiences and in-course studies. Leaders bring in their own experiences as well as working on case-studies, role-plays and simulations. Reflection is a key part of the trainee’s personal development which leads onto experimentation after leadership development (Kolb, 2014). Experiential learning allows for deeper connections between theory and practice (Valiente-Riedl, Anderson, & Banki, 2021) and makes space for reflexivity: critical questioning of assumptions and beliefs of old and new knowledge, culminating in learning how to lead more effectively. A research study of Swedish managers who had completed an experiential leadership skills course found that subordinates reported an improvement in developmental leadership from their manager following completion of the course. One of these areas is the provision of effective feedback (Sandahl, Larsson, Lundin, & Söderhjelm, 2019).

Experiential learning has been seen as one way to develop leadership skills, including feedback skills (Huggins, Klar, & Andreoli, 2021). Effective feedback can improve individual and team motivation and engagement (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2012). Furthermore, research shows a strong link between feedback and appraisals in terms of job security (Komendat & Didona, 2016). On the other hand, getting feedback wrong, or toxic feedback focusing on negative performance, can be demotivating and disengaging for teams (Besieux, 2017). Organisations often assume giving feedback is intuitive, but research shows that managers are not comfortable with how to deliver effective feedback (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2012; Besieux, 2017). Effective feedback and experiential learning lend themselves well with social learning.

Social learning

While leadership development could be considered from an individualistic perspective, as the nurturing of the individual person and their skills which are then applied to the role and the institution, an alternative perspective is possible. Leadership development can be understood as a social process or community practice (Spendlove, 2007). If this understanding is applied, then every organisational member is a potential leader and leadership itself is a collaborative effort by members. Instead of developing individual leaders, social or collaborative leadership development focuses on the ‘social capital of organisations’ (Spendlove, 2007, p. 409). When leadership development is understood as a social process, the means and content of development can broaden.

Peer support as a means of social learning is a growing area of leadership development. In a study on leadership transfer by academic managers in public universities, Yaghi and Bates (2020) found that when academic managers transfer leadership development, peer support has a stronger motivational impact than manager support. They recommend that organisations should nurture cooperative learning environments where knowledge can transfer horizontally as well as vertically. This holistically social approach can have a profound impact on the effectiveness and impact of leadership development. It also leads to socially interactive development content.

Crossing social learning with trait development, there is a variety of socially-oriented content to focus on in higher education institution leadership development. For example, Belbin (2010) defined behaviours into related clusters, or nine team-role typologies. Although the individual does learn about themselves, Belbin’s (2010) focus is on the social process: team performance, learning about colleagues and how to optimise social interactions. Social learning, as a means of leadership development and as content, is of critical importance to cascade to higher education institution contexts.

The need for leadership development for the complex role of the higher education institution leader is great and there are a wide variety of individual and mixed modality development on offer. Mixed modalities of development work, which focus on social processes, experiential learning and systemic thinking, led to this study’s theoretical framework of social constructivism.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of this research study is social constructivist learning theory. Terrell and Rosenbusch (2013) explain how leaders develop from experience and through communication and interaction with other leaders in their same organisation. Social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1987) remains a leading educational philosophy that places emphasis on the individual as an active learner who constructs new understandings and interpretations from existing information and through social interaction (Qureshi, Khaskheli, Quershi, Raza, & Yousufi, 2021). Reflective dialogue, engaging in sense-making, processing and analysing one’s own experiences, solving problems that result from one’s own experience, are all referred to by Terrell and Rosenbusch (2013) as enhancers of leadership development. In a recent study on leadership development in organisations, McCauley and Palus (2021) refer to the specific field of academic leadership and how leadership development in this field is taking on a more collective approach leading to communities of practice and whole-systems-in-the-room processes, using the systemic perspective referred to above.

