{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03695652173913044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022149302707136997, 'mean_word_length': 5.473977695167286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 4, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Thematic Literature Review about Academic Leadership Development: Exploring and Comparing Latin American with Non-Latin American Leadership Literature

Article Info This report is part of the International Study of Leadership Development in Higher Education project (ISLDHE) project which is examining leadership development for university leaders. This paper presents an update to our original exploration of the literature about university contexts and leadership development, but also compares the themes as they relate to Latin American countries and those emerging from other countries. We identified the skills that university leaders should have to appropriately manage the challenges of contemporary universities. We also report on themes pertaining to currently available leadership development programs. The review showed a high coincidence in the skills required for leaders in Latin American contexts to those in non-Latin American universities. We noted that the lack of clarity in the characteristics and formats of optimal leadership development programs were pervasive throughout both Article History: Received January 09, 2020 Accepted March 30, 2021


Introduction
This paper emerges from the International Study of Leadership Development in Higher Education project (ISLDHE) which is focused on exploring the availability and effectiveness of academic leadership development (LD) with the intent to inform the design of optimal programming for heads of departments, deans, and leaders at the senior levels of universities. The ISLDHE research questions encompass: 1) How effective are current programs? 2) How can we optimally support our leaders' development to ensure increased leader-efficacy, success, and job fulfilment within dynamic university contexts, with a view to ensuring a nexus between theory and practice? 3) How should contemporary university leadership be conceptualized and theorized? and 4) How can these pragmatic and theoretical insights influence optimal LD programming?
In the early stages of this project the Canadian team undertook a literature review that explored the established knowledge base about the themes of university leadership in terms of their roles and responsibilities, leadership contexts, skills and capacity required by leaders, and suggested or actual LD programs (Scott et al., 2016b) in the English language literature. We did not originally set out to explore these themes in relation to particular countries, rather we examined all countries and research where these themes were present, so none were excluded. At that time, we found studies from: Australia, New Zealand, U.K., and the U.S. Our original literature review examined the knowledge base up to and including studies published in 2015. This current review encompassed the more recent literature from 2016 onward. Interestingly, we found there was more research from a broader range of contexts than previously, which was exciting to see that interest and research was growing in the area of leadership and LD in universities.
As the ISLDHE team expanded with new collaborators joining the project from different countries, we encouraged new members to undertake a literature review on leadership and LD trends and issues specific to their own national contexts. This was largely in acknowledgement of potential cultural differences in governance and institutional expectations for leaders, and to scope leadership development programs and approaches that were occurring in their institutions and countries and/or what LD was being suggested and why. Additionally, as many of our collaborators have varied discipline backgrounds (other than education and leadership), their knowledge of leadership and LD tends to be largely experiential.
Consequently, undertaking a literature review provides a useful introduction to the leadership field in general, serves as a valuable foundation for contextualizing their project findings, and enable interesting insights with other national settings within the project. This paper resulted from a year-long "visiting scholar" collaboration between the Canadian co-chairs of the project and a new member from Chile. This collaboration provided opportunities to explore university leadership in Chile, and through her crossnational networks, other Latin American countries. As the co-chairs are Anglophones, this was a novel opportunity to explore the We found there had been a flurry of research in the late 1990s which focused on the complexities of leadership. Most of these studies emerged from the U.S. and U.K. contexts (Gmelch, 2015;Maghroori & Powers, 2004;Montez & Wolverton, 2000;Pounder, 2001;Wolverton & Gonzales, 2000;Wolverton et al., 1998), but little research was emerging from the Canadian context (Acker, 2014;Eastman, 2006). This was an important point given that Canada has a very different higher education (HE) system due to it provincial rather than federal jurisdictional governance. There was a lull in research in the late 2000s, but interest ignited later in 2010 through 2020 with research focused on leaders' skills and responsibilities and in LD within this ever-changing HE landscape (Dopson et al., 2019;Kenner & Pressler, 2011;Martin, 2015;Isaac et al., 2009;Scholkmann, 2011;Wilkes et al., 2015) particularly pertaining to the reduction in funding to universities (Davies & Thomas, 2009;Hodson, 2010).
Much of the research identified the failure of leaders to adequately respond to the myriad of challenges facing them within this new ambit (Rosser et al., 2003;Werner, 2009) with many advocating LD (Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2008;DeZure et al., 2014;Nies & Wolverton, 2000;Tang et al., 2013).
Overall, the findings of our initial literature review revealed five main themes: leadership is important; the influence of contexts, change, and the challenges these represent to leaders; the importance of leadership theory to guide practice; and finally, LD is crucial to effective practice.
Third, leaders' influence on academic culture and outcomes.
Fourth, the importance of leadership theory to guide practice. Even though the leadership literature abounds with theories that capture valuable and important dimensions of leadership, few LD studies used leadership theories other than in passing. Transformational leadership theory (Kouzes & Posner, 2012 and authentic leadership theory (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) were the most frequent theories applied to university leadership, but these were rarely mentioned in LD programs. This was likely due to these theories' focus on relationship-and trust-building as an antidote to destructive or toxic leadership (Smyth, 2017;Thoroughgood, 2018;Webster, 2016). Curiously, few advocated for including leadership theory into LD programming (Dopson et al., 2019). Likewise, there was no mention of developing an evidence-based leadership theory specific to HE, thus our project's aim to potentially inform theory was filling a gap in the literature.
Fifth, leadership development is crucial to effective practice. Most authors advocated for LD to promote particular knowledge, skills, or attitudinal development, and there were calls for the establishment of more extensive, systematic, and more effective LD (Nica, 2013;Ortrun & Louw, 2014). Even so, few outlined optimal program content, processes, and/or delivery (Morris & Laipple, 2015;Shahmandi et al., 2011;Shahmandi et al., 2012). The most prevalent LD was mentoring or executive coaching, but, although valuable, they were reported as expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to establish and sustain (Baartman, 2011;Commodore et al., 2016;DeZure et al., 2014;Green & Ridenour, 2004;Kleihauer et al., 2012;Nies & Wolverton, 2000). Consequently, LD was confirmed as an important research topic (Erkutlu et al., 2011). Specifically, more research was needed to identify what knowledge, skills, attitudes, and delivery formats, were needed for effective leadership, and efficacious and authentic leader development.
From this earlier review, our parameters for this "update" review included universities new functions (the context), leadership skills and capacities (to flow into LD content programming), and studies about LD (for delivery/formats information) (see Table 1).

