Sue Shepherd

The roles of deputy and pro vice chancellors (DPVCs) are changing and so is the way they are being appointed. This study examines (i) why many pre-1992 English universities are moving from an internal, fixed-term secondment model of DPVC appointment to one incorporating external open competition; and (ii) what the implications of change are for individual careers and management capacity building. At a theoretical level, it explores the extent to which DPVC appointment practice is symptomatic of ideal-type managerialism and subjects the prevailing academic narrative - that the power of academics has declined in relation to that of managers - to critical examination in the light of the findings. The research, which uses a mixed-methods design incorporating a census, online survey and 73 semi-structured interviews, has generated some unexpected findings. Notably, the opening up of DPVC posts to external open competition has resulted in a narrowing, rather than a diversification, of the...

The prevailing academic narrative asserts that managerialism is all pervasive in today’s universities. But what exactly is managerialism and how does it differ from new public management and neoliberalism, terms with which it is often confused or conflated? In an attempt to gain greater conceptual clarity, this paper presents an ideal-type model of managerialism as ideology. This is then utilised to explore the extent to which recent changes to the appointment of deputy and pro vice chancellors might be considered symptomatic of ideal-type managerialism. Thus, the academic narrative itself is subjected to critical examination.

There is a prevailing academic narrative that asserts how – in response to the need for effective leadership in a globally competitive higher education environment - managerialism has pervaded universities leading to a diminution of academic, in favour of managerial, power. Academic autonomy is said to have declined and the professional status of academics weakened as authority has shifted from academics to managers. This presentation will present evidence from two recent research studies (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Society for Research in Higher Education) that critically examine this narrative and offer a more nuanced view. Data will be drawn from two main sources: 70 semi-structured interviews with vice chancellors, deputy and pro vice chancellors (PVCs) and other senior university managers and a 2016 census of the entire PVC cohort. These research findings show that, although professional services (i.e. non-academic) managers, particularly those i...

Increasingly, pre-1992 universities are moving away from the traditional fixed-term secondment model of appointing their Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) to one of external open competition, often utilising the services of executive search agencies, or ‘head hunters’. This study examines who and what is driving this change and explores its implications – intended or otherwise – both for the individuals concerned and for their institutions. Has the adoption of new recruitment practice led to a change in the profile of successful candidates? Or improved management capacity? And is it an example of the ‘managerialism’ that is said to be pervading universities at the expense of academic power? Findings, including from an online survey and over 70 interviews with Vice-Chancellors, PVCs and ‘next tier’ managers, will be presented that will provide some answers to these questions. Your feedback on the initial data analysis and conceptual development will be invited.

Introduction and Context The transformation of higher education over the last thirty years has had profound consequences for university management. As the scale and complexity of the management challenge grows, so does the need to appoint the best people to university executive teams. However, despite being identified as an important policy issue (Deem 2000), there is little documented research on the recruitment and selection of executive team members in the UK and it has been recognised that this is an area worthy of further investigation (Middlehurst 2004). The relatively little empirical work undertaken to date has focused on vice chancellors (for example, Bargh et al 2000) and, although PVCs fulfil a distinctive and vital management role – as well as forming the main recruitment pool from which future vice chancellors will be selected they remain an under-researched and under-theorised group (Smith, Adams and Mount 2007).

Executive management teams in pre-1992 universities are changing, both in terms of what they do and how they are appointed. The traditional internal secondment model for PVC appointments is increasingly giving way to one of open external competition, often utilising the services of executive search agencies. But who or what is driving this change: government policy, the global higher education marketplace, the whim of the Vice Chancellor, or something else? And what have been the outcomes – intended or otherwise? This paper will present some early answers to these questions. It will also begin to subject to critical examination the hackneyed rhetoric of managerialism in HE with its underlying assumptions that managerialism is both all-pervasive and has resulted in the inexorable rise of management at the expense of academic power.

