higher education leadership literature review

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701685114

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Reprints & Permissions
• Read this article /doi/full/10.1080/03075070701685114?needAccess=true

This article is a review of the literature concerned with leadership effectiveness in higher education at departmental level. The literature derives from publications from three countries: the UK, the USA and Australia. Surprisingly little systematic research has been conducted on the question of which forms of leadership are associated with departmental effectiveness. The analysis of the studies selected resulted in the identification of 13 forms of leader behaviour that are associated with departmental effectiveness. The findings are considered in relation to the notion of competency frameworks and, in the conclusion, their general implications are explored in relation to the notion of substitutes for leadership.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education for funding the research on which this article is based. I also wish to thank the three referees for their helpful comments. However, I alone am responsible for any deficiencies in this article.

Log in via your institution

Log in to taylor & francis online, restore content access.

• 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
• Article PDF can be downloaded
• Article PDF can be printed
• 30 days online access to complete issue
• Article PDFs can be downloaded
• Article PDFs can be printed
• Back to Top

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation.

• DOI: 10.1080/03075070701685114
• Corpus ID: 27187843

Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review

• Published 1 December 2007
• Studies in Higher Education

626 Citations

Collaborative leadership in the institutions of higher education: a literature review.

• Highly Influenced

Leadership Researchers on Leadership in Higher Education

The impact of leadership and leadership development in higher education: a review of the literature and evidence, leadership and management in higher education: a research perspective, review of leadership research in higher education, leadership for learning in higher education, managing leadership in the uk university: a case for researching the missing professoriate, promoting leadership in australian universities., higher education leadership development: an international comparative approach, behaviours of the effective leadership in universities: findings of a meta-analysis study, 53 references, the process of department leadership.

• Highly Influential

The leadership challenge in universities: The case of business schools

Curriculum leadership roles of chairpersons in continuously planning departments, departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities, marketing department leadership: an analysis of a team transformation, leadership and the perceived effectiveness of department chairpersons., culture and strategy in business schools: links to organizational effectiveness., academic professionals: a study of conflict and satisfaction in professoriate.

• 10 Excerpts

Is the NHS leadership qualities framework missing the wood for the trees

Leadership excellence: constructing the role of department, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• View  PDF
• Download full issue

Computers and Education Open

A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education ☆.

• • A systematic review of digital leadership in higher education was carried out.
• • The search strategy identified 231 studies published between 1999 and 2022.
• • Studies increased but are still limited in concept, theory, maturity, and evidence.
• • The quality of most research is low in rigour; critical perspectives are lacking.
• • A digital leadership maturity framework is proposed to address gaps in literature.
• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Cited by (0)

Three perspectives on leadership in higher education: traditionalist, reformist, pragmatist

• Open access
• Published: 29 January 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Bruce Macfarlane   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9399-6155 1 ,
• Richard Bolden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7158-6465 2 &
• Richard Watermeyer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-3771 3  

4456 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

There is a fragmented and complex literature about higher education leadership representing a diversity of ideological perspectives about its nature and purposes. Internationally, the literature has been strongly shaped by the importation of concepts and theories from management studies and a tradition of scholarship led by university leader-researchers. Drawing on an extensive literature review—drawing on over 250 books, book chapters, reports and journal articles—this paper identifies three key perspectives. The Traditionalist perspective is concerned with the cultural context, arguing that the import of neoliberal business practices into university leadership and management has undermined academic self-governance. The Reformist perspective focuses on values from a social justice perspective arguing for a more democratic and inclusive style of leadership including participation from historically under-represented groups. Finally, the Pragmatist perspective is more functionally focused in identifying the capabilities, skills and competences needed for effective leadership in universities at all levels. These three perspectives provide important insights into the culture, values and competences of university leadership reflecting the distinctive culture of higher education (traditionalist), its values as a reflection of wider society (reformist) and how best to practically manage and achieve positive change in such an environment (pragmatist). An appreciation of these perspectives and the skills, values and knowledge embedded in the literature will facilitate the evolution of leadership development and practice in alignment with contemporary organisational needs and societal expectations.

Similar content being viewed by others

A History of Leadership Thought

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The literature on leadership in higher education (hereafter to be referred synonymously as ‘university’ or ‘academic’ leadership) is both complex and derivative, reflecting the fact that higher education studies is itself fragmented, drawing theoretically on a range of basic disciplines including sociology, psychology, history and philosophy. Researchers’ writing about university leadership are drawn from many disciplines and academic fields although management studies has been particularly influential in terms of both theory and practice. A range of terms have been imported into the modern university lexicon as a result of this influence such as quality management, performance indicators, workload allocation systems and transformational leadership. An added complexity is that those writing and researching about university leadership and management do not necessarily self-identify as authorities in this area but variously as social philosophers, policy sociologists, political sociologists, historians and gender and equity specialists. It is therefore hardly surprising that Bryman and Lilley ( 2009 , p.331) describe university leadership as ‘a strange field’ since, whilst leadership is a growing field of scholarship, relatively few academics focus their attention on the sector which employs them.

Perhaps, due in part to the neglect of academic leadership for so long by theoreticians, many influential contributors to the literature are former (or current) senior leaders in the sector, such as Eric Ashby, Robin Middlehurst, Peter Scott, Michael Shattock and David Watson. This is indicative of the way in which such writing and research have emerged out of experience and practice rather than empirical research. In recent years though, as the number of those possessing a PhD in higher education studies has grown, researchers studying university leadership are now more likely to be empirical investigators or theoreticians from a variety of academic fields rather than scholar-leaders. Consequently, literature about leadership in universities is spread across a wide range of journals since contributors are drawn from many different cognate fields. This bewildering variety of outlets inevitably means that many researchers in the leadership arena do not belong to the same disciplinary networks and societies and that research tends to be replicated or ignored as a result. This paper will seek to unpack this complexity by identifying three key perspectives, or ways of interpreting meaning and fostering understanding, and their underlying assumptions and agendas, based on a substantial literature review.

The ‘leaderist turn’ in higher education

It has been observed that over the last twenty to twenty-five years, there has been a notable growth in the use of the term ‘leadership’ in public services (e.g. Newman, 2005 ). It follows that the use of this term to describe those holding senior, formal roles within universities has become the dominant noun. Whilst the term ‘leader’ is now in common parlance, its previous iterations, ‘administrator’ and ‘manager’, respectively, are indicative of changing demands and expectations based on an action and change-oriented approach (e.g. Kennie & Middlehurst, 2021 ). This is a matter of self-description since historically academic ‘leaders’, as they have become known today, were formerly more likely to describe themselves as ‘administrators’ and to define their role as an act of service to the university (e.g. Ashby, 1970 ). However, since the mid 1990s (e.g. Neumann, 1993 ), it has become less common to see the word ‘administrator’ used to describe academic leaders except in some international contexts beyond the UK, such as the USA and Turkey (e.g. Balyer & Özcan, 2017 ). In common with other public services, academic leadership culture has shifted from a focus on governance and administrative processes to leadership or executive management (Middlehurst et al., 2009 ).

This has led to the rise of the so-called ‘career track’ route into university leadership and the relative decline of what Deem referred to as the ‘good citizen’ and the ‘reluctant manager’ (Deem, 2003 , np). Whilst all three routes remain in evidence (Bolden et al., 2008 ), growing expectations and responsibilities mean that senior university leadership roles are now almost exclusively conceived in terms of a career choice. The term ‘manager’, as in ‘academic manager’ (see Winter, 2009 ), became more widely used in the 1990s but has since been largely displaced by that of ‘leader’ (Arntzen, 2016 ) interpreted as a deliberate attempt to shift the function of those charged with administrative responsibility in the public sector to bring about change and reform as part of a new policy discourse (O’Reilly & Reed, 2010 ). This ‘leaderist turn’ (Morley, 2013a , p.116) conveys the sense of a powerful and dynamic individual capable of bringing about change rather than the more passive sounding language of ‘administrators’ or even ‘managers’ suggesting a transformational rather than transactional style. Semantically, the terms ‘management’ and ‘managers’ have pejorative implications especially in contexts strongly influenced by new managerialism, such as Britain, Australia and New Zealand (see Deem & Brehony, 2005 ).

Methodology

This paper provides a substantial review of the literature drawing on 266 sources (books, book chapters, reports, doctoral theses and journal papers) drawn from 99 different academic journals. These sources variously offer empirical, conceptual, theoretical and practice-based reflections on leadership and derive from searches across a range of online databases including the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Scopus databases, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar and the discovery engine ResearchRabbit . The key search terms used were ‘leadership’, ‘higher education’ and ‘universities’. Literature searches were mainly confined to the thirty-year period between 1991 and 2021 although the review contains reference to some historical literature which is important in explaining the evolution of university leadership as a sub-field of research. The literature was sorted using thematic analysis that identified 28 different topics such as neo-liberalism, new public management, digital leadership, women and leadership, effective leadership and the role of the dean as leader. These topics were then sorted into three contrasting perspectives associated with academic leadership. Further details on this process are available from the authors on request.

It needs to be stressed that this literature review is not intended as comprehensive or systematic but as a snapshot view in respect to its principal strands of research, thought and argument with a specific focus on the literature about leadership in and of universities. In this regard, academic leadership is defined as a function accomplished by academics and professional support staff, in collaboration with others, rather than something done by the institution as an entity itself. Whilst consideration is given to wider processes and outcomes of academic leadership, the role and impact of universities in ‘leading’ social change more generally (e.g. in respect to climate change) will be excluded, as will the role of students as leaders of which there is now a substantial literature. Whilst the bulk of the literature stems from the Anglosphere, especially the UK, the USA and Australia, there are an increasing number of papers and doctoral theses now appearing from authors based in East Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East on topics such as women’s lived experiences in attaining leadership positions in a Saudi Arabian context (e.g. Alhoian, 2020 ) and management competencies in Turkish universities (Balyer & Özcan, 2017 ). The underrepresentation of the global south is broadly similar to the wider field of higher education studies although the situation is gradually improving in terms of relevant literature published in English.

Three perspectives on leadership

In reviewing a broad range of literature, it is possible to differentiate three main approaches to understanding and exploring academic leadership. The ‘traditionalist’ perspective is concerned primarily with the cultural context and the extent to which this influences the perceived desirability or effectiveness of approaches imported from other sectors. The ‘reformist’ perspective focuses on how values and purposes shape and inform leadership within the sector, with the aim of promoting more ethical and inclusive approaches. The ‘pragmatist’ perspective is predominantly concerned with identifying the skills, competences and behaviours associated with ‘effective’ leadership in universities. We consider these as complementary, and occasionally competing, perspectives that are associated with different assumptions and agendas around the nature and purpose(s) of university leadership (e.g. Western, 2019 ) (see Table  1 ).

Traditionalist perspective

Any review of the literature cannot ignore that a significant and growing strand of work about university leadership focuses on a critique of its contemporary practices in the sector, a perspective we shall label ‘traditionalist’. Authors from this perspective argue that the adoption of management practices from other sectors is problematic given the distinctive cultural context of higher education. This, according to a very wide range of academic critics, has eroded ‘collegiality’ (e.g. Kligyte & Barrie, 2014 ) and ‘traditional’ forms of academic self-governance (see Palfreyman & Tapper, 2013 ). So-called ‘new managerialism’ (Deem & Brehony, 2005 ), marketisation and the student-as-consumer (Furedi, 2011 ), neo-liberalism (Giroux, 2002 ), new public management (Askling & Stensaker, 2002 ), performance management (Waring, 2017 ) and audit culture (Power, 1994 ), especially in relation to the quality assurance function, are all regarded as unwelcome influences in this respect. The erosion of academic autonomy resulting from these changes is described by Burnes and colleagues (Burnes et al., 2014 , p.905) as amounting to a ‘dysfunctional centralism’ where academics are told ‘what to teach, how to teach, what research to conduct and where to publish’.

There is a long history of the idea that universities are in a state of ‘crisis’ (Tight, 1994 ) from The Crisis in the University (Moberly, 1949 ) to more recent titles such as English Universities in Crisis (Frank et al., 2019 ). This ‘crisis’ literature continues with renewed vigour evidenced by the publication of recent books and papers using dystopian terms in relation to the contemporary university such as ‘hopeless’, ‘die’ and ‘death’ (Fleming, 2021 ; Hall, 2020 ; Wright & Shore, 2017 ). It is not the purpose of this review to evaluate the accuracy of this or any of the other perspectives, but to highlight the somewhat siloed nature of discussions and the differing assumptions and agendas on which they are based. It is important though in analysing this strand of literature to clearly identify what is being lamented as ‘lost’ or ‘under threat’, and why. At the heart of traditionalist assertions is the perception that academic self-governance has been supplanted by corporate power. A generation ago, McNay ( 1995 ) argued that collegial culture had been largely replaced by a managerial or corporate culture. More recently, it has been argued that these processes have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Watermeyer et al, 2021a , b ) with university leaders also demonstrating a lack of compassion (Denney, 2020 ). Regardless of the historical accuracy of perceptions and claims in respect to the loss of academic self-governance and collegiality (see Tight, 2014 ), this is, nonetheless, a persistent critique of university leadership.

Ashby’s description of academic governance as ‘a sort of inverted hierarchy’ conforms with the golden age beliefs of traditionalists (Ashby, 1958 , p.71) in which policymaking is initiated at departmental level and then rises via the Faculty and the Senate. He saw the role of the vice chancellor as one of chairing discussions about policy rather than personally initiating change. The Jarratt Report ( 1985 ) symbolised one of the first major challenges to this type of culture recommending the adoption of management practices from the business sector, labelling students as ‘customers’ and the vice chancellor as a university’s chief executive. The perception that a change in the style of academic leadership has taken place has largely taken root since the late 1980s and continues to this day conveyed by a substantial literature (e.g. Burnes et al, 2014 ). Academic leadership is now seen as squarely aligned with the ideology of management threatening academic autonomy both at the most senior level and in relation to other roles such as the deanship (e.g. Johnson & Cross, 2004 ). Smyth ( 2017 ) describes ‘zombie leadership’ in the ‘toxic university’ whilst Jameson ( 2019 , p.279) advocates ‘dialogic resistance’ to performance management and ‘managerial instrumentalism’. In a British context, it is argued that pre-1992 universities have followed post-1992 institutions in adopting a more corporate and executive style of leadership and management (Shepherd, 2018 ). The effect of what is perceived as more corporate forms of leadership is seen to have altered the nature of key university functions, such as academic development, shifting the approach to one focused on a managerial agenda rather than being practitioner-led (Land, 2001 ).

A traditionalist perspective is evident in a range of writing by social philosophers (e.g. Ronald Barnett and Stefan Collini), cultural critics (e.g. Henry Giroux), sociologists (e.g. John Holmwood) and media scholars (e.g. Des Freedman). Whilst this perspective can be dismissed as ‘golden ageism’ evidence suggests that a sense of ‘them’ (i.e. academic leaders) and ‘us’ (i.e. academic faculty) is firmly entrenched across the sector. A large-scale survey of 5888 British academic staff by Erickson et al., ( 2021 , p.7), for example, found that ‘the led’ have a negative opinion of their leaders, with major themes including ‘the dominance and brutality of metrics; excessive workload; governance and accountability; perpetual change; vanity projects; the silenced academic; work and mental health’. The rise of corporate objectives in university management has, according to some researchers, caused an identity schism for academics (Winter, 2009 ). Recent literature indicates a hardening sense of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude. The university workplace is characterised as ‘toxic’ and academics work in what Fleming ( 2021 ) describes as ‘darkocracies’. Here, bullying is one of the notable, emerging themes within the traditionalist literature (e.g. Hollis, 2019 ). Milley and Dulude ( 2021 , p.1) accuse leaders of committing ‘troubling acts’ whilst the qualitative work from the large-scale study of Erickson et al., ( 2021 , p.15) reveals ‘endemic bullying and harassment’. Here, there is a close connection with so-called ‘microaggressions’, involving daily indignities and slights which are often linked to the strong role of hierarchy in universities and broader intersectionalities that exist in all organisations including race, gender, disability and sexual orientation (Young et al, 2015 ).

From a different perspective, Heffernan and Bosetti ( 2020 ) explore bullying and acts of incivility experienced by those working at the level of a dean, from both below and above, with anger and frustration at re-structuring and performance management important factors in their analysis. Incivility provides a broader way of thinking about workplace behaviour involving acts of anger, abuse and intimidation beyond more narrowly constructed notions of bullying where the same person is the victim of repeated acts of intimidation (Hodgins & Mannix McNamara, 2017 ).

Vice-chancellor pay, especially in the UK and Australia, has come under increasing scrutiny too in recent years as a symbol of the discontent of those who regard their reward levels as out of kilter with university performance (Bachan & Reilly, 2015 ). Most analyses are predictably uncomplimentary and indicate that internal governance structures do not exercise sufficient control over the pay of senior management (Walker et al, 2019 , p. 450). Boden and Rowlands ( 2022 ) come to a relatively similar conclusion, urging the need for governance reform. Aside from academic interest, the topic has attracted considerable and unfavourable press attention, as catalogued by Heffernan ( 2021 ) who analyses 190 press and online articles published in a five-year period between 2013 and 2018.

Reformist perspective

Another significant strand of the literature pertains to what might be characterised as a ‘reformist’ perspective. Authors from this perspective are focused on what needs to change to make leadership more progressive and inclusive. The conceptualisation of leadership style here has tended to focus on people in senior management roles, notably senior university leaders (e.g. Bargh et al., 2000 ). Such work continues to be common (e.g. Drew, 2010 ) and includes scholarship concerning other managerial levels, such as the deanship of academic faculties (e.g. Seale & Cross, 2018 ) and departmental leadership (e.g. Knight & Trowler, 2001 ). Instead, as Davis and Jones ( 2014 , p.367) contend, ‘there is a need to move beyond focus just on “the leader” as control agent, to leading which opens up spaces to consider more shared, creative and collaborative approaches to the field’. This alternative conceptualisation involves de-emphasising the ‘hero’ leader (Eddy & Van Der Linden, 2006 ) and framing leadership in more inclusive terms as taking place at all levels within the university, approaches labelled as collective (e.g. Bolden et al., 2008 ), distributed (e.g. Van Ameijde et al., 2009 ), shared (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017 ) and based on systems leadership development (Bolden et al., 2019 ), respectively. Here, it has been suggested that shared leadership and distributed leadership are terms which are closely connected and are sometimes used inter-changeably and that ‘collective leadership’ is an umbrella term which can incorporate both sets of ideas and avoid unnecessary conceptual confusion (e.g. Goksoy, 2016 ).

The notion of ‘servant leadership’ based on the work of Greenleaf ( 1970 ) has attracted the interest and attention of researchers (e.g. Wheeler, 2012 ). Here, leadership is about service and not about the leader pursuing their own self-interest. Given the pressures on contemporary academics to research and publish in order to advance their careers, leadership responsibilities may sometimes be perceived as unwelcome reinforcing a separation between academic and administrative work (Rich, 2006 ). The idea of servant leadership is about fulfilling a service duty to others and is closely related to the concept of academic citizenship (Macfarlane, 2007 ) and approaches to teaching which promote student autonomy and self-direction rather than dependence and compliance (Hays, 2008 ). Servant leaders think of themselves as fellow professionals who attain a position with authority and responsibilities but are willing to accept that they have limited power in the context of a university culture that respects academic autonomy. In many respects, servant leadership is linked with the tradition of rotating the head of department role amongst full professors, a practice that still exists in some institutions. Another closely connected and strongly values-driven position is that of ‘authentic leadership’ (e.g. Buller, 2018 ) where the ethical values and beliefs of leaders are congruent with those of their followers. They are self-aware and do not separate their home or life values from those that guide them in the workplace (George, 2003 ). In a higher education context, there is room for this concept to be explored in more depth, although it should be noted that there is growing critique of this approach and the extent to which true authenticity is either desirable or possible (e.g. Iszatt-White et al., 2021 ).

These various nomenclatures (distributed, collective, servant, authentic, etc.) have a common goal of moving away from the idea of leadership by the few and towards the idea that leadership is performed by people at all levels—trends reflected in leadership theory and practice beyond higher education. They seek to empower a wider range of people within the organisation to think of themselves and act as leaders. The notion of leadership is conventionally associated with those who hold formal roles, such as vice chancellors, deans, heads of department and programme directors. However, leadership may be exercised in practice by many academics and professional support staff who do not necessarily hold a formal leadership role. This is sometimes termed non-positional leadership (Juntrasook et al., 2013 ). Further, for example, a professor, or other influential academic, may offer intellectual leadership without necessarily being appointed to any formal management role (e.g. Macfarlane, 2012 ). Part of this democratisation of the notion of leadership (Woods, 2004 ) is linked to the methodology of leadership researchers. Analysing the perspectives of the ‘led’ (Evans et al, 2013 ) provides an alternative to relying on interviewing senior leaders (e.g. Martin & Marion, 2005 ) which is a more commonplace method.

