(Dis)continuities in academic middle management career trajectories: a longitudinal qualitative study

ABSTRACT

Department heads are central in the university setting as an important buffer between university leadership and academic staff. However, taking on a middle management role can lead to significant disruptions in academic careers. To investigate the career trajectories of 31 academics in middle management roles, two waves of semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2015–16 (N = 31) and 2021 (N = 26). By exploring (dis)continuity in academic careers and (dis)engagement with participants’ managerial roles, we identified four types of trajectories that appeared to influence participants’ possibilities of future academic career development. We labelled these trajectories as follows: temporary managers, early managers, duty-served senior managers, and acclaimed managers. We argue that temporary managers, who are appointed to a fixed-term managerial position early in their academic careers, face the highest risk of disruptions in their academic career development, while duty-served senior managers, who are appointed to a fixed-term managerial position later in their careers, represent the most sustainable group.

KEYWORDS:

• Leadership
• higher education
• academic careers
• academic managers
• academic development

Introduction

The quality of middle management, which is typically represented by department heads, is crucial to the effective functioning of a university (Creaton & Heard-Lauréote, 2021). While higher-level managers, such as deans, are focused on administration (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004), department heads remain embedded in the professional community. As player-managers (Dearlove, 1998), who function as both academic managers and managed academics (Winter, 2009), they must balance their academic responsibilities with their managerial responsibilities, and their managerial power is linked to their academic credibility (Bryman, 2007). The underlying assumption is that members of strong professional groups, such as academics, demand that their managers be drawn from the group itself (Pekkola et al., 2018). This claim is corroborated by the fact that effective leadership often stems from leaders’ prototypicality (Haslam et al., 2020). This applies to the situation of department heads, who typically view themselves either exclusively or partly as academics and only rarely as managers (Gmelch, 2016).

In recent decades, academic middle managers have taken on more complex responsibilities (Meek et al., 2010). One reason for this shift is that they play a mediating ‘sandwich’ role (Gjerde & Alvesson, 2019) or serve as ‘conduits’ (Gonaim, 2016) who link academics to the upper administration. As the expansion of higher education continues and the corresponding constraints on financial efficiency intensify, it becomes increasingly challenging to balance the expectations of different constituencies (Berdrow, 2010). Universities gradually become ‘complete organisations’ (Seeber et al., 2015); loose coupling is replaced by tight coupling, decisions are increasingly centralised at the level of top management, and the impact of collegial, bottom-up decision-making is weakened (Rowlands, 2020).

This increasing pressure to develop more professional management has also changed the expectations of department heads. Their responsibilities have become more diverse, and their need for various skills, such as those related to people management and organisational and administrative processes, that are usually not necessary competencies for teaching or research excellence is increasing. These growing expectations stand in sharp contrast to the fact that the majority of department heads strive to maintain their research profiles (Maddock, 2023). In addition, the formal training they receive is often inadequate (Floyd, 2016), thus making the department head a ‘lifeguard without a life jacket’ (Gonaim, 2016).

Although some researchers have focused on the benefits of the role (e.g., Wald & Golding, 2020), the overall discourse has indicated that the burden of this position is more significant than any possible benefit it could entail (Floyd, 2012). This strain stems from the need to balance multiple work demands on the one hand and the corresponding disruption in the development of one’s academic career on the other. Serving as a department head requires heavy involvement in activities that are not relevant to teaching and research; thus, academics often view this position as a loss or a detour with respect to their desired academic careers. On this subject, Thornton et al. (2018) asked whether the head of department (HoD) position is a ‘holy grail or poison chalice’ and wondered whether newly appointed managers should be congratulated or pitied. Considering these tensions, the tasks of examining the reasons and motivations underlying engagement with such a managerial post and the career trajectories associated with department headship are of particular interest.

Theoretical background: the career trajectories of department heads as academic middle managers

An early study (Carroll, 1991) based on a survey of US department heads identified five factors as exhibiting the most influence on the career trajectories of the target group (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004): demographic characteristics, disciplinary differences, hiring, motivation, and professional identity.