Within this framework leadership development exists within the experience of leaders themselves which is in turn socially constructed. Leadership development is not a fixed body of knowledge that is detached from the experiences of leaders (Terrell & Rosenbusch, 2013). As will be further elaborated upon in the methodology section of this research study, research within this theoretical framework neither seeks objective answers nor tests pre-established hypothesis. Research within this theoretical framework solicits the descriptions of participants of their experience of leadership development and how such experiences are translated into their day to day lived experiences.

Within the structure of the social constructivist learning framework, this study focuses on four main areas: self and other- development; development by means of experiential and social learning; and building of communities of practice. Self and other-development encapsulate awareness, interaction and optimisation of traits, knowledge and capabilities in one’s own self and others which includes authentic leadership, emotional intelligence, systemic development and development of teams. Experiential learning centres on learning through active experience, both real and simulated, reflection and reflexivity, and problem-solving. Social learning looks at the interactivity of leadership development, collaboration, peer-learning and communication. Communities of practice is the nurturing of ecosystems of learning and support through formal and informal channels.

Methodology

This research study adopts an interpretivist approach in unveiling the subjective experiences of academic leaders participating in a leadership development program. The chosen qualitative methodology is that of ethnography, whereby the researchers interact with participants in focus groups to understand the subjective experiences of academics, whereby the researchers are the instruments for data gathering and analysis (Berryman, 2019). Findings of this study are transferrable, however not generalisable.

Participants

30 participants were randomly selected from a population of 145 academics in leadership positions that attended a 25-hour leadership program, consisting of 5 workshops of 5-hours each spread over a 7-month period (online supplement Table 1A). 138 leaders completed the full program. Participants are a mix of academic leaders holding the positions of heads of department, chairs of curriculum and deans of academic operations. Participants received a calendar invite to the focus groups and were replaced using random sampling when they declined the invitation to attend.

Table 1. Themes and sub themes.

Themes	Sub-themes
Preparation for leadership roles	Reflection
	Knowledge
	Experiential learning
Core leadership competencies	Building high performing teams
	Communication
	Team-roles
	Self-awareness
	Confidence
	Creativity
	Analytic skills
Leadership styles	Self-awareness
	Self-reflection
Emotional Intelligence	Benefits
	Challenges
Social constructivist perspective	Community of learning
	Constructing Knowledge
Recommendations	Longer term
	Hard Skills
	Individual coaching
	External guest speakers
	Inter-departmental

The invitation specified the aim of the research study, group confidentiality, and the use of materials derived from the focus groups. Participants were informed that the recordings of the focus group would only be used for the purpose of the study and would be deleted following publication of the study. Their identity and the identity of the institution they form part of would not be disclosed or hinted at throughout the reporting of the data and the entire study.

Procedure

Over a period of 7 months, 145 academic leaders attended a mandatory leadership development program (25-hour experiential program, consisting of 5 workshops of 5-hours each with recommended reading in between workshops). The overall goal was to provide academic leaders with personal and professional development in the areas of self-leadership and leading others in the specific context of the higher education institution they form part of. Table 1A (online supplement) outlines the title of each workshop in the program together with the specific objectives.

Workshops adopted an experiential and collaborative learning approach. The emphasis was not on imparting information but on creating a reflective space to construct knowledge with others through experience and by reflecting on one’s own experience. Workshops were built on the concept of creating a community of learning in which participants would share their tacit knowledge, learn from each other, and construct knowledge as a community.

Following all five workshops, three focus groups, with 10 participants in each group, were held to gather data for the purpose of this study. All groups followed the same focus group protocol. The following 4 questions were identified prior to the start of the focus groups:

1. You recently attended a leadership development program. Can you share your overall experience in the program? How has your leadership changed following this program?

2. The program covered these different learning areas: Self-awareness and leadership interdependence, Purposeful Feedback to enhance performance, Emotionally Intelligent and authentic leadership, Building and leading high-performing teams, and Effective communication. Which learning area or areas impacted you the most? Can you share a specific example of how you applied what you have learnt?

3. In your opinion, did this program contribute to the development of a community of learning amongst other academic leaders? If, so, in what ways? If not, what are the reasons?