The reformist agenda interrelates closely with equality themes and the tensions between excellence and diversity (Deem, 2009 ). There is now a substantial body of work critiquing the ‘absence’ of women from leadership roles both at middle and senior academic levels (e.g. Aiston & Yang, 2017 ; Morley, 2013b ). This literature is often written from a gendered and feminist perspective by researchers who are committed to the advocacy of change. The so-called ‘pipeline theory’—that increasing numbers of women in male-dominated occupations will lead to more equality as women get promoted to the top jobs—is regularly critiqued. Instead, the phrase ‘leaky pipeline’ (e.g. Berryman, 1983 ) is a metaphor that has become something of a cliché over the last thirty to forty years and a focus of research attributed to both direct and indirect forms of discrimination including the disproportionate commitment of women to service and the way the lower status of ‘academic housework’ compared with research can hold back the progression of women into senior leadership roles and even as full professors (e.g. Misra et al., 2011 ). The concept of the ‘glass ceiling’, where women do not make their way into leadership positions as fast as their male counterparts, originates from analysis in the business sector (Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986 ) and is now a phrase regularly invoked in the literature about women and leadership (e.g. Davis & Maldonado, 2015 ). Another related term, which provides a more concrete explanation of direct discrimination, is the so-called ‘glass cliff’ phenomenon (Ryan & Haslam, 2005 ). This identifies the way that women are more likely to be appointed as leaders of companies that are failing financially or during institutional crises compared to their male counterparts, thereby making it more difficult for them to succeed in post and more likely to be dismissed—a phenomenon also observed in universities (e.g. Peterson, 2016 ).

Diversity leadership, as it is termed, is frequently invoked in the North American leadership literature (e.g. Gasman et al., 2015 ) and is now penetrating the UK literature too (e.g. Singh & Kwhali, 2015 ). This term represents structured attempts to make universities more diverse and overcome barriers that have conventionally limited the participation of black and minority ethnic staff and students. Here, there are conceptual links with the notion of transformational or ‘turnaround’ leadership (see Fullan & Scott, 2009 ) as opposed to transactional leadership further reinforcing the language of leaderism as a change agent, noted earlier (e.g. Aguirre & Martinez, 2002 ). Further, there has been a growing consciousness about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer communities on campus (Bullard, 2013 ). Much of the emerging literature in this area is from North America with Pryor ( 2017 ) coining the expression ‘queer leadership’ whilst Sumara ( 2021 , p.7) has used the term ‘queer outsiders’ in explaining how individual identity can adversely impact academic career prospects.

A literature that considers disabled leadership is far less developed and difficult to identify. In fact, some suggest that ‘disability has been almost totally ignored in the leadership literature’ (Boucher, 2017 , p.1005). Disability as it pertains specifically to a university context is even less apparent with only a few examples (e.g. Martin, 2017 , 2020 ) that discuss experiences of being disabled and the challenges associated with a culture of ableism endemic to universities. A nascent strand of a reformist literature considers leadership in the milieu of technological and specifically digital disruption resulting from greater use of education technology (EdTech) associated with the pandemic experience and transitioning work practices. This strand focuses predominantly on the acquisition of digital capabilities (Beetham, 2015a , b ) and digital literacies in higher education (e.g. Newland & Handley, 2016 ), leadership perspectives on the use of EdTech (e.g. Laufer et al., 2021 ), e-leadership (e.g. Arnold & Sangrà 2018 ), leadership for technology enhanced learning (e.g. Evans & Morris, 2016 ) and the role of digital leadership (e.g. Sharpe et al., 2022 ).

Pragmatist perspective

The final major strand of the leadership literature relates to what might be termed a ‘pragmatist’ perspective. Here, the focus is on the practicalities of leading in academe, and the skills and competences needed to be an effective leader (e.g. Lumby, 2012 ). Bryman ( 2007 ) produced a review of the literature on effective leadership that is closely connected to this strand that still provides a helpful basis for understanding the range of perspectives albeit limited to the UK, the USA and Australia. While this study is now dated much of relevance has been published since and from authors working in an international context beyond the Anglosphere. Major themes within the effectiveness literature include the identification of attributes, capabilities, competences, skills and behaviours necessary to be an effective leader. An Australian national study drawing on substantial primary data identified personal capabilities (e.g. decisiveness), interpersonal capabilities (e.g. influencing), cognitive capabilities (e.g. diagnosis) and leadership competence (e.g. self-organisation) (Scott et al., 2008 ). Other recurring and familiar themes in the literature include credibility and acting as a role model (e.g. Mahdinezhad et al., 2018 ). Leadership ‘agility’, or being flexible when facing complex dilemmas, is recommended by Thompson and Miller ( 2018 ) writing in the context of nurse leaders along with fostering civility and inclusiveness in a high-pressure environment.

There is a literature around contextual challenges which seeks to identify those pertinent to the academic leader. Raelin ( 1995 ) recommends striking a balance between administrative control and academic freedom in the management of academics whilst Braun and colleagues (Braun et al., 2016 ) express a similar challenge in terms of tension between the desire for individual creativity and innovation as opposed to the need for control of activities via appropriate structures, procedures and (legal) regulations. Within the pragmatist strand, there is a further well-established literature about the leadership challenges that face heads of department (or departmental chairs), deans and presidents working at different ‘levels’ within the university. Much of this position-specific literature stems from a North American perspective and includes themes which are well-established, especially in a US context, such as the role of the president in fund raising (Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005 ) as well as other perennial concerns such as networking (Rabovsky & Rutherford, 2016 ).

Goodall’s ( 2009 ) study of what makes for a successful president in a research-intensive university provides findings that resonate with the traditionalist argument, whereby leading researchers rather than professional, career-track administrators make the best institutional leaders. This may, however, be because research active staff are more willing to follow them, or simply that such institutions are more likely to attract such candidates, rather than because their research skills equip them for the top jobs. Some of the literature focused on top leaders illustrates the disconnect between the pragmatists and the reformists especially the unreconstructed male chauvinist title of Stephen Trachtenberg’s ( 2009 ) book, Big Man on Campus , about his time as a university president. Aside from literature about the various formal levels of leadership in the university, there is further coverage in relation to the main conventional functions of the university in respect to how to lead teaching (e.g. Marshall et al., 2011 ) and research (Evans, 2014 ) and how best to achieve an integration of them both from a management perspective (Locke, 2005 ).

The literature about the leadership of professional services is an important element of the pragmatist perspective providing insights into the challenges of being a head of marketing (Trocchia & Andrus, 2003 ), administrating online learning (Burnette, 2015 ), linking HR practices to job satisfaction (Khan et al., 2019 ) and faculty or educational development (e.g. Blackmore & Blackwell, 2006 ). Whitchurch ( 2008 ) uses the term ‘third space’ professional to refer to those roles that span both academic and professional services domains. Despite the growing significance of such roles, there remains little explicit research in this area and what there is highlights the paradoxes and shifting terrains (White et al., 2021 ) they need to navigate.

In terms of what is new or recent, the advent of COVID-19 has brought crisis leadership very much to the fore (e.g. Samoilovich, 2020 ), with other foci for crisis leadership including racial incidents on campus (Fortunato et al., 2018 ). The role of digital leadership has come into prominence lately and has been accelerated by the pandemic (e.g. Watermeyer et al., 2021a ).

The three perspectives identified in this review—traditionalist, reformist and pragmatist—represent important alternative points of departure and foci of analysis. Existing or budding academic leaders would benefit from an understanding of each of these perspectives in order to fully appreciate the challenges they face and the environment in which they are leading. A triangulation of these three perspectives is especially recommended in terms of compensating for the potential myopia and inherent bias that comes from privileging any of them (see Fig. 1 ). Each of these perspectives manifests limitations in terms both of their range of vision and capacity to accommodate and/or respond to other outlooks and orientations shaped for instance by disciplinary orientation that might offer a wider lens to the various contextualisations of leadership.

Scoping the leadership literature

Criticism of literature about university teaching often centres on its collective lack of relevance and sensitivity to different disciplinary traditions. Much the same criticism has been applied to university leadership that makes little reference to disciplinarity (Blackmore, 2007 ) although there is some work indicating styles and types of challenges for leadership both within and between disciplines (Lawson, 2016 ; Martin et al., 2003 ). The absence of a disciplinary context is most evident in relation to the pragmatist literature although some relevant pragmatist work can be found in subject-specific journals. This does not guarantee however that disciplinary context will be sufficiently addressed. A stronger emphasis in the literature concerning leadership in different disciplinary settings would be helpful, especially for practitioners but the specialist nature of such work makes it unlikely to emerge.

The ability to understand culture and context—disciplinary, departmental, institutional, national and global—is central to any successful leader too. The university leadership literature has drawn extensively on work in other sectors, both public and private, and there are especially strong parallels with the entry of new public management into education settings as a result of public sector reform in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Hall, 2020 ). Furthermore, the generic leadership literature is substantially focused on the corporate or private sector, and here, influential work on motivation (e.g. Maslow, 1954 ), change management (e.g. Kotter, 1996 ) and servant leadership (e.g. Greenleaf, 1970 ) has had a powerful effect on thinking. Moreover, contingency theory, with its emphasis on cultural and situational attenuation, is at the heart of any real understanding of leadership, especially on an international and cross-cultural basis influenced by Geert Hofstede ( 2001 ) amongst others.

In terms of context, the traditionalist perspective also offers some important insights as it focuses on what is perceived to have been lost or is considered currently imperilled. Kligyte and Barrie ( 2014 ) comment that collegiality represents an interface between leaders and the led. This tells us that an attenuation to the themes and concerns expressed in the traditionalist literature is important to understand even if the dystopian premise of these perspectives is open to question. There is a wider issue in respect to the extent to which the pragmatist literature is sufficiently tailored to an institutional context. Here, it is common to see lists of attributes, qualities, competencies and behaviours in relation to leadership identified by writers and researchers, but these can sometimes appear to be largely undifferentiated from generic leadership dispositions. Spendlove ( 2007 ), for example, identifies 23 competencies for effective leadership just four of which appear to be specific to universities. Similar criticisms might be levelled at other influential work connected with effective leadership in the sector (e.g. Bryman, 2007 ) although some authors from a pragmatist perspective offer a more nuanced approach emphasising university contexts and cultures (e.g. McDaniel, 2002 ). There are clearly tensions between traditionalist and reformist standpoints particularly in respect to claims about values and purpose(s). The traditionalist perspective largely highlights values associated with academic freedom and autonomy whilst the reformist perspective is primarily concerned about issues of social justice and equality. Yet there are areas in which a traditionalist perspective, with respect to the effects of neo-liberalism, can align with a reformist agenda focused on justice and equity issues on campus (e.g. Museus & LePeau, 2019 ). The pragmatist literature provides an important counter-balance to the arguments and concerns of the traditionalist and the reformist perspectives, respectively. Combining the two perspectives, Wald and Golding ( 2020 ) acknowledge the negative perceptions of academic leadership but also emphasise its positive benefits, such as the opportunity to improve and develop the department.

It is perhaps more accurate to speak of academic leadership literatures rather than a single and cohesive body of work since the disciplinary, methodological and ideological influences on this field of thought and empirical work are so disparate. In this respect, the literatures reflect the heterogenous identity narratives of various academic ‘tribes and territories’ (Becher & Trowler, 2001 ). Another way of understanding this disparate body of work is by reference to a distinction between a literature about leadership, drawing on critical sociological perspectives, and literature for leadership that is more empirically driven and derived from a mix of socio-psychological theory as well as an amateur tradition of reflection and anecdote from serving and former university leaders. The former perspective advocates the view that university leadership is characterised by a loss of trust between academics and managers and that this represents a crisis. The focus of the latter perspective is on the practical possibilities of improving leadership practice equipping leaders with the knowledge and tools they need to make a positive contribution. It is vital therefore that development programmes and interventions incorporate insights from all three perspectives outlined above to address the fragmentation and division that characterises this field.

The need for leaders to variously anticipate, recognise and respond to the disruptions of continuing organisational and ideological transformations affecting universities and how these are experienced by its various ‘tribes and territories’ (Becher & Trowler, 2001 ) makes the case for boundary-spanning across these discursive enclaves ever more important. This is not to suggest that it is possible, or even desirable, to develop an ‘integrated’ approach to academic leadership, but to develop greater sensitivity to the competing demands, expectations and sources of legitimacy and influence within the academic environment. Sewerin and Holmberg ( 2017 ) provide an analogy of four ‘rooms’ of university leadership—where people may fail to notice that they are speaking at cross purposes or that important spaces for debate and discussion about academic priorities are drowned out by dominant (usually managerialist) agendas. This analogy aligns with our hope that in outlining these three perspectives, academic leaders remember to allow opportunities for people to voice and consider alternative perspectives. Such an approach would suggest the need to firmly embed critical thinking, reflection and experience as the cornerstones of academic leadership learning and development as in other sectors where context is an important factor in determining what is regarded as ‘good’ leadership (e.g. Ciulla, 2011 ).

This analysis of the university leadership literature has sought to explore key perspectives on understanding the challenges facing leaders across the sector. Traditionalist, reformist and pragmatist perspectives are distinct but not hermetically sealed off from one another. Some researchers and writers have contributed to more than one of these strands since a traditionalist point of view does not preclude reformist beliefs or, indeed, an ability to identify pragmatic measures by which to implement change. An understanding of all three perspectives is vital for those charged with leadership responsibilities, especially at a senior level, as well as helping to make the perspectives of the led more informed. The traditionalist literature provides an insight into the cultural norms and traditions of higher education, highlighting the perceived mismatch between the principle of academic self-rule and the growing corporate authority of contemporary leadership practice. This is an important message for any leader working in a university to understand, whether they agree with its veracity or not. The reformist perspective identifies the degree to which the values of leadership are aligned with societal and political aspirations and expectations whilst writing from a pragmatist point of view explores the range of skills and competencies that leaders need in practice, and how this links to organisational performance.

The core messages of the three strands of the literature represent perspectives that cannot necessarily (and should not) be integrated or aligned but which leaders need to be cognisant of. Here, it is important to respect the special culture of higher education (traditionalist), its values as a reflection of wider society (reformist) and how best to practically manage and achieve positive change in such an environment (pragmatist). An understanding of the ways in which higher education is evolving—from the perspective of different stakeholders—should enable a more pluralistic appreciation of academic leadership and recognition of how different bodies of literature and evidence can constructively inform leadership development and practice to meet changing organisational needs and societal expectations.

Abbas, A., Saud, M., Suhariadi, F., Usman, I., & Ekowati, D. (2020). Positive leadership psychology: Authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Current Psychology, 11 , 19–22.

Google Scholar  

Aguirre, A., Jr., & Martinez, R. (2002). Leadership practices and diversity in higher education: Transitional and transformational frameworks. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (3), 53–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, I., Zafar, M. A., & Shahzad, K. (2015). Authentic leadership style and academia’s creativity in higher education institutions: intrinsic motivation and mood as mediators. Transylvanian review of administrative sciences, 11 (46), 5–19.

Aiston, S. J., & Yang, Z. (2017). Absent data, absent women, gender and higher education leadership. Policy Futures in Education, 15 (3), 262–274.

Alabi, G., & Alabi, J. (2014). Understanding the factors that influence leadership effectiveness of Deans in Ghana. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de l'enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 12 (1), 111–132.

Alhoian, S. A. (2020). Saudi Arabian women’s lived experiences attaining higher education deanships: Paths, supports, and challenges (Doctoral dissertation). Western Michigan University.

Arday, J. (2018). Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring the Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) experience. Management in Education., 32 (4), 192–200.

Armstrong, D. E., & Woloshyn, V. E. (2017). Exploring the Tensions and Ambiguities of University Department Chairs. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47 (1), 97–113.

Arnold, D., & Sangrà, A. (2018). Dawn or dusk of the 5th age of research in educational technology? A literature review on (e-)leadership for technology-enhanced learning in higher education (2013–2017). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15 (1), 1–29.

Arntzen, E. (2016). The changing role of deans in higher education–from leader to manager. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4 (9), 2068–2075.

Ashby, E. (1958). Technology and the academics: An essay on universities and the scientific revolution . MacMillan & Co Ltd.

Ashby, E. (1970). Masters and scholars . Oxford University Press.

Askling, B., & Stensaker, B. R. (2002). Academic leadership: Prescriptions, practices and paradoxes. Tertiary Education and Management, 8 (2), 113–125.

Ayman, R., Adams, A., Fisher, B., & Hartman, E. (2003). Leadership development in higher education institutions: A present and future perspective. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The Future of Leadership Development (pp. 201–222). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bachan, R., & Reilly, B. (2015). Is UK vice chancellor pay justified by university performance? Fiscal Studies, 36 (1), 51–73.

Ball, S. (2007). Leadership of academics in research. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35 (4), 449–477.

Ballenger, J. (2010). Female’s access to higher education leadership: Cultural and structural barriers. Forum on Public Policy Online, 5 , 1–20.

Balyer, A., & Özcan, K. (2017). Higher education administrators’ managerial competency in Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9 (4), 917–929.

Bargh, C., Scott, P., Bocock, J., & Smith, D. (2000). University leadership: The role of the chief executive . Open University Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines ((2nd ed.). ed.). Open University Press/SRHE.

Beetham, H. (2015a). Building digital capability: The six elements defined. JISC. Available from: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6239/ . Accessed 23 Nov 2022

Beetham, H. (2015b). Deepening digital know-how: Building digital talent. In JISC Available from: http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6259/1/Deepening_Digital_Knowledge.pdf . Accessed 23 Nov 2022

Bento, F. (2011). A discussion about power relations and the concept of distributed leadership in higher education institutions. The Open Education Journal, 4 (1), 17–23.

Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics . Rockefeller Foundation.

Black, S. A. (2015). Qualities of effective leadership in higher education. Open Journal of Leadership, 4 (2), 54–66.

Blackmore, P. (2007). Disciplinary difference in academic leadership and management and its development: A significant factor? Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12 (2), 225–239.

Blackmore, J. (2014). ‘Wasting talent’? Gender and the problematics of academic disenchantment and disengagement with leadership. Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (1), 86–99.

Blackmore, P., & Blackwell, R. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (3), 373–387.

Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2000). Paradoxes of leadership and management in higher education in times of change: Some Australian reflections. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3 (1), 1–16.

Boden, R., & Rowlands, J. (2022). Paying the piper: The governance of vice-chancellors’ remuneration in Australian and UK universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 41 (2), 254–268.

Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2008). Developing collective leadership in higher education . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37 (2), 257–277.

Bolden, R., Jones, S., Davis, H., & Gentle, P. (2015). Developing and Sustaining Shared Leadership in Higher Education: Stimulus Paper . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Bolden, R., Gulati, A., & Edwards, G. (2019). Mobilizing change in public services: Insights from a systems leadership development intervention. International Journal of Public Administration, 43 (1), 26–36.

Boucher, C. (2017). The roles of power, passing, and surface acting in the workplace: Relationships of female leaders with disability. Business and Society, 56 (7), 1004–1032.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Frey, D., & Knipfer, K. (2016). Leadership in academia: Individual and collective approaches to the quest for creativity and innovation. In C. Peus, S. Braun, & B. Schyns (Eds.), Leadership lessons from compelling contexts (pp. 349–365). Bingley.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bright, D. F., & Richards, M. P. (2001). The Academic Deanship: Individual Careers and Institutional Roles . Jossey-Bass.

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 , 79–93.

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (6), 693–710.

Bryman, A., & Lilley, S. (2009). Leadership researchers on leadership in higher education. Leadership, 5 (3), 331–346.

Bullard, E. A. (2013). Queer leadership: A phenomenological study of the experiences of out gay and lesbian higher education presidents (Doctoral dissertation,. Colorado State University).

Buller, J. L. (2013). Positive academic leadership: How to stop putting out fires and start making a difference . Jossey-Bass.

Buller, J. L. (2018). Authentic academic leadership: A values-based approach to college administration . Rowman & Littlefield.