First, demographic factors (such as gender, ethnicity, academic rank, and age) must be taken into account. The role of gender in this context is particularly important, as gender imbalances in academia can affect the individual’s decision to become a department head, with women representing less than 25% of institutional heads in the EU (She figures, 2021). Despite such inequalities, the influence of gendered structures is not reflected among both men and women (O’Connor et al., 2019). Age and academic rank are also important factors, particularly among department heads who are not full professors, and management positions may conflict with individuals’ aspirations for their academic careers (Carroll, 1991).

Second, disciplinary differences also play a role, as different career paths appear to be available in the hard and soft sciences (Carroll, 1991). In the hard sciences, department heads are more often appointed (rather than elected), remain department heads for longer, and frequently move on to managerial careers (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004). These differences may stem from the characteristics and social organisation of these disciplinary communities. For example, hard sciences are associated with greater competition, hierarchy and normativity regarding career paths more often than soft sciences (Becher & Trowler, 2003; Cidlinska & Zilincikova, 2022), which may lead to different appointment and leadership practices (Kekäle, 1999) despite the increasing centralisation of university management. Thus, disciplinary differences may be further enhanced by the level of institutional autonomy exhibited by the faculties in question, which are field-based and may have different internal rules for hiring HoDs that reflect the disciplinary specificities of their career paths.

Third, the type of hiring mechanism in question influences career trajectories. According to Carroll (1991) and Carroll and Wolverton (2004) in administration-oriented hiring systems (i.e., those that feature appointment by the dean), department heads remain in their positions longer than in academic-oriented hiring systems (i.e., systems in which department heads are elected, elected with the approval of the dean, or acquire the position as a duty that is rotated among academics). In the UK before 1992 universities were characterised mainly by an academic-oriented hiring system in which department heads were elected for a 3-year period. These practices resulted in elections that were not fully democratic because of a lack of candidates, in which case managers or academics often needed to convince potential candidates to apply for the position. In contrast, after 1992, universities customarily assigned these positions via permanent appointment, which created a more straightforward process but also led to tensions resulting from external appointments (Smith, 2005).

Fourth, the motivation to become a department head could be extrinsic, resulting from external pressures, and/or intrinsic, resulting from individual motivations (Carroll, 1991); in this context, it appears that individuals who accept the position as a duty tend to hold it for a shorter period (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004). Common reasons for accepting middle management positions include a general sense of duty, the fear that other candidates would be worse managers, the need to protect the academic careers of younger colleagues, or the general lack of other possible candidates. Sometimes a particular career stage or family constellation facilitates such a career move. However, interest in strategic leadership and participation in institutional politics were rarely mentioned by participants (Deem et al., 2007; Preston & Price, 2012). Professors who are promoted to managerial positions generally appear to have little interest in such a career trajectory; their motivation is essentially professional, as they view the position as a way of promoting their academic discipline (Pekkola et al., 2018).

Fifth, professional identity also affects career choices. The link between identity and career trajectories has become particularly important because of increasing managerialisation. Researchers have claimed that managerialism leads to the emergence of practices in universities that undermine the traditional autonomy associated with the academic identity, and middle managers who are drawn from the academic community are expected to implement these practices. For some middle managers, this tension causes an identity schism when their academic identities clash with their managerial identities (Floyd & Dimmock, 2011). To continue to advance their managerial careers, department heads are required to prioritise their management-related roles over their academic roles and to view their professional identities as leaders and managers as an extension of their academic selves.

However, very few department heads emphasised their managerial identities to this degree, and even many academic managers occupying higher positions continue to hold onto their academic identities (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004; Deem et al., 2007). In the 1991 US survey, 43% of respondents described themselves solely as academics, 4% described themselves as administrators (managers), and the remaining 53% described themselves as having a hybrid identity (Carroll, 1991). This survey was repeated in 2016, and the proportion of respondents who indicated a pure administrator identity remained low at 3%. The proportion of respondents who claimed a pure academic identity decreased to 27%, and the proportion of respondents who described themselves as having a hybrid identity increased to 70% (Gmelch et al., 2017).

