Future leadership development and preserving long-term institutional sustainability require effective succession planning (Jackson, 2017; Trickel, 2015; Rothwell, 2011; Barden, 2009). Academic staff's advancement into new leadership roles can contribute to an institution's overall effectiveness and productivity (Warden, et al. 2021). This study addresses a significantly under-researched area in the literature by focusing on academic leadership succession planning within tertiary education institutions (TEI).
The study explores the current leadership development practices within TEIs and the challenges they face in the implementation of succession planning. Psychological contract theory emphasizes the key relationship between institutions and employees’ expectations (Guest & Conway, 2002; Ali et al., 2010). The data collected focused on TEIs current practices, academic staff expectations and perceptions. In a pilot case study at one university, nine academics were interviewed, and survey data was collected from other academics. Using mixed methods, interview analysis through NVIVO and survey using SPSS.
Based on the research questions, the interview data findings show a lack of formal succession planning and leadership development within department. Among the challenges identified, the management of retirement plans and career advancement within the management hierarchy were prominent. Staff leadership development was being conducted independently within departments despite the absence of a formal framework.
Succession planning might provide a strategy to improve employee turnover and boost morale, while enhancing management's understanding of the value of fostering future leaders. Through this study, there is an opportunity to provide insights from an employee perspective to address potential academic leadership vacuums in the future (Akbar et al., 2023).
Interaction during the presentation and Q&A at the end will engage the audience in discussions drawing from their own experience on academic succession. The audience will explore how institutions can foster academic leadership succession planning by sharing the study outcome data that might apply to their institutions.

Focus: This presentation draws on the findings of a project investigating casual teacher wellbeing and experiences of discrimination within Western Sydney University.
Background/context: Reflecting a global trend, the majority of academic staff in Australia is casual, with most on teaching-only contracts, with little opportunity for research or advancement (Crimmins, 2016). Studies identify “prevailing disparities in working conditions” for casual teaching staff compared to their permanent full-time counterparts (McComb et al., 2021, p. 97). Important factors affecting the wellbeing of casual teachers include exclusion and marginalisation (Crimmins, 2016; Khosa et al., 2023), unpaid or underpaid work (Andrews et al., 2016; Cummins et al., 2017), and gender and other forms of inequality and discrimination (Kanitkar et al., 2020; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019).
Description: This project investigates the discrimination experiences of casual academic teachers and offers recommendations to improve workplace wellbeing.
Method: Survey data were collected from 64 casual academic teachers with 13 follow-up interviews to further explore identified themes and experiences. Interviewees were anonymised and transcripts were captured in NVivo for thematic analysis.
Evidence: Only 28% of survey respondents answered ‘Yes’ to feeling a sense of belonging or inclusion. Thirty-seven percent wrote of experiencing other forms of discrimination relating to sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, age, or disability, while seventy-eight percent identified their casual status as a cause of discrimination.
Contribution: This research “provide[s] a microphone to people who are not listened to” (Participant 1), offering strategies for change from those with lived experience. Its contribution thus extends beyond the target university to Higher Education more broadly and other industries that rely on casual labour.
Engagement: This presentation will use a word cloud generator to prompt audience participation. It will also utilise reflective questions and brief discussion opportunities, relating both to the submitted word cloud responses and related research data.

Focus: Presentation of research outcomes
Background/context: Surveying mental wellbeing in higher education over time is a significant methodological challenge (Dodd, et al., 2021; van Agteren, et al., 2019). Measuring staff and students’ individual mental wellbeing is insufficient; we also need to examine the impact of institutional practices and policies, given that factors at multiple levels shape how work and study impact mental health and wellbeing.
Description: We designed a multi-level, multi-year approach to comprehensively exploring staff and student mental health and wellbeing. We adopted an embedded mixed-methods design, including quantitative measurement of individual (mental wellbeing, emotional exhaustion, and work-related engagement), social and organisational (psychosocial risk and protective factors), and institutional (climate of psychosocial safety throughout the university) factors. This presentation will discuss our approach, quantitative findings, and methodological lessons learned.
Method(s): We conducted three annual waves of survey research with onshore students and staff at an Australian university, including five quantitative measures: 1) Psychosocial Safety Climate (Dollard, 2012, 2019); 2) psychosocial factors; 3) emotional exhaustion; 4) work-related engagement; and 5) mental wellbeing.
Evidence: 7,459 participants responded in total (n=4,682 staff, n=2,777 students). Findings indicated population-level changes in mental wellbeing and in perceptions of university climate over time. In particular, findings highlighted the importance of genuine commitment to - and prioritisation of - mental health and wellbeing by university leadership.
Contribution: Our research presents deeper knowledge of how institutional climate and management affect mental health and wellbeing over time. It also provides a methodologically novel contribution to higher education research. We specifically discuss how this approach has helped to educate people in positions of institutional leadership and power.
Engagement: We intend to: (a) pose reflective questions, and (b) facilitate a technologically-mediated crowdsourcing activity to synthesise attendees’ views on how universities should work differently to comprehensively understand staff and student mental wellbeing.

Focus: Presentation of research outcomes
Background/context: Mental ill health presents a complex, ongoing challenge in higher education (Nurunnabi, et al., 2020; Urbina-Garcia, 2020; Usher, 2020). Despite advances across scholarship, advocacy, and public policy, attention remains primarily on students (Fernandez, et al., 2016; Smith & Ulus, 2020); staff mental health and wellbeing remains under-researched (Wray & Kinman, 2021). Moreover, most research interrogates how individual-level factors influence mental health and wellbeing in universities (Cameron, 2021), indicating a need for renewed research on broader factors at social, organisational, and institutional levels.
Description: Our wider embedded mixed-methods research examines how social, organisational, and institutional factors affect student and staff mental health and wellbeing. This presentation highlights our qualitative findings, focusing specifically on staff.
Method(s): We conducted a mixed-methods survey with onshore students and staff at an Australian university, including one open-ended question: “How do aspects of the university impact your wellbeing?” We recruited participants on a self-selection basis via convenience sampling and collected data via Qualtrics. We adopted a primarily inductive approach to thematic analysis of data gathered (Braun & Clarke, 2021, 2022; Braun, et al., 2023).
Evidence: A total of 857 staff responded. Through our analysis, we constructed several themes and sub-themes to be detailed in this presentation.
Contribution: Our research contributes to the growing literature on staff mental health and wellbeing in higher education. In particular, we have generated new knowledge on how social, organisational, and institutional conditions shape mental wellbeing and mental ill health among staff, with implications for future research, policymaking, and institutional action.
Engagement: Alongside our findings, we intend to: (1) pose some reflective questions, and (2) facilitate a technologically-mediated crowdsourcing activity to centre attendees’ views on how universities should work differently to improve mental wellbeing. Given the sensitive nature of our research, we will include a content warning.