This presentation paints a picture of the typical university leadership team in 2020. Who will they be? Where will they come from and what preparation will they have had for the role? It then explores the issues raised for leadership capacity building in the sector and highlights potential challenges for staff and organisational development professionals.

ABSTRACT Although as a rule I tend to steer clear of footballing metaphors, the wall-to-wall coverage of the World Cup on our TV screens over the last few weeks has got me thinking about how certain aspects of higher education management are starting to resemble 'the beautiful game'. Recently there has been a collective gnashing of teeth about the exorbitant salary levels of university leaders. This has made me wonder whether vice chancellors might be the new professional football managers: highly paid and on insecure short-term contracts with no guarantee of renewal. While I'm not suggesting for a moment that vice chancellors are operating in the brutal hire'em, fire'em world of the football manager, there is a degree to which higher education appears to be moving in that direction. Just like professional football, university management has become a more results-oriented business. Vice chancellors are under increasing pressure to perform and have to work hard to keep the chair of the board happy. There is increasing job insecurity: the average term of office is declining and there have been two or three early baths over the last few years. My research shows that a similar pattern is emerging at deputy and pro vice chancellor level. Though increasingly well remunerated, these top team posts are becoming riskier. Exit strategies at the end of a fixed term of office can be tricky given that a return to an academic role is often neither desirable nor feasible, especially for those who are no longer research active. Moreover, these post holders are reliant on the continued patronage of the vice chancellor who appointed them and may become vulnerable when a new leader comes in, wanting to choose his or her own backroom team. Now that more of these deputy and pro vice chancellor jobs are being opened up to external competition, a management transfer market is being created -a development which is also acting as a salary escalator. The use of head hunters has facilitated the poaching (tapping up?) of talent from other clubs – sorry, universities. This has led to a recirculation of senior managers, some of whom are moving from job to job usually to an institution higher up the university league table. More pre-1992 universities are now buying in their managers rather than nurturing home-grown talent. Vice chancellors have long been recruited from outside the institution, but this is relatively new at deputy and pro vice chancellor level. The move to externally advertise these posts is being driven by "a quest for the best" that reflects their perceived importance and the recognition that a good appointment can add real value, and vice versa. However, as the stakes get higher so the selection of candidates becomes more risk averse, with a flight to experience. And who can demonstrate experience more effectively than someone already doing the job elsewhere? Head hunters may then embark on "a campaign of persuasion" on behalf of the university to lure these individuals away. One vice chancellor I spoke to likened this approach to recruitment to that of the top football clubs buying in star players from rival teams rather than developing youngsters from within their own academy. The danger in transferring this model to higher education is that we end up with a

Pro vice chancellors play a pivotal role in university management but they have rarely been the subject of research in their own right. This article draws on findings from the author’s doctoral study to explore recent changes to PVC roles and appointment practice and considers the implications of change for PVC careers and management capacity building in the sector.

The days of “donnish dominion”, when academics were firmly in charge of university life, may seem like something of a distant dream to many of today’s academics. The conversation in the corridors of academe these days is likely to revolve around the ‘managerialism’ that is said to have permeated higher education. Core academic culture and values, it is alleged, are being sacrificed on the altar of corporatisation. Private sector practices, such as target setting and performance management, are being imposed on academics who are increasingly struggling to find time for research and scholarship. Academic autonomy is perceived to be under threat in the face of the inexorable rise in the power of professional managers, often recruited from the private sector. But is this prevailing narrative about the decline of academic authority fact or fiction? My doctoral research into the appointment of deputy and pro vice chancellors (PVCs) in pre-1992 English universities has found that the profi...