New Functions and Leadership Roles Universities
Our updated literature review affirmed previous findings that "universities globally are facing novel challenges, as they become larger, more complex and multi-functional organisations" (Dopson et al., 2019, p. 219). For example, neoliberalism, globalization, and the marketization of HE, have radically impacted the functioning of universities throughout the world and also influenced leadership roles (Apple, 2000(Apple, , 2006(Apple, , 2017Marginson, 2003Marginson, , 2006Smyth, 2017).
Indeed, we identified that these contextual factors are now more widespread, impactful, and are revisioning academic work and leadership -not for the better. For example, Smyth (2017) identified "zombie leadership" leads to "pathological organizational dysfunction" (p. 5). He explained this as leaders and administrators taking an unquestioning stance in their acceptance of the neoliberal agenda. He indicated this dysfunction has led to "enormous suffering and degradation" (p. 6) for academics and negative impacts on academic careers, workload, and mental health and wellbeing.
Of course, the realities of each country are different and these influences have occurred with varied emphases and timeframes. Even so, it was possible to identify important similarities and differences in the HE sectors across different countries. For example, neoliberal principles have a stranglehold in western nations (e.g., U.K., U.S.A., Australia), but in recent times, neoliberalism has seen some reversals in Chile with community protests about equal access to HE, the burden of student fees, and so on (Rodriguez-Videla, 2018). So, while universities around the world seemed to face the similar contextual challenges, the stages of intervention, strategies, and solutions were different in various national contexts (Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2015;Marginson, 2002).
Over the past two decades, neoliberalism has led to decreases in public funding (Apple, 2017), and greater competition in job markets leading to increased demand for university qualifications for social mobility (Universities UK, 2016). Less government funding has forced universities to economize and to seek new revenue sources (Cleverley-Thompson, 2016;Hempsall, 2014). For example, in Australian, U.K., and U.S., international students have become a lucrative new market (Marginson, 2002), whereas in Latin America, industry partnerships have been sought to create entrepreneurial opportunities (Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2015). In Latin American countries (e.g., Chile), increases in local students was in response to government policies promoting equity and social mobility (Bradley et al., 2017). However, when students present with varied abilities and preparation this increased teaching complexities.
For two decades, international students have been an essential source of funding for many western nations (Marginson, 2002(Marginson, , 2009).
However, overreliance on this revenue source has created a pivotal sustainability risk factor. This was demonstrated recently in Australia and the U.K. where HE sectors have experienced a "catastrophe" with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overseas students have been unable to cross borders into Australia and the U.K., which has caused a collapse in usual university operations (Beard, 2020; Packham, 2020;Robinson, 2019). It is yet to be seen if the impact of COVID-19 will result in a re-assessment of government funding models for HE sectors around the world, or will this cause a contraction in many HE sectors?
A worldwide trend has been for greater accountability and countries was different to western nations due its incipiency in these contexts.
Internationalization was a newer theme in Latin America, where its purpose was to meet the expectations of quality assurance/rankings metrics (Huerta-Riveros & Pedraja-Rejas, 2019; Ortega & Freites, 2017;Sanchez, 2016). However, in Australia and other western contexts, some argued this was simply applying an educational "quality" rationale to a pragmatic funding imperative (Marginson, 2002(Marginson, , 2006. So, how do these contextual changes to university functions influence leaders' responsibilities?