4. Would you recommend this format for leadership development? Elaborate on your reply.

At the start of every focus group, participants were welcomed, the purpose was explained, and introductions of all participants were made. Emphasis was placed on group confidentiality and the confidentiality of data derived from such focus groups. The anonymity of all reported data was reiterated. Focus groups were recorded for the purpose of data analysis and are to be deleted following publication of the research study. At the end of the focus groups participants were thanked and researchers explained how the data would be analysed, reported and shared.

Data gathering and analysis

The three focus groups were facilitated by two researchers for each group who independently conducted a thematic analysis of findings. In the results section that follows, an account is given of the findings from all three focus groups. The italicised text are direct quotations from participants.

In increasing the trustworthiness and rigour of this qualitative research study, a course survey was circulated amongst all 145 leadership development participants. The aim of the course survey was to request feedback from participants on their subjective experience in the leadership development program. It was administered straight after the completion of the fifth and final workshop (online supplement Table 1A). Confidentiality was ensured in that the survey was anonymous and administered online. This survey tool provided researchers with an opportunity for triangulation in confirming that this research study accurately reflects the subjective experiences of participants and that there are no biases arising from the sole use of focus groups.

Results

The results of the focus groups and the satisfaction survey are discussed sequentially. All quotes are taken from the focus groups.

Following the three focus groups, led by the researchers of this study, the content was transcribed, research notes were shared, and the content analysed individually by all researchers to ensure rigour, and trustworthiness, in the data analysis. This led to a discussion on the common and main themes of the focus groups. Researchers came to a common understanding that the following were the five main themes that emerged from the collected data: preparation for leadership roles; core leadership competencies; leadership styles; emotional intelligence; the social constructivist perspective. The corresponding sub-themes are outlined in Table 1.

Leadership development as preparation for leadership roles in academia was a key theme throughout the focus groups. The experience of leadership development was described as empowering by many participants in a leadership role. Being part of the leadership development program was defined as an opportunity to create a network of support among colleagues:

‘We created a good network of support where best practices were shared, it was all so empowering’

The time, space and focus to reflect on one’s strategies was another theme:

‘I was practicing most of these before attending the sessions. However, attending the sessions has made me more self-aware, and also helped me assess my behaviour and its impact’.

While gaining a better understanding of one’s leadership, acquiring new knowledge and new ideas were stated by participants:

‘We received new knowledge and new direction’.

These comments on the leadership development program should also be seen in the context of being some of the first physical face to face development many of them have had in almost two years. The general consensus was that meeting face-to-face for the first time since the start of the pandemic, and in some cases, ever, was incredibly powerful:

‘I especially enjoyed gathering with the team after two years of online meetings … we shared experiences … my campus experiences are almost the same as every other campus’.

The preferred mode of development described by participants as preparation for their leadership role in academia is the experiential type:

‘Role plays were highly effective’.

Participants in this leadership development program spoke about learning through the actual experience of listening to each other and communicating with other leaders in the process of the five workshops, as well as working through hands-on activities as a team of leaders:

‘[it was] … a moment to connect with others in a productive way’.

Learning in a community setting of people sharing the same organisational context and therefore culture was a powerful experience. The social constructivist perspective within the leadership development program was well-noted by participants. Participants used words like team-building in describing an outcome of the leadership development program emphasising the importance of leadership development in building a community of learning:

‘Leadership development helped build a safety net of support and trustful relationships; I like discussions related to our own work with other academics and leaders’;

‘It was a network more than a PD’;

‘It engaged me socially and cognitively’;

‘It had all elements of community learning’.

The opportunity to first get to know each other and then reflect on one’s leadership was a common experience that led to the building of new knowledge:s

‘… connecting with other people, and talking about real situations on the ground and sharing real experiences, and also, I think it kind of was like a counselling session’;

The biggest benefit I got was connecting with other people, and talking about real situations on the ground and sharing real experiences. Everyone is sharing ideas and you realise that there are similar things going on and people have solved them in different ways, different practical ways, and they share those practical ideas.