Several attempts have been made to construct typologies that can capture the identities of HoDs, including predominantly managerial, academic, and hybrid identities. For instance, Deem et al. (2007) proposed the categories of career track managers (managerial), reluctant managers (academic), and good citizens (hybrid). Focusing on the individual’s personal evaluation of the role, Floyd and Dimmock (2011) focused on jugglers, strugglers, and copers. Degn (2014) identified the relevant types as agenda setters, shielders, and coordinators. Interestingly, all these typologies are tripartite, and they exhibit some degree of correspondence among the types that they propose. At the heart of each categorisation lies the same tensions: Are academic and managerial identities/careers mutually exclusive? What is the key to a hybrid identity? Can the position of the department head strengthen academic careers instead of disrupting them? We believe that these questions are especially relevant in systems in which professional autonomy is less subject to market and managerial pressures. Therefore, it is desirable to examine the career trajectories of department heads in countries that feature a high level of professional autonomy, such as Czechia.

Study context

The study was conducted in Czechia, where the higher education system has traditionally emphasised strong professorial and institutional autonomy; however, in the past 20 years, this system has undergone a transformation as a result of increased pressure on research performance (Pesik & Gounko, 2011; Prudký et al., 2009). Czech department heads find themselves in the midst of strategic changes, in which context they struggle to navigate competing demands, including the requirements of increased performance and the need to buffer some of the negative effects of the emerging managerialism and marketisation that are particularly linked to a system of research assessment, pressures regarding external funding, and international benchmarking motivated by the need to attain academic excellence (Machovcová et al., 2019).

In the five years between the first and the second waves of interviews, the Czech system of research assessment developed from a quantitative, performance-based system that received harsh criticisms (a ‘coffee mill’) and distributed funds to research institutions based purely on quantitative criteria (Good et al., 2015) to a more diversified peer-review-based system (Government of the Czech Republic, 2017). However, despite this development, an emphasis on research excellence has been steadily increasing in higher education in Czechia (e.g., Research, development, and innovation council, 2019), which has occasionally resulted in unintended consequences, including predatory publishing and academic fraud (Rijcke & Stöckelová, 2020; Stöckelová & Vostál, 2017). While no research has focused on the effects of this development on HoDs’ careers, such a transformation leads to increased inequality within the higher education system (Šima, 2013), which inevitably also affects the work of academic leaders. Specifically, Czech HoDs have been found to adapt their leadership practices to this transformation in different ways, struggling with fulfilling the demands depending on the structural differences between the departments (Machovcová et al., 2019).

Similar to departments at universities in the UK, an academic department at a Czech university is typically an organisational unit that organises and delivers courses, recruits and manages academic staff, and monitors and allocates resources. The duties of department heads combine strategic tasks with operational tasks (Creaton & Heard-Lauréote, 2021); however, the actual practices associated with departments vary widely as a result of high levels of institutional autonomy and frequently unclear job descriptions (Kruse, 2022); these issues are also relevant in the Czech higher education context.

Traditionally, department heads were appointed to temporary and fixed terms, and the role rotated among professors and senior members of the department (Smith, 2005). However, in some higher education institutions, that practice has been abandoned in favour of long-term appointments, reflecting the requirements entailed by the increased professionalisation of the role (Creaton & Heard-Lauréote, 2021). In Czechia, decisions regarding the form of appointment are made by institutions, and in our study, we observed diverse approaches, including rotations for a fixed number of terms, regular renewals without limits on successive appointments, and long-term appointments without the need for further confirmation in the role. While current practices reflect the broad autonomy of institutions, governmental policy anticipates the adoption of rotation to ensure generational changes at the level of middle management (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2021).