This paper will report on preliminary findings from an ongoing empirical doctoral study examining the implications of recent change to the way Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) are appointed. As key members of the university top team, PVCs perform a distinctive and vital role as facilitators of the Vice Chancellor’s vision and as catalysts for action (Smith, Adams & Mount 2007). Attracting the best people to these jobs is fundamental to an institution’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, the recruitment and selection of top team members remains a relatively under-researched and under-theorised area of enquiry (Kennie & Woodfield 2008) that warrants further investigation, not least because of an enduring public perception of “leadership deficit” in HE (Watson 2008). Earlier research by the author has established that many pre-1992 universities are moving away from the traditional internal, fixed-term secondment model of PVC appointment to one of external advertisement, often utilising the servic...

The modern university is a multi-million pound enterprise, operating in a highly competitive global market place and an increasingly challenging economic environment. The quality of university management – especially as executive team level – has thus never been more important and it follows that appointing the best candidates is essential. This study of university top team recruitment practice has two research components, or phases. The first identifies the extent to which pre-1992 universities are moving from an internal, fixed-term appointment process for their second tier managers – that is, Deputy and Pro Vice-chancellors – to one of external advertisement. The second is a census of current second tier managers. The picture that emerges is one of change and continuity. Pre-1992 institutions are fairly evenly divided across different institutional types and affiliations into those that have changed their recruitment practice and those that have not. The number of second tier man...

Executive management teams in pre-1992 universities are changing, both in terms of what they do and how they are appointed. The traditional internal secondment model for PVC appointments is increasingly giving way to one of open external competition, often utilising the services of executive search agencies. But who or what is driving this change: government policy, the global higher education marketplace, the whim of the Vice Chancellor, or something else? And what have been the outcomes – intended or otherwise? This paper will present some early answers to these questions. It will also begin to subject to critical examination the hackneyed rhetoric of managerialism in HE with its underlying assumptions that managerialism is both all-pervasive and has resulted in the inexorable rise of management at the expense of academic power.

Higher education in the UK has been transformed over the last 50 years, with major implications for the management of universities. In an increasingly challenging and competitive environment it is essential that universities are well managed and it follows that they need to secure the best people for senior management jobs. This article focuses on PVCs, a term used here to include both deputy and pro-vice-chancellors, albeit with an acknowledgment that the two roles are becoming increasingly differentiated. It explores how the PVC role and appointment practice are changing in pre-1992 English universities and discusses the significance of these developments.

This paper will report on preliminary findings from an ongoing empirical doctoral study examining the implications of recent change to the way Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) are appointed. As key members of the university top team, PVCs perform a distinctive and vital role as facilitators of the Vice Chancellor’s vision and as catalysts for action (Smith, Adams & Mount 2007). Attracting the best people to these jobs is fundamental to an institution’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, the recruitment and selection of top team members remains a relatively under-researched and under-theorised area of enquiry (Kennie & Woodfield 2008) that warrants further investigation, not least because of an enduring public perception of “leadership deficit” in HE (Watson 2008). Earlier research by the author has established that many pre-1992 universities are moving away from the traditional internal, fixed-term secondment model of PVC appointment to one of external advertisement, often utilising the servic...

Wonkhe website by Sue Shepherd on March 18, 2014 Things are changing for deputy and pro vice chancellors (PVCs) in pre-1992 universities at least. My research has been investigating pro vice chancellors, and whilst they sit near the top of decision-making in today's complicated and highly-charged higher education environment, it is important that their roles are better understood. Colleagues of a certain age working within the 'traditional' part of the sector will remember those halcyon days of "donnish dominion" when the pace of academic life was slower and universities were administered rather than managed. Back then, being a PVC was something a senior professor might do for a few years before retiring or returning to the day job. A tap on the shoulder from the vice chancellor was the usual appointment method and an honorarium the normal form of remuneration. The role itself was essentially one of policy development, with a spot of occasional trouble shooting...

The modern university is a multi-million pound enterprise, operating in a highly competitive global market place and an increasingly challenging economic environment. The quality of university management – especially as executive team level – has thus never been more important and it follows that appointing the best candidates is essential. This study of university top team recruitment practice has two research components, or phases. The first identifies the extent to which pre-1992 universities are moving from an internal, fixed-term appointment process for their second tier managers – that is, Deputy and Pro Vice-chancellors – to one of external advertisement. The second is a census of current second tier managers. The picture that emerges is one of change and continuity. Pre-1992 institutions are fairly evenly divided across different institutional types and affiliations into those that have changed their recruitment practice and those that have not. The number of second tier man...