Resolving difficulties through connection was also described:

‘You see things from the other’s perspective … you wonder why decisions have been made … but when you start to communicate with those people, you might be able to understand their perspective’.

Participants also described the leadership development as an opportunity for peer tutoring highlighting the importance of constructing knowledge as a group of leaders:

‘Discussion and storytelling activated an atmosphere for debate and learning’;‘ … personal experiences that people share along with solutions, I can’t tell you how many notes I took, aside from the actual formal, logical content, because people were very open about sharing their experience and sharing the successes that they’d had. They also talked about things that didn’t work so well, again, a learning experience, I think, for all of us’;

‘The tools and activities really helped develop a community of learning’.

Participants who were newer in their leadership roles found the program extremely beneficial in preparing for leadership. One participant with just over a year’s experience noted that alongside learning from each other, the skills they learned were new to them. A more experienced leader supported this:

‘I think it’s super useful for new managers, once they have had some experience’.

Leadership development has at its core the building of essential leadership competencies. Building high performing teams is a core leadership competency that participants mentioned as being very useful in their leadership development experience. Recognising and working with different team roles was also mentioned by participants as a helpful tool in their bag of tools acquired on this program. Practical activities during the actual workshops with the aim of identifying team roles and reflecting on one’s practice were described as insightful.

Another leadership competence that was mentioned was communication with a particular emphasis on listening:

‘Active listening and giving feedback were very relevant to my day-to-day work’.

Giving purposeful feedback to engage people was also specifically mentioned as a helpful communication competence that was learnt in the program. A participant gave an example of using feedback skills learnt in the program to work with a colleague who engages in negative thinking affecting the team. Another communication competence highlighted by participants is listening. The value of listening in leadership was also practiced during the actual leadership development program.

Other competencies acquired included self-awareness:

‘It’s made me more self-aware about how I act, how I can help the team, how we can help the students’

Alongside this were confidence, creativity and analytical skills:

‘I learned to make decisions and act by taking time to look at all aspects of the issue’.

Together with leadership competencies, leadership development also addresses the important topic of leadership styles. Participants commented how leadership development helps in understanding how theory and real life practice relate to each other. Reviewing and reflecting on one’s leadership styles was commented upon as helpful:

‘It helped me to identify and improve my leadership style in particular because I hadn’t given it a lot of thought before we participated in the modules’.

Bringing real life to the workshops, reflecting on one’s experiences of leadership styles as opposed to simply relying on explicit knowledge was referred to as a helpful tool in their leadership development:

‘It was so real and not detached from our reality’.

Following the leadership development program, participants noted an increased awareness of the time and place when specific leadership styles may be adopted following the leadership development program.

Emotional Intelligence was a key theme throughout the leadership development program. It was mentioned by participants as a key element in leadership development:

‘The session on Emotional Intelligence and authentic leadership helped me to realise areas of improvement that I need to address’.

The strengths of being an emotionally intelligent leader, such as trust-building, acquired as a result of the leadership development program, were addressed. However there were also pitfalls. For example, participants shared experiences of when their empathy may have been misinterpreted as sympathy or softness. Participants also mentioned the importance of being emotionally intelligent as well as learning to build boundaries; leadership development helped them both in being emotionally intelligent and in recognising their own boundaries, and those of the institution they work for.

Participants spoke about the insights gained during the leadership development program on being authentic and transparent in generating trust.

In concluding the focus groups, participants had the opportunity to make their recommendations. Participants mentioned that, although they felt some impact from the leadership development, they really needed more time and measures to monitor the impact alongside longer-term development:

‘ … a course which will take a year and a half’;

‘Leadership development and feedback should be downward and upward … .we need to see the impact of the program on ourselves, our teams, and our bosses, then we can develop’.

There were requests and suggestions for more soft skills and hard skills development, such as strategic planning. Also, individual coaching and interdepartmental leadership development were brought up:

‘ … cross campus, inter and intra departmental. Engage administration, student life, facilities’;

‘Coaching would be really beneficial for us’.

