A new Policy Note published by the Higher Education Policy
Institute, Thirty years on: Leadership convergence
between newer and older universities by Rohan Selva-Radov,
explores the changing tenure of UK university vice-chancellors.
The report shows that while the vice-chancellors of post-1992
universities used to serve much longer terms than those at older
universities, tenures at both types of university are now around
eight years.
In the five years from 1992, immediately after the Further and
Higher Education Act (1992) granted university status to
polytechnics as well as Central Institutions in Scotland, these
institutions’ leaders were in post for on average of 11.5 years.
This compared with only 8.8 years at older universities (a gap of
around 25%). The disparity has narrowed in the years since, and
there is now only a small difference in tenure between the two
categories of institution.
This paper, which is being published at the start of the 2022/23
academic year to mark the 30th anniversary of the end of the
binary system, argues that this convergence is evidence of how
pre- and post-1992 universities have become less different from
each other over time.
It also argues that the overarching reduction in vice-chancellor
tenure could be a result of the greater demands placed on
university leaders – in particular at the former polytechnics,
with university designation driving up standards and leading to a
broader professionalisation.
Rohan Selva-Radov, the author of the paper,
said:
It is now clearer than ever that binary divisions between
pre- and post-1992 universities are flawed and outdated. The
tenure of vice-chancellors varies just as much within these
groupings as between them. The change is not just because
post-1992 universities have become more like older ones. The
types of layered management structures now in place at most UK
universities in fact originated in polytechnics, before being
copied over to older institutions.
I hope these conclusions will feed into a broader debate
about what we should expect from university leaders, and how long
the ‘ideal’ tenure is. At a time when universities are
increasingly recognising the importance of diversity in their
leadership teams, this reduction in term length could be seen in
a positive light, enabling a new generation of vice-chancellors
to take up position.
, HEPI Director and the author
of an earlier report on vice-chancellors’ tenure at older
universities, said:
Thirty years ago, we upgraded our polytechnics to
universities. Ever since, some people have condemned the decision
and called for it to be reversed. But this new research confirms
that ‘modern’ universities are often indistinguishable from
‘traditional’ universities.
The leadership of the former polytechnics has clearly
converged with the leadership of the older institutions,
reflecting the way they are regulated and – increasingly – seen
by the general public. I am now convinced that we should mark the
30th anniversary of the end of the old binary line by pensioning
off the term ‘post-1992’. It no longer seems a useful
differentiator.
Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive of MillionPlus, the
Association for Modern Universities, said:
Over the thirty years since the 1992 Act, modern universities
have gone from strength to strength, holding an important place
in the higher education sector. Their development over this time
has made them more similar to their pre-92 peers in a number of
ways, including as this important report identifies, in the
changing tenure of their leadership. As such, modern universities
should always be treated with parity to older institutions.
However, while acknowledging their increasing similarities,
we can also understand their distinctiveness. One of the benefits
of our UK higher education sector is its diversity, where
different types of university shine in different
areas.
Modern universities excel as placemakers in their local area,
produce innovative, applied and translational research, deliver
excellent teaching and student support, and train tens of
thousands of key public service professionals, while leading the
way in widening access to higher education. They also collaborate
with business, operating nimbly with an eye always on the future.
These important roles are critical to our overall higher
education system and should be welcomed.
Alison Johns, Advance HE Chief Executive, said:
It is interesting to see many characteristics of the sector
drawing together, though the distinctive and individual
‘personality’ of each and every one of our universities is a
defining strength of UK higher education.
Leadership plays the key role in shaping our institutions,
and we are delighted to offer the sector, both here in the UK and
around the world, the opportunity to take part in our global
leadership survey which we are launching this week to harness a
greater understanding of leadership in the sector and how we can
use that knowledge to enhance higher education.
