Higher Education

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 491–506 | Cite as

University leaders and university performance in the United Kingdom: is it ‘who’ leads, or ‘where’ they lead that matters most?

  • Glynis M. BreakwellEmail author
  • Michelle Y. Tytherleigh


With key performance indicators (KPIs) part of everyday life in the higher education (HE) sector, universities have become increasingly concerned with league tables and performance indicator-led strategy and planning. The choice an institution makes concerning the KPIs it wishes to be evaluated on depends on its mission and objectives, with a Head of Institution (VC) appointed to deliver against this. As such, this raises the question as to whether institutional performance can be related in any way to the characteristics of its leader. The purpose of this research, therefore, was to identify any empirical justification for the socio-demographic characteristics which those responsible for searching and appointing VCs appear to have favoured over the past 10 years. Also, whether these can be shown to be related to the performance of their institutions. Using data available in the public domain and for UK (excluding Scotland) VCs in service for, at least, some time during 1999–2004 inclusive, evidence for the importance of VC characteristics for institutional performance was limited. Indeed, our findings suggest that, whilst the performance of a university may be ‘moulded’ by the characteristics of its’ leader, most of the variability is explained by non-leadership factors. We also found highly significant correlations amongst the KPIs used in HE, which has very significant implications for those wishing to differentiate themselves from other institutions.


Performance KPI University Head_of_Institution Characteristics 


  1. Ashley, A., & Patel, J. B. (2003). The impact of leadership characteristics on corporate performance. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 16, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, C., Bocock, J., Scott, P., & Smith, D. N. (2000). University leadership: The role of the chief executive. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Breakwell, G. M., & Tytherleigh, M. Y. (2008a). The characteristics, roles and selection of Vice Chancellors. London: Leadership Foundation in Higher Education Research and Development Report Series. Pdf available at LFHE site: Accessed 29 December 2009.
  4. Breakwell, G. M., & Tytherleigh, M. Y. (2008b). University leaders at the turn of the 21st century: Changing patterns in their socio-demographic characteristics. Higher Education, 56, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannella, A. A., & Lubatkin, M. (1993). Succession as a sociopolitical process: Internal impediments to outsider selection. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 763–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CUC. (2006). CUC Report on the monitoring of institutional performance and the use of key performance indicators (pp. 1–51). Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  7. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  8. Goodall, A. H. (2006). Should top universities be led by top researchers and are they? Journal of Documentation, 62(3), 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodall, A. H. (2009). Socrates in the boardroom: Why research universities should be led by top researchers. Princeton: Princeton U P.Google Scholar
  10. Greiner, L., Cummings, T., & Bhambri, A. (2002). Whennew CEOs succeed and fail: 4-D theory of strategic transformation. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  11. Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (1998). Corporate strategy, executive selection and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 37(2), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, R. H. (1977). Organisations: Structure and process (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  14. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organisation as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. HEFCE. (1999). Performance indicators in higher education in the UK 1996–97, 1997–8. HEFCE. Accessed: 29 December 2009.
  17. HEFCE. (2008). Counting what is measured and measuring what counts? HEFCE. Accessed: 29 December 2009.
  18. Helmlich, D. L. (1976). Succession: A longitudinal look. Journal of Business Research, 4, 355–364.Google Scholar
  19. Karami, A., Analoui, F., & Kakabadse, N. K. (2005). The CEOs’ characteristics and their strategy development in the UK SME sector. Journal of Management Development, 25(4), 316–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lieberson, S., & O’Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organisational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Background factors common among outstanding community college presidents. Community College Review, 27(3), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organisation and environment. Management Science, 37, 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of “direct” re-Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the grass roots. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 580–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norburn, D., & Birley, S. (1988). The top management team and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Mass, Pitman: Mansfied.Google Scholar
  26. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row: New York.Google Scholar
  27. Sala, F. (2003). Leadership in education: Effective U.K. college principals. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Samuelson, B. A., Galbraith, C.S., & McGuire, J. (1985). Organizational performance and top-management turnover. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.), 6(3), 275.Google Scholar
  29. The Dearing Report-National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Online:
  30. Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance? Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warner, J., Watts, R., & Wruck, K. (1988). Stock prices and top management changes. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 461–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wasserman, N., Nohria, N., & Anand, B. N. (2001). When does leadership matter? The contingent opportunities view of CEO leadership. Strategy Unit Working Paper No 02-04, Harvard Business School Working Paper No 01-063. Google Scholar
  33. Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A model of corporate performance as a function of environmental, organizational and leadership influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2005). Significant figures: Performance indicators and ‘league tables. A report for SCOP. Accessed: 22 July 2007.
  35. Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2004). When the known devil is better than an unknown god: an empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glynis M. Breakwell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michelle Y. Tytherleigh
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ChesterChesterUK

Personalised recommendations