Burgoyne, J., Mackness, J., & Williams, S. (2009). Baseline study of leadership development in higher education . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Burkinshaw, P. (2015). Higher education, leadership and women vice chancellors . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Burkinshaw, P., & White, K. (2019). Networking and gender equality in academic leadership. In A. Antoniou, G. Cooper, & C. Gatrell (Eds.), Women, Business, and Leadership: gender and organisations (pp. 159–174). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Burnes, B., Wend, P., & By, R. T. (2014). The changing face of English universities: Reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (6), 905–926.

Burnette, D. (2015). Negotiating the mine field: Strategies for effective online education administrative leadership in higher education institutions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (3), 13–35.

Christiansen, C., Bryan, G. T., Royeen, C. B., Schemn, R. L., & Exner, C. E. (2004). How does one develop and document the skills needed to assume a deanship in higher education? Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 18 (1-2), 185–197.

Ciulla, J. B. (2011). What is good leadership? In J. Ciulla, C. Martin, & R. Solomon (Eds.), Honest work: A business ethics reader (pp. 533–541). Oxford University Press.

Collini, S. (2012). What are Universities for? Penguin.

Craig, R. J., Clarke, F. L. K., & Amernic, J. H. (1999). Scholarship in university business schools Cardinal Newman, creeping corporatisation and farewell to the ‘Disturber of the Peace?’. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12 (5), 510–524.

Creswell, J., & Brown, M. L. (1992). How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study. The Review of Higher Education, 16 , 41–62.

Creswell, J. W., Wheeler, D. W., Seagren, A. T., Egly, N. J., & Beyer, K. D. (1990). The academic chairperson’s handbook . Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Davies, J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education. Total Quality Management, 12 (7-8), 1025–1030.

Davis, H., & Jones, S. (2014). The work of leadership in higher education management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36 (4), 367–370.

Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 35 , 48–64.

De Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2009). The changing nature of the academic deanship. Leadership, 5 (3), 347–364.

Dearlove, J. (1995). Collegiality, managerialism and leadership in English universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 1 (2), 161–169.

Deem, R. (2003). Managing contemporary UK universities — manager-academics and new managerialism. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 1 (3), 1–18.

Deem, R. (2009). Leading and managing contemporary universities: Do excellence and meritocracy still prevail over diversity? Higher Education Policy, 29 (1), 3–17.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31 (2), 217–235.

Denney, F. (2020). Compassion in higher education leadership: Casualty or companion during the era of coronavirus? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 1 (2), 41–47.

Drew, G. (2010). Issues and challenges in higher education leadership: Engaging for change. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37 (3), 57–76.

Eddy, P. L., & Van Der Linden, K. E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher education: New visions of leadership or same old “hero” leader? Community College Review, 34 (1), 5–26.

Erickson, M., Hanna, P., & Walker, C. (2021). The UK higher education senior management survey: A statactivist response to managerialist governance. Studies in Higher Education, 46 , 2134–2151.

Evans, L. (2014). What is effective research leadership? A research-informed perspective Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (1), 46–58.

Evans, L., & Morris, N. (2016). Leading technology-enhanced learning in higher education . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Evans, L., Homer, M., & Rayner, S. (2013). Professors as academic leaders: The perspectives of ‘the led. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41 (5), 674–689.

Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The Coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14 (1), 39–45.

Fleming, P. (2021). Dark academia: How universities die . Pluto Press.

Fortunato, J. A., Gigliotti, R. A., & Ruben, B. D. (2018). Analysing the dynamics of crisis leadership in higher education: A study of racial incidents at the University of Missouri. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26 (4), 510–518.

Frank, J., Gower, N., & Naef, M. (2019). English universities in crisis: Markets without competition . Bristol University Press.

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education . Jossey-Bass.

Furedi, F. (2011). Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 1–7). Routledge.

Gallos, J. V., & Bolman, L. G. (2021). Reframing academic leadership . San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gasman, M., Abiola, U., & Travers, C. (2015). Diversity and senior leadership at elite institutions of higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8 (1), 1–14.

Gentle, P., & Forman, D. (2014). Engaging Leaders, the challenge of inspiring collective commitment in universities . London: Routledge.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value . Jossey-Bass.

Gigliotti, R. A. (2019). Crisis leadership in higher education: Theory and practice . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (4), 425–464.

Giroux, H. (2007). The University in Chains: Confronting the military-industrial-academic complex . Paradigm.

Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education . Haymarket Books.

Goksoy, S. (2016). Analysis of the relationship between shared leadership and distributed leadership. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 65 , 295–312.

Goodall, A. (2006). Leading experts? An empirical study of business school deans. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. Available online at: http://www.amandagoodall.com/ LeadingExpertsJune06.pdf

Goodall, A. H. (2009). Socrates in the boardroom: Why research universities should be led by top scholars . Princeton University Press.

Gordon, B. G., Stockard, J. W., & Williford, H. N. (1991). The perceived and expected roles and responsibilities of departmental chairpersons in schools of education as determined by teaching faculty. Education, 112 (2), 176–182.

Gosling, J., Bolden, R., & Petrov, G. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: What does it accomplish? Leadership, 5 (3), 299–310.

Green, A., & Ridenour, N. (2004). Shaping a career trajectory in academic administration: Leadership development for the deanship. Journal of Nursing Education, 43 (11), 489–495.

Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader . The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Hall, R. (2020). The hopeless university: Intellectual work at the end of the end of history. Postdigital Science and Education, 2 (3), 830–848.

Harper, D., Mathuews, K., Puicini, B., & Tackett, K. (2017). The role of the university president: An examination of contemporary narratives in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Management, 32 (1), 149–166.

Harris, K., Hinds, L., Manansingh, S., Rubino, M., & Morote, E. S. (2016). What type of leadership in higher education promotes job satisfaction and increases retention? Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 15 (1), 27–32.

Hays, J. M. (2008). Teacher as servant applications of Greenleaf’s servant leadership in higher education. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2 (1), 113–134.

Hecht, J., Higgerson, M., Gmelch, W., & Tucker, A. (1999). The department chair as academic leader . Phoenix, AZ: Orys Press.

Heffernan, T. (2021). Reporting on vice-chancellor salaries in Australia’s and the United Kingdom’s media in the wake of strikes, cuts and ‘falling performance. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24 (5), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1631387

Heffernan, T. & Bosetti, L. (2020). University bullying and incivility towards faculty deans. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1850870

Hempsall, K. (2014). Developing leadership in higher education: Perspectives from the USA, the UK and Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36 (4), 383–394.

Henkel, M. (2007). Can academic autonomy survive in the knowledge society? A perspective from Britain. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (1), 87–99.

Hodgins, M., & Mannix McNamara, P. (2017). Bullying and incivility in higher education workplaces: Micropolitics and the abuse of power. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 12 (3), 190–206.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviour, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.).

Hollis, L. (2019). The abetting bully: Vicarious bullying and unethical leadership in higher education. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 4 , 1–18.

Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. Wall Street Journal, 4 , 4–5.

Iken, S. L. (2005). Servant leadership in higher education: Exploring perceptions of educators and staff employed in a university setting . PhD thesis. The University of North Dakota.

Iszatt-White, M., Carroll, B., Gardiner, R. A., & Kempster, S. (2021). Leadership special issue: Do we need authentic leadership? Interrogating authenticity in a new world order. Leadership, 17 (4), 389–394.

Jameson, J. (2019). Moving beyond ‘Homo Economicus’ into spaces for kindness in higher education: The critical corridor talk of informal higher education leadership. In P. Gibbs, J. Jameson, & A. Elwick (Eds.), Values of the University in a time of uncertainty (pp. 279–295). Springer.

Jansen, J. (2015). Leading for change: Race, intimacy and leadership on divided university campuses . Routledge.

Johnson, H. L. (2017). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education . Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Johnson, B., & Cross, M. (2004). Academic leadership under siege: Possibilities and limits of executive deanship: Perspectives on higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18 (2), 34–58.

Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014). Synthesising theory and practice: Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42 (5), 603–619.

Juntrasook, A., Nairn, K., Bond, C., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2013). Unpacking the narrative of non-positional leadership in academia: Hero and/or victim? Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (2), 201–213.

Karimi, N., Rajaeipour, S., & Navehebrahim, A. (2017). The duties of faculty dean: A basis for task-oriented performance evaluation. Journal of Research on Management of Teaching in Marine Sciences, 4 (3), 61–77.

Kennie, T., & Middlehurst, R. (2021). Leadership transitions in universities: Arriving, surviving and thriving at the top . Routledge.

Kezar, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education . American Council on Education.

Khan, M. A., Md Yusoff, R., Hussain, A., & Binti Ismail, F. (2019). The mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship of HR practices and employee job performance: Empirical evidence from higher education sector. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 8 , 78–94.

Kligyte, G., & Barrie, S. (2014). Collegiality: Leading us into fantasy–the paradoxical resilience of collegiality in academic leadership. Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (1), 157–169.

Knight, W. H., & Holen, M. C. (1985). Leadership and the perceived effectiveness of department chairpersons. Journal of Higher Education, 56 , 677–690.

Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2001). Departmental leadership for higher education: New directions for communities of practice . Open University Press/SRHE.

Knipfer, K., Shaughnessy, B., Hentschel, T., & Schmid, E. (2017). Unlocking women’s leadership potential: A curricular example for developing female leaders in academia. Journal of Management Education, 41 (2), 272–302.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change . Harvard Business School Press.

Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6 (1), 4–20.

Laufer, M., Leiser, A., Deacon, B., Perrin de Brichambaut, P., Fecher, B., Kobsda, C., & Hesse, F. (2021). Digital higher education: A divider or bridge builder? Leadership perspectives on edtech in a COVID-19 reality. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 (1), 1–17.

Lawson, H. A. (2016). Stewarding the discipline with cross-boundary leadership. Quest, 68 (2), 91–115.

Lindholm, J. A. (2003). Perceived organizational fit: Nurturing the minds, hearts, and personal ambitions of university faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 27 , 125–149.

Liu, L., Xi, H., Wen, W., Xie, Z., & Coates, H. (2020). Global university president leadership characteristics and dynamics. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (10), 2036–2044.

Locke, W. (2005). Integrating research and teaching strategies: Implications for institutional management and leadership in the United Kingdom. Higher Education Management and Policy, 16 (3), 101–120.

Longman, K. A., & Anderson, P. S. (2016). Women in leadership: The future of Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 15 (1-2), 24–37.

Longman, K. A., & Madsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2014). Women and leadership in higher education . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Lumby, J. (2012). What do we know about leadership in higher education? Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Macfarlane, B. (2007). The academic citizen: The virtue of service in university life . Routledge.

Macfarlane, B. (2012). Intellectual leadership in higher education: Renewing the role of the university professor . Routledge.

Macfarlane, B., & Burg, D. (2019). Women professors and the academic housework trap. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41 (3), 262–274.

Madsen, S. R. (2012). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities, challenges, and future directions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14 (2), 131–139.

Madsen, S. R., & Longman, K. A. (2020). Women's leadership in higher education: Status, barriers, and motivators. Journal of Higher Education Management, 35 (1), 14–25.

Mahdinezhad, M., Mansor, M., Rmbeli, N., Hashim, E., & Shahhosseini, M. (2018). Effective academic leadership: Key aspects of leader behavior in higher education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8 (9), 657–665.

Maheshwari, G., & Nayak, R. (2020). Women leadership in Vietnamese higher education institutions: An exploratory study on barriers and enablers for career enhancement. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 50 (5), 758–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945700

Marshall, S. J., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., & Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and managing learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (2), 87–103.

Marshall, J., Roache, D., & Moody-Marshall, R. (2020). Crisis leadership: A critical examination of educational leadership in higher education in the midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48 (3), 30–37.

Martin, N. (2017). Encouraging disabled leaders in higher education: Recognising hidden talents . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Martin, N. (2020). A practical response to ableism in leadership in UK higher education. In N. Brown & J. Leigh (Eds.), Abelism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and illnesses in higher education . UCL Press.

Martin, J. S., & Marion, R. (2005). Higher education leadership roles in knowledge processing. Learning Organization, 12 (2), 140–151.

Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ramsden, P. (2003). Variation in the experience of leadership of teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (3), 247–259.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . Harper and Row.

McBride, K. (2010). Leadership in higher education: Handling faculty resistance to technology through strategic planning. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8 (4), 39.

McCaffery, P. (2018). The higher education manager’s handbook: Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges . Routledge.

McDaniel, E. A. (2002). Senior leadership in higher education: An outcomes approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9 (2), 80–88.

McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to the corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The changing university? (pp. 105–115). The Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.

Meek, V. L., Goedegebuure, L., & De Boer, H. (2010). The changing role of academic leadership in Australia and the Netherlands: Who is the modern dean? In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, T. Carvalho, & R. Santiago (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (pp. 31–54). Dordrecht: Springer.

Middlehurst, R., Goreham, H., & Woodfield, S. (2009). Why research leadership in higher education? Exploring contributions from the UK’s leadership foundation for higher education. Leadership, 5 (3), 311–329.

Milley, P., & Dulude, E. (2021). On maladministration in higher education: Towards a multi-level theoretical framework for understanding its emergence and persistence in an era of neoliberal, managerial and corporatist reforms. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24 (5), 588–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1757158

Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97 (1), 22–26.

Mitchell, M. B. (1987). The process of department leadership. The Review of Higher Education, 11 (2), 161–176.

Moberly, W. (1949). The crisis in the university . SCM Press.

Morley, L. (2013a). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25 (1), 116–131.

Morley, L. (2013b). Women and higher education leadership: Absences and aspirations . Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Morley, L., Berma, M., & Hamid, B. D. H. A. (2017). Managing modern Malaysia: Women in higher education leadership. In H. Eggins (Ed.), The changing role of women in higher education (pp. 137–154). Dordrecht: Springer.

Morley, L & Crossouard, B. (2015). Women in higher education leadership in South Asia: Rejection, refusal, reluctance and revisioning . Brighton: British Council/University of Sussex.

Moses, I., & Roe, E. (1990). Heads and chairs: Managing academic departments . St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.

Murry, J. W., & Stauffacher, K. B. (2001). Department chair effectiveness: What skills and behaviors do deans, chairs, and faculty in research universities perceive as important? Arkansas Educational Research & Policy Studies Journal, 1 (1), 62–75.

Museus, S. D., & LePeau, L. A. (2019). Navigating neoliberal organizational cultures: Implications for higher education leaders advancing social justice agendas. In A. Kezar & J. Posselt (Eds.), Higher education administration for social justice and equity (pp. 209–224). Routledge.

Neumann, R. (1993). Research and scholarship: Perceptions of senior academic administrators. Higher Education, 25 (2), 97–110.

Newland, B., & Handley, F. (2016). Developing the digital literacies of staff: An institutional approach. Research in Learning Technology , 24 Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/reader/148699714

Newman, J. (2005). Network governance, transformational leadership and the micro politics of public service change. Sociology, 39 (4), 717–734. Accessed 23 Nov 2022

O’Reilly, D., & Reed, M. (2010). ‘Leaderism’: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88 (4), 960–978.

Odhiambo, G. (2011). Women and higher education leadership in Kenya: A critical analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33 (6), 667–678.

Oleksiyenko, A. (2018). Zones of alienation in global higher education: Corporate abuse and leadership failures. Tertiary Education and Management, 24 (3), 193–205.

Oleksiyenko, A., & Ruan, N. (2019). Intellectual leadership and academic communities: Issues for discussion and research. Higher Education Quarterly, 73 (4), 406–418.

Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3), 313–345.

Palfreyman, D., & Tapper, T. (2013). Oxford and the decline of the collegiate tradition . Routledge.

Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Challis, D. (2011). Strategic leadership of teaching and learning centres from reality to ideal. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (6), 807–821.

Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2018). The implementation of total quality management in Greek higher education: The case of electronic administrative services. International Education Studies, 11 (7), 26–42.

Peterson, H. (2016). Is managing academics “women’s work”? Exploring the glass cliff in higher education management. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44 (1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214563897

Power, M. (1994). The audit explosion. Demos.

Pryor, J. T. (2017). Queer leadership: An exploration of LGBTQ leadership in higher education . PhD thesis. University of Missouri-Columbia.

Pryor, J. T. (2020). Queer activist leadership: An exploration of queer leadership in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication . https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000160

Quinlan, K. M. (2014). Leadership of teaching for student learning in higher education: what is needed? Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (1), 32–45.

Rabovsky, T., & Rutherford, A. (2016). The politics of higher education: University president ideology and external networking. Public Administration Review, 76 (5), 764–777.

Raelin, J. A. (1995). How to manage your local professor. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 207–211).

Ramsden, P. (1989). Learning to lead in higher education . London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Development, 17 (3), 337–370.

Report, J. (1985). Report of steering committee for efficiency studies in universities . CVCP.

Rich, D. (2006). Academic leadership and the restructuring of higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 134 , 37–48.

Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership. Management Decision, 41 (10), 1058–1063.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16 (2), 81–90.

Samoilovich, D. (2020). Leadership in the time of COVID-19: Reflections of Latin American higher education leaders. International Higher Education, 102 , 32–34.

Satterwhite, C. R., & Cedja, B. (2005). Higher education fund raising: What is the president to do? International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5 (4), 333–342.

Scott, P. (2011). Leadership in universities. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 7 (3), 229–234.

Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic leadership capabilities for Australian higher education . University of Western Sydney/ Australian Council for Educational Research.

Seale, O., & Cross, M. (2018). Executivism and deanship in selected South African universities. Oxford Review of Education, 44 (3), 275–290.

Sewerin, T., & Holmberg, R. (2017). Contextualizing distributed leadership in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 36 (6), 1280–1294.

Sharpe, R., Bennett, S., & Varga-Akins, T. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of digital higher education . Edward Elgar.

Shepherd, S. (2018). Strengthening the university executive: The expanding roles and remit of deputy and pro-vice-chancellors. Higher Education Quarterly, 72 (1), 40–50.

Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8 (3), 278–298.

Simala, K. I. (2014). Deanship, leadership dilemmas and management challenges facing the social sciences in public university education in Kenya. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 12 (1), 1–26.

Singh, G., & Kwhali, J. (2015). How can we make and not break black and minority ethnic leaders in higher education? Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Smith, R. (2005). Departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 33 (4), 449–464.

Smith, Z. A., & Wolverton, M. (2010). Higher education leadership competencies: Quantitatively refining a qualitative model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17 (1), 61–70.

Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university: Zombie leadership, academic rock stars and neoliberal ideology . Palgrave Macmillan.

Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. Journal of Educational Management, 21 (5), 407–417.

Spiller, D. (2010). Language and academic leadership: Exploring and evaluating the narratives. Higher Education Research & Development, 29 (6), 679–692.

Stark, J. S., Briggs, C. L., & Rowland-Poplawski, J. (2002). Curriculum leadership roles of chairpersons in continuously planning departments. Research in Higher Education, 43 (3), 329–356.

Sturgis, R. (2006). Presidential leadership in institutional advancement: From the perspective of the president and vice president of institutional advancement. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6 (3), 221–231.

Sumara, D. (2021). On the power of not passing: A queer narrative hermeneutics of higher education leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53 (2), 144–157.

Taylor, J., & Machado, M. D. L. (2006). Higher education leadership and management: From conflict to interdependence through strategic planning. Tertiary Education and Management, 12 (2), 137–160.

Thompson, S. A., & Miller, K. L. (2018). Disruptive trends in higher education: Leadership skills for successful leaders. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34 (2), 92–96.

Tight, M. (1994). Crisis, what crisis? Rhetoric and reality in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42 (4), 363–374.

Tight, M. (2014). Collegiality and managerialism: A false dichotomy? Evidence from the higher education literature. Tertiary Education and Management, 20 (4), 294–306.

Trachtenberg, S. J. (2009). Big man on campus: A university president speaks out on higher education . Simon and Schuster.

Trocchia, P. J., & Andrus, D. M. (2003). Perceived characteristics and abilities of an effective marketing department head. Journal of Marketing Education, 25 (1), 5–15.

Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the academic profession: The case of England. Higher Education Policy, 7 (2), 11–18.

Uslu, B., & Welch, A. (2018). The influence of universities’ organizational features on professorial intellectual leadership. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (3), 571–585.

Van Ameijde, J. D., Nelson, P. C., Billsberry, J., & Van Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership in higher education institutions: A distributed perspective. Higher Education, 58 (6), 763–779.