Study aims

Despite the growing importance of and challenges associated with the department head position, research on this topic remains lacking (Maddock, 2023). To date, relevant studies have focused almost exclusively on higher education systems in the USA, the UK, and Australia (for details, see Maddock, 2023), and only a few insights have been provided into other regions, such as some European countries (Gjerde & Alvesson, 2019; Degn, 2014; Meek et al., 2010), Vietnam (Nguyen, 2013), or Russia (Mercer & Pogosian, 2013). However, it is particularly important to include other European countries in research on this topic, as the traditions of department heads who operate in Humboldtian systems and the corresponding career choices could be quite different than those observed in Anglo-Saxon countries. Against this backdrop, we turn our attention to the career trajectories of (former) department heads at Czech public universities and ask the following questions: What career trajectories do HoDs in less managerialised higher education systems, such as that of Czechia, follow? Can a more detailed understanding of these trajectories provide insights regarding the types of support that can contribute to the ability of HoDs and their institutions to balance the conflicting demands of academic and managerial careers?

Methods

To answer these research questions, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative interview-based study grounded in the qualitative methodology recommended by Braun and Clarke (2013, 2021) within the framework of thematic analysis, which is a common approach in research on higher education management (Maddock, 2023). We included 31 (former) academic middle managers who were employed at public universities in the Czech capital. In addition to ease of access, the rationale underlying this selection was based on the dominance of the selected institutions in higher education in Czechia: Approximately 90% of higher education students in Czechia study at public universities, and approximately one-third of them study in the Czech capital.

In the interviews, we asked the participants about the development of their careers, their motivations for taking on their managerial positions, and the impacts of their managerial roles on their academic work and future careers. While most research on academic middle managers has focused on a single period, our data collection process was unique in that we investigated the participants over two waves, thus facilitating a longer-term study of department heads’ career trajectories. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (PSU-414).

In the first wave (2015–2016), we conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 academic middle managers (department heads or those in similar positions). In general, most participants had been affiliated with their departments for 10–15 years (11 years on average, with a range from 1 to 26 years) and had between 1 and 17 years of experience in a managerial position. In the sample, 7 respondents had the highest academic ranking with an academic title of professor (prof., equivalent to a full professor), 9 were docents (doc., equivalent to an associate professor, the related procedure is called habilitation and requires submitting a thesis and proving academic and research related credential), and 19 were academics with a Ph.D. (occupying the academic position of assistant professor). The departments were affiliated with three public research-intensive universities and represented both science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) fields and fields in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Most of the departments had fewer than 30 members, but larger units were included as well. The interviews typically lasted 60 minutes each and focused on three focal areas, including participants’ perceptions of their leadership roles, job satisfaction, and the transformation of the Czech higher educational system. The interviews followed an interview guide featuring open-ended questions such as ‘What were the circumstances of your appointment to a managerial position?’, ‘How do you divide your time among managerial, teaching and research duties?’, and ‘How have the conditions at your workplace changed during your tenure here?’. The second wave of the study was conducted in 2021, when we approached all the initial respondents with an invitation to participate in the second round of interviews. The second interview focused on their career development, including the effects of their leadership roles on their academic careers and their perceptions of current trends in Czech academia, such as changes in research assessment. Twenty-six participants in the original study agreed to participate in these second interviews, which typically lasted 60 minutes each. Some development in the participants’ careers was observed: 7 participants remained in the middle management position, 4 were deputy HoDs, 13 returned to their academic position (including as the head of a research group), and 2 transitioned to a higher managerial position. The interview guide included questions intended for participants who remained in the managerial position as well as questions intended for those who returned to an academic position. Examples of interview questions included, ‘How has you career developed since your appointment to a managerial position?’, and ‘How do you evaluate your performance in a managerial position?’

The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the analysis was conducted using MAXQDA software. To identify patterns and meanings across the interviews, we conducted a thematic analysis based on critical realism (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2021). We focused particularly on coding segments related to the evaluation of the participants’ managerial roles and their impact on participants’ overall career development and the ways in which they handled the demands associated with their managerial and academic duties. By analysing the specifics of their situations in detail, we collected information regarding how to tailor institutional support to the needs of academic middle managers.