Although as a rule I tend to steer clear of footballing metaphors, the wall-to-wall coverage of the World Cup on our TV screens over the last few weeks has got me thinking about how certain aspects of higher education management are starting to resemble 'the beautiful game'. Recently there has been a collective gnashing of teeth about the exorbitant salary levels of university leaders. This has made me wonder whether vice chancellors might be the new professional football managers: highly paid and on insecure short-term contracts with no guarantee of renewal. While I'm not suggesting for a moment that vice chancellors are operating in the brutal hire'em, fire'em world of the football manager, there is a degree to which higher education appears to be moving in that direction. Just like professional football, university management has become a more results-oriented business. Vice chancellors are under increasing pressure to perform and have to work hard to keep the...

Increasing longevity and the strain on state and occupational pensions have brought into question long-held assumptions about the age of retirement, and raised the prospect of a workplace populated by ageing workers. In the United Kingdom the default retirement age has gone, incremental increases in state pension age are being implemented and ageism has been added to workplace anti-discrimination laws. These changes are yet to bring about the anticipated transformation in workplace demographics, but it is coming, making it timely to ask if the workplace is ready for the ageing worker and how the extension of working life will be managed. We report findings from qualitative case studies of five large organisations located in the United Kingdom. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with employees, line managers, occupational health staff and human resources managers. Our findings reveal a high degree of uncertainty and ambivalence among workers and managers regarding the desirab...

The promotion of extended working life has created a period of uncertainty between the ending of work and the beginning of retirement. This period of the life course is now 'open-ended' in respect of whether older workers decide to remain in employment or leave working. However, the choices available are framed within public policy and organisational contexts as well as personal circumstances. The study reviews the organisation of 'work-ending' , the construction of age within organisations, and the influences on provision of support in late working life. The article concludes with a discussion on the range of pressures that might limit control over pathways through middle and late working careers.

Deputy and pro-vice-chancellors (DVCs and PVCs) are core members of the executive team and play a pivotal role in university management. Nevertheless, they have rarely been the subject of empirical investigation. This study addresses this research gap, utilising a census to examine the size and remit of the DVC and PVC cohort in English pre-1992 universities and map its evolution since 2005. It shows how these universities have increased the number of DVCs and PVCs, created new more managerial variants of the role and extended their collective remit. These developments evidence the extent to which pre-1992 universities have strengthened their executive and adopted a more corporate post-1992 university management model. Yet, despite the advent of new executive-style roles, the endurance of the traditional floating policy PVC testifies to the continued salience of academic leadership—as well as more managerial approaches—in contemporary university management.

A significant gender imbalance remains at executive management level within higher education despite a number of initiatives to increase the number of women in the leadership pipeline and ensure they are better prepared for these roles. This article presents findings from a recent study on the appointment of deputy and pro vice-chancellors in pre-1992 English universities that provide fresh insights into why this might be the case. These findings challenge the notion of women's missing agency-characterized by a lack of confidence or ambition and a tendency to opt out of applying for the top jobs – as an explanation for their continued underrepresentation. Rather, they highlight the importance of three structural factors associated with the selection process: mobility and external career capital, conservatism, and homo-sociability. An approach of 'fixing' the women is therefore unlikely to be sufficient in redressing the current gender imbalance within university executive management teams.

Managerialism pervades the higher education literature in much the same way it is said to have pervaded universities themselves.  Yet, despite its ubiquity and importance, managerialism remains an under-theorized and elusive concept that has multiple definitions and blurred boundaries. This article addresses this lack of conceptual clarity by first ‘locating’ managerialism in relation to the cognate concepts of neoliberalism and New Public Management and then elucidating its core principles in an ideal-type theoretical model.