Leaders' Responsibilities
Previously, leaders' roles and responsibilities related to coordinating teaching and research activities within the university (Wolverton et al., 2001 America this is the purview of senior leaders, not deans (Lopez, 2013;Vega et al., 2015).
Another challenge linked to neoliberalism is the need to raise faculty's performances in national/international rankings, and to establish evaluation mechanisms to track ranking and performance metrics .
With these new complexities, "heroic" leadership styles were reported as inappropriate; rather, shared or distributed leadership

Leadership Skills
In many universities in the world, leaders are generally selected based upon research prowess, not necessarily for their management and leadership skills (Wang & Sedivy-Benton, 2016;Wolverton & Gonzales, 2000;Wolverton & Poch, 2000). This criterion (i.e., scholarship) can create a disconnect in preparation and skill development for effective leadership (Tang et al., 2013;Kouzes & Posner, 2013;Wolverton et al., 2007).
In exploring requisite leadership skills, we found two main approaches: 1) theoretical discussions of useful skills, and 2) pragmatic accounts where leader-participants provided insights from the field. Curiously, we found most Latin American literature had a    (3) Make decisions (4) Make decisions and focus on critical activities (1) Networking (3) Diagnosis of needs and direction (1) Ability to set clear expectations (1) Understands the culture of the institution (3) Understand the global and local context (2) Understand the context (2) Lead the introduction of technologies (2) Taking responsibility for their decisions (1) Conflict management (1) Difficult decisions and conflict management (1) Risk management (1) Visioning (1) Visioning (1) Marketing (1) Responsiveness (1) Affective-related skills Affective-related skills Self-organization (3) Self-organization (5) Team-working (2) Team-building and team-working (2) Communication skills (2) Communication skills (2) Understands and meditates competing stakeholder perspectives (2) Manages the tensions of the differing demands and expectations (1) Navigating academic and non-academic staff interests (1) Ability to build trust (1) Relationship-building and capacity to build trust (1) Working constructively (1) Proactivity (3) Interpersonal skills (2) Flexibility and adaptability to change (1) Consistency and meets commitments (1) Empathy (1) Ability to influence peers (1) Balance in administration and academic activities (1) Confidence in risk-taking (1) Overall, across both the western and Latin American literature, the cognitive-related (thinking/mental) skills that were most frequently cited included strategic planning and management processes; and surprisingly, the capacity to make decisions and to problem solve.
Decision-making was also linked to making difficult decisions especially during a crisis. Less surprising was the need for leaders to understand the context in which they operated which was also frequently linked to making good decisions. In the Latin American context, understanding the culture of the institution and the capacity to lead the introduction of technology were also important cognitive capacities. In terms of affective-related skills (emotions), the leaders' capacity to organize themselves was the most frequently cited skill.
Team-working, team-building, communication, and interpersonal skills were also deemed important and highly inter-related.
It was curious that there was so much alignment between the Again, another interesting dimension to explore in subsequent phases of our study.

Leadership Development
Arguably, given the emphasis of this literature review to promote our understandings of leadership development (LD) content and delivery, this section is probably the most pertinent to our study.
We found LD was prevalent in universities, but frequently for undergraduate students, non-academic managers, or in business.
There were few studies related to academic LD, but happily this topic appears to be drawing more interest ( (Alghamdi, 2016;Lamm et al., 2018).