Results

First, some early-career respondents explained that they felt that they were too young for the department head role, which they associated with academic seniority. On this basis, we developed the concept academic career dis/continuity to capture early (discontinuity) or later (continuity) appointments. In addition, the participants experienced their managerial role differently depending on whether it was a limited-term or long-term position (including a series of appointments). Accordingly, we developed the concept managerial dis/engagement. By combining these concepts, we constructed four career trajectories that allowed us to understand the variability in academic managers’ career trajectories. These categories were further differentiated, but they exhibited common features that have significant policy implications. All trajectories are presented in the Figure 1.

By considering the academic career stage of the participants at the time of their HoD appointment and the types of appointment that they received, we partially respond to Creaton & Heard-Lauréote’s (2021) call for research on academic management to move beyond individual experiences and search for meaningful structural factors. We argue that our conceptualisations of career dis/continuity and managerial dis/engagement contribute to our understanding of the links between individual career decisions and factors associated with organisational culture.

Figure 1. Typology of the career trajectories of department heads.

Discontinuity in career development and managerial disengagement: temporary managers

This theme focuses on the situation of junior academics who occupied a department head position for a fixed term either due to their own decision to withdraw or because their institutions stipulated rules regarding the maximum amount of time served. Temporary managers could be divided into two groups based on their path to appointment. In the first group, the participants perceived that the department needed a change, and they were considered to be possible promoters of these desired changes due to their position as junior academics, who were often involved in academic senates: ‘And the previous head decided to not continue, and I had an idea for conceptual changes; there were problems with the study plans … ’ (SSH, male, Ph.D.). In the second group, the participants cooperated closely with a senior academic who acted as an advocate for their appointment. Furthermore, a generational gap was often present within the department, and mid-career academics who were suitable for the HoD position were unavailable. ‘And I was a secretary to previous department heads, so it was not an academic career, but I got to some sort of managerial position. And as I already did those economic things for the previous head; at one moment, it (note: departmental leadership) was just passed on to me’ (STEMM, male, Ph.D.).

For these junior academics, the task of taking on managerial positions while simultaneously developing their academic careers towards habilitation (i.e., associate professorship position that provide more stability) represented a tremendous challenge. They perceived that, academically, their careers had stalled because of their managerial responsibilities, which had important consequences for their academic careers ‘after management’. For example, some missed periods during which they would have been eligible for early-career research grants. While their involvement in a managerial role might have informally raised their credibility and prestige, this role was not formally acknowledged in contexts such as their applications for grants. Some of these academics experienced an increased sense of insecurity concerning their academic career prospects, which also impacted their consideration of a potential return to a managerial position: ‘It depends on whether I will succeed in developing my research team or not. If I manage to receive some grants and my scientific career is more promising, then I would not apply again; I would gladly leave it to someone else’ (STEMM, male, Ph.D.). It appears that some of the participants in this category missed certain key career milestones that were based on a specific timeframe after receiving a Ph.D. and thus failed to secure a ‘cumulative advantage’ (Merton, 1988) in their future academic careers. Consequently, they considered career options other than research, such as focusing more on teaching or taking on a new administrative role. It appears that when such a formal period of managerial duties on the part of junior academics in HoD positions is not properly acknowledged, this situation can result in a loss of promising talent and limit the future research contributions of these temporary managers.

Discontinuity in career development and managerial engagement: early managers

The next group of participants were early-career researchers who held long-term managerial positions and strove to reconcile their academic and managerial identities. Such long-term involvement in managerial positions often allowed such researchers to obtain a less precarious academic position than temporary managers. Although most participants in this group progressed in their academic careers, they identified this progress as costly due to the corresponding enormous workload. However, all participants felt that it was necessary to develop their academic careers, and they refused to focus solely on management.

As in the previous case, members of this group linked their paths to the HoD position to the fact that they were active members of the academic community or had a senior sponsor. Frequently, they described their appointment as resulting from a demand for radical change within the department. ‘So, I was known because of my work for the faculty. And because of this, I had the information that the department was in serious trouble, and after some discussions, we could not find an alternative candidate’ (SSH, male, Ph.D.). They understood their appointments not as a straightforward choice but rather as a necessity stemming from the circumstances. In the second typical path, the process of appointment was linked to a sponsorship relationship, in which the early-career academics collaborated closely with previous department heads and consequently replaced them in the position.

