Conference Agenda

Topic

Contemporary universities are increasingly governed through quality assurance, performance monitoring, standardisation, and demands for public accountability. At the same time, higher education remains anchored in collegial decision-making, disciplinary professionalism, and ideals of academic freedom and trust-based governance. These competing logics converge most sharply at the meso-level—programmes, departments, and faculties—where institutional strategies must be made workable in the day-to-day realities of teaching and learning. In Sweden, this tension is especially visible due to a dual governance structure that combines formal line management with collegial bodies. While policy reforms inspired by new public management and expanded monitoring have reshaped steering and accountability, these developments coexist with strong counter-movements emphasising trust-based governance, professional responsibility, and collegial autonomy, resulting in a hybrid and contested governance landscape rather than a fully managerialised system.

Research questions

1. How do educational leaders articulate and interpret their roles at the intersection of managerial governance demands and collegial academic practices?

2. How can leaders’ situated experiences inform a broader theoretical understanding of educational leadership as a mediating practice under hybrid governance conditions?

Objective

To provide an empirically grounded account of meso-level educational leadership as it is articulated and understood between governance demands and pedagogical practice, and to refine a non-affirmative understanding of leadership by detailing how mediation is described in terms of translation, collegial engagement, and judgement under complex organisational conditions.

Conceptual framework
The paper is grounded in non-affirmative education theory (Elo & Uljens, 2023), conceptualising leadership as a pedagogical and ethical practice that mediates between the “system world” of policy and institutional governance and the “life world” of educational meaning-making, values, and responsibility. Rather than framing leadership as either policy implementation or professional autonomy, the non-affirmative perspective highlights leaders’ reflexive agency and their role in sustaining educational purpose in contested institutional contexts. This lens is used to interpret educational leadership as an enabling and interpretive practice that holds competing institutional logics in productive tension.

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across Europe are undergoing profound and continuous transformation, driven by forces such as globalisation, technological innovation, demographic shifts, and policy reform (Walsh, 2018; OECD, 2023). In Ireland, this transformation is particularly evident in the establishment of Technological Universities (TUs), which represent a significant structural change in the higher education landscape. These developments have introduced new complexities that challenge traditional models of governance, leadership, and organisational culture. This paper seeks to address the research question: What are the challenges for change management and leadership in higher education?
The study draws on empirical evidence from a mixed-methods case study of an Irish TU, situating its analysis within a conceptual framework that integrates change leadership theory and complexity theory (McSharry, 2025). HEIs are conceptualised as complex adaptive systems where change is non-linear, emergent, and influenced by multiple stakeholders operating within dynamic environments.
The findings reveal challenges that impede effective change management and leadership. Resource constraints and funding uncertainty emerged as a dominant theme, with persistent financial pressures limiting institutional capacity for innovation, research development, and staff upskilling (OECD, 2023). Despite policy commitments to enhance funding for higher education, the reality remains that fragmented funding streams and performance-based allocations create tension between strategic ambitions and operational realities (Higher Education Authority, 2022).
Cultural resistance and entrenched practices constitute another significant barrier. The research highlights the persistence of a hierarchical culture, which prioritise stability and control over agility and innovation. These cultural dynamics manifest in resistance to unlearning established practices and reluctance to embrace new governance structures, particularly during mergers and restructuring processes. Such resistance is amplified by fears of rationalisation and perceived threats to academic autonomy, creating an environment of uncertainty and mistrust (Barnett, 2000).
Policy-driven pressures and compliance requirements further complicate the change landscape. The introduction of performance frameworks and accountability measures under the Higher Education Authority Act (2022) has intensified managerialism within Irish HEIs (Higher Education Authority, 2022). While these mechanisms aim to enhance governance and transparency, they often conflict with the values of academic freedom and collegial decision-making.
Finally, the study identifies critical gaps in leadership capability. Traditional hierarchical leadership models are increasingly inadequate in addressing the complexities of supercomplex environments (Barnett, 2000). The research underscores deficits in adaptive capacity, distributed decision-making, and strategic foresight among senior leaders. And findings reveal a striking discrepancy between the perceived importance of key leadership characteristics and their actual presence within the institution. This gap signals an urgent need for leadership development initiatives that prioritise complexity-informed approaches and foster resilience in the face of uncertainty (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
The paper concludes by advocating for a paradigm shift in leadership practice within HEIs. Recommendations include targeted investment in leadership development programmes that emphasise adaptive and collaborative strategies (Fullan, 2020), enhanced communication and trust-building initiatives to mitigate resistance, and whole-institution engagement processes that align academic, administrative, and policy objectives. By adopting these measures, HEIs can strengthen their capacity to navigate the challenges of transformation and sustain organisational performance in an era of unprecedented change.
This research contributes to the growing body of literature on change leadership in higher education and findings have practical implications for European HE systems undergoing similar transitions, reinforcing the need for systemic thinking, distributed leadership, and resilience in navigating the uncertainties of the future.