This ideal type provides a focal point for theoretical debate and critique and, via the development of empirical indicators for each ideological tenet, permits comparison of theory with organisational practice. A worked example is provided of how the model was used to shed light on the nature of managerialism as ideology in a university setting. However, it is anticipated that the model should have explanatory power and utility in a range of organisational contexts.

A desire to bring in fresh blood is encouraging universities to turn to executive search agencies for Pro Vice Chancellors. But Sue Shepherd argues that this is neither a good use of resources, nor effective in achieving the ambition of reaching the widest possible pool of candidates

Pro vice chancellors play a pivotal role in university management but they have rarely been the subject of research in their own right.  This article draws on findings from the author’s doctoral study to explore recent changes to PVC roles and appointment practice and considers the implications of change for PVC careers and management capacity building in the sector.

The modern university is a multi-million pound enterprise, operating in a highly competitive global market place and an increasingly challenging economic environment.  The quality of university management – especially as executive team level – has thus never been more important and it follows that appointing the best candidates is essential.

This study of university top team recruitment practice has two research components, or phases.  The first identifies the extent to which pre-1992 universities are moving from an internal, fixed-term appointment process for their second tier managers – that is, Deputy and Pro Vice-chancellors – to one of external advertisement.  The second is a census of current second tier managers.

The picture that emerges is one of change and continuity.  Pre-1992 institutions are fairly evenly divided across different institutional types and affiliations into those that have changed their recruitment practice and those that have not.  The number of second tier managers continues to rise and their remit widen to include portfolios outside traditional academic areas.  Moreover, there is evidence of increasing role differentiation between DVCs and PVCs and between ‘policy’ and ‘executive’ PVCs. 

The recruitment pattern remains remarkably constant, however.  Even where an external appointment process has been adopted, the profile of second tier managers remains largely the same: they are overwhelmingly male professors from UK universities. This is because, although the nature and complexity of the job has changed, the presumption that only senior academics are appointable has not. 

At a conceptual level, the increase in the number and executive power of academic managers appears somewhat at odds with the prevailing discourse of managerialism in universities, which bemoans the rise of “management” and diminution in status of the academic.  Are today’s academic managers the agents of managerialism or HE’s unique means of defending against it?  Either way, the issue warrants further investigation.

There is a prevailing academic narrative that asserts how – in response to the need for effective leadership in a globally competitive higher education environment - managerialism has pervaded universities leading to a diminution of academic, in favour of managerial, power. Academic autonomy is said to have declined and the professional status of academics weakened as authority has shifted from academics to managers. This presentation will present evidence from two recent research studies (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Society for Research in Higher Education) that critically examine this narrative and offer a more nuanced view.

Data will be drawn from two main sources: 70 semi-structured interviews with vice chancellors, deputy and pro vice chancellors (PVCs) and other senior university managers and a 2016 census of the entire PVC cohort.  These research findings show that, although professional services (i.e. non-academic) managers, particularly those in quality assurance roles, are intruding in what was once exclusively academic territory, they are nevertheless not deemed to have legitimacy to manage academic colleagues and so are excluded from consideration for PVC posts. These continue to be monopolised by academics in a form of social closure.
Moreover, the part-time hybrid academic managers who traditionally filled PVC posts in pre-1992 universities are making way for a new cadre of full-time, often permanent, career track academic managers more akin to those found in post-1992 institutions. This new group of managers is growing in number, their collective remit is expanding, and they are assuming more executive-style line management and budgetary responsibilities, including for professional services areas. They are thus extending their management jurisdiction and it is arguably they, rather than professional services managers, who are colonising university management.

On the basis of this evidence, it is proposed that the real shift in the balance of power has not been from academics to professional services managers, but rather from rank-and-file academics to a new professional elite of career track academic managers. This represents a form of professional stratification within the academy. Conference participants will be invited to give their views on the validity of this proposition from a theoretical and/or professional perspective.