These early managers acknowledged some advantages of the repeated renewal of their managerial position for both themselves and their departments. First, this situation allowed them to develop relevant managerial knowledge and skills in a concentrated manner, while other members of the department were not burdened in this way. ‘I continued to serve in the role; the department is working well, my younger colleagues need to work on their research and academic promotion, and taking the post of head would slow them down. I already know the tasks. For them, it would represent a higher workload’ (SSH, male, doc., Ph.D. when first appointed).

Additionally, this continuity of managerial engagement allowed these academics to implement a vision for the department, which fuelled their motivation to remain in the role: ‘Why have I reapplied? Because the work is meaningful, the department is doing better, people are satisfied and we were able to hire some junior scholars, and that was a great motivation for me’ (STEMM, male, doc., Ph.D. when first appointed). These academics experienced a longer appointment as advantageous because it provided stability, and if available they also appreciated support from senior colleagues with regard to creating their own research teams (a task that might be challenging, especially in SSH disciplines). However, their success required an enormous investment of time as well as resilience in the face of considerable performance pressures: ‘When I was working on my habilitation project, I had three weekends free over half a year. So, I did work on it in my free time; I knew I needed to do that because I promised it when I was appointed’ (STEMM, male, doc., Ph.D. when first appointed).

Overall, this group represented highly committed academics who were invested in both their academic and managerial roles. Due to the performance pressures stemming from such dual careers, they required support regarding their allocation of time to their duties, and they relied on well-functioning teams in terms of both administrative and academic work.

Continuity in career development and managerial disengagement: duty-served managers

This group included more senior academics with a strong academic identity and sense of community. These academics expressed the view that the management of the department is a shared responsibility and that they can contribute (even repeatedly) to that task by taking on a managerial role without being overly attached to it. Participants who exhibited this career trajectory perceived that a combination of academic seniority and fixed-term managerial experience was manageable and that they could benefit from access to useful insider information and networking. They also noted that regular rotations of academics into managerial roles are useful because they enlarge the pool of possible candidates for the position and promote a common vision for the department that can allow new department heads to build on the work of their predecessors.

The following excerpt illustrates the personal stability and smooth handover associated with the department head position in this context: ‘The appointment is for four years, and when I was about to finish, my colleague expressed interest in the role, so I have not reapplied for a second term’ (STEMM, male, prof.).

However, when conflicting leadership visions exist within the department, such rotations can be disruptive: ‘And I did apply for the second term, but my concept for the department seemed to differ from the perspective of the faculty leadership, and they chose a candidate who fit better in their view’ (SSH, female, doc.). This second quotation suggests a possible pitfall of the rotation system, as some department heads found it difficult to promote a long-term vision and experienced disappointment when the direction of the department shifted shortly after they completed their term.

Although most academics in this group were open to serving repeatedly during their career and found the role to be meaningful, some respondents noted that expectations related to the managerial role did not fit well with their vision of academic work: ‘I wish to have more time for professional work. I researched all of my career. I had no idea there can be so many of these meaningless activities, where we just write obnoxious reports about what we did and wished we did, etc’. (SSH, female, experienced Ph.D.). Some participants experienced managerial work as extremely disruptive to their ‘proper’ work and viewed the constant flow of administrative tasks as preventing them from attaining a deep level of focus; thus, they were reluctant to engage with the managerial role in the future.

Overall, this model appears to fit well with academics who have a strong academic identity and may even facilitate the further career development of senior members of the academic community. However, the model might simultaneously give rise to some issues for faculty management, especially when the rotations affect cooperation within the department and hinder the continuity of the departmental vision.

Continuity in career development and managerial engagement: acclaimed managers

Finally, the combination of academic career continuity and managerial engagement offers stability to both individuals and institutions. Participants in this group viewed their careers as progressing in a linear manner and accepted their managerial role(s) as resulting from their increasing seniority in terms of academic rank. This model appeared to be beneficial for faculty management, as it ensured the availability stable candidates for positions ranging from junior group leaders to top management.

