Is internal politicking a Machiavellian dark art or vital oil for the wheels of higher education leadership? We all know it goes on – the decisions about what to communicate and to whom, what to reveal and conceal, whom to invite on board – but how many of us talk about it openly? And would leadership be better if we did?
New research from the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and the University of Southampton draws on interviews with staff in academic and professional roles in universities – from vice-chancellors to heads of department, registrars to faculty administrators – and has found that most of those working in higher education are aware of politicking, and some are more comfortable with it than others. The popular view is that it is ubiquitous and mostly beneficial (from a leader’s perspective, at any rate), especially when power is used in a subtle and positive way.
Stories from the field show that power and politics are deployed everywhere. One vice-chancellor explains how they do not conceal information from staff, but ensure that it is not easily accessible, otherwise “you wouldn’t really have any negotiating position”. Another recalls holding one-to-one conversations with the “old guard” to dismantle a power base of professors dug in to bullying ways. A new head of department admits to “recrafting” data about the areas that are making and losing funds, to establish an alternative reality as a context for discussion.
Arguably, politicking is something to which higher education institutions are particularly susceptible. University staff defend their autonomy and so overt displays of power are often seen as inappropriate. Many academics expect their leaders to support their individual work, rather than the institution as a whole.
So it’s not surprising that micropolitical processes are more intense in universities than other kinds of organisation, where decisions are implemented in a more straightforward way. When leaders don’t have a strong authority position, micropolitics is a necessary alternative.
The danger lies less in its existence than in its secrecy. As one respondent put it: “I do think it’s covert, except it’s also very obvious. It’s only covert in that it’s not discussed.”
Rather, as in Edgar Allen Poe’s story The Purloined Letter, where a stolen object is left in full view and as such escapes notice, the exercise of micropolitics is both visible in almost every activity that takes place and yet also unseen.
Acknowledging and discussing how leaders exercise power can cause discomfort. We don’t like talking about power. But if it is accepted that micropolitics is part of the practice of leadership, it becomes possible to talk about the day-to-day choices leaders make about the way they use information, communication and meetings, especially around sensitive issues. It becomes possible to challenge some of the leadership shibboleths.
Transparency is not always possible or desirable. Most decisions are taken outside of meetings. Organisational restructures are often less about financial or administrative efficiency and more to do with shifting power relations. But openness allows for the scrutiny of the legitimacy of such behaviour.
We know from the banking sector what can happen if leaders evade questions about what is acceptable and positive. Thankfully, the spectacular failures of integrity we have seen in the financial sector have not been replicated in higher education, but this research highlights the sector’s need to engage more explicitly with integrity in micropolitical behaviour.
Greater transparency around micropolitics would also create opportunities for potential leaders to receive guidance on where the boundaries lie. Most of those who contributed to the research felt that they had not been sufficiently prepared for the micropolitics of leadership – but there is an eagerness to change this.
The Leadership Foundation recently held two workshops on the subject with executive leaders and alumni from its its Top Management programme and found a real willingness to explore the issues and discuss which practices are legitimate and effective and which are not.
One dean reflected: “It seems that many of us were already engaged with this, but were either unaware, uncertain or uncomfortable with asserting that this is one of our tools of leadership. Have we worked so hard to be ‘heroic leaders’ that we now need to unpick some of that to consider a more nuanced method of working?”
Leaders in other sectors may have shown a reluctance to deal with this tricky topic but it looks as if higher education is prepared to grasp the nettle.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.
