Search

Studies that have examined organizations' productivity and their leaders have found a rather weak relationship between a leader's personal characteristics and organizational output. Similar empirical studies have also been conducted in relation to universities. These studies have concentrated on university leaders' individual academic performance as a quantifiable individual characteristic. They have yielded rather contradictory results. In this study, I take a theoretical approach to quantify the effects of top leadership on university research performance. I assume that top leaders may influence university research productivity, but this influence should be visible. I theorize two types of university leader: the "strategic manager" who seeks to reallocate resources to make it of use for the whole university and the "politician" who reallocates resources to benefit certain research areas, especially the one they specialize in. It is hypothesized that (1) if a leader is a strategic manager, an increase in overall university research productivity would be observed; and (2) if a leader is a politician, there will be an increase in university performance in the research field in which the leader specializes. Using an extensive sample of Russian universities, it is demonstrated that while there is no observable relationship between overall university research productivity and the university leader's academic excellence, there is a positive influence by university leader's academic productivity on the research performance of his/her specific research field. This study finds evidence that leaders qua "politicians" can have a profound effect on their respective research areas' productivity.

In recent years, university sectors worldwide have undergone intense reforms under the influence of the global ideas of 'new public management' and 'new managerialism'. National policies have widely adopted global scripts with advocacy for strengthening academic leadership as the essential ingredient of successful university transformation. However, how direct is the link between the policy reforms and the changes in the composition of academic leaders? To provide insight into this question, we examined national policy changes in the formal procedure of rector selection from the election to the appointment and the consequences of these changes. We tested the specific hypothesis that the policy reform on the selection procedure has catalysed significant changes in rector leadership towards increasing (1) rector replacement in universities with weak performance, (2) external recruitment, (3) recruitment from the natural and life sciences and diminishing (4) academic credentials. The hypotheses were tested using data on the 136 rector replacements that have occurred in Russian public universities. The data show that, in general, strong support does not emerge from the top-management level to claim that a 'traditional' academic career pathway has been reduced in favour of a new type of leader more suited to strong leadership. We concluded that the national policy tends to adopt those elements of global ideas that provide local benefits. The leadership change not only enables the state to symbolically exhibit proper behaviour but also to strengthen control over public universities.

Studies that have examined organizations' productivity and their leaders have found a rather weak relationship between a leader's personal characteristics and organizational output. Similar empirical studies have also been conducted in relation to universities. These studies have concentrated on university leaders' individual academic performance as a quantifiable individual characteristic. They have yielded rather contradictory results. In this study, I take a theoretical approach to quantify the effects of top leadership on university research performance. I assume that top leaders may influence university research productivity, but this influence should be visible. I theorize two types of university leader: the 'strategic manager' who seeks to reallocate resources to make it of use for the whole university and the 'politician' who reallocates resources to benefit certain research areas, especially the one they specialize in. It is hypothesized that (1) if a leader is a strategic manager, an increase in overall university research productivity would be observed; and (2) if a leader is a politician, there will be an increase in university performance in the research field in which the leader specializes. Using an extensive sample of Russian universities, it is demonstrated that while there is no observable relationship between overall university research productivity and the university leader's academic excellence, there is a positive influence by university leader's academic productivity on the research performance of his/her specific research field. This study finds evidence that leaders qua 'politicians' can have a profound effect on their respective research areas' productivity., Author(s): Daria Gerashchenko [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.37415.34, 0000 0000 9530 6264, European University at St Petersburg, , St Petersburg, Russian Federation Introduction > How important is leadership for how [...]

How do a university leader's publication patterns change after appointment? Until now, few studies have examined whether administrative burden has a significant effect on a leader's publication patterns. This study seeks to evaluate changes in individual publication patterns in relation to academic productivity and increased administrative load. The main expectation is that rectors opt for collaboration instead of publishing single‐authored papers. The analysis of publication data on Russian rectors demonstrates that: (1) a rector's academic productivity is significantly positively related to the share of single‐authored papers and papers in inter‐organizational co‐authorship; (2) every additional year in office adds to the share of co‐authored papers and impedes a yearly increase in article numbers; and (3) previously high individual productivity has a mitigating effect on an increasing share of institutionally co‐authored papers. The results suggest that administrative burden induces changes in collaboration patterns of university leaders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010–2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]