Other ways to develop the leadership development involved including external guest speakers:

‘We could elaborate on what the guest speaker brings us and we may end up with contextualised leadership framework relevant to our institution’.

Course satisfaction survey results

The above results were corroborated by the findings from the surveys (Table 2) completed by 138 participants (the actual number of participants who completed all the leadership development program). Survey findings confirm the overall positive experience of participants, the usefulness of its contents, the applicability to one’s context, and the need for such development.

Table 2. Course satisfaction survey results (n = 138).

Survey item	Strongly Agree	Agree	No Opinion	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
I was overall satisfied with the course	43.6%	43.6%	10%	0.9%	1.8%
I was overall satisfied with the instructor of this course	46.4%	45.5%	6.4%	0.9%	0.9%
This content of this course was appropriate in terms of my teaching context.	42.7%	38.2%	13.6%	4.5%	0.9%
The course was organised and easy to follow or navigate.	52.7%	38.2%	9.1%	0.0%	0.0%
I learned something useful that can be applied in my position during this course.	49.1%	39.1%	10%	1.8%	0.0%
I was able to seek help from the instructor(s) when I needed it.	52.7%	39.1%	8.2%	0.0%	0.0%
I would recommend this course to my colleagues.	45.5%	37.3%	14.5%	2.7%	0.0%

In the next section of this article the findings will be compared to previous literature on leadership development. The practical as well as theoretical implications of this study will also be discussed.

Discussion

This research study set out to explore the subjective experiences of academics enrolled in leadership development. The main finding is that the subjective experience of academics enrolled in leadership development is positive, leading to greater knowledge, self-awareness, self-reflection, and the development of emotional intelligence, leadership styles, and skills in building high performing teams. The positive subjective experience is shaped by leadership development through experience, communication, and interaction with other leaders in a community of learning.

Social constructivism in leadership

The leadership development program was designed within a social constructivist framework. The influence of this framework is reflected in the participants’ subjective experiences as they refer to: learning through social interaction with other leaders; experiential learning; reflection; analysing one’s own experience and that of others; and communities of learning. These are all characteristics of the social constructivist framework (Spendlove, 2007; Vygotsky, 1987); Terrell and Rosenbusch (2013); Qureshi, Khaskheli, Quershi, Raza, and Yousufi (2021).

The findings of this study on leadership development as a collective activity whereby participants learn from and with each other is similar to the findings of Yaghi and Bates (2020) who write about the need for cooperative learning environments, the horizontal transfer of knowledge, and the holistic social approach to leadership development. This philosophy is also shared by the participants in this study who refer to leadership development as peer tutoring, peer counselling, and a community of learning.

Systemic leadership

The research results not only fit the social constructivist framework, but also fit a systemic leadership development framework. A systemic leadership development framework places emphasis on the mobilisation of social capital to generate knowledge sharing, shared goals and standard frames of reference (Salajegheh & Pirmoradi, 2013; Douglas, Merritt, Roberts, & Watkins, 2021). Research results show that the experience of leaders in leadership development is that the latter is effective when built within a social network of leaders, who represent different but interrelated systems within an organisation, and upon the sharing of goals and experience, finding leverage on building relational ties and affinity across the interrelated leaders. Participants in this study believe that their senior leaders and those aspiring to be leaders would also benefit from leadership development, and this would enhance organisational outcomes.

Other similarities may be drawn between the findings in this study and those of previous studies. In the literature, leadership development is referred to as an opportunity to self-reflect, self-regulate and optimise one’s skills within one’s specific context (Haage, Voss, Nguyen, & Eggert, 2021). This resonates well with the findings of this study, in which participants recount their experiences referring to self-reflection and the optimisation of skills within their institutional context. Skills, such as empathy (Dinh, Caliskan, & Zhu, 2021) and communication (Montgomery, 2020), are not only found in the literature but are also mentioned by participants as gains resulting from academic leadership development. Many of these skill fall under the wider umbrella of emotional intelligence which is referred to by Parrish (2015) and participants in this research study as crucial for leadership development.

