Following Advance HE’s ‘Executives at the Leading Edge’ session on inclusive leadership, Professor Steve Olivier, Vice-Chancellor at Robert Gordon University, addresses the provocation, ‘Is inclusive leadership even possible in troubled times?’
I’ll begin with a provocation. When institutions are under financial pressure, when difficult decisions must be made, when livelihoods are affected, does inclusion become a casualty of necