Middle leadership development in a Higher Education context can be understood as a complex endeavor, influenced by interactions and interrelations within multiple systems. We explored the perspectives of thirty-five male and female middle leaders on the conditions influencing their leadership development at one university in Qatar. Q methodology was applied to collect and analyze data quantitatively and qualitatively. A 40-statement Q-sample was developed based on a proposed conceptual framework inspired by complexity thinking, and consisting of three dimensions; intrapersonal, relational, and institutional. Q factor analysis revealed four significantly different viewpoints regarding the conditions that participants perceived were most influential for their leadership development, namely (1) institutional goals, (2) a culture of trust, (3) senior leadership support, and (4) personal ambitions. Despite the differences in viewpoints, three common constraints to leadership development were also identified. The study has implications for middle leadership development, with its distinctive methodological, theoretical, and contextual contributions.
AbdullaAFenechRKinsellaK, et al. (2022) Leadership development in academia in the UAE: Creating a community of learning. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management45(1): 96–112.
2.
AjayanSBalasubramanianS (2020) “New managerialism” in higher education: The case of United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development22(2): 147–168.
3.
AvolioB (2007) Promoting more integrated strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist62(1): 25–33.
4.
BanasickS (2019) KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software4(36): 1–4.
5.
BoldenR (2011) Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews13: 251–269.
6.
BransonCFrankenMPenneyD (2016) Middle leadership in higher education: A relational analysis. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership44(1): 128–145.
7.
BrymanA (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education32(6): 693–710.
8.
ButlerJ (2020) Learning to lead: A discussion of development programs for academic leadership capability in Australian Universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(4): 424–437.
9.
Chaaban Y, Al-Thani H, and Du X (2023) A systems-thinking approach to evaluating a university professional development programme. Professional Development in Education. doi:10.1080/19415257.2023.2193199.
10.
ClarkeN (2013) Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource Development International16(2): 135–150.
11.
DayDVFleenorJWAtwaterLE, et al. (2014) Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly25: 63–82.
12.
Doyle T and Brady M (2018) Reframing the university as an emergent organisation: implications for strategic management and leadership in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management40(4): 305–332.
13.
FloydA (2016) Supporting academic middle managers in higher education: Do we care?Higher Education Policy29(2): 167–183.
14.
FloydA (2022) Departmental leadership in a post-pandemic world: Taking collective responsibility for our future success. In: Thomas MC Stephen F (eds) Leadership and Management Strategies for Creating Agile Universities. IGI Global, 16–28.
15.
FloydADimmockC (2011) Jugglers’, ‘copers’ and ‘strugglers’: Academics’ perceptions of being a HoD in a post-1992 UK university and how it influences their future careers. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management33(4): 387–399.
16.
FloydAFungD (2017) Focusing the kaleidoscope: exploring distributed leadership in an English university. Studies in Higher Education42(8): 1488–1503.
17.
FrankenMPenneyDBransonC (2015) Middle leaders’ learning in a university context. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management37(2): 190–203.
18.
FreemanSJrKarkoutiIWardK (2020) Thriving in the midst of liminality: Perspectives from department chairs in the USA. Higher Education80: 895–911.
19.
InmanM (2009) Learning to lead: Development for middle-level leaders in higher education in England and Wales. Professional Development in Education35(3): 417–432.
20.
LumbyJ (2019) Leadership and power in higher education. Studies in Higher Education44(9): 1619–1629.
21.
LundbergAde LeeuwRAlianiR (2020) Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review31: 100361.
MeekVLGoedegebuureLSantiagoR, et al. (eds) (2010) The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management. The Netherlands: Springer.
24.
ShepherdS (2018) Managerialism: An ideal type. Studies in Higher Education43(9): 1668–1678.
25.
ThorntonK (2020) Thank goodness it isn’t just me – building a learning community for middle leaders. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(3): 316–331.
26.
Uhl-BienMMarionRMcKelveyB (2007) Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly18(4): 298–318.
27.
WallaceDMTorresEMZaccaroSJ (2021) Just what do we think we are doing? Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly32: 101494.
28.
WaltersC (2021) The complexity of leadership in South African universities. Higher Education Research and Development40(6): 1326–1341.
WoodsC (2012) Exploring emotion in the higher education workplace: Capturing contrasting perspectives using Q methodology. Higher Education64(6): 891–909.
31.
YoungsH (2017) A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in higher education: developing an alternative ontology through leadership-as-practice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management39(2): 140–154.
32.
ZhouJDeneenD (2020) ‘Sandwiched’ or ‘filtering’: Middle leaders’ agency in innovation enactment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(3): 332–346.