In an era of transformational change in higher education there has been one constant: the continued predominance of white, male professors in PVC roles. The opening up of an increasing number of PVC posts in the 'old' (i.e. pre-1992) universities to external open competition has not had the effect of diversifying the cohort, as might have been expected. On the contrary, it has resulted in a narrowing of the gender and professional profile of successful candidates. So is this same outcome mirrored in the 'new' universities, where external advertisement of PVC posts has long been the norm? And, if not, why not?

This presentation presents findings from an SRHE-funded study that maps the PVC population across the two sectors and compares and contrasts their appointment practice. It will identify examples of good practice and make recommendations to support universities in appointing PVCs from the widest possible talent pool.

This presentation paints a picture of the typical university leadership team in 2020. Who will they be? Where will they come from and what preparation will they have had for the role? It then explores the issues raised for leadership capacity building in the sector and highlights potential challenges for staff and organisational development professionals.

The prevailing academic narrative asserts that managerialism is all pervasive in today’s universities. But what exactly is managerialism and how does it differ from new public management and neoliberalism, terms with which it is often confused or conflated? In an attempt to gain greater conceptual clarity, this paper presents an ideal-type model of managerialism as ideology. This is then utilised to explore the extent to which recent changes to the appointment of deputy and pro vice chancellors might be considered symptomatic of ideal-type managerialism.  Thus, the academic narrative itself is subjected to critical examination.

The days of “donnish dominion”, when academics were firmly in charge of university life, may seem like something of a distant dream to many of today’s academics.

The conversation in the corridors of academe these days is likely to revolve around the ‘managerialism’ that is said to have permeated higher education.  Core academic culture and values, it is alleged, are being sacrificed on the altar of corporatisation.  Private sector practices, such as target setting and performance management, are being imposed on academics who are increasingly struggling to find time for research and scholarship.
Academic autonomy is perceived to be under threat in the face of the inexorable rise in the power of professional managers, often recruited from the private sector.  But is this prevailing narrative about the decline of academic authority fact or fiction?

My doctoral research into the appointment of deputy and pro vice chancellors (PVCs) in pre-1992 English universities has found that the profile of those getting these senior jobs has changed very little over time.  This is despite dramatic changes to the scale and complexity of university management and, hence, to the role of the PVC which now tends to be full time and increasingly managerial. 
Nevertheless, contrary to earlier predictions, business or professional managers are not taking on these roles.  PVCs remain predominantly white, male professors. This virtual monopoly of academics (or, arguably, former academics) in PVC roles has continued despite the recent adoption of an open competition method of PVC appointment in many pre-1992 universities. 

Surprisingly perhaps, the opening up of PVC roles to external candidates has not resulted in any diversification in the demographic or professional profile of those getting the jobs.  In fact, it appears to have had exactly the opposite effect.  A conservative and risk-averse approach to external recruitment has resulted in a focus on prior experience as the main indicator of ‘quality’.  This, in turn, has led to a large increase in the appointment of those who already hold (or have held) a PVC post.  In addition to – or perhaps as an unintended consequence of - this recirculation of existing PVC post holders, there has been a significant reduction in the proportion of female PVC appointments by means of external advertisement compared to an internal-only recruitment process. 

Overall, then, my evidence suggests a high degree of conservatism and continuity in PVC appointments over time. This would appear to reflect both a degree of ‘homosociability’, i.e. the tendency to select “people like us”, and of professional closure whereby academics are effectively excluding other occupational groups from PVC positions.

Thus, far from professional managers taking over university management, academics have retained control and are arguably consolidating their authority.