This group experienced a balance between their managerial and professional identities and emphasised the fact that their managerial credibility was firmly based on their academic seniority. The participants understood professional seniority as a necessary condition of competent management and consequently viewed their management position as relevant to their ability to influence the development of their academic discipline in a positive direction. This smooth career trajectory, in which academic and management positions complement each other, is illustrated by the following quotation: ‘I was working at the research institute for about ten years, and then the previous department head was looking for someone with my qualifications, so I transferred to the faculty. When he retired, I became the head of the department, was offered an associate dean position, and later became a dean myself’ (STEMM, male, prof.).

Other participants in this group perceived their managerial position as a service to the academic community rather than a sign of professional progress, although they already occupied an established academic position such as docent or professor and felt that they were ready to take on the managerial role when it was offered. One professor with broad managerial and leadership experience responded as follows regarding his motivation to take on a higher management position: ‘Some sort of altruism. I did other things for the faculty besides science: I was head of the department, I guaranteed the study program, etc. So, I agreed to become a vice dean. I knew a bit about how to handle the position, and why burden someone else who is 100% invested in research?’ (STEMM, male, prof.). Participants in this group typically viewed their managerial position as entwined with their academic career, but they mentioned a stronger focus on their academic careers and understood their management position as an additional duty that limited but did not prevent their academic work in the long term.

While these participants represented a balanced course in terms of career development, their career trajectory was highly personally demanding and required high investments of time and effort, which may contribute to inequalities within higher education. From an organisational perspective, this career trajectory was also associated with possible risks of power concentration, as a rather small group of people tended to occupy managerial posts for longer periods. This risk might be a specific issue in the Czechia, where decisions regarding middle management appointments are made by the faculty with little to no external input.

Discussion

In our analysis, we examined academic middle management from the perspective of career trajectory development. While in Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, department heads are recruited primarily from senior academics in the department (Evans, 2017; Gmelch, 2013; Kruse, 2022; Smith, 2005), the situation in Czechia is more diverse, and our sample included a number of early-career academics. We suggest that this issue is also relevant to other countries, especially emerging economies, where due to political changes and uneven disciplinary development, senior-ranking academics might not be available for a managerial role. We aimed to improve our understanding of such diversity based on a framework that combines the concepts of academic career dis/continuity (including the career phase) and managerial dis/engagement (including the duration of the appointment) to identify four types of career trajectories and its specifics (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Recommended support tailored to each career trajectory.

The first trajectory, which was associated with those to whom we referred as temporary managers, consisted of early-career academics (at the time of first appointment) who served in a fixed-term managerial position. Among all participants, we found that the academic careers of these managers were disrupted the most by the managerial role, and their academic positions after leaving that role were the least secure. For instance, these participants appeared to be less competitive in securing research funding due to missed key career milestones. We argue that this group needs particular support, such as sabbatical leave after a managerial appointment, to increase their likelihood of further academic career development. Additionally, we recommend rethinking the criteria for research funding by partially excluding the managerial period (as in the case of parental leave) to allow these managers to compete with a more junior cohort.

The second trajectory, which focused on those whom we called early managers, included early-career academics (at the time of first appointment) who were involved in managerial positions for a longer period. Most participants in this trajectory achieved higher academic ranks while in their managerial positions. Serving as a manager provided them with an increased level of security but also subjected them to strong performance pressures. Paradoxically, when early-career academics entered their managerial positions, they often faced a sort of glass cliff (Ryan & Haslam, 2005). Namely, they faced high expectations regarding the implementation of strategic change after previous management had failed at this task. Such academics had less experience and academic credibility, but they also faced the highest expectations from their superiors.

In this trajectory, the early managers experienced difficulties with regard to balancing the demands of managerial engagement with their academic careers, which negatively affected their personal lives and appeared to increase the risk of burnout. We argue that due to the particular vulnerability of this group, effective support measures should aim, above all, to ensure a reasonable workload to make the role more sustainable, such as through a clear delineation of teaching hours and research output or the implementation of substitutivity during leave. While this recommendation is in line with current research on academic leadership in general (Maddock, 2023), these measures appear to be even more important with regard to this group.

