Leadership in academic settings

Qualitative study

The qualitative part of our project consisted of two studies. The first study aimed to provide a comprehensive list of the diverse leadership behaviours that are shown either by the formal leader of by team members in the specific context of a university. Here, we focused on positive leadership behaviours that are seen as relevant to achieve positive outcomes (e.g., team effectiveness, well-being of team members, …). To achieve this aim, we conducted qualitative interviews with 36 staff members. To ensure that we would obtain a sample representative for the university, we included participants from the three different groups, namely (1) policy groups (e.g., departmental board, faculty board); (2) research groups; and (3) administrative and technical staff, and in addition ensured that our sample included people from the Biomedical Sciences Group, the Humanities and Social Sciences Group, the Science, Engineering and Technology Group, and the Central Services. Furthermore, we interviewed both formal leaders and team members. Thematic analysis was conducted on the verbatim transcriptions, resulting in a list of 50 different leadership behaviours that can be performed by the formal leader and 40 leadership behaviours that can be performed by team members.

In the second part, we conducted three focus groups (each including three HR/leadership experts within the university). By using individual and group card sorting exercises, we aimed to cluster similar forms of leadership behaviour into broader leadership roles, both for the formal leader and for team members. A total of 16 leadership roles for formal leaders and 14 leadership roles for team members were identified. Detailed tables presenting the leadership roles, their definitions, underlying behaviours, and frequency of mentions in the interviews can be found here.

Study 1: Qualitative interviews

The aim of this first part of the research project was to compile a comprehensive list of all leadership behaviours that were demonstrated by either formal leaders or team members (which we will refer to as peer leaders) in the specific context of our university. Participants for the qualitative interviews were recruited through stratified purposive sampling to ensure that we would obtain a sample representative for the university. More specifically, we recruited employees from the three different groups, namely (1) policy groups (e.g., POC, departmental board, faculty board); (2) research groups; and (3) administrative and technical staff (also referred to as ATP). In addition, we ensured that our sample included people from the Biomedical Sciences Group, the Humanities and Social Sciences Group, the Science, Engineering and Technology Group, and the Central Services. Furthermore, we interviewed both formal leaders and team members.

The qualitative interviews were conducted by HR professionals who were trained in using a semi-structured interview protocol. The interviews focused specifically on identifying positive leadership behaviors demonstrated by formal leaders and peer leaders. Throughout the data collection process, we interviewed a total of 36 participants, ensuring adherence to ethical guidelines and obtaining written informed consent from all participants.

To facilitate analysis, all interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim while maintaining participant anonymity. Thematic analysis, following the steps of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, was conducted to identify the different leadership behaviours. In this process, different behaviours that were similar in content were grouped in an overarching leadership behaviour, that was both labelled and described, in order to correctly reflect its underlying actions. For example, one peer leadership behaviour was defined as “Motivating colleagues: Motivating colleagues for their work, for example, by giving compliments, recognising the successes of others, and helping to uplift colleagues in the face of setbacks.” This description encompassed specific behaviours mentioned by participants related to motivation, recognition, and uplifting colleagues.

Through this rigorous thematic analysis, we ultimately generated a comprehensive list of 50 distinct leadership behaviors applicable to formal leaders and 40 distinct leadership behaviors applicable to peer leaders. These behaviors represent a wide range of actions and strategies that can contribute to effective leadership within the university setting.

    Study 2: Expert panels

    After compiling a comprehensive list of all possible leadership behaviours, in this second part we aimed to cluster similar forms of leadership behaviour into broader leadership roles, both for the formal leader and for team members. This process involved two phases: an individual card sorting exercise and a group card sorting exercise, conducted in focus groups.

    The first phase involved individual card sorting exercises for formal leaders and peer leaders. The participants for these focus groups were organized into three groups, each consisting of three participants. One group was composed of participants from the Educational Policy Department, with representatives from different branches within that department to incorporate diverse perspectives. The other two groups were comprised of HR professionals selected from various teams. Participants used physical cards representing leadership behaviours and their definitions to group similar behaviours together. Each exercise had its own set of cards (50 for formal leaders, 40 for peer leaders), and participants had the freedom to choose the number of clusters and cards within each cluster. They could ask questions and share their final clustering in a digital meeting with a researcher.

    In the second phase, participants were divided into three groups. They conducted a group card sorting exercise, moderated by a researcher, to combine their individual input and reach a consensus on clustering leadership behaviours into roles. The output from the groups was compared, and behaviours were clustered together if they appeared in at least two out of three groups. This process was repeated for both formal leaders and peer leaders separately.

    A total of 16 leadership roles were identified for formal leaders, and 14 leadership roles were identified for team members (you can find these here). In the final phase, the research team discussed and refined the labels for each leadership role to accurately represent the underlying behaviours. This process continued until a consensus was reached. To investigate the associations between the different leadership roles and behaviours and various outcomes, we conducted a large-scale quantitative study, which can be found here.