campusreview. com. au industry & research checks and balances, as well as ethical and cultural values. Based on this, MSU checked at least one part of the toxic triangle – a conducive environment that facilitated the existence of toxic behaviour. Managerialism appears to be at the heart of this, and thus this type of environment seems to be the norm at most contemporary tertiary institutions.
Allswede’ s experience typifies a system where staff see others berated for not meeting the performance standard or following the company mantra. These staff may then find it easier to conform to avoid the same fate.
The increased vulnerability of staff exacerbates this. In the university sector, the proportion of academic staff on permanent employment has fallen, replaced by more short-term and casual contract staff( Norton and Cakitaki, 2016). Casualisation of the tertiary workforce is advocated under the managerialist maxim of efficiency and effectiveness. This casualisation leads to increased numbers of staff feeling direct pressure to comply and conform with the system. Dissent, it is feared, may be met with non-extension of employment, with many staff feeling that their jobs are insecure. Such staff are more likely to conform to the expectations set out by toxic leaders.
Yet other followers may see opportunities in such an environment. These followers( called“ opportunists” by Thoroughgood et al, 2012) are not so much conforming as colluding with the leader and the system to further their own position.
Still, other colluders may be advocates of the principles of managerialism, or true believers in the vision of the leader. These“ acolytes”( Thoroughgood et al, 2012) are committed to the leader. Both these types of colluders are critical to the existence and maintenance of the toxic leader.
The importance of colluding followers emerged in 2014, when the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan, Ilene Busch-Vishniac, was involved in the dismissal of a tenure-track professor, Robert Buckingham.
Buckingham was dismissed for criticising the university’ s budget overhaul process( The Canadian Press, 2014). Yet it was not Busch-Vishniac who dismissed Buckingham but then-provost Brett Fairbairn. After Fairbain’ s resignation, he penned a letter to university leaders, stating, " I felt at the time that I was expected to act, and certainly the recommendation I received was that I had to act quickly," as the senior management group wanted a quick resolution.
Reflecting the views of an acolyte, Fairbain also stated he didn’ t believe tenure was sacrosanct. Final confirmation of Fairbairn as an acolyte came when he fell on his sword to protect Busch-Vishniac, stating she told him that if he resigned, then at least one of them“ could survive the crisis”( CBC News, 2014).
With leaders on performance-based KPIs, meeting short-term objectives becomes paramount. Thus, leaders whose behaviours may run closer to the borders of acceptability are supported if objectives are achieved. Such an approach lends itself to the rise of narcissistic or charismatic leaders, who may use their position to further their own ends. Subsequently, leaders may well hide failures or mistakes, take credit for the performance of the group, or limit“ communication of criticism and dissent”( Yukl, 1999).
A recent example of potentially toxic university leader behaviour has been that of Richard Higgott, former vice-chancellor of Murdoch University. Higgott was accused of a range of misconduct, including bullying, lack of transparency in senior appointments, and credit card misuse( Mundy, 2016).
Higgott was alleged to have directly manipulated position descriptions and interfered in the hiring of two senior management positions: the deputy vicechancellor( DVC) for education and DVC for professional services. In the case of the DVC( education), Higgott was found to have used his role as chairman of the selection committee to deceive other members of the committee, and to limit the field of 12 candidates to his preferred candidate.
It was further alleged that Higgott and the candidate( with whom he had a longstanding personal relationship) tailored the job description to best suit her expertise.
With the DVC( professional services), it was alleged that Higgott wanted him removed once the relationship between them soured. Higgott was accused of deliberately misleading the chancellor of Murdoch University and organising the severance package without the chancellor’ s knowledge.
Higgott resigned following the allegations and was ultimately found guilty by the West Australian Crime and Corruption Commission in 2016 of serious misconduct in the appointment of the DVC( education), as well as in the other matters( Burrell, 2017).
Another example. In the US, Simon Newman was appointed president of Mount St. Mary’ s University in Maryland, a Catholic liberal arts private university. Within a year, he had fired staff, cut benefits and proposed removing struggling first-year students( whom he referred to as“ bunnies who need to be drowned or shot”) to improve retention figures at the university. He also asked why there were so many crucifixes about the place, as liberal arts and religion“ don’ t sell”. Two professors were fired for allegedly opposing Newman( Svrluga, 2016).
CONCLUSION The current higher education environment is not all doom and gloom. The university sector does have many excellent, inspiring leaders. When Elson Floyd, former president of Washington State University, died in 2015, many colleagues and students praised him as a compassionate leader, focusing on his efforts to open access to more students from disadvantaged backgrounds( Prinster, 2015). Also, there is still the potential to resist toxic leaders who may emerge in academia. Two examples of the power of this in action relate to the cases of Simon Newman and Ilene Busch-Vishniac. While it is clear from our examples that both presidents exhibited behaviours that may be considered toxic, and at least in Busch-Vishniac’ s case had the support of colluding followers, both are no longer in those roles.
After Buckingham’ s dismissal, the strength of protest to the Board of Trustees demanding his reinstatement could not be ignored. Busch-Vishniac was dismissed shortly after Buckingham’ s reinstatement. The board emphasised that Saskatchewan was“ committed to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression” and that they considered tenure“ a sacrosanct principle”( The Canadian Press, 2014).
Likewise, with Newman, faculty resisted and instigated a no-confidence motion. Eventually, Newman was forced to resign.
The cases also highlight that without followers, toxic leaders cannot exist. Collusion or conformity are not the only choices for followers. Dissent is also another path, however challenging that may be.
Yet, to not do it makes us complicit in the rise of toxic leaders.
Dr Sarah Chua is a lecturer, Dr Duncan Murray a senior lecturer( sport and leisure), and Professor Tricia Vilkinas an adjunct professor of management at the UniSA Business School.
References at campusreview. com. au
17