The third category, which included those to whom we referred as duty-served managers, features the successful reconciliation of an academic career with the institutional demand to secure the management of the department. The participants in this category perceived an appointment to the HoD position during the senior phase of their academic careers for a fixed term as a manageable duty. They considered the acquisition of professional networks and institutional insight as possible advantages of this position. However, such a rotation-based system is dependent on the availability of senior staff and the existence of a shared vision within the department. Otherwise, the rotations could lead to constant changes in direction and thus hinder further development. Consequently, relevant support should be more systematic regarding programmes of succession to ensure the availability of a pool of candidates who align well with institutional strategies, thus establishing a broad vision and preventing unproductive changes in direction.

The final trajectory, which focused on those whom we called acclaimed managers, represented a career course in which academic and managerial careers were intertwined. This model appears to be beneficial for institutions that often find it challenging to fill managerial posts across various levels of the institutional hierarchy. On the other hand, this model might entail a risk of power accumulation, especially at institutions that do not require rotation and do not prevent the concurrence of functions. This career trajectory might be less accessible to individuals with caring duties; thus, policies regarding work-life balance might constitute relevant support for this trajectory. On a broader level, measures such as ombud offices must be present to prevent the possible misuse of power.

All participants attempted to combine their academic roles with their managerial roles. This point may be related to the conditions of the Czech higher education system, in which research universities strongly emphasise a system of governance based on academic autonomy. Using the terminology of Deem et al. (2007), our participant’s career trajectories corresponded to the reluctant leader and good citizen types and (at that time) did not include the managerial career track. More broadly, in terms of the support provided, this situation entails that the academics had not been prepared for a managerial career and that their motivation was more situational and/or discipline-related. Thus, effective support, such as developmental activities or mentoring, should focus on the period after appointment and especially on the transitions into and out of the managerial position. More individually tailored and, especially, one-to-one support seems to be the most effective approach under these circumstances (Cahill et al., 2015).

The point of departure for this study was the fact that academics require professionals – who are themselves academics – as their managers (Pekkola et al., 2018). We argue that increased attention should be given to the particular careers of academic managers. The career stages at which managers are appointed might have different consequences, as well as the effects of a fixed-term appointment versus a long-term appointment. On this basis, we propose the framework of career dis/continuity and managerial dis/engagement, resulting in four career trajectories. Each of these trajectories might benefit from a different kind of support in terms of individual academic development as well as broader organisational culture, thus impacting both staff and students. In conclusion, we agree with Kruse (2022, p. 754): ‘Given the key role chairs play in keeping the departments running smoothly, it is smart for the institution to take chair onboarding, mentorship, and coaching more seriously and develop formal and regular opportunities for chairs’ leadership’.

We are aware that our data have not included all possible variations in career trajectories, which might be unique to local higher education systems or, more specifically, local public universities. Our analysis might not capture all of the experiences of diverse academic middle managers. For instance, none of the participants in this study planned to pursue solely managerial/administrative careers, and while many participants discussed the decreased pace of their research during their appointment, none of them decided to abandon their academic work. We must also bear in mind the facts that academic middle management is strongly influenced by the institutional framework and that a great deal of diversity can be observed across as well as within institutions (Creaton & Heard-Lauréote, 2021). We have described the variations associated with a ‘double-track’ career in which managerial and academic duties are combined to a greater or lesser extent. However, future research including a variety of academic governance systems is necessary to develop a more complex framework that takes into account the specifics of academic management careers to provide more tailored support accounting for the needs of individuals as well as organisations with the ultimate goals of promoting a thriving workforce and establishing a quality environment for teaching and research.

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly; accordingly, supporting data are not available.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation research grant GA 20-13732S, RVO 68081740 and the NPO “Systemic Risk Institute” number LX22NPO5101, funded by European Union – Next Generation EU.