Waitere, H. J., Wright, J., Tremaine, M., Brown, S., & Pausé, C. J. (2011). Choosing whether to resist or reinforce the new managerialism: The impact of performance-based research funding on academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (3), 205–217.

Wald, N., & Golding, C. (2020). Why be a head of department? Exploring the positive aspects and benefits. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (11), 2121–2131.

Walker, J., Greve, P., Wood, G., & Miskell, P. (2019). Because you’re worth it? Determinants of vice chancellor pay in the UK. Industrial Relations Journal, 50 (5–6), 450–467.

Ward, M. E., & Sloane, P. J. (2000). Non-pecuniary advantages versus pecuniary disadvantages: Job satisfaction among male and female academics in Scottish universities. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47 (3), 273–303.

Waring, M. (2017). Management and leadership in UK universities: Exploring the possibilities of change. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39 (5), 540–558.

Warner, D., & Palfreyman, D. (Eds.). (1996). Higher education management: The key elements . Open University Press.

Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021a). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81 , 623–641.

Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Crick, T., Knight, C., McGaughey, F., Hardman, J., Suri, V. R., Chung, R., & Phelan, D. (2021b). ‘Pandemia’: A reckoning of UK universities’ corporate response to COVID-19 and its academic fallout. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42 (5–6), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1937058

Wepner, S. B., & Henk, W. A. (2020). Education deans’ perspectives on factors contributing to their longevity. Tertiary Education and Management, 26 (4), 381–395.

Western, S. (2019). Leadership: A critical text (3rd ed.).

Wheeler, D. W. (2012). Servant leadership for higher education: Principles and practices . John Wiley and Sons.

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62 (4), 377–396.

White, S., White, S., & Borthwick, K. (2021). Blended professionals, technology and online learning: Identifying a socio-technical third space in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 75 (1), 161–174.

Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in higher education . Stylus.

Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31 (2), 121–131.

Winter, D. R., & Sarros, D. J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A motivating place to work? Higher Education Research & Development, 21 (3), 241–258.

Woods, P. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7 (1), 3–26.

Wright, S., & Shore, C. (Eds.). (2017). Death of the public university?: Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy . Berghahn Books.

Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2015). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8 (1), 61–71.

Zhu, C., & Zayim-Kurtay, M. (2018). University governance and academic leadership: Perceptions of European and Chinese university staff and perceived need for capacity building. European Journal of Higher Education, 8 (4), 435–452.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Advance HE for funding the project on which this paper is based.

Open access funding provided by The Education University of Hong Kong

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Human Development and Centre for Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong

Bruce Macfarlane

Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Richard Bolden

School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Richard Watermeyer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Macfarlane .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

This research was funded by Advance HE as part of a scoping study about leadership in higher education. The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Macfarlane, B., Bolden, R. & Watermeyer, R. Three perspectives on leadership in higher education: traditionalist, reformist, pragmatist. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01174-x

Download citation

Accepted : 26 December 2023

Published : 29 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01174-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education leadership
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The relation between leadership styles in higher education institutions and academic staff’s job satisfaction: A meta-analysis study

Gamze kasalak.

1 Department of Educational Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkiye

Beysun Güneri

Vesile ruya ehtiyar, Çiğdem apaydin, gulay Özaltın türker.

2 Department of Social Sciences, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkiye

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

In this study, it is aimed to examine the relationship between leadership in higher education institutions [HEIs] and academic staff’s job satisfaction, which is formed by combining different leadership styles in higher education institutions, using the meta-analysis method based on correlational research. For this purpose, it was investigated whether there was a significant difference between the effect sizes of the studies investigating the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction between the years 2010–2022, according to the moderator variables (leadership styles, continent, culture, and Human Development Index [HDI]). A total of 57 research data, including sample size and Pearson correlation coefficient data, were evaluated within the scope of the research. Correlational studies were calculated according to the random effect model in terms of effect direction and overall effect size; The estimated effect size value was found to be 0.374. This value shows that the overall effect size of the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction is positive and moderate. However, there is no significant difference between the effect sizes of the research examining the relationship between leadership styles in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction, according to continent, culture and HDI moderator variables.

Introduction

Problem statement.

New approaches to leadership in higher education are explored as universities face the challenges of competing in a globally competitive world while designing opportunities to build and develop sustainable leadership. While similar challenges exist in all industries, higher education is uniquely positioned given its role in developing new knowledge and disseminating existing knowledge ( Jones et al., 2012 ). Universities provide qualified human capital by leading research activities to draw the attention of many institutions to the unresolved problems or weak areas of society, and also help the development of almost every sector effecting the economy. Therefore, universities need educational leaders who can fulfil their duties with the highest efficiency, integrity and the highest ethical standards in order to achieve their goals. Education leaders have many responsibilities including research, supervisory, administrative roles, job placement, supervision, event management and oversight of extra-curricular activities ( Akhtar et al., 2021 ). However, Javed et al. (2020) state that responsibility is largely dependent on the leader and is subjective. According to the authors, to whom and what the leader is responsible for is subjective matter.

The changing demand for higher education challenges traditional assumptions not only about the nature, purpose, and place of higher education in society, but also about the most appropriate management and leadership systems that should operate in educational institutions. For example, Bolden et al. (2012) compares the traditional university model as a community of academics with a highly democratic and decentralized decision-making process that represents leadership as a shared responsibility with the increasingly common institutional or entrepreneurial approaches to leadership and management in universities. In recent studies, it has been examined how various leadership styles in higher education affect quality effectiveness, commitment, perception of organizational support, citizenship, and satisfaction in organizations ( Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ; Sharma et al., 2016 ; Syakur et al., 2020 ; Öztürk and Kılıçoğlu, 2021 ).

To investigate current trends in higher education research, Tight (2012) analysed various higher education articles published between 2000 and 2010, he found an increase not only in quantity but also in quality of publications. Gumus et al. (2018) examined the leadership trends in educational organizations between the years 1980–2014 in their bibliometric study, and they found that the overall rate of the study group at the level of about 10 percent. It is observed that in the humanistic leadership theories period, leadership studies in higher education institutions are subjected to various leadership areas such as collaborative and distributed leadership ( Youngs, 2017 ); transactional leadership ( Sims et al., 2021 ); responsible leadership ( Akhtar et al., 2020 ), instructional leadership ( Shaked, 2021 ); transformational leadership ( Sathiyaseelan, 2021 ); ethical leadership ( Gok et al., 2017 ) and servant leadership ( Dahleez and Aboramadan, 2022 ). The issue of leadership in higher education institutions, especially whether different leadership styles exist in higher education institutions, whether they are necessary, and whether the same theory and application framework is valid for the higher education sector as in other institutions ( Siddique et al., 2011 ; Amzat and Idris, 2012 ) brought it to the fore. Because, as a large institution, a university is managed by various structures and administrative bodies, from the Rector, Vice-Rectors and Deans to academic councils, department managers, and administrative boards. Therefore, leadership styles in higher education institutions refer to different management roles and titles, from strategic management to managerial roles, transformational and visionary roles ( Settles et al., 2019 ). It can be concluded that the roles of leaders in higher education can be complex and varied. Li et al. (2022) support this by emphasizing the complexity of the roles of education leaders in higher education, stating that they are responsible for fulfilling a variety of tasks from educational visionary to legal oversight. Apart from this, job satisfaction of lecturers is another important variable in order to increase the quality of education and training and to create university performance at universities. As suggested in limited research, appropriate leadership styles in higher education can increase the job satisfaction of academic staff ( Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ). When leaders in HEI exhibit leadership characteristics and actions consistent by encouraging the job satisfaction, they positively affect many factors such as employee retention ( Harris et al., 2016 ), organizational justice and organizational trust ( Dahleez and Aboramadan, 2022 ), organizational commitment ( Mwesigwa et al., 2020 ), academic staff performance ( Jameel and Ahmad, 2020 ). Nguyen et al. (2021) , found a high correlation between leadership and job satisfaction, and state that the leader style is important. Shaari et al. (2022) found a relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and job satisfaction in their research on academic staff. Therefore, this research focuses on the effect of leadership styles in HEIs on academic staff’s job satisfaction.

There are various meta-analysis studies investigating the effects of leadership style on job satisfaction in educational organizations in resent studies ( Cakmak et al., 2015 ; Coğaltay et al., 2016 ). However, as a result of the literature review, no meta-analysis study was found that examines the effect of leadership style in higher education institutions on the job satisfaction of academic staff. It can also be stated that leadership studies in HEIs are less studied compared to leadership styles in primary, secondary and high school education institutions. It can be stated that the importance given to leadership in HEIs has increased significantly in recent years ( Belias and Koustelios, 2014 ). Therefore, this research, focuses on the effect of leadership in HEIs on job satisfaction of academic staff, is expected to contribute to the literature. In addition, it is thought that the research will provide an opportunity to explain how leadership in HEIs affects the job satisfaction of academic staff.

This study makes an important contribution to the literature, as it is the first research to examine leadership styles in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction through meta-analysis method. Although there are many empirical studies in the literature ( Okan and Akyüz, 2015 ; Kiplangat et al., 2017 ), there is no study that clearly reveals the direction and effect of the relationship between leadership styles in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction using the meta-analysis method. Although various empirical studies have been conducted to date, this study is summarized for the first time by combining the studies done so far with the psychometric meta-analysis method. In this context, the results of the relations obtained in the literature have been clearly revealed and a contributed the literature. Because, by bringing together the studies that deal with the relationships between these variables, it will be possible to determine the direction and strength of the relationships, and it will be possible to contribute to the literature. In addition, it will contribute to the clearer understanding of the relationship between leadership styles in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction by researchers in the field. In summary, the study, and its results both contribute to the knowledge of literature and draw attention to the importance of increasing leadership styles studies in higher education institutions.

Literature review

Universities have its own challenges ( Anthony and Antony, 2017 ) because of having complex structure and uncertain decision-making processes ( Hendrickson et al., 2013 ) which reveals the need for different leadership styles ( Gigliotti and Ruben, 2017 ). In this context, it can be mentioned that the concept of leadership styles exists because there is a need for leadership in the management of higher education institutions.

According to Anthony and Antony (2017) , leaders in HEIs encourage academic staff towards their academic work and can create social networks among academic staff. In addition, leaders in HEIs follow the mission of the university with a visionary approach; as entrepreneurs, risk-taking and flexible individuals, they can create structures to support change and affect the culture and values of HEIs ( Anthony and Antony, 2017 ). It is also stated that leaders in higher education institutions are charismatic individuals who can foresee difficulties or opportunities, adapt to change, and do not hesitate to work to become stronger individually and professionally ( Asaari et al., 2016 ; Thompson and Franz, 2016 ). In addition, as a reflection of leadership in HEIs, strategy, ethics, professionalism, goal orientation, experience, passion, recognition, and self-confidence are also emerging ( Iordache-Platis, 2016 ). Since leaders in HEIs is associated with positions such as rector, dean, director, and head of department, academic leaders organize training programs, make planning in academic units, recruit academic staff, and evaluate and coordinate the institution ( Hacifazlioglu, 2010 ). Mamiseishvili et al. (2016) , on the other hand, state that especially department heads encourage productive behaviours through strong leadership roles in HEIs and are seen as a source that provides development opportunities as a model for other academic staff. Leaders in HEIs play a fundamental role in ensuring effective communication and thus building trust and transparency ( Gigliotti and Ruben, 2017 ). In summary, leaders in HEIs are used in this research to refer to individuals who work as permanent academic staff in higher education institutions and who assume leadership and management roles within the university system ( Morris and Laipple, 2015 ; Iordache-Platis, 2016 ) and it is related to the tasks or behaviours performed by the academic staff in the managerial position ( Pani, 2017 ).

Leaders in HEIs directly or indirectly influence the academic world by using their unique experiences, teaching, and research skills ( Thompson and Franz, 2016 ). One of the important variables affecting the academic world is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined as the emotional reactions of employees towards their jobs and how they feel towards their jobs and organizations ( Spector, 1997 ) and is associated with increasing employee behavior, motivation, and productivity ( Bhuian and Islam, 1996 ). Leaders, with their knowledge and abilities, have an impact on the job satisfaction of the employees due to their features such as gathering people around certain goals and activating them to realize these goals ( Eren, 2001 ) and being able to transfer their feelings and thoughts to the employees strongly ( Goleman, 2002 ).

Research hypothesis

Leaders are the role models of their subordinates within an organization. Various negative behaviours exhibited by leaders (for example, hiding information from subordinates; presenteeism) may also negatively affect their behaviour ( Dietz et al., 2020 ; Akhtar et al., 2021 ). Therefore, it is extremely important for leaders who are role models to exhibit positive behaviour. Thus, employees will create an environment of creativity where they can improve their services, generate new ideas and encourage new ways of working ( Karatepe et al., 2020 ). Similarly, given that academic staff take their leaders as role models, academics can pay attention to whether their own values are in line with the values displayed by the leaders in their institutions ( Lee et al., 2017 ). It is expected that the job satisfaction of academicians who exhibit leadership styles appropriate to their own values will be positive. In a limited number of studies, it is stated that there are positive and significant relationships between leadership styles in higher education and job satisfaction of academic staff ( Schulze, 2006 ; Lan et al., 2019 ). Based on this, the following hypotheses were developed in the research:

H1 : There is a positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

The relevant literature shows that different styles of leadership in HEIs have an impact on the job satisfaction of academic staff, either directly or through intermediary factors ( Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ; Dalati et al., 2017 ; Barnett, 2018 ; Rahman, 2018 ; Suong et al., 2019 ; Mwesigwa et al., 2020 ; Djaelani et al., 2021 ).

One of the important leadership styles that affect the job satisfaction of academic staff from research variables is transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a process that changes the values, beliefs, and attitudes of its followers ( Riggio, 2014 ) and aims to increase the self-confidence of individuals by revealing their talents and skills ( Eren, 2015 ). In this context, transformational leadership draws a framework for the transformation of knowledge in HEI ( Basham, 2012 ; Cetin and Kinik, 2015 ). A transformational higher education leader can increase job satisfaction by gaining the respect of the academic staff, considering the moral and ethical consequences of decisions, and giving individual incentives to increase the motivation of academic staff ( Bass et al., 2003 ). Therefore, it is thought that transformational leadership in higher education may have a positive effect on academic staff’s job satisfaction. According to the research conducted by Mwesigwa et al. (2020) shows that transformational leadership styles positively affect the job satisfaction of academic staff. It is also stated in the same study that job satisfaction tends to increase when they provide better and more suitable working conditions by giving academic staff the freedom to take decisions, provide them opportunities to develop themselves with additional training programs, support their career development by counselling, reward them with incentive programs, provide fringe benefits, empower them and encourage their participation in some studies and some projects ( Mwesigwa et al., 2020 ). In related studies, it has seen that there are positive and significant relationships between job satisfaction and transformational leadership styles ( Robyn and Preez, 2013 ; Ali et al., 2014 ; Suong et al., 2019 ; Jameel and Ahmad, 2020 ).

Another style of leadership that positively affects academic job satisfaction is transactional leadership ( Suong et al., 2019 ; Jameel and Ahmad, 2020 ). In transactional leadership, where the authority of the leader is dominant, the successful completion of tasks and follower harmony are emphasized through contingent rewards ( Northouse, 2018 ). In this context, it can be mentioned that transactional leadership in HEIs uses reward or punishment to direct and maintain the extrinsic motivation of academic staff ( Zheng et al., 2019 ). As a result, a transactional leader who clearly expresses the expectations in higher education institutions and promises awards and status to the academic staff if these expectations are met can positively affect the job satisfaction of the academic staff ( Bateh and Heyliger, 2014 ).

In passive leadership, it is said that the leader avoids taking responsibility, refrains from making decisions, does not give feedback, and makes little effort to help his followers to meet their needs ( Northouse, 2018 ). In passive leadership, it can be emphasized that leaders in higher education institutions are passive, ineffective, and unwilling or incapable of making decisions on their own when they lack knowledge, experience, and expertise. As a result, this leadership may negatively affect the job satisfaction of academic staff, as it causes lack of motivation and role ambiguity in academic staff ( Belias and Koustelios, 2014 ).

It is important for academic staff to be aware of the existence of a servant leader who consider their views into account, loves, and respects them, understands, supports and exalts them ( Yukl, 2018 ). However, increasing love, trust, and appreciation among teaching staff can be supported by spiritual leadership. In this way, spiritual leaders are a source of inspiration for the high performance of the academic staff, increase cooperation and encourage learning together ( Yukl, 2018 ). Therefore, according to relevant literature examining the relationship between servant leadership ( Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ), spiritual leadership ( Wong et al., 2015 ; Djaelani et al., 2021 ) and job satisfaction, it can be concluded that both servant leadership and spiritual leadership have a positive effect on job satisfaction.

In this research, within the scope of “others” leadership styles, coach leadership, hr. specialist leadership, autocrat leadership, contingent, leadership, top management leadership, institutional leadership, empowering leadership, fair leadership, and democratic leadership styles were examined. It has been emphasized that these leadership styles are discussed in studies specific to higher education institutions, and that the relationship between academic staff’s job satisfaction and job satisfaction is positive in related studies ( Haras, 2010 ; Muhonen, 2016 ; Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Rahman, 2018 ; Hee et al., 2020 ).

Based on this, the following hypothesis were developed in the research:

H2 : Leadership style is a moderating variable for the positive relationship between leadership in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2a : There is a positive relationship between transformation leadership style in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2b : There is a positive relationship between transactional leadership style in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2c : There is a negative relationship between passive leadership style in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2d : There is a positive relationship between servant leadership style in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2e : There is a positive relationship between spiritual leadership style in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

H2f : There is a positive relationship between other leadership styles in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

Depending on many factors such as the level of economic development, management styles ( Vliert and Einarsen, 2008 ), cultural values ( Wu et al., 2018 ), individualistic-collectivist structure of employees ( Hou, 2017 ), there are studies that show that leadership approaches differ on a country basis. Therefore, it is seen that different styles of leadership come to the fore in different geographical regions ( Aycan et al., 2000 ; Vliert et al., 2010 ). For example, Mittal and Dorfman (2012) found that the dimensions of egalitarianism and empowerment are more important in European cultures than Asian cultures in their study examining the levels of servant leadership in different geographical regions. They stated that the dimensions of empathy and humility were more suitable for Asian cultures rather than European cultures. In addition, there are also studies that comparatively examine academic staff’s job satisfaction in different countries ( Lacy and Sheehan, 1997 ; Bentley et al., 2013 ). For example, Lacy and Sheehan (1997) found in their study that academics in the United States (60%) were more satisfied with their jobs than academics in Hong Kong (50%). Bentley et al. (2013) determined the job satisfaction rate of academics in South Africa, located on the African continent, as 51%, the job satisfaction rate of academics in the USA as 61%, and the job satisfaction rate of academics in Finland, located in the European continent, as 67%. Based on all this literature, it is predicted that the continent of the country in which the academic staff work will be the moderator variable in their perceived leadership styles and job satisfaction and the following hypothesis were developed:

H3 : The continent in which the countries are located is a moderating variable for the positive relationship between leadership in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

It has been stated in studies on a wide variety of organizational and national issues that there may be differences in different leadership preferences ( Hofstede, 2001 ) and job satisfaction levels in societies that differ in terms of cultural values ( Taras et al., 2010 ). In studies on leadership, it has been emphasized that collectivist and individualistic cultural values are important among social cultural values ( Aycan et al., 2013 ). Triandis (1995) argues that leadership tends to be paternalistic and supportive in collectivist cultures, and achievement-oriented and participatory in individualistic cultures. According to House and Aditya (1997) , “benevolent autocrat” leadership is the most admired leadership style in collectivist cultures. In a study, it was determined that employees with high collectivistic values perceived less mobbing when they perceived their managers as paternalistic leaders ( Durmaz et al., 2020 ). Personal relationships are more important than duty in collectivist societies and personal relationships must be established first ( Hofstede, 2001 ). Trust in institutions is established with the leader within personal relationships. An employee who trusts his leader is expected to have a positive job satisfaction ( Shi et al., 2020 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ). Karadağ (2020) , also mentions that because there is a stronger acceptance and respect for authority in collective cultures, leaders create more influence on these collective cultures than those in individual cultures. In line with all these research findings, it can be said that leadership is important in ensuring the job satisfaction of academic staff in collectivist cultures. The fact that institutions are seen as a family in collectivist cultures contributes to the employee’s developing a sense of loyalty to the institution and management ( Saylık, 2017 ). As a result, it can be mentioned that the relationship between perceived leadership in higher education and job satisfaction in countries with collectivist cultures is higher than in countries with individualistic cultures ( Aycan, 2006 ; Saylık, 2017 ; Durmaz et al., 2020 ). In line with the results of the relevant research, the following hypothesis has been developed:

H4 : The positive relationship existing between leadership in HEIs, and academic staff’s is stronger in countries with collectivist cultures compared to countries with individualistcultures.

