Presidents and Deans in French Universities: A Collective Approach to Academic Leadership

  • Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 33)


This contribution is an analysis of the leadership styles of the presidents and deans in French universities. The results are drawn from a qualitative study in four institutions where 250 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The relations among these academic leaders as well as the respective conceptualisations of their roles are under scrutiny. The study of the discourses and behaviour of the institutional and intermediate academic leaders indicates that academic leadership styles vary intuitively across institutions. The analysis of the data suggests that each style is consistent with the position of power held by the leader in the internal system of relations among the three lines of authority (academic, administrative and deliberative) that form the university governance structure.


Faculty Member Leadership Style Administrative Staff Department Chair Academic Leadership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Many thanks to the fellows of the 7th Douro Seminar for their comments on the first draft of this contribution, and in particular to Jef Verhoeven, commentator. I also wish to thank Christine Musselin for her precious advice to improve this chapter. Errors or imperfections are of course my own.


  1. Amaral, A., Jones, G. A., & Karseth, B. (Eds.). (2002). Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Barrier, J. (2005). L’émergence incertaine de nouveaux modes de gouvernement de la recherche universitaire. Report for the Laboratoire Territoires Techniques Sociétés. Paris: LATTS, University of Marne-la-Vallée.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, M., Askling, B., Marton, S. G., & Marton, F. (1999). Transforming universities: Changing patterns of governance, structure and learning in Swedish higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  5. Bayenet, B., Feola, C., & Tavernier, M. (2000). La gestion stratégique des universités: Politique d’évaluation et évaluation des politiques. Gestion de l’enseignement supérieur, 12(2), 67–84.Google Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, R. (1989). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Blau, P. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: Wiley InterScience.Google Scholar
  8. Bleiklie, I. (1996). Rendering unto caesar … on implementation strategies in academia. Paper presented at the 9th conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, University of Turku, Finland, 27–29 June, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Bleiklie, I., Høstaker, R., & Vabø, A. (2000). Policy and practice in higher education: Reforming Norwegian universities. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  10. Bourricaud, F. (1964). Sur deux mécanismes de personnalisation du pouvoir. In L. Hamon & A. Mabileau (Eds.), La personnalisation du pouvoir (pp. 391–422). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L’acteur et le système. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  15. De Boer, H. (2002). On nails, coffins and councils. European Journal of Education, 37(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Boer, H., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2004). New public management – New styles of management? From general ideology to the realities of being a dean in universities. Paper presented at the 17th conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, Enschede, the Netherlands, 17–19 September, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. Dill, D., & B. Sporn (Eds.). (1995). Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Engwall, L., Levay, C., & Lidman, R. (1999). Le rôle des chefs d’établissements d’enseignement supérieur. Gestion de l’enseignement supérieur, 11(2), 85–104.Google Scholar
  19. Friedberg, E., & Musselin, C. (1989). En quête d’universités, Etude comparative des universités en France et en RFA. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  20. Frolich, N. (2005). Implementation of new public management in Norwegian universities. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fulton, O. (2003). Managerialism in UK universities: Unstable hybridity and the complications of implementation. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 155–178). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gimenez, A. (1999). Les présidents d’université en France. Mémoire de DEA de sciences administratives. Paris: Université Panthéon Assas.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, P. (1962). The community of scholars. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Hardy, C. (1990). Managing strategy in academic institutions: Learning from Brazil. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  26. Henkel, M. (2002). Emerging concepts of academic leadership and their implications for intra-institutional roles and relationships in higher education. European Journal of Education, 37(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jegouzo, Y. (1984). Le point sur la loi du 26 janvier 1984 sur l’enseignement supérieur. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 30, 167–170.Google Scholar
  28. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (Eds.). (2000). Transforming higher education: A comparative study. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  29. Larsen, I. M., & Gornitzka, Å. (1995). New management systems in Norwegian universities: The interface between reform and institutional understanding. European Journal of Education, 30(3), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazéga, E. (2001). The collegial phenomenon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meek, V. L. (2003). Introduction. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merrien, F. X., Buttet, A. C., & Anselmo, F. (1998). La nouvelle gestion publique de l’enseignement supérieur aux Pays-Bas. Etude et évaluation d’une réforme institutionnelle. Berne: Conseil Suisse de la Science.Google Scholar
  33. Mignot-Gérard, S. (2003). Deconstructing leadership and governance within universities. Higher Education Policy and Management, 15(2), 147–177.Google Scholar
  34. Mignot-Gérard, S. (2006). Soft management and political leadership: The internal governance of French universities. PhD Dissertation in Sociology, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris.Google Scholar
  35. Mignot-Gérard, S., & Musselin, C. (1999). Comparaison des modes de fonctionnement et de gouvernement de quatre universités. Rapport d’enquête. Paris: CSO/AMUE.Google Scholar
  36. Mignot-Gérard, S., & Musselin, C. (2002). Enquête quantitative sur les modes de gouvernement de 37 universités françaises. Rapport d’enquête. Paris: CSO/AMUE.Google Scholar
  37. Mignot-Gérard, S., & Musselin, C. (2005). Chacun cherche son LMD: L’adoption par les universités françaises du schéma européen des études supérieures en deux cycles. Rapport d’enquête. Paris: CSO/ESEN.Google Scholar
  38. Musselin, C. (1987). Système de gouvernement ou cohésion universitaire: Les capacités d’action collective de deux universités allemandes et de deux universités françaises. PhD Dissertation in Sociology, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris.Google Scholar
  39. Musselin, C. (2001). La longue marche des universités françaises. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  40. Neumann, A., & Bensimon, E. M. (1990). Constructing the presidency: College presidents’ images of their leadership roles, a comparative study. Journal of Higher Education, 61(6), 678–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Prost, A. (1992). Education, société et politiques: Une histoire de l’enseignement en France de 1945 à nos jours. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  43. Rasmussen, J. G. (2002). The transformations of leadership practices seen from a shop floor university perspective. In M. Dewatripont, F. Thys-Clément, & L. Wilkin (Eds.), European universities: Change and convergence? (pp. 147–160). Bruxelles: Edition de l’université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  44. Reed, M. (2002). New managerialism, professional power and organisational governance in UK universities: A review and assessment. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 163–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Rubin, I. (1979). Retrenchment, loose structure and adaptability in the university. Sociology of Education, 52(4), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, D., Scott, P., Bocock, J., & Bargh, C. (1999). Vice-chancellors and executive leadership in UK universities: New roles and relationships? In M. Henkel & B. Little (Eds.), Changing relationships between higher education and the state (pp. 280–306). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  47. Stensaker, B. (2004). The transformation of organisational identities: Interpretations of policies concerning the quality of teaching and learning in Norwegian higher education. Enschede, CHEPS: University of Twente.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Administration des Entreprises, University of Paris XIIParisFrance

Personalised recommendations