THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF BEING A UNIVERSITY HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: A COMPARATIVE MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY
Keywords:
Academic Middle Management, Head of Department, Responsibility–authority paradox, Leadership identity, Emotional labour, Qualitative case study, Higher education, Gender and leadership.Abstract
Although academic middle managers have received considerable scholarly attention, little is known about the personal and identity-based dimensions of the university Head of Department (HOD) role. This position is characterised by extensive responsibility but constrained authority and situated at the intersection of institutional expectations and departmental realities. The study explores how Heads of Department experience and negotiate the tension between responsibility, authority, and leadership identity. This comparative multiple-case study involved semi-structured interviews with two Heads of Department and non-participant observations. Data analysis was conducted by using the six-phase framework of thematic analysis. Six themes emerged including the responsibility-authority paradox, collaborative leadership, identity construction, emotional labour, communication, and leadership as coordination and service. Results indicate that academic middle management is a liminal zone that is located between institutional authority and structural powerlessness, and between administrative demands and collegial expectations. While both were rejecting authoritarians, they faced a shared paradox, and their ways of relating and collaborating differed in ways that may reflect possible sociocultural influence; as this pattern is drawn from a single pair of cases, it is offered as a tentative observation rather than a generalizable gender difference. The male participant used tactics of influence and emotional detachment, and the female participant used tactics of relational coordination, emotional openness and transformational communication. The findings extend the literature on academic middle leadership by providing a comparative case-based account of how leadership identity, responsibility, and authority are experienced and negotiated in practice, highlighting the need for clearer role expectations and stronger institutional support for Heads of Department.