In a country, a high level of education affects development with a positive trend in terms of economic and social results, as it will create a qualified workforce. In this context, the evaluation of the education index in the HDI subcategory is important in terms of revealing the level of education, enabling comparison with different countries, and determining the measures and improving policies to be taken in countries with low education levels ( Fırat et al., 2015 ). For example, in the context of job satisfaction, Blanchflower and Oswald (2005) stated that Australia, which ranked third in the HDI in 2004, ranks lower levels in the international job satisfaction rankings. In another study, cooperation in scientific publications, order of authorship, superiority and leadership in research activities were investigated between countries with different HDI. According to the results of this research, it is stated that the leadership characteristics of the authors participating from the countries with high HDI are more developed and they are especially responsible for the studies. It has been revealed that the authors of countries with medium and low levels of human development have a low level of leadership roles and show little participation as a corresponding author ( González-Alcaide et al., 2017 ). In this context, it was predicted in the research that leadership styles in HEIs and job satisfaction in universities will also differ according to HDI variables.

H5 : The positive relationship existing between leadership in HEI and academic staff’s is stronger in countries with very high/high human development indices (HDI) compared to countries with medium/low HDI.

Materials and methods

Research design.

In this study, the meta-analysis method was used to determine the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. Meta-analysis is a statistical method that aims to systematically bring together the quantitative findings of similar and independent studies on a specific subject in a consistent and coherent way according to selection criteria ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ) and to reveal important moderator variables ( Cohen et al., 2007 ; Dinçer, 2014 ).

Study sample and selection criteria

Since publication bias is stated as an important negative factor in meta-analysis studies, it was preferred to use scientific articles and unpublished postgraduate theses in this study. The data used in the study are limited to January 2010–August 2022. The reason for the determination of this range can be shown as the increase of research on leadership in HEIs since 2010. It is also stated that the foundations of humanist leadership theories were laid ( Karadağ, 2020 ). The reason why the research sample includes academic staff in higher education institutions can be cited as the frequent interactions between leaders and employees and the opportunity to examine the relationships between various variables as a result of these interactions ( Syed et al., 2021 ). In addition, this sample was preferred to better understand the positive results of leadership styles to be exhibited in the academic environment ( Li et al., 2022 ). The search process was carried out in English language by keywords and article texts or abstracts in all publications worldwide, between January 2010 and August 2022. Studies contain statistical information necessary for correlational meta-analysis (Pearson correlation values, sample size). Studies measure the relationships between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

Clearly specifying the studies to be included in the meta-analysis in line with certain criteria and being consistent with the purpose of the research are important criteria to prevent publication bias ( Berman and Parker, 2002 ). Therefore, first, a literature search was conducted in the Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, and Ebsco databases to identify studies to be included in the meta-analysis. At this phase, the “leadership” term was taken as a base, and the terms “job satisfaction,” “faculty’s job satisfaction,” “faculty,” “academic staff’s job satisfaction,” “academic staff” OR “higher education” OR “university” OR “college” were used in the title, keywords, and abstract fields and searched in English. In line with this search model, 241 publications from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, 25 publications from Ebsco database, 152 publications from Web of Science database and 328 publications from Scopus database were reached. Thus, a total of 746 publications were reviewed for this study; A total of 215 publications describing the relationship between leadership and job satisfaction were included in the research. However, 44 of them were conducted in a qualitative study design. In 41 studies, Pearson correlation values were not specified; In 16 studies, the variable related to job satisfaction was not defined. In addition, it was determined that the sample of 54 studies consisted of both administrative and academic staff. Therefore, 155 studies were excluded from the analysis. In the second phase, the remaining 60 studies were analysed in detail 32 of these studies were excluded from the analysis because they were the same study which were in different databases; and 28 studies found appropriate to use in this study.

As a result of the examinations, a research sample including studies suitable for meta-analysis was obtained. Accordingly, there are 57 independent data sets obtained from 28 different studies in the study sample ( Table 1 ).

Frequency of the studies included in meta-analysis of the leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

When the descriptive statistics of the research included in the meta-analysis were examined, it was seen that 28 studies examining the relationships between leadership styles in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction were conducted in 9 studies between 2010 and 2015, 10 between 2016 and 2018, and 8 between 2019 and 2020. There is no study in 2021 and 2022. A total of 7,283 academic staff included in the sample.

Unpublished studies (i.e., dissertations) were also included in the study, since only the criticisms of including published articles in meta-analyses were considered. Of the 28 studies included in the research, 15 are articles and 13 are dissertations. Three studies in Africa (Nigeria, Uganda, South Africa), eleven studies in the Americas (United States), eleven studies in Asia (Pakistan = 2, Saudi Arabia = 2, Azerbaijan, Oman, Malaysia, Palestine, Iran, Indonesia), and three studies in Europe were conducted (Lithuania, Sweden and Turkiye).

Coding procedure

Coding is a data extraction process in which clear data and data suitable for research are extracted from the information compiled in the studies ( Karadağ, 2020 ). A coding form was created by the researchers to code the studies included in the meta-analysis process. In the coding form, (i) descriptive statistics and (ii) statistics of research variables were coded in Excel. Within the scope of descriptive statistics, the references of the research, the year it was published, the information about the sampling (sample size, the country in which the research was conducted, the cultural classification of the countries and the classification of the HDI of the countries), the names of the data collection tools were coded. Methodological analysis information and quantitative values (Pearson correlational values between leadership in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction) used within the scope of statistics of research variables are also defined. Coding was done in an appropriate way in the coding form. Thus, it is aimed to develop a special coding system specific to meta-analysis research that will examine the characteristics of both descriptive and research variables in detail.

Moderator variables, analysis, and operational definitions

Moderator analysis is an analysis method used to test the direction of the differences between subgroups and the average effect sizes of the variables ( Karadağ, 2020 ). The statistical significance of the difference between the moderator variables was tested using the Q statistical method developed by Hedges and Olkin (1985) . In this method, the Q b value was calculated to test the homogeneity between the groups ( Kulinskaya et al., 2008 ; Borenstein et al., 2009 ). In the study, leadership styles, the continent, national culture and HDI variables were determined as moderator variables since they were thought to play a role in the average effect size.

The first moderator variable is leadership styles. In this research, moderators of leadership styles include: (i) transformational leadership, (ii) transactional leadership, (iii) passive leadership, (iv) servant leadership, (v) spiritual leadership and (vi) other. Other leadership styles discussed in the research are the studies gathered under the title of “other” and include the styles of leadership in which research based on a single frequency are found.

The second moderator variable, the continent where the research took place, was evaluated in terms of whether they were moderators in the relationship between leadership styles in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction. In this study, there are 6 studies from the African continent (3 countries), 22 studies from the Americas (11 countries), 20 studies from the Asian continent (11 countries), and 9 studies from the European continent (3 countries).

The third moderator variable is the national cultures of the countries (individualistic and collectivist cultures) named by Triandis and Gelfand (1998) and classified in Hofstede Insights (2020) . People living in societies with an individualistic culture use their preferences within the social framework in the society; individuals in collectivist cultures meet the needs of their families and social frameworks before their own needs ( Triandis, 1996 ) and shape their national cultures by preserving the integrity and order of the society Biddle (2012) . In individualistic societies, individuals shape the society according to their own decisions and preferences and accept life as their own Biddle (2012) . In collectivist societies, the services of individuals to society are taken as basis for social order and the life of individuals is seen as belonging to the society, they are a part of ( Biddle, 2012 ). In line with all these views, the relationship between leadership in HEI and academic staff’s job satisfaction in countries with individualistic and collectivist cultures has been reviewed. In this study, of the 57 studies included in the national culture moderator analysis, 26 ( n  = 13) belong to a collectivist culture and 31 ( n  = 14) belong to an individualistic culture. The majority of research on individualistic culture has been carried out in the United States and European countries.

The fourth and final moderator variable is the current HDI, which expresses the economic, social, political and cultural processes ( United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),2019 ) that expand individuals’ choices. In this meta-analysis study, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019) is based on the HDI classification United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019) . Human development reports provide information and comments to eliminate general disadvantages in all countries in the world ( Koçal, 2018 ). In the report, countries are classified as very high human development, high human development, medium human development, and low human development United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019) . Human development indices range from zero to one. The closeness of the index value to one is an indicator of very high human development. Considering the distribution of the research according to the HDI, it is seen that 42 studies have a very high index (19 countries), 6 studies a high index (5 countries), 4 studies a medium index (2 countries), and 5 studies a low index (2 countries).

Effect size analyses

Effect size is a standard measure value used to determine the strength and direction of the relationship in the meta-analysis study ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). In this relational meta-analysis study, the effect size was calculated with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

There are two main models in the meta-analysis: the fixed effects model and the random effects model. In order to determine which model to use, it was taken into account whether the prerequisites of the model were met with the characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis ( Kulinskaya et al., 2008 ; Borenstein et al., 2009 ). The fixed effects model includes the assumption that the study is functionally the same, and the goal is to estimate the effect size for a single defined population. If the study is believed to be unequal in functionality and generalizations are to be made over the estimated effect size for larger populations, the model to be used is the random effects model. In this study, a random effects model was applied in the meta-analysis processes when all conditions were taken into account. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA V 2) software was used in the meta-analysis processes.

The common method bias

Various applications have been made in line with the recommendations in the literature to reduce the common method bias ( Javed et al., 2020 ; Akhtar et al., 2021 ). First, Aslam et al. (2021) recommends stating the purpose of the research before applying the data collection tools and paying attention to the confidentiality and anonymity of the answers obtained from the data collection tools. When all the studies included in this meta-analysis study are examined, it can be said that confidentiality and anonymity are taken into account within the scope of the ethical dimension of the research and the purpose of the research is stated. Common method bias is also the case when a researcher creates estimates of validity and reliability that may lead a researcher to believe that a scale does not accurately reflect an implicit measure but does so accurately. Such an error may cause common method bias in future meta-analysis studies ( Wall, 2014 ). As a result, the studies included in the meta-analysis were examined and it was seen that the data collection tools used were suitable for the purpose of the studies, and the validity and reliability information was presented. Thus, the existence of common method bias cannot be mentioned in this study.

Statistical methods/analysis (reliability and validity of the study)

The reliability and validity of the results is considered one of the most important criteria in a meta-analysis. In this context, the steps for reliability and validity are as follows:

• In this study, while determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria, all the characteristics related to the field of study (leadership and job satisfaction) were evaluated together. The target set for job satisfaction is to evaluate the satisfaction of the academic staff with their jobs; It is not about assessing their life satisfaction.
• Since the studies included in the meta-analysis were not functionally equivalent, the random effects model was used.
• In this study, attention was paid to research sensitivity by including both published and unpublished studies to avoid publication bias. Also, no evidence of publication bias was observed with a funnel plot or tests. It was also determined that the effect size was not affected by publication bias.
• Coding reliability was performed to determine whether the studies in the coding form were coded correctly. For this purpose, two field experts experienced in meta-analysis studies were asked to recode approximately 17 studies, which were randomly selected and correspond to 30% of the studies included in the coding list, by adhering to the coding list created by the researchers. Cohen’s Kappa consistency coefficients, which were used in meta-analysis studies to determine the reliability of the coding form and to measure the reliability between raters ( Leary, 2012 ), were calculated and the value was found to be 0.92 ( p  < 0.001). According to Landis and Koch (1977) , this value indicates an “almost perfect” agreement between the coders.
• The basic condition for sampling in meta-analysis studies is that the sample best represents the population. The sampling is not expected to be the same as the population, as there are inclusion or exclusion criteria for sampling, and it consists of total errors that occur by chance. However, it is expected that an infinite number of studies will take place for meta-analysis in order for the sampling error to be zero ( Karadağ, 2020 ). Therefore, considering that the sample of the studies included in the meta-analysis is not infinite; Random effects model was used in this study. In meta-analysis studies, correlation values are converted to “Fisher Z” values and analyses are performed on these values. While the analysis findings are being evaluated, they are interpreted by converting them into correlation coefficients. In correlation data, the correlation coefficient is used as the effect size in relation to the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). Correlation coefficient effect sizes are interpreted if it is between ±0.00 and ± 0.10, it is very weak; If it is between ±0.10 and 0.30, it is weak; between ±0.30 and 0.50 is moderate; ± 0.50 to 0.80 strong; ± 0.80 and above as a very strong effect ( Cohen et al., 2007 ).

Descriptive analysis

As can be seen in the forest plot examination ( Supplementary Figure S1 ), all the random effect sizes for the correlation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction were significant ( p  < 0.05), and the confidence interval for each effect size did not cross zero.

Meta-analysis results between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction are presented in Table 2 . The findings support the H1 hypothesis, which states that there is a positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. While the average effect size was determined to be r  = 0.374, the lower bound value was calculated as r  = 0.247 and the upper bound value as r  = 0.504.

Meta-analysis results related to relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

In the other hypothesis sentences of the research; leadership styles, the continent in which the countries were located, the national culture and the HDI might be moderators for the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

It is seen that the H2 hypothesis, which states that leadership styles have a moderator effect on the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction, is supported ( Q b  = 51.786 p < 0.05). From the leadership styles obtained from the studies included in the meta-analysis, spiritual leadership is very strong on the job satisfaction of the academic staff ( r  = 0.894); servant ( r  = 0.658), other ( r  = 0.632) and transformation ( r  = 0.569) leadership styles are strong on job satisfaction of academic staff; passive leadership ( r  = −0.412) has a medium effect on the job satisfaction of the academic staff, and transactional leadership ( r  = 0.265) has a weak effect on the job satisfaction of the academic staff.

H3, which asserted that the continent in which the countries are located was the moderating variable regarding the positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction, was not supported. In the moderator analysis performed, the positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction was not statistically significant ( Q b  = 6.219, p  > 0.05). Although the relationship difference was not statistically significant, teacher self-efficacy appears to have a positive relationship with academic staff’s job satisfaction in the continents of America ( r  = 0.273), Asia ( r  = 0.316), Africa ( r  = 0.373) and Europe ( r  = 0.754).

The findings did not support H4, which asserted that the national culture was a mediating variable for the positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. In the moderator analysis performed, there was no significant difference between national culture [collectivist culture ( r  = 0.348) and individualistic culture ( r  = 0.397) ( Q b  = 0.139; p  > 0.05)].

H5, which expresses the role of The HDI as a moderator variable for the positive positive relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction was not supported. In the analysis of the moderator, the average effect size difference was found to be statistically insignificant ( Q b  = 1.501, p  > 0.05). Although the effect difference was not statistically significant, the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction was in countries with low HDI ( r  = 0.332), medium HDI ( r  = 0.319), with high HDI ( r  = 0.612) and with very high HDI ( r  = 0.350).

Publishing bias

Since publications that produce meaningful results are included in the research process and negatively affect the analysis process, it is recommended to detect publication bias before starting the meta-analysis ( Kalkan, 2017 ). The most commonly used method for publication bias is the funnel plot. The results of the funnel scatterplot showing the probability of publication bias of the studies included in the meta-analysis in this study are shown in Figure 1 .

Funnel scatter plot illustrating relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

In case of any publication bias, the funnel plot is expected to be significantly asymmetrical. In particular, most of the studies included in the study are expected to be at the top of the figure and very close to the combined effect size. In line with all these indicators, it can be mentioned that no evidence of publication bias was observed in any of the 57 studies subjected to meta-analysis. However, since not all the individual effect sizes of the studies are symmetrical in the funnel, it is necessary to look at the publication bias statistics. Confidence tests showing the bias of the studies included in the meta-analysis and their results are given in Table 3 .

Confidence tests and results showing the bias of studies included in the meta-analysis.

As seen in Table 3 , the results of Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe N Test reveal that the meta-analysis result is statistically significant ( p  = 0.000). In other words, to eliminate the significance of meta-analysis results, 3,087 studies with zero effect size value are needed ( Z value = 39.493; p  < 0.00; alfa value = 0.05). The fact that Kendall’s Tau coefficient obtained from Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlations is not statistically significant (Tau = 0.043; z value for Tau = 0.474; p value (1-tailed) = 0.317; p value (2-tailed) = 0.634) is an indication that there is no publication bias. From the result of Egger’s Linear Regression method ( p  = 0.325 > 0.05), it can be stated with 95% confidence that there is no publication bias. According to the results of Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe N Test, Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlations, and Egger’s Linear Regression method, which were used to determine the validity and publication bias of the research, it was concluded that the publication bias was low. In this study, publication bias was tested also using Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill tests in Table 4 .

The results of Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill tests.

When Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill tests results in Table 4 are examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the observed effect and the artificial effect determined to adjust for the effect that may arise from publication bias. The difference between the fixed effect size and the observed effect size is zero, since there is no missing data on both sides of the centerline and the studies concentrated on both sides show a symmetrical distribution ( Coğaltay et al., 2014 ).

Discussion and conclusion

In the current study, that was conducted to examine the relation leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction, using the meta-analysis method, the overall effect size of 57 different studies that were determined in accordance with the selection criteria was calculated. In addition, it was aiming to answer the question if there was a significant relation between the parameters according to the moderator variables (leadership theories, the continent where the research was conducted, national culture and HDI).

The first finding of the study is that there is a moderate and direct relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. As the related studies in the literature are examined, it is stated that leadership in HEIs is related to academic staff’s job satisfaction ( Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016 ; Harris et al., 2016 ; Barnett, 2018 ; Liu et al., 2021 ). Academic staff should be satisfied with their jobs to fulfil their educational, research-investigation-based, and social responsibilities such as teaching, designing practice hours for the course material, conducting scientific studies, and carrying out projects. There is a direct relation between the academic staff’s job satisfaction and the program/education outcomes, the higher the satisfaction level of the academic staff’ results with the greater the program/education outcomes. High leadership behaviours exhibited by academic staff’ are also considered important on academic staff’s job satisfaction. Academic staff’ due to their position as scientists are expected to be able to lead, influence, stimulate the society while being open to communication and permissive ( Caglar, 2004 ). This identity can be accepted as an indicator of the job satisfaction of the academic staff in terms of developing the vision of the university and producing a sense of belonging, as well as their leadership styes.

In this research, it has been determined that leadership styles are moderators in the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. According to this finding, the effect of spiritual leadership on the relationship between the academic staff’s job satisfaction and the leadership in HEI is at the highest level; It has been determined that servant, other and transformational leadership styles have positive and strong effects. Moreover, passive leadership has negative and moderate effects while transactional leadership has positive but weak effects on the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction.

It is an expected result that the effect of leadership styles on the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction is direct and significant. In this study, it was determined that there is a positive and high level of relationship between spiritual leadership and academic staff job satisfaction. Spiritual leadership emphasizes the spiritual side of people, and it is seen that spiritual leaders emphasize issues such as love, compassion, honesty, harmony, unity, and peace ( Polat, 2011 ). Moreover, it is stated that managers who show spiritual leadership characteristics are adored by their employees which is in direct relation with job satisfaction expectations ( Pio and Tampi, 2018 ; Maryati et al., 2019 ; Djaelani et al., 2021 ). The fact that leaders in HEIs also have strong spiritual feelings towards the institution can positively affect their job satisfaction.

In this study, it was determined that there is a positive and high level of relationship between servant leadership and academic staff job satisfaction. It is also stated in the literature that servant leaders, who have the characteristics of helping the success and development of the employees in the institution and dedicating themselves to developing the vision of the institution, increase the job satisfaction of the individuals working in the institution ( Amah, 2018 ; Zargar et al., 2019 ; Adiguzel et al., 2020 ). It is expected that the presence of a manager who supports their employees within the organization will have an impact on the job satisfaction of the employees’. Likewise, a leader in HEIs who is devoted to the institution and who aims to develop the vision of the institution and whose servant-leader characteristics dominate is expected to have a high levels of job satisfaction.