Practical implications

The data from this research study reveals several practical implications worthy of future study. Firstly, this research study reveals that emotional intelligence was a key component of the participants’ leadership development. An area that deserves immediate attention is to explore the opportunities that exist for academic leaders to develop their empathy levels and build trust within their contextual boundaries. There is a deficit of information on how academic leaders can develop their authentic selves and how to employ a transparent approach in their leadership style which was an area that participants have mentioned they gained knowledge on.

Secondly, providing further leadership development and alternative modes of support could help support academic leaders as they transition into their leadership roles. Participants in this research study shared that further longer-term development programs are needed. Being part of a professional learning community helps develop leadership core competencies and offers opportunities for further interdependence among academic leaders.

Thirdly, providing a calendar of events for the community of academic leaders could be considered. Several participants in this study shared that they would like to have external speakers as part of the leadership development. This may not be possible during the actual leadership development program that was offered; however, as part of building a sense of community and membership incentive in the suggested social platform, participants could have access to an annual events calendar that includes webinars from invited guest speakers.

At the heart of this study is a need for the development of academic leadership approaches that are contextualised to the institutional needs. The key is in the continuous development of leadership styles in a way that makes academic leadership interdependent, transparent, and aligned with the best practices available globally.

Theoretical implications

In addition to the practical implications, this research study has also revealed several theoretical implications. The theoretical framework for this study was grounded in the social constructivist paradigm and experiential learning. Through social constructivism and experiential learning, participants in this study had opportunities to experiment with self and other development of leadership opportunities. The data from this study revealed that participants enjoyed the experiential learning and appreciated the hands-on activities. However, a theoretical implication of the social constructivist paradigm depends on prior knowledge and strong social interactions. Focus group interviews revealed that participants had varying levels of prior knowledge of the topics. In some topics, participants with less experience reported that they had less prior knowledge. Although the results did not show any difficulties for participants, this could potentially lead to a sense of embarrassment or poor collaboration if not facilitated well.

This challenge poses a dilemma for the leadership development program facilitators in this research study who implement the social constructivist approach. To make collaborative activities more accessible, problem-based learning could be added to the theoretical framework. Some participants shared in the focus group interviews that real case studies from their contexts could be added which could enhance the socio-constructivist approach applied in this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, academic leadership development, within a social constructivist and systemic framework, positively impacts the subjective experiences of academic leaders leading to increased leadership knowledge and competencies. Amongst these competencies are: building high performing teams; communication; purposeful feedback; empathy; listening; self-awareness; self-reflection; confidence, creativity; analytical skills; authenticity; and transparency.

These conclusions may be drawn with due attention to the limitations of this study which centre mainly on the subjective nature of the narratives of academic leaders. In addition, in studies using a methodology similar to the current study the subjective interpretations of the researcher may also pose a threat to the trustworthiness of data collected. To minimise such bias, data collection and interpretation was owned and carried out by all the researcher team till common understandings were reached. A further limitation of this study is that whilst the focus groups adopt a purely qualitative approach, the course survey adopts a purely quantitative approach not allowing room for correlation. In future studies it is recommended to include qualitative data collection tools in the course survey to allow for comparisons to be made to the data collected in the focus groups.

The main recommendation from this research study is for higher education institutions to introduce academic leadership programs that equally emphasise the human capital, social capital, and collective leadership. The approach to adopt is one in which a community of leaders bring in their own experiences, as well as work on case-studies, role-plays and simulations. Such development needs to be a social practice that allows for reflexivity, effective feedback, peer support and co-operative learning.

The higher education institute which initiated and supported this leadership development program has made great strides to facilitate the development of its leaders. The provision of the program has positively impacted the leaders involved. However, the research did not examine the systems in which they lead: this was beyond the scope of the research question. Therefore, another area of further research could be investigating the operating systems within which leaders work and exploring organisational ways to promote and optimise space for preparation for leadership, emotional intelligence, competency development, emotional intelligence, a community of practice, and a feedback cycle.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).