Increasingly, pre-1992 universities are moving away from the traditional fixed-term secondment model of appointing their Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) to one of external open competition, often utilising the services of executive search agencies, or ‘head hunters’.  This study examines who and what is driving this change and explores its implications – intended or otherwise – both for the individuals concerned and for their institutions. 
Has the adoption of new recruitment practice led to a change in the profile of successful candidates? Or improved  management capacity?  And is it an example of the ‘managerialism’ that is said to be pervading universities at the expense of academic power?
Findings, including from an online survey and over 70 interviews with Vice-Chancellors, PVCs and ‘next tier’ managers, will be presented that will provide some answers to these questions.  Your feedback on the initial data analysis and conceptual development will be invited.

Executive management teams in pre-1992 universities are changing, both in terms of what they do and how they are appointed.  The traditional internal secondment model for PVC appointments is increasingly giving way to one of open external competition, often utilising the services of executive search agencies.  But who or what is driving this change: government policy, the global higher education marketplace, the whim of the Vice Chancellor, or something else? And what have been the outcomes – intended or otherwise?

This paper will present some early answers to these questions.  It will also begin to subject to critical examination the hackneyed rhetoric of managerialism in HE with its underlying assumptions that managerialism is both all-pervasive and has resulted in the inexorable rise of management at the expense of academic power.
"

This paper will report on preliminary findings from an ongoing empirical doctoral study examining the implications of recent change to the way Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) are appointed. As key members of the university top team, PVCs perform a distinctive and vital role as facilitators of the Vice Chancellor’s vision and as catalysts for action (Smith, Adams & Mount 2007). Attracting the best people to these jobs is fundamental to an institution’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, the recruitment
and selection of top team members remains a relatively under-researched and under-theorised area of enquiry (Kennie & Woodfield 2008) that warrants further investigation, not least because of an enduring public perception of “leadership deficit” in HE (Watson 2008).

Earlier research by the author has established that many pre-1992 universities are moving away from the traditional internal, fixed-term secondment model of PVC appointment to one of external
advertisement, often utilising the services of recruitment consultants. This paper presents findings from a census of PVCs in pre-1992 universities designed to examine the impact of this changed practice on the profile of current post holders. Are they now a more diverse group than hitherto in terms of gender, ethnicity and professional background?

Emanating from a practitioner perspective, this study reflects my belief that the role of HE researchers is to undertake work that has ‘real world,’ as well as theoretical, significance. Accordingly, the paper will discuss the practical and policy implications of these findings for the career progression and ambitions of aspiring PVCs and, more broadly, for leadership capacity building in the sector. At a theoretical level, it will consider whether recent developments in PVC appointments can be seen as evidence of managerialism, taken to mean a set of beliefs as well as management practice (Pollitt 1990). Participant feedback will be invited on the significance of findings to date and their role in shaping the future direction of the research.

References:
Kennie, T. and Woodfield, S. (2008). The Composition, Challenges and Changes in the Top Team Structures of UK Higher Education Institutions. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Smith, D., Adams, J. and Mount, D. (2007). UK Universities and Executive Officers: the Changing Role of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Watson, D. (2008). Hunting the Headhunters. Engage, 10-11.

Keywords: PVCs, managerialism, leadership capacity building, recruitment and selection"

In a highly competitive global market place and challenging economic environment, the quality of university management – especially at executive team level – has arguably never been more critical and it follows that appointing the best candidates is essential.  Nevertheless, the phenomenon of the executive management team, including the selection of its members, has rarely formed the subject of higher education management research.  Empirical work to date has focused on university leaders.  Deputy or pro vice-chancellors (DPVCs) remain an under-researched and under-theorised group and surprisingly little is known about who they are or how they are appointed.

This paper presents data from an exploratory study that maps the pattern and scope of recent change to the recruitment of DPVCs in pre-1992 universities and examines how observed trends are reflected in the demographic profile of current post holders.  The practical implications of these findings for the career development and aspirations of next-tier managers and for leadership capacity building in the sector are discussed.  And, at a conceptual level, their significance for the concept of managerialism in a university context is explored.  Are today’s DPVCs the agents of managerialism or higher education’s unique means of defending against it?
"