Identification of the Necessity for LD Programs
The literature affirmed that LD was necessary for effective and relational leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;DeZure et al., 2014;Dopson et al., 2019;Erkutlu et al., 2011;Hamlin & Patel, 2017;Kenner & Pressler, 2011). Indeed, Dopson and her colleagues (2019) identified that more research is needed into LD, into designing systematic and sustained LD, for including a stronger theoretical basis into programming, and to evaluate LD programs.
An important issue in leadership within HE is that leaders are frequently appointed from within the academy. However, in some in private institutions, the leaders are administrators appointed by the owners (Hamlin & Patel, 2017). In the latter case, being a leader in HE was more likely to be a leadership career pathway (as opposed to an academic or researcher pathway) for which there are formal LD programs . Consequently, it is to be expected that leaders who have received academic preparation (to become a scholar or university teacher) may not have the knowledge and skills for leadership unlike those whose career pathway is leadership and management. Thus, for those who are initially scholars selected for leadership there is a greater need for LD, as this role is very different to that of scholar or teacher.
In the U.K., Preston andFloyd (2016, Floyd &Preston, 2018) took a retrospective perspective and explored what LD associate deans had experienced. Over half (60%) of respondents reported having little or no training, while 24% indicated that their LD experiences had been "sporadic and unsatisfactory" (p. 276); hence, programs needed to be more relevant to leaders' roles and their participants wanted "informal peer group learning" (p. 276).
Similarly, Hamlin and Patel's (2017) comparative French-English university leadership study, examined positive and negative leadership behaviors and concluded LD programs were important to overcome negative leadership. They did note though that existing programs (primarily in business schools) were inadequate and informal programs were also needed. Stensaker and Vab (2013) recommended LD programs be matched with universities' strategic plans to ensure that leaders' preparation and resourcing of programs were aligned to ensure institutional outcomes could be met. Most articles recommended a range of skills for optimal leadership, many of which were identified in the skills section of this paper.
Additionally Despite this review, it was not possible to definitively establish which were the most appropriate programs and content for leadership preparation. While we found similarities in requisite skills, the best way to achieve the development of these remained undetermined. There was also a lack of detail about what form of LD delivery was optimal. There was also no information about whether cultural context influenced LD processes or ideal delivery. In the Latin American literature, we did not find any articles related to LD programs or evaluations. Therefore, LD remains unchartered, but important, territory within the Latin American context.

Discussion of Future Research Dimensions
In the literature reviewed both previously and in this updated review, we observed that many universities have been similarly influenced by change throughout the world. study. It will also be interesting and important to gain insights into any further cultural, system, and contextual differences as we move forward with this study in Chile and other Latin American contexts.
Similar to our earlier review, we observed frequent calls for LD because of the complexities of contemporary academic leadership.
Most also indicated that preparation for scholarship was insufficient and different to that required for leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;DeZure et al., 2014;Dopson et al., 2019;Hempsall, 2014). Despite the consensus on the need for LD programs, few papers deepened the themes or reported on optimal methodologies that programs should encompass for maximum impact (Dopson et al., 2019;Hempsall, 2014). Unlike our previous review, in this review we found a few established programs that provided some detail and had been established long enough to warrant evaluation (Alghamdi et al., 2016;Bradley et al., 2017). The duration of these programs ranged between nine months to two years, however, even though these programs appeared to be successful, the viability of protracted programs would need to be considered given how time-poor leaders are. Therefore, optimal delivery approaches (while considering program duration) are worth studying to ensure viability for busy leaders. For a summary of our LD findings please refer to Appendix C.
An aspect that was not overtly addressed within the limited literature on existing LD programs was if the content of LD should vary respective of career stage. That is, should the content be different for aspirants as opposed to novices or experienced leaders?
This variability in LD content according to career stage was an aspect that was established in the International Study for the Preparation of Principals (ISPP) (Webber et al., 2014;Webber & Scott, 2013). It also raised the question as to whether more managerial-oriented content would be more useful at the associate dean level and more leadership-oriented content should be aimed at deans and senior leaders such as rectors, vice chancellors/presidents, and presidents.
However, Preston and Floyd's (2016;Floyd & Preston, 2018) study seems to counter this proposition as associate deans did not find the management-oriented LD all that useful.
Another curious aspect to emerge from both our previous and current literature reviews was that there was almost no mention of leadership theory (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;Kouzes & Posner, 2019) either as a suggestion for inclusion into LD or in program designs.
Some authors discussed the importance of reflection and formation of leadership identities, but they did not indicate appropriate theoretical foundations for leaders' values and beliefs. Considering the amount of literature that described destructive and toxic leadership (Thoroughgood et al., 2018;Smyth, 2017;Webster, 2016)  The findings from this literature review have provided a useful update to our previous literature review (Scott et al., 2016b). It also provided useful insights into leadership and LD in Latin American in preparation for our study to commence in Chile and potentially in other Latin American contexts. We will also be drawing upon the insights offered in these literature reviews to inform the development of subsequent questionnaires and interview instruments which are planned for the next stage of our research -surveys with university leaders. We anticipate that the literature review and surveys will subsequently inform our recommendations for LD programs to ensure maximum pragmatics, and potentially, inform theoretical contributions to the HE field of study.
With the background presented in this paper, we identified there has been a shift in the functions that universities and that leaders must have different skills to equip them for leadership in these complex environments. We also observed there was considerable alignment across different countries in terms of the challenges that leaders face, although we will remain mindful to explore the important cultural differences and institutional nuances that may emerge. There was also a general agreement that academic leaders needed leadership preparation and development to ensure they had the necessary skills to be successful. We also observed that there was a series of skills that university leaders must have for success and effectiveness.