In the study, it was determined that that there is a positive and high level of relationship between transformational leadership and academic staff job satisfaction. Many studies examining leadership styles and job satisfaction in higher education have concluded that there is a moderate and positive relationship between transformational leadership and academic staff job satisfaction ( Duyan, 2019 ; Gölebakar, 2020 ). Transformational leaders aim to change the perceptions of the employees in the organization by way of variety of activities by putting their employees in the center of the activities stemming a high levels of job satisfaction within the institution ( Cote, 2017 ). It can be said that leaders in HEIs displaying transformational leadership styles and taking their own interests and needs as the basis while achieving their goals they focus on will increase their job satisfaction.

In this research, it has been determined that passive leadership has negative and moderate levels effect on academic staff job satisfaction and transactional leadership has a positive and low-level effect on academic staff job satisfaction. Passive leadership is a leadership style in which the leader does not interfere with the process and avoids talking to employees or setting the desired standards ( Bass et al., 2003 ). Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is defined as a process based on mutual interests between the leader and the employee, in which employees gain prestige and wages as a result of meeting the expectations of the leaders ( Isa et al., 2011 ). It is inevitable that both leadership characteristics will have lower effects on job satisfaction than other leadership styles. As a matter of fact, it is stated in the literature that the relation between passive and transactional leadership and job satisfaction is low, and there is even a negative relation ( Nguni et al., 2006 ; Nazim and Mahmood, 2018 ). In this manner, it can be said that leaders’ acting with a certain salary or extrinsic motivation or hiding their leadership characteristics have an insignificant effect on their job satisfaction or that the effect is less than those with other leadership styles.

No statistically significant difference was observed in the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction in any of the four continents within the scope of the research. Owing to globalization in the 21st century, it is an expected result that leadership and job satisfaction are expected to be high among the characteristics of the teaching staff independent of geographical locations. Although the continent variable was determined as the moderator variable for the relationship between leadership n HEIs and job satisfaction, it was determined that continent was not a significant variable in this study. It is possible to state that there are studies with similar findings in the literature however, there are more studies that conclude that continent is a significant variable ( Hou, 2017 ; Wu et.al., 2018 ; Neubert et al., 2022 ). There might be different reasons for this. First of all, it was aimed to reveal cultural, economic and social differences while determining the continent variable as a moderator variable. Since the sample size that could detect national differences in the research universe could not be reached, it is thought that these dimensions should be compared with a larger sample set in future studies, although universities operate in different geographies, it is thought that this has led to such a result because they are in a similar organizational structure. Since the structure of universities does not change radically on a geographical basis, it is thought that continental difference does not have a significant moderator effect on the relationship between leadership n HEIs and job satisfaction.

In this study, it was determined that the relationship between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction did not differ according to countries with collectivist and individualistic society. Although a society’s being in an individualistic or collectivist culture gives information about the individuals, institutions, behaviours and functioning of those institutions ( Carıkcı and Koyuncu, 2010 ); Individualist and collectivist cultures cannot always exhibit a homogeneous structure, both at the social and institutional level. Even within the same country or society, a heterogeneous structure is exhibited in terms of cultural approach ( Hofstede et al., 2010 ; Keçeci, 2017 ). There are different findings about individualism–collectivism and job satisfaction in the literature. Hui et al. (1995) found that job satisfaction is higher in collectivist societies. Nevertheless, Harrison (1995) , Griffeth and Hom (1987) , and Lincoln and Kalleberg (1985) reported that employees in individualistic cultures have higher job satisfaction. Although there are studies stating that leadership styles (spiritual, paternalistic, educational) are higher in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures ( Novikov, 2017 ; Saylik, 2017 ; Karadağ, 2020 ). In his research, Saylik (2017) concluded that there is no significant relationship between collectivism and leadership styles emphasizing authoritarianism, interventionism, and insufficiency. Similar research findings, which determined that the relationship between leadership styles in academic organizations and academic staff job satisfaction, do not differ according to countries with collectivist and individualistic society structures, also support the findings of this research ( Durmaz et al., 2020 ). As a result, it can be said that both cultural structures can affect the leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction direct or reverse from different aspects.

Likewise, it was determined that HDI types were not moderators in the relation between leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction. Among the countries included in the research, it can be said that the academic staff working in different countries in terms of HDI find the profession of academics valuable, they are satisfied with their work and their perceptions of leadership in HEIs are high. Although Blanchflower and Oswald (2005) found in their research in Austria that their country has a high HDI index, the job satisfaction of the employees found at low level. However, Hamutoğlu et al. (2020) , found that all employees in higher education institutions in Norway with a high HDI index are satisfied with their institutions. Although there are differences in the literature, it can be said that academic staff working in countries with different levels of human development find their profession valuable and are satisfied with their job. As a result, it can be accepted that the relationship between academic staff’s perceived leadership styles and job satisfaction does not differ significantly according to the level of human development.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The current study was conducted using data obtained from primary sources. The major disadvantage of the current research is the possibly relational nature of the studies from which the data were obtained. Considering that qualitative studies are more effective in explaining the nature of leadership in HEIs, claiming that the obtained results can fully explain the causal effects would be biased. In addition, the fact that most of the studies on the academic staff’s job satisfaction levels of leadership in HEIs are correlational indicates the existence of a potential method bias.

Despite the strategies developed to access the studies to be included in the current meta-analysis, it was not possible to reach all studies. It can be explained with the fact that the full texts of some studies could not be accessed through the searched databases can be cited. Hence, some studies that are thought to contain data suitable for the current research could not be reached. Although there were no statistical results indicating publication bias, the absence of publication bias could not be guaranteed as unpublished studies were not accessible. Secondly, in this study studies reporting the correlation coefficient (r) were included in the meta-analysis. Therefore, researchers may be advised to report the findings that led to the meta-analysis, rather than providing a single conclusion. Thirdly, since the publication language of the studies included in the current research was limited to English, studies published in other languages could not be reached. Thus, most of the included studies were conducted in various states of the United States. Further meta-analysis studies should consider studies published in different languages to reveal cultural differences. Another limitation of the study is that the sample of the present study consists of studies published between 2010 and 2022. Accordingly, this limitation should be considered when generalizing the results obtained.

Due to the positive relations between the leadership in HEIs and academic staff’s job satisfaction, it may be recommended to give trainings to the faculty to improve their leadership skills within the institution. In addition, it can be suggested that scientific studies that reveal the effects that increase the job satisfaction of the academic staff should be periodically updated and measures should be taken to increase the job satisfaction within the institution. It is recommended that all findings required for inclusion of individual studies in such meta-analysis studies should be reported by the researchers. For future studies, it is recommended to conduct studies examining similar variables based on the findings of international reports that allow OECD countries to be compared in terms of education.

Theoretical implications

Theoretically, this research confirmed that the relationship between leadership in higher education and job satisfaction is positive. It has contributed to the importance of leadership styles in higher education in ensuring the job satisfaction of academic staff. It has been revealed that when academic staff are recognized, supported and rewarded by university administrators, their job satisfaction levels will tend to increase. Therefore, the leadership style of university administrators will contribute to the job satisfaction of academic staff. This research has mentioned on the importance of leadership styles adopted in higher education institutions in theory in recent years. Thus, future research will contribute to the further growth and integrative potentials of these leadership types.

Practical implications

This research provides policy makers, practitioners, and administrators with relevant information in a variety of ways. According to the findings of the research, firstly, spiritual leadership should be adopted by the academic staff in order to ensure job satisfaction. It is necessary to adopt a leadership approach that will consider the emotional, spiritual and mental needs of academic staff in higher education institutions. Thus, the learning, research and teaching climate in higher education institutions can be positively affected. Administrators in higher education should develop an academic organizational structure inspired by a new and strong culture that will meet all the needs, desires and aspirations of academic staff. Servant leadership is another leadership that academic staff should adopt to ensure job satisfaction. It may be beneficial to develop leadership training programs that listen to and care for academics’ needs and try to assist their career development. In this case, higher education institutions should try to create an open, sincere, and honest workplace in order to ensure the job satisfaction of their academic staff. A friendly academic environment enables teaching staff to make the profession an enjoyable career. Moreover, it can be suggested to raise awareness of administrators and academic staff working in higher education institutions by giving trainings on the importance of servant leadership. The findings showed that it is beneficial for academic staff to develop transformational leadership skills to increase job satisfaction. For the academic staff to be more productive and achieve high performance, the presence of more transformational leaders in the institution can be recommended. In an academic environment where the competencies of academic staff are evaluated and rewarded, academic staff who research and teach, might be highly motivated and less likely to seek new jobs. In summary, university administrators who adopt transformational leadership should create an academic environment where innovative and creative thinking abilities are encouraged and valued.

The changing leadership roles of administrators, who will increase the job satisfaction of academic staff in higher education institutions in the future, will be an indispensable and important subject of future research. This research shows that humanist leadership roles rather than traditional leadership roles are important in increasing academician job satisfaction in today’s higher education institutions. In-depth research is needed to understand the basis of these positive reactions to spiritual, servant and transformational leadership roles in higher education institutions.

Data availability statement

Author contributions.

GK and BG designed the study, reviewed the literature, organized the database, and performed the meta analysis of manuscript. BG, VE, and ÇA contributed to introduction. GK wrote findings, results, and conclusion of the manuscript. GT reviewed literature and edited the manuscript and references. All authors have read and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1038824/full#supplementary-material

• Adiguzel Z., Ozcinar M. F., Karadal H. (2020). Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction? Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 26 , 103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar M. W., Javed M., Syed F., Aslam M. K., Hussain K. (2020). Say no to wrongdoing: the serial mediation model of responsible leadership and whistleblowing intentions . Int. J. Manpow. 42 , 889–903. doi: 10.1108/IJM-02-2020-0070 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar M. W., Karatepe O. M., Syed F., Husnain M. (2021). Leader knowledge hiding, feedback avoidance, and hotel employee outcomes: a moderated mediation model . Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 34 , 578–600. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2021-0545 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali N., Jan S., Ali A., Tariq M. (2014). Transformational and transactional leadership as predictors of job satisfaction, commitment, perceived performance and turnover intention (empirical evidence from Malakand division, Pakistan) . Life Sci. J. 11 , 48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alonderiene R., Majauskaite M. (2016). Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education institutions . Int. J. Educ. Manag. 30 , 140–164. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amah O. E. (2018). Determining the antecedents and outcomes of servant leadership . J. Gen. Manag. 43 , 126–138. doi: 10.1177/0306307017749634 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amzat I. H., Idris D. A. R. (2012). Structural equation models of management and decision-making styles with job satisfaction of academic staff in Malaysian research university . International Journal of Educational Management. 26 , 616–645. doi: 10.1108/09513541211263700 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anthony S. G., Antony J. (2017). Academic leadership–special or simple . Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 66 , 630–637. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-08-2016-0162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asaari M. H. A. H., Dwivedi A., Lawton A., Desa N. M. (2016). Academic leadership and organizational commitment in public universities of Malaysia . Eur. Sci. J. 12 , 329–344. doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n16p329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aslam M. K., Akhtar M. S., Akhtar M. W., Asrar-ul-Haq M., Iqbal J., Usman M. (2021). Reporting the wrong to the right: The mediated moderation model of whistleblowing education and the whistleblowing intentions . Kybernetes . Epub online ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/K-02-2021-0123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aycan Z. (2006). “ Paternalism ” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology . eds. Kim U., Yang K. S., Hwang K. K. (Springer, Boston, MA: International and Cultural Psychology; ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Aycan Z., Kanungo R. N., Mendonca M., Yu K., Deller J., Stahl G., et al.. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: a 10-country comparison . Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 49 , 192–221. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aycan Z., Schyns B., Sun J. M., Felfe J., Saher N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes . Journal of International Business Studies 44 , 962–969. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2013.48 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett D. E. (2018). Online adjunct faculty: a quantitative examination of the predictive relationship between leadership and job satisfaction . Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 4 , 226–236. doi: 10.21890/ijres.383159 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basham L. M. (2012). Transformational leadership characteristics necessary for today’s leaders in higher education . J. Int. Educ. Res. 8 , 343–348. doi: 10.19030/jier.v8i4.7280 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M., Avolio B. J., Jung D. I., Berson Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership . J. Appl. Psychol. 88 , 207–218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateh J., Heyliger W. (2014). Academic administrator leadership styles and the impact on faculty job satisfaction . J. Leadersh. Educ. 13 , 34–49. doi: 10.12806/V13/I3/R3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belias D., Koustelios A. (2014). Leadership and job satisfaction--A review . European Scientific Journal 10 , 8.24–8.46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentley P. J., Coates H., Dobson I. R., Goedegebuure L., Meek V. L. (2013). “ Academic job satisfaction from an international comparative perspective: Factors associated with satisfaction across 12 countries ” in Job satisfaction around the academic world (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 239–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berman N. G., Parker R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy . BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2 , 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-2-10 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhuian S. N., Islam M. S. (1996). Continuance commitment and extrinsic job satisfaction among a novel multicultural expatriate workforce . Mid-Atlant. J. Bus. 32 , 35–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biddle C. (2012). Rational Egoism: The Morality for Human Flourishing Glen Allen: Glen Allen Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanchflower D. G.,and Oswald A. J. (2005). Happiness and the human development index: the paradox of Australia. NBER Working Paper No. 11416.
• Bolden R, Gosling J, O’Brien A., Peters K., Ryan M., and Haslam A. (2012). Academic leadership: Changing conceptions, experiences and identities in higher education in UK universities. Final Report, Research and Development Series. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., Rothstein H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Son. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caglar İ. (2004). The comparative analysis of the leadership manner approach of faculty of economics and administrative sciences and faculty of engineering students and Corum example . Gazi Üniversitesi Ticaret ve Turizm Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2 , 91–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cakmak E., Öztekin Ö., Karadağ E. (2015). “ The effect of leadership on job satisfaction ” in Leadership and Organizational Outcomes (Cham: Springer; ), 29–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carıkcı İ. H., Koyuncu O. (2010). A research on to determine the relationship between the individualist-collectivist culture and entrepreneurial trends . Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cetin M. O., Kinik F. S. F. (2015). An analysis of academic leadership behavior from the perspective of transformational leadership . Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 207 , 519–527. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coğaltay N., Karadag E., Öztekin Ö. (2014). The effect of school principals’ transformational leadership behaviors on teachers’ organizational commitment: a metaanalysis study . Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 20 , 483–500. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2014.019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coğaltay N., Yalcin M., Karadag E. (2016). Educational leadership and job satisfaction of teachers: a meta-analysis study on the studies published between 2000 and 2016 in Turkey . Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 16 , 255–282. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2016.62.13 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cote R. (2017). A comparison of leadership theories in an organizational environment . Int. J. Bus. Adm. 8 , 28–35. doi: 10.5430/ijba.v8n5p28 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahleez K., Aboramadan M. (2022). Servant leadership and job satisfaction in higher education: the mediating roles of organizational justice and organizational trust . Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. , 1–22. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2022.2052753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalati S., Raudeliūnienė J., Davidavičienė V. (2017). Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria . Bus. Manag. Econom. Eng. 15 , 14–27. doi: 10.3846/bme.2017.360 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dietz C., Zacher H., Scheel T., Otto K., Rigotti T. (2020). Leaders as role models: effects of leader presenteeism on employee presenteeism and sick leave . Work Stress. 34 , 300–322. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2020.1728420 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinçer S. (2014). Eğitim bilimlerinde uygulamalı meta-analiz [Applied meta-analysis in educational sciences] . Ankara: Pegem Akademi [ Google Scholar ]
• Djaelani A. K., Sanusi A., Triatmanto B. (2021). Spiritual leadership, job satisfaction, and its effect on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior . Manag. Sci. Lett. 10 , 3907–3914. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.7.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durmaz C., Ergeneli A., Camgöz S. M. (2020). The roles of individualism and collectivism among paternalistic leadership, mobbing and organizational cynicism relationships . Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 7 , 631–655. doi: 10.30798/makuiibf.789944 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duyan M. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction: An application on academic staff in faculties of sport science. Dissertation . Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Türkiye .
• Eren E. (2001). Yönetim ve organizasyon. Çağdaş ve küresel yaklaşımlar. 5. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta.
• Eren E. (2015). Örgütsel davranış ve yönetim psikolojisi. Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım. 15 . Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım. 15. Baskı: İstanbul .
• Fırat E., Ürün E., Aydın A. (2015). The relationship of development and education: an evaluation of turkey’s education level by human development index . In International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Kazan – Russia . 876–883.
• Gigliotti R. A., Ruben B. D. (2017). Preparing higher education leaders: a conceptual, strategic, and operational approach . J. Leader. Educat. 16 , 96–114. doi: 10.12806/V16/I1/T1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gölebakar S. (2020). The relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction in multinational companies: The role of power distance in German and Turkish national cultures [Master’s thesis]. Türkiye: Marmara University
• Goleman D. (2002) in Yeni liderler . eds. Nayır F., Deniztekin O. (İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları) [ Google Scholar ]
• Gok K., Sumanth J. J., Bommer W. H., Demirtas O., Arslan A., Eberhard J., et al. (2017). You may not reap what you sow: How employees’ moral awareness minimizes ethical leadership’s positive impact on workplace deviance . Journal of Business Ethics 146 :257–277. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3655-7, PMID: [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Alcaide G., Park J., Huamaní C., Ramos J. M. (2017). Dominance and leadership in research activities: collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications . PLoS One 12 :8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182513, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffeth R. W., Hom P. W. (1987). Some multivariate comparisons of multinational managers . Multivar. Behav. Res. 22 , 173–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2202_3, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gumus S., Bellibas M. S., Esen M., Gumus E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014 . Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46 , 25–48. doi: 10.1177/1741143216659296 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hacifazlioglu Ö. (2010). Entry and transition to academic leadership: experiences of women leaders from Turkey and the U.S . Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim bilimleri 10 , 2221–2273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamutoğlu N. B., Ünveren-Bilgiç E. N., Elmas M. (2020). Quality processes in higher education: a comparative study of countries according to human development index reports . Yükseköğretim Dergisi 10 , 112–124. doi: 10.2399/yod.19.521343 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harash A. H. (2010). An analysis of the relationship between the perceived leadership styles of educational leaders and the job satisfaction of academic staff who serve under them within community colleges . [dissertation] USA: Pepperdine University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris K., Hinds L., Manansingh S., Rubino M., Morote E. S. (2016). What type of leadership in higher education promotes job satisfaction and increases retention? J. Leadersh. Instruct. 15 , 27–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison G. L. (1995). Satisfaction, tension and interpersonal relations: a cross-cultural comparison of managers in Singapore and Australia . J. Manag. Psychol. 10 , 13–19. doi: 10.1108/02683949510100741 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hee O. C., Shi C. H., Kowang T. O., Fei G. C., Ping L. L. (2020). Factors influencing job satisfaction among academic staffs . International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 9 , 285–291. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedges L., Olkin I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis . London: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrickson R. M., Lane J. E., Harris J. T., Dorman R. H. (2013). Academic leadership and governance of higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring leaders of two-and four-year institutions . Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2 Edn . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication. Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou X. (2017). Multilevel influence of destructive leadership on millennial generation employees innovative behavior . Soc. Behav. Pers. 45 , 1113–1126. doi: 10.2224/sbp.6117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Aditya R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? J. Manag. 23 , 409–473. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hui C. H., Yee C., Eastman K. L. (1995). The relationship between individualism-collectivism and job satisfaction . Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 44 , 276–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1995.tb01080.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede Insights (2020). Hofstede insights country comparison tool . Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/
• Iordache-Platis M. (2016). Higher education leadership and institutional development: stakeholders perceptions . In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance , November 10–11 99– 108 .
• Isa K., Muda W. H. N. W., Sabri B. (2011). Effect of transformational and transactional leadership style towards employee commitment in the organization . IPN J. 1 , 133–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jameel A. S., Ahmad A. R. (2020). The mediating role of job satisfaction between leadership style and performance of academic staff . Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 24 , 2399–2414. doi: 10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201349 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Javed M., Akhtar M. W., Husnain M., Lodhi R., Emaan S. (2020). A stakeholder-centric paradigm bids well for the “business case”-an investigation through moderated-mediation model . Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27 , 2563–2577. doi: 10.1002/csr.1976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Javed M., Akhtar M. W., Hussain K., Junaid M., Syed F. (2021). “Being true to oneself”: the interplay of responsible leadership and authenticity on multi-level outcomes . Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 42 , 408–433. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-04-2020-0165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones S., Lefoe G., Harvey M., Ryland K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34 , 67–78. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalkan F. (2017). The effect of gender on school administrators and teachers’ perceptions of learning organization: a meta-analysis study . Educ. Sci. 42 , 165–183. doi: 10.15390/EB.2017.5033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karadağ E. (2020). The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: a cross-cultural meta-analysis research on studies between 2008 and 2018 . Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 21 , 49–64. doi: 10.1007/s12564-019-09612-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karatepe O. M., Aboramadan M., Dahleez K. A. (2020). Does climate for creativity mediate the impact of servant leadership on management innovation and innovative behavior in the hotel industry? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 32 , 2497–2517. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0219 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keçeci M. (2017). The impact of individualism and collectivism on the relationship between leadership styles and organizational citizenship behaviour . Res. J. Bus. Manag. 4 , 469–484. doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.755 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiplangat H. K., Momanyi M., Kangethe N. S. (2017). Dimensions of Kenyan university academic staff's job satisfaction in view of various managerial leadership practices . J. Educ. Pract. 8 , 120–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koçal S. (2018). The relationship among cultural values, human development level and terror crimes. Master’s thesis. Turkiye: Yıldırım Beyazıt University.
• Kulinskaya E., Morgenthaler S., Staudte R. G. (2008). Meta-Analysis: A Guide to Calibrating and Combining Statistical Evidence . London: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lacy F. J., Sheehan B. A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: an international perspective . High. Educ. 34 , 305–322. doi: 10.1023/A:1003019822147 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lan T. S., Chang I. H., Ma T. C., Zhang L. P., Chuang K. C. (2019). Influences of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and patriarchal leadership on job satisfaction of cram school faculty members . Sustainability 11 :3465. doi: 10.3390/su11123465 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data . Biometrics 33 , 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leary H. M. (2012). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning versus traditional lecture-based learning: A meta-analysis. Dissertation, United States: Utah State University .
• Lee S., Kim Y. J., Jones W. D. (2017). Central peptidergic modulation of peripheral olfactory responses . BMC Biol. 15 :35. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0374-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li M., Yang F., Akhtar M. W. (2022). Responsible leadership effect on career success: the role of work engagement and self-enhancement motives in education sector . Front. Psychol. 13 , 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.888386, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln J. R., Kalleberg A. L. (1985). Work organization and workforce commitment: a study of plants and employees in the United States and Japan . Am. Sociol. Rev. 50 , 738–219. doi: 10.2307/2095502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Y., Bellibaş M. Ş., Gümüş S. (2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration . Educat. Manag. Administrat. Leader. 49 , 430–453. doi: 10.1177/1741143220910438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mamiseishvili K., Miller M. T., Lee D. (2016). Beyond teaching and research: faculty perceptions of service roles at research universities . Innov. High. Educ. 41 , 273–285. doi: 10.1007/s10755-015-9354-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maryati T., Astuti R. J., Udin U. (2019). The effect of spiritual leadership and organizational culture on employee performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction . Int. J. Innovat. Creativ. Change 9 , 130–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittal R., Dorfman P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures . J. World Bus. 47 , 555–570. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris T. L., Laipple J. S. (2015). How prepared are academic administrators? Leadership and job satisfaction within US research universities . J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 37 , 241–251. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhonen T. (2016). Exploring gender harassment among university teachers and researchers . Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 8 , 131–142. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-04-2015-0026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mwesigwa R., Tusiime I., Ssekiziyivu B. (2020). Leadership styles, job satisfaction and organizational commitment among academic staff in public universities . J. Manag. Dev. 39 , 253–268. doi: 10.1108/JMD-02-2018-0055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nazim F., Mahmood A. (2018). A study of relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction . J. Res. Soc. Sci. 6 , 165–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neubert M. J., de Luque M. S., Quade M. J., Hunter E. M. (2022). Servant leadership across the globe: assessing universal and culturally contingent relevance in organizational contexts . J. World Bus. 57 :101268. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101268 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguni S., Sleegers P., Denessen E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case . Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 17 , 145–177. doi: 10.1080/09243450600565746 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen P. N. D., Nguyen L. L. K., Le D. N. T. (2021). The impact of extrinsic work factors on job satisfaction and organizational commitment at higher education institutions in Vietnam . The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8 , 259–270. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no8.0259 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Northouse P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th Edn. United States: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novikov V. (2017). Spiritual leadership in collectivist and individualist cultures . Emerg. Leader. Journey 10 , 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Okan T., Akyüz A. M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between ethical leadership and job satisfaction with the mediating role of the level of loyalty to supervisor . Bus. Econ. Res. J. 6 , 155–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Öztürk F., Kılıçoğlu G. (2021). The relationship between academic intellectual leadership, perceived organizational support and organization citizenship: a study on the higher education institutions in Turkey . Yükseköğretim Dergisi 11 , 409–420. doi: 10.2399/yod.20.639356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pani A. (2017). Academic leadership: concept, attributes and practices . Univ. News 55 , 17–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pio R. J., Tampi J. R. E. (2018). The influence of spiritual leadership on quality of work life, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior . Int. J. Law Manag. 60 , 757–767. doi: 10.1108/IJLMA-03-2017-0028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polat S. (2011). The level of academic staff’ spiritual leadership (SL) qualities display according to students in faculty of education . Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 15 , 2033–2041. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman M. A. (2018). Influence of female leadership styles and organization culture on locus of control and job satisfaction . Integrat. J. Bus. Econom. 2 , 1–134. doi: 10.33019/ijbe.v2i2.76 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggio R.E. (2014). Endüstri ve Örgüt Psikolojisine Giriş . Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robyn A., Preez R. D. (2013). Intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics in higher education . SA J. Ind. Psychol. 39 , 1–14. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v39i1.1106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sathiyaseelan S. (2021). Transformational leaders in higher education administration: understanding their profile through phenomenology . Asia Pacific J. Educat. , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2021.1987185 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saylık A. (2017). The relationship between paternalistic leadership behaviours of school principals and culture dimensions of Hofstede. Dissertation, Turkiye: Ankara University.
• Schulze S. (2006). Factors influencing the job satisfaction of academics in higher education . South Afr. J. High. Educat. 20 , 318–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Settles I. H., Brassel S. T., Soranno P. A., Cheruvelil K. S., Montgomery G. M., Elliott K. C. (2019). Team climate mediates the effect of diversity on environmental science team satisfaction and data sharing . PLoS One 14 :e0219196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219196, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaari R., Kamarudin D., Ju S. Y., Zakaria H. (2022). Effects of leadership types on job satisfaction among Malaysian higher education institutions . Asian J. Instruct. 10 , 54–70. doi: 10.47215/aji.1020324 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaked H. (2021). Instructional leadership in higher education: the case of Israel . High. Educ. Q. 75 , 212–226. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12274 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma S., Amir S. D. S., Veeriah J., Kannan S. (2016). Leadership behavior of deans and its impact on effectiveness for quality in a high-ranking university . Egitim ve Bilim 41 , 49–58. doi: 10.15390/eb.2016.6071 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi X., Yu Z., Zheng X. (2020). Exploring the relationship between paternalistic leadership, teacher commitment, and job satisfaction in Chinese schools . Front. Psychol. 11 , 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01481, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siddique A., Aslam H. D., Khan M., Fatima U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on faculty’s motivation and organizationaleffectiveness in higher education System . International journal of academic research 3 , 3.730–3.737. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sims C., Carter A., Moore De Peralta A. (2021). Do servant, transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership styles influence mentoring competencies for faculty? A study of a gender equity leadership development program . Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 32 , 55–75. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21408 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spector P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences . Beverly Hills: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Suong H. T. T., Thanh D. D., Dao T. T. X. (2019). The impact of leadership styles on the engagement of cadres, lecturers and staff at public universities-evidence from Vietnam . J. Asian Fin. Econom. Bus. 6 , 273–280. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no1.273 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syakur A., Susilo T. A. B., Wike W., Ahmadi R. (2020). Sustainability of communication, organizational culture, cooperation, trust and leadership style for lecturer commitments in higher education . Budapest Int. Res. Crit. Inst. 3 , 1325–1335. doi: 10.33258/birci.v3i2.980 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syed F., Naseer S., Akhtar M. W., Husnain M., Kashif M. (2021). Frogs in boiling water: a moderated- mediation model of exploitative leadership, fear of negative evaluation and knowledge hiding behaviors . J. Knowl. Manag. 25 , 2067–2087. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0611 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taras V., Kirkman B. L., Steel P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: a three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions . J. Appl. Psychol. 95 , 405–439. doi: 10.1037/a0018938, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson N., Franz N. (2016). Decision points in academic leadership development as an engaged scholar: to lead or not to lead . J. Commun. Engag. Scholarsh. 9 , 74–80. doi: 10.54656/UKVK8586 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tight M. (2012). Higher education research 2000–2010: changing journal publication patterns . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 31 , 723–740. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.692361 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism , Bolulder: Westview Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes . Am. Psychol. 51 , 407–415. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C., Gelfand M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 , 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) . (2019). Human Development Report 2019. Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century . http://report.hdr.undp.org/
• Vliert E. V., Einarsen S. (2008). Cultural construals of destructive versus constructive leadership in major world niches . Cross Cult. Manag. 8 , 275–295. doi: 10.1177/1470595808096670 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vliert E. V., Matthiesen S. B., Gangsoy R., Landro A. B., Einarsen S. (2010). Winters, summers and destructive leadership cultures in rich regions . Cross Cult. Res. 44 , 315–340. doi: 10.1177/1069397110369093 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wall A. (2014). Common method variance: An experimental manipulation, Dissertation, Ruston, LA: Louisiana Tech University
• Wong S. C., Mahmud M. M., Omar F. (2015). Spiritual leadership values and organisational behaviour in Malaysian private institutions of higher education . Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 23 , 495–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu M., Peng Z., Estay C. (2018). How destructive leadership influences compulsory organizational citizenship behavior . Chin. Manag. Stud. 12 , 453–468. doi: 10.1108/CMS-10-2017-0298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Youngs H. (2017). A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in higher education: developing an alternative ontology through leadership-as-practice . J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 39 , 140–154. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276662 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G. (2018). Örgütlerde Liderlik, (Çev Ed. Sahin Cetin ve Resul Baltacı), Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Zargar P., Sousan A., Farmanesh P. (2019). Does trust in leader mediate the servant leadership style–job satisfaction relationship? Manag. Sci. Lett. 9 , 2253–2268. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng X., Yin H., Ve Li Z. (2019). Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China . Educat. Manag. Administr. Leader. 47 , 843–859. doi: 10.1177/1741143218764176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou G., Gül R., Tufail M. (2022). Does servant leadership stimulate work engagement? The moderating role of trust in the leader . Front. Psychol. 13 , 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925732, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Trauma-informed practices and leadership education: A literature review

