Executive power and scaled-up gender subtexts in Australian entrepreneurial universities

Deputy Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor positions have proliferated in response to the global, corporatised university landscape [Scott, G., S. Bell, H. Coates, and L. Grebennikov. 2010. “Australian Higher Education Leaders in Times of Change: The Role of Pro Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (4): 401–418]. Senior leadership is the sphere where academic and management identities are negotiated and values around the role of the university are decided. This paper examines the changing and gendered nature of the senior leadership setting and its implications for diversity in and of university leadership. The analysis draws from a three-year empirical study funded by the Australian Research Council on leadership in Australian universities. It focuses on executive leaders in three universities – one which is research-intensive, the second, in a regional site, and the third, university of technology. The article argues that the university landscape and its management systems are being restructured in gendered ways. It utilises the notion of organisational gender subtexts to make explicit how gender works through structural and cultural reform.

Democracy, liberty and the prerogative: the displacement of inherent executive power by statute

This article analyses arguments that the prerogative should be readily displaced by statute, where a statute deals with a subject matter similar to a prerogative. It does so by examining the leading cases on displacement of the prerogative in the United Kingdom and the Australian states, and displacement of the Australian Commonwealth's inherent executive power. The cases do not adopt a single rule but the question of whether a statute will be taken to displace a prerogative is highly dependent of the facts and the provisions of the particular staute.This article defends the current approach to displacement, for three reasons. First, the courts do not allow governments to subvert or ignore statutes by using the prerogative. Secondly, the courts have almost always decided in favour of liberty and against the conferral of coercive powers on government. Thirdly, a single rule could not do justice to all the variables involved in displacement cases. Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation are sufficient to deal with questions of displacement.

Facts, threats and reds : common law constitutionalism and the rule of law

In a concurring judgment in Thomas v Mowbray, a High Court of Australia case turning on the Constitutional validity of terrorism-related control orders, Callinan J offers a re-evaluation of the Court’s earlier decision in the Australian Communist Party case to curtail executive power. According to Callinan J, factual matters knowable (but not known) at the time of the earlier decision might have given rise to a different outcome. In a dissenting judgment by Kirby J in the same case the Court’s reasoning in the Australian Communist Party case is robustly defended. These contested issues connect with the theoretical dispute between ‘common law constitutionalism’ and ‘constitutional positivism’ analysed by Dyzenhaus in the context of states of emergency where the limits of executive action and the role of supporting facts become particularly salient. They press the question of the status of the rule of law in the international as well as in the municipal sphere.

Commonwealth legislative power and "non punitive" detention: a constitutional roadmap

In 2004 The High Court handed down a number of decisions concerning detention imposed for purposes allegedly unrelated to punishment. This paper outlines the way the Federal Constitution restricts (and also facilitates) the imposition of "non punitive detention" by our governments. Such laws (as passed by the Federal Legislature) are constitutionally valid provided they can be characterised as falling within a legislative head of power under  section 51 off he Constitution. The power to detain for non punitive purposes can be reposed by the Legislature in the either the Executive or Judicial arms of government. Detention by the Executive is non punitive (and therefore does not offend the separation of powers) even though it involves a deprivation of liberty, provided it is imposed for “legitimate non punitive purposes”.  Legitimacy is in turn determined by reference to the section 51 heads of power. Detention for non punitive purposes by the judicial arm of government is constitutionally valid provided that (i) a “judicial process ” is adopted and (ii) (arguably) there is some link (albeit tenuous) with a previous finding of criminal guilt. The continuing existence of the “constitutional immunity ”from being detained by other than judicial order identified by the High Court in its 1992 decision in Lim v Minister for Immigration is called into question.

Understanding executive presence : Perspectives of business professionals

Executive presence is an unclear concept but one that reportedly has a substantial influence on successful leadership. The purpose of this study was to understand the meaning of executive presence from the perspectives of business professionals with expertise in the effectiveness of organizational executives. From interviews with 34 professionals, 5 main findings emerged: (a) executive presence is based on audience perceptions of the characteristics of particular people, (b) 10 core characteristics affect executive presence (status and reputation, physical appearance, projected confidence, communication ability, engagement skills, interpersonal integrity, values-in-action, intellect and expertise, outcome delivery ability, and coercive power use), (c) perceptions are based on impressions made during initial contacts (first 5 characteristics) and on evaluations made over time (second 5 characteristics), (d) the characteristics combine in different ways to form 4 presence archetypes (positive presence, unexpected presence, unsustainable presence, and dark presence), and (e) the majority of the executives described as having presence were men. Based on the interview material, we suggest that a person with executive presence is someone who, by virtue of how he or she is perceived by audience members at any given point in time, exerts influence beyond that conferred through formal authority. The findings serve to highlight the complexity of executive presence, particularly in terms of the breadth of characteristics that underpin this construct and the influence of time on people's perceptions.

The effect of board capital and CEO power on corporate social responsibility disclosures

This study examines the effect of directors’ human and social capital (i.e. board capital) on the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures by drawing on insights from a resource-based view. It also investigates the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) power on this relationship. Data were obtained from annual reports of companies listed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange in Bangladesh from 2005 to 2013. We employ outside directors’ experiences and expertise as a proxy for board capital and measure CEO power using a ‘power index’ that comprises CEO duality, ownership, tenure and family CEO status. Results show that board capital is positively associated with CSR disclosure levels; however, CEO power is negatively associated with CSR disclosures and reduces the effect of board capital on CSR disclosures. Thus, we conclude that although board capital can improve CSR practices, CEO power can also inhibit these practices.

New modalities of state power: neoliberal responsibilisation and the work of academy chains

This paper draws on interview data gathered as part of a broader study around issues of equity and schooling. It features the voices of the Executive Director and four Head Teachers from one of England's top performing academy chains, ‘CONNECT’. The notion of neoliberal responsibilisation is drawn on to examine, first, the ways in which Head Teachers describe their work and, second, the chain's expectations of them as CONNECT leaders. Responsibilisation of the self was apparent in Head Teachers' construction of themselves as ideal neoliberal workers – performing and enterprising subjects who readily accept the business principles and results-orientation of their ‘data-driven’ environment. Responsibilising of Head Teachers by the organisation was evident in the rigorous ‘non-negotiable’ standards and accountabilities at CONNECT that they were expected to comply with. These non-negotiables cultivated and rewarded Head Teachers’ entrepreneurial identity of achievement motivation. The paper illustrates how such neoliberal responsibilisation is both a crucial and highly troubling element in the work of academy chains as new modalities of state power.