Journal of Leadership Education

ISSN : 1552-9045

Article publication date: 21 March 2024

Issue publication date: 2 April 2024

This integrative literature review aims to explore themes within higher education that may be applicable to leadership education including: descriptions of trauma, trauma-informed practices and trauma-informed practitioners.

Design/methodology/approach

Integrative, systematic literature review.

The results suggest that trauma and trauma-informed practices may have a place in leadership education pedagogy.

Originality/value

There is no work being done in trauma informed practice in leadership education. This study provides future direction for both research and practice.

• Higher education
• Leadership education
• Leadership pedagogy
• Trauma-informed pedagogy
• Trauma-informed practices

Holden, S. and Bruce, J. (2024), "Trauma-informed practices and leadership education: A literature review", Journal of Leadership Education , Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOLE-01-2024-0016

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Sarah Holden and Jackie Bruce

Published in Journal of Leadership Education . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Trauma has historically been relegated to the field of psychology. Yet recent culture-shifts brought trauma-informed practices into education and other public service spheres ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Clinical diagnosis and treatment still lie with mental health professionals, however traumatic responses occur without regard to appropriate time or space, making it worthwhile for other practitioners to minimize trauma outside of clinical settings ( Graham, Mennicke, Rizo, Wood, & Mengo, 2019 ; Parker, Kopp, & Steiner, 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Trauma-informed practices are already an established standard in K-12 education ( Stephens, 2020 ). Higher education in contrast, has largely lagged ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ). Some practitioners may argue trauma-informed practices are unnecessary in higher education, or that they should be left strictly to mental health professionals. However, trauma is endemic to society and college students are not immune to its impact ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ). The repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic have started to make that clear ( Jones et al. , 2022 ; Murthy, 2022 ; Stephens, 2020 ). During lockdowns and remote learning, educators saw an increased number of students who were distracted, withdrawn or unable to concentrate, which are all potential signs of trauma ( Stephens, 2020 ). Now as students return to in-person classrooms, these behaviors may persist or new ones may emerge due to the unknown impact of years-long global pandemic and extended periods of social isolation.

COVID-19 may have only built upon existing trauma among higher education students. Prior to 2020, Frazier et al. (2009) found that 85% of college students had experienced a traumatic event. Davidson (2017 , p. 5) echoes this sentiment, finding that 66–85% of youth report at least one exposure to a traumatic event by the time they attend college. Among them, students from marginalized populations such as racial minorities, members of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) + community, or those from lower-income families are disproportionately affected by a higher rate of exposure to traumatic events ( Davidson, 2017 , pp. 9–12; Graham et al. , 2019 ).

The ubiquity of trauma in higher education and the unpredictability of triggers for traumatized students put educators in a unique position. As advisors, mentors and teachers, educators build relationships with students and bear witness to their daily lives. In these roles educators should not act as counselors ( Stephens, 2020 ). It is not their responsibility to analyze trauma history or make diagnoses. However, it could be argued that educators should protect their students’ physical and mental well-being. Educators should not treat trauma, but they could avoid compounding it within their spheres of control.

If trauma is a universal and endemic issue ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ) then addressing it is a matter of equity because traumatic responses are often the function of profound injustice. From individual and isolated experiences such as sexual assault ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ) to societal issues like racism and poverty ( Caton, 2019 ; Stephens, 2020 ) adverse events are invariably connected to deeper systemic flaws. Here, an opportunity for leadership education emerges. Leadership educators are already tackling the prevalence and impact of critical social issues in higher education which puts them in a prime position to include trauma-informed practices in their classrooms and to push for improved policies and procedures in their respective colleges or universities.

Integrative literature reviews can offer new conceptual insights arising from the synthesis of existing research and provide a useful channel for advancing topical knowledge ( Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020 ). We chose an integrative review method to analyze the existing literature on trauma and trauma-informed practices in leadership education. A precursory scan of leadership education literature produced zero articles. Therefore, we expanded our search to include articles in the broader scope of higher education to explore themes that may be applicable to leadership education. We summarize how trauma is described in higher education, how trauma-informed practices are described in higher education and who is implementing trauma-informed practices in higher education. We also make recommendations for potential areas of further exploration pertaining to leadership education.

Conceptual framework

Modern trauma theory began in clinical fields including psychology, social work and neurology, and eventually branched out into non-clinical fields ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ). The expansion of research brought with it new descriptions of trauma that influenced how it is viewed today. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013 ) defines trauma in stark terms as being “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence”. Outside of the DSM-5, researchers have broadened the definition of trauma to account for the abstract ways people may describe the experience within themselves. Descriptions of trauma as a “black hole in the self” ( Parker et al. , 2021 ) or “a loss of agency and a profound sense of powerlessness” ( Stephens, 2020 ) offer a glimpse into the impactful emotional toll that trauma has on individuals. Beyond the individual, trauma occurs at the community and societal levels expanding past cultural and historical boundaries ( Ellis & Dietz, 2017 ; Sweeney, Filson, Kennedy, Collinson, & Gillard, 2018 ; Venet, 2021 ). Deep and abiding inequity, power imbalances and discrimination are all connected to structural oppression that traumatizes marginalized populations ( Ellis & Dietz, 2017 ; Venet, 2021 , p. 8).

Trauma-informed practices in mental health often focus on a responsive approach. That is, practitioners respond to the effects of trauma as it is presented to them ( Sweeney et al. , 2018 ). Although therapists and counselors may seek a cause for trauma in their patients to aid with diagnosis, they are not called upon to address the broader societal reasons for trauma ( Sweeney et al. , 2018 ). Typically, K-12 education has followed suit, implementing trauma-informed practices that focus on mitigating disruptive behavior as it is presented within the classroom ( Venet, 2021 , pp. 36–39).

An alternative approach requires a paradigm shift that asks practitioners to adopt a “trauma lens” prior to acting ( Pica-Smith & Scannell, 2020 ; Sweeney et al. , 2018 ). Pica-Smith and Scannell (2020) draw upon the intersection of systemic theoretical frameworks and trauma-informed care to present a trauma lens as one that acknowledges student lives are complex, they are influenced by sociopolitical context, and they often include trauma. Traumatic experiences are an integral part of young people’s lived realities to the extent that they impact who they are both in and out of the classroom. Seeing the world through a trauma lens encourages educators to be more empathetic and to shift their mindset from “what is wrong with you?” to “what has happened to you?” ( Davidson, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Venet’s (2021) work on equity-centered trauma-informed education expands the concept of a trauma lens and offers recommendations for what trauma-informed practices should be. Building on the assumption that trauma is often rooted in complex social justice issues, the author argues that trauma-informed practices require a two-pronged approach. Educators should implement practices that avoid retraumatization, while also working to address the structural inequities that cause the trauma in the first place ( Venet, 2021 ).

We acknowledge that both a trauma lens and an equity-centered trauma-informed approach are not concepts derived from higher education. Indeed, the concept of a trauma lens as described by both Pica-Smith and Scannell (2020) and Sweeney et al. (2018) is rooted in the mental health field and Venet’s (2021) work targets K-12 educators. However, trauma-informed practices in higher education are still in their infancy, resulting in fewer discipline specific concepts to reference.

We also drew upon critical theory in the synthesizing of the literature for this review. A premise of critical theory exists in the tension between accepting the realities of the world as they are and also condemning them ( Horkheimer, 1972 ). Govender (2020) pushes this concept further stating that critical theory in practice goes beyond condemnation and explores what could and should be. We argue that both a trauma lens and equity-centered trauma-informed practices possess language and structure evoking concepts found in critical theory and thus acknowledge its influence in our work.

We acknowledge that the synthesis of material for an integrative review can be subjective. Indeed, one of the guidelines used for conducting this review recommends that the author(s) explain their perspective to clarify their point of view to readers ( Torraco, 2016 ). Beyond viewpoint, Freedman (2006) argues that documenting first person narratives of our own traumatic experiences provides transparency about our biases while also helping others understand potential biases in mainstream society. To aid in transparency about our perspective on trauma we feel it is important to offer epistemological statements outlining both authors’ experience with trauma.

I, Sarah, had multiple recurring traumatic experiences for a period of seven years during my adolescence and young adulthood. When I was thirteen, my father died suddenly. My mother suffers from debilitating mental health issues and had difficulty maintaining a job after his death which resulted in the foreclosure of my childhood home, two years of transient housing, food insecurity and large gaps in my education. When I was fifteen, she relinquished custody of my brother and I to distant relatives. I graduated high school but was kicked out of my guardian’s house two weeks before starting my freshman year of college. My dorm room was my primary residence. I lived there during the school year and then stayed with family, friends or my partner during school breaks until obtaining stable housing at the age of twenty.

I, Jacklyn, experienced trauma throughout my childhood and early adulthood, as the child of one parent who was a high functioning, but emotionally (and sometimes physically) abusive addict, and the other who suffered from untreated mental illness. That addiction left my family food and housing insecure, at various times, throughout my childhood, and we relied on resources from extended family on multiple occasions.

The purpose of this integrative literature review is to explore the existing descriptions of trauma, trauma-informed pedagogy and trauma-informed practitioners in leadership education to help better understand areas necessitating further research.

How is trauma described in higher education?

How are trauma-informed practices described in higher education?

Who implements trauma-informed practices in higher education?

How can the literature from higher education at-large be applied leadership education?

The guidelines for conducting the review are based on recommendations by Torraco (2005) who provides a checklist for writing an integrative review that guided our research process. We also adhered to eleven points listed by Torraco (2016) on conducting an integrative review. The eleven points and our approach to each of them are summated in Table 1 .

The research process consisted of three stages. First, was a keyword search in four major online academic search engines including: ProQuest, Web of Science, JSTOR (Journal Storage) and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). Keywords were selected based on relevance to higher education, trauma and leadership education. Only peer-reviewed articles were included in the search. To advance to the next stage each article had to include trauma or trauma-informed and at least one other keyword in the title or abstract. Boolean search operators were used to increase accuracy, reduce search time and to capture variations of root words. Keywords are listed in Table 2 .

Stage one yielded 928 articles. RefWorks was used to organize and store article references for review in the next stage. At stage two, abstracts of all 928 articles were read thoroughly and evaluated for topical relevance based on the research questions. Inclusion criteria included being a peer-reviewed article and being topically relevant to higher education and trauma or trauma-informed practices. Exclusion criteria were articles not topically pertaining to higher education or leadership education including those pertaining to psychology, medicine, social work and medical or injury-related trauma.

One hundred and eighteen articles advanced to stage three. Each article was read in its entirety for topical relevance, then again to ensure accuracy. To narrow the topical scope, only articles that discussed trauma or trauma-informed practices and higher education were included for the final stage of review. Of the 118 articles, eight were found to fit the criteria for this literature review. Zero articles specifically described trauma or trauma-informed practices in leadership education. Table 3 provides a summary of the eight articles selected for the review.

Next, we critically analyzed the eight articles selected for the review. Torraco (2005) describes this step of critical analysis as “a deconstruction of the topic into its basic elements” and as an opportunity to critically evaluate how well the literature represents the issue. Therefore, the eight articles were read again in their entirety and base-level themes were identified and documented. Due to zero articles within leadership education being procured, the articles were evaluated for how well they represent a lack of trauma-informed practices in higher education at large.

After critical analysis, we synthesized the emerging themes and integrated new ideas over the course of five written drafts with author discussion about the themes between each draft. The structure of the results align with what Torraco (2005) describes as a “research agenda” which poses provocative propositions and gives direction for future research, specifically in leadership education. These propositions are integrated into the discussion section of this work.

Descriptions of trauma in higher education

Descriptions of trauma vary within the literature retrieved for this review. Several articles describe individual trauma occurring because of specific, acute, on-campus experiences like sexual assault, interpersonal violence or homelessness ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ). Other articles take a longview approach, describing individual trauma as a broader aspect of community trauma or societal inequity ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Yet from the two different approaches, a uniting theme emerges. Despite its ubiquity, trauma is not an assumed norm in higher education ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ).

Trauma in higher education is identified and interchangeable with adverse behavior, a description which evokes language used in K-12 education ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Stephens, 2020 ). The evocation is logical considering the limited trauma research found outside K-12 education. Yet directly connecting trauma to adverse behavior assumes that traumatized students are readily identifiable from those who are not ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Indeed, traumatized students may exhibit adverse behaviors like truancy, inattention during class, defiance and lack of self-preservation ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Stephens, 2020 ). However, identifying trauma only by identifying adverse behaviors minimizes trauma’s complexity and potentially boxes individuals into stereotypical depictions of “bad students”.

Furthermore, if trauma is only acknowledged in the presence of adverse behaviors then traumatized students who do not exhibit those behaviors may be overlooked. Or in some cases, they may even be praised for behaviors that are perceived as positive. For example, anxiety or hyper-vigilance can be caused by trauma ( Stephens, 2020 ). However, these traumatic responses may manifest as behaviors like perfectionism, over-achievement or competitiveness which are traditionally rewarded in academic spheres. Conversely, students who exhibit adverse behaviors such as missing class, defensiveness, or difficulty focusing are punished for their actions. The unfortunate result is that educators and practitioners may assume students are traumatized based on perceptions of their behavior, when it is likely that all types of students have endured traumatic experiences.

If trauma is identified through the presentation of adverse behavior, then traumatized students are different from “normal” well-behaved students ( Walker et al. , 2021 ). The othering of traumatized students flattens individual nuance and shifts the question from “what has happened to you?” to “what is wrong with you?” ( Stephens, 2020 ). Additionally this viewpoint could foster a mindset of associating trauma with moral failing thus categorizing students as either good or bad with little consideration for the complex situations that create those perceptions.

In fact, most students do not define themselves as normal or abnormal based on their traumatic experiences ( Caton, 2019 ). Yes, those who experience trauma may recognize it as part of their lived reality and may even view it as negative but they do not want to feel abnormal because of it Caton (2019) , Finley and Levenson (2018) , Sales and Krause (2017) . For example, students who experience long term and recurring trauma may perceive it as a part of their normal lives and not recognize it as anything out of the ordinary ( Caton, 2019 ). In the event of a sudden and acute traumatic experience, an individual may recognize it as a negative departure from their personal norms, but then seek out others with similar experiences to not feel abnormal ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ).

Higher education appears to recognize traumatic experiences by acknowledging instances of specific, isolated, traumatic events that occur within a university setting ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ). The resulting message is trauma within higher education only exists in the form of acute and isolated events such as sexual assault or interpersonal violence ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ). However, many students enter higher education with a history of exposure to traumatic experiences that manifests not only from singular events but recurring adverse experiences at the community and societal levels ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Furthermore, when trauma is situated as only being relevant to higher education when it occurs within higher education, the nuance of inequity is lost. Students may all be perceived as starting with the same clean slate and are therefore equally prone to traumatic experiences in higher education. That perception does not leave room for the fact that marginalized populations such as racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ + community are more likely to enter college with a history of trauma and are more prone to traumatic experiences while there ( Caton, 2019 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). It also leaves a vacuum of support because viewing these events as singular and isolated minimizes a lack of cultural awareness and structural support for these communities in the first place ( Caton, 2019 ).

Descriptions of trauma-informed practices in higher education

Only two of the articles read for this review specifically describe trauma-informed practices in higher education ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Perhaps this is attributed to the broader attitude towards trauma among higher education; that traumatic events are isolated and that traumatized students are an abnormality marked by demonstrable adverse behavior ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Notably, the two articles describing trauma-informed practices center on trauma in relation to COVID-19 ( Stephens, 2020 ) and sexual trauma and consent ( Parker et al. , 2021 ), traumatic experiences which have been elevated as commonplace in recent years. The remaining six articles do not explicitly detail trauma-informed practices, but descriptions emerge that suggest trauma-informed approaches. The driving force for these practices it seems is a recognition that students are suffering and educators are in a position to minimize it Caton (2019) , Finley and Levenson (2018) , Graham et al. (2019) , Lynch and Glass (2020) , Sales and Krause (2017) , Walker et al. (2021) .

Within the descriptions of intentional trauma-informed practices in higher education two themes emerge. First, trauma-informed practices begin with practitioners who accept and acknowledge that trauma is widespread ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Second, trauma-informed practices are rooted in intentional efforts to actively avoid retraumatization ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). These approaches reflect recommendations from K-12 education and mental health fields, indeed both articles cite literature from these disciplines. Furthermore they actively reject the viewpoint from higher education that assumes trauma affects a limited number of students who exhibit adverse behavior ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ). From this rejection, it could be argued that trauma-informed practices require a near paradigm shift within higher education to accept the bleak reality that a vast majority of young people experience traumatic events and that without intentionality even the most well-meaning educators can contribute to retraumatization ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Acknowledging the widespread impact of trauma is crucial to trauma-informed practices because every student must be treated as though they have potentially been traumatized ( Stephens, 2020 ). To some in higher education, this practice may be interpreted as an invitation to blur the lines between the private, and potentially traumatic, lives of students and the public sphere of education. Or perhaps be seen as creating an environment that coddles students and discourages resiliency. However, whether educators like it or not, students bring their “whole-messy selves” to higher education ( Stephens, 2020 ). From classroom discussions to departmental networking events, students are expected to share pieces of their history, experience and identity with others, and for many those pieces include traumatic events ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Not only do trauma-informed practices call for practitioners to acknowledge the endemic nature of trauma, they also require practitioners to actively avoid retraumatization ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Although the specific practices vary, the mindset is the same. Avoiding retraumatization requires a conscious commitment to analyze common practices in higher education through the lens of trauma and ask “could these methods potentially trigger a traumatic response?” ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Due to the individual nature of a trauma response, this practice requires a measure of introspection from the practitioner and a willingness to empathize with those whose experiences differ from their own. Beyond this, the effort to avoid retraumatization aligns with a recognition that no amount of empathy can account for all experiences. In essence this means that the work of avoiding retraumatization will inherently come with a margin of error on the part of the practitioner. This error is natural, given that many practitioners are educators or provide care for students in a non-mental health capacity. Therefore, the trauma-informed practice of avoiding retraumatization is not only about providing environments that minimize triggers, but also offer access to resources when inevitably and unintentionally something triggers a traumatic response in a student ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ).

Outside of formal evocations of trauma-informed practices, the articles in this review describe practices that are arguably trauma-informed in nature ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). The catalyst for these practices likely stem from the same as those that launch formal trauma-informed practices; a place of genuine care for students. ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ). Educators and practitioners who directly engage with students can be privy to the disclosure of trauma. In some cases, disclosure of trauma comes from proximity. For example, student affairs professionals are actively involved in many facets of student lives. When combined with overwhelmed and underfunded campus counseling centers, student affairs professionals are often the first responders to students actively experiencing crisis ( Caton, 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ).

Educators may also experience disclosures or bear witness to student trauma not by proximity but by the nature of their relationship to students or their area of study. In some cases faculty who serve as mentors or advisors may become a trusted adult who students feel safe to disclose traumatic experiences to ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ). Other times, students may perceive faculty who work in certain fields of study such as psychology or social work as safe to disclose trauma to because of the nature of their work and topical knowledge ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ).

Although some disclosure requires mandatory reporting such as cases of sexual assault or threats of harm to the self or others ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ), most trauma disclosures likely rest in the gray area outside of mandatory reporting. Those who experience the disclosure of traumatic events may feel compelled to do something to ease the negative impacts of trauma on a student’s life ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ). Thus when students dictate stories from their lives to educators, the illusion of seeing them as only pupils is broken and educators may instead see them as “their whole messy selves” ( Stephens, 2020 ). Once the illusion is lifted it may become difficult to ignore the broader societal traumas such as poverty or racism that impact students’ lives.

When educators and practitioners feel compelled to help their traumatized students, they may adopt an advocacy role to help avoid retraumatization ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). In an advocacy role, these individuals minimize retraumatization in several ways. Educators can serve as trusted mentors and role models. They can help connect students to valuable services like campus mental health professionals, transportation and housing services ( Caton, 2019 ). Some educators or practitioners may advocate at the institutional level. In leadership roles on committees or advisory boards, these individuals can push for policy changes that help protect traumatized students or to identify and amend gaps in current policy ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ).

Implementers of trauma-informed practices in higher education

Those who currently implement trauma-informed practices include student affairs professionals, counselors, faculty in the social sciences and faculty with a personal interest in trauma ( Caton, 2019 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Among these descriptions, is a message to all educators. The effort to combat trauma cannot solely be the responsibility of counseling services, student affairs or select faculty. All educators should have a commitment to the implementation of trauma-informed practices ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ).

The faculty who are already engaging in that effort to implement trauma-informed practices are predominantly those who are involved in the work by nature of their field of study ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Educators in social work, psychology or sociology may be researching and developing trauma-informed practices which in turn are put into practice in their classrooms. Although these educators may be well-versed in trauma-informed practices, their scope of reach could be limited to the colleges they teach in within the broader context of a university.

Trauma-informed practices may also be implemented by counselors and other mental health professionals who provide campus services. Counselors are logical trauma-informed practitioners, however depending upon the campus they may be overwhelmed and unable to handle the caseloads presented to them. Or, at times they are under-utilized by students mistrustful of therapeutic intervention ( Lynch & Glass, 2020 ).

When counselors cannot meet the demand of student needs for trauma-intervention, or when students mistrust therapy, student affairs professionals often take on trauma-informed care. For example, close proximity to students’ daily lives can place student affairs professionals in the role of institutional first responder to students in immediate crisis or those who are experiencing long-term impacts of trauma ( Caton, 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ). Despite this, many student affairs professionals are not trained specifically in trauma-informed practices and find themselves underprepared to handle serious traumatic events such as suicidal ideation or student homelessness ( Caton, 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ).

Outside of student affairs, faculty members who are in fields where trauma is part of the regular discourse such as psychology, social work or criminal justice tend to implement trauma-informed practices ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ). It is logical that these fields would be the forerunners since their work is centered around the adverse experiences that can lead to trauma. In some cases these faculty are also working directly to mitigate the trauma itself or are teaching their students how to help traumatized individuals. It seems that when trauma is centered within a discipline, trauma-informed practices are a natural progression.

Other faculty implementing trauma-informed practices are those with a personal interest in mitigating the effects of trauma in their classroom or university ( Caton, 2019 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Without directly stating as such, descriptions of trauma-informed practices suggest that these faculties bear witness to the suffering of their students and wish to do something about it ( Caton, 2019 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Perhaps it is rooted in a broader interest in the role of trauma in social justice issues ( Caton, 2019 ; Stephens, 2020 ). Or in a desire to make classrooms or universities safer and more considerate of traumatized students ( Parker et al. , 2021 ). In some cases, they themselves were victims of trauma and wish to minimize its impact on their charges ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ).

While descriptions of who is implementing trauma-informed practices suggest a wide array of practitioners, the broader theme among the articles in this review is that all faculty can and should be pioneering trauma-informed practices in higher education ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Although a genuine trauma-informed approach involves campus-wide effort ( Sales & Krause, 2017 ), faculty sit at a juncture that, if willing, puts them in position to launch that effort. Whether conducting research ( Graham et al. , 2019 ), leveraging their power on institutional committees ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ), adopting a trauma-informed pedagogy ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ) or teaching their students to be trauma-informed ( Walker et al. , 2021 ) faculty could play a crucial role in implementing trauma-informed practices.

Of question though is why there are not more faculty participating in trauma-informed practices at present. It is possible that some faculty do not know the impact of trauma on their students. Or perhaps they do recognize the effects of trauma but do not see how addressing it fits within their scope of discipline. Others may disregard it as unimportant or too difficult to tackle. Some faculty may be wary of crossing boundaries from educator to therapist because of trauma’s association with mental health. There is also the possibility some faculty may avoid trauma-informed practices due to unresolved wounds from their own traumatic experiences ( Finley & Levenson, 2018 ).

The attitude towards trauma in higher education could be described as a willingness to address the symptoms but not the cause. Trauma is pervasive among higher education students ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ; Davidson, 2017 , pp. 9–12; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Stephens, 2020 ). It is likely that in any given classroom there are students who have experienced adverse events such as violence, poverty, or discrimination. Yet in higher education the response is to target students who act out ( Stephens, 2020 ) effectively attaching a value system of good and bad to traumatized students. As a result, these students may inadvertently be compelled to minimize the impact of trauma on their lives to avoid negative repercussions.

The unspoken pressure to minimize trauma could serve as a vehicle of reinforcing power imbalances and delegitimizing the narratives of the most vulnerable student populations. For example, students from marginalized groups such as racial or ethnic minorities and members of the LGBTQ + community are more likely to experience adverse events and trauma in their lives ( Davidson, 2017 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ). If these students are discouraged from bringing “their whole messy selves” ( Stephens, 2020 ) to our institutions and, most importantly, into our classrooms, then students from privileged populations may perceive trauma as an occurrence that only happens to other people. Or, if they have experienced trauma but do not see the compounding impacts on marginalized groups, then they may minimize the significance of privilege on their ability to thrive; instead attributing it to an individual resilience and not their own life circumstances. As a result, these students may ascribe a misplaced moral weight on overcoming trauma, never fully understanding how this viewpoint can contribute to the continued oppression of others who are seen as “morally failing”.

An aversion to discomfort, particularly for the privileged, may be a motivating factor to discourage the acknowledgment of trauma and the subsequent lack of effort to avoid retraumatization. After all, evoking the magnitude of adverse events cast light on the bleakness of reality and the broken systems that allow these events to occur. It also has the potential to make individuals uncomfortable as they reflect on their own adverse experiences or their role in contributing to others. Yet, two aspects of trauma-informed practices are to acknowledge that trauma is real and valid and to actively avoid doing further harm ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ). There should be a push to find the balance of working through an aversion to discomfort while acknowledging the actuality of trauma and making a conscious effort to minimize opportunity for further harm.

Educators are in a prime position to lead this effort through trauma-informed pedagogies ( Caton, 2019 ; Finley & Levenson, 2018 ; Graham et al. , 2019 ; Lynch & Glass, 2020 ; Parker et al. , 2021 ; Sales & Krause, 2017 ; Stephens, 2020 ; Walker et al. , 2021 ). Currently these efforts appear to exist either informally or in silos of specific disciplines. Yet with the ubiquity of trauma and its inextricable link to broader systems of inequity, it could be argued that all educators should include trauma-informed pedagogy as part of their repertoire.

Leadership educators, with the diversity of their students, and their commitment to mold future leaders who may enact meaningful change are prime candidates for this work. Zero articles pertaining to leadership education and trauma, or trauma-informed practices were retrieved for this review suggesting that little is being done within the discipline to adopt pedagogies that are trauma-informed. It could be argued, even, that some of the most popular pedagogies could be spaces of further harm for students. For example, Jenkins (2012) suggests that discussions may be signature pedagogy for leadership education. Indeed, when leadership students engage in discussions, they are given a space to tackle controversial issues and better understand differing perspectives ( DeAngelis, 2009 ). However, without trauma-informed guidelines in place like content warnings, adept facilitation with a lens for the nuances that could be the cause of re-traumatization and adhered-to zero tolerance policies for demeaning behavior, discussions could unintentionally retraumatize individuals. Additionally, without the safety net of a trauma-informed approach, a variety of popular leadership strategies from case studies and reflective journaling ( Jenkins, 2012 ) to team-based learning ( Komives et al. , 2011 ) can all potentially minimize the lived experience of traumatized students by reinforcing the idea that an absence of trauma is the norm.

If trauma-informed approaches are introduced into leadership education pedagogy, there is real opportunity to achieve the desired outcomes of common practices. Again, in using discussion as an example, DeAngelis (2009) suggests that discussions provide a space to dissect controversial topics and find commonality among differing perspectives. Ingerson and Bruce (2015) elaborate further saying that discussion provides space for self-reflection and helps broaden understanding of personal leadership behavior. Yet during discussion, the environment ultimately impacts leadership outcomes ( Dugan & Komives, 2010 ). Without a trauma-informed approach the environment may not be a safe space for all participants which could negatively impact the desired outcome of discussion on leadership students.

The lack of existing leadership education literature on trauma or trauma-informed pedagogies provides ample opportunity for future research. Perhaps a valuable starting place is for leadership educators to turn inward and view their own lived experience through a trauma informed lens. Since trauma is simultaneously a universal issue ( Carello & Butler, 2014 ) and a deeply individual experience ( Stephens, 2020 ), it is likely that a large portion of leadership educators have both experienced trauma and dealt with it in vastly different ways. Of interest is how leadership educators currently define their relationship to trauma and whether they describe their adverse lived experiences as traumatic. From there, it is worth exploring whether those adverse experiences influence their preferred leadership theories and pedagogies.

Acknowledging that trauma is real and impactful is an important aspect of trauma-informed work ( Parker et al. , 2021 ; Stephens, 2020 ) therefore it would be beneficial to understand how leadership educators perceive trauma in their students. Of interest is whether leadership educators perceive trauma as an issue among their students and if so, what types of adverse events are viewed as likely to elicit a trauma response. Here, additional research opportunities in leadership pedagogy emerge. Opportunities include an exploration into how educator perception affects the way trauma is addressed or not addressed in classrooms, and what if any efforts are made to minimize the potential of retraumatization.

Nearly three quarters of high school students reported at least one adverse childhood experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and when compared to those without adverse childhood experiences, were more likely to experience poor mental health and suicidal behaviors ( Jones et al. , 2022 ). It is likely that incoming leadership students, as well as those already in higher education, are experiencing similar outcomes. Therefore, another area with vast potential for future study is understanding leadership students’ relationship with their own trauma, particularly since 2020 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of interest is how their trauma impacts their behavior, their expectations of the educator and their described needs to feel safe and supported both in and outside of the classroom.

Beyond trauma accrued during COVID-19, a broader exploration of the relationship between leadership students and trauma could provide fascinating insight. Of interest is the influence of trauma on a leadership identity and whether it is a motivating factor for an interest in leadership studies. There is also room to explore the confluence of race, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic identities with trauma and leadership. Often it seems that experiences of marginalization or discrimination can be a motivating factor to study leadership. Therefore, at this convergence of trauma, identity and leadership questions surrounding the roles of resilience and power emerge.

Leadership education has largely remained mum on the impact of trauma, thus providing no examples of trauma-informed practices within the discipline. The lack of literature on this subject reflects that. The converging impact of COVID-19 and the societal disruptions of the last two years have set off an urgent need for leadership educators to branch out and engage with trauma work.

Torraco’s 11 points for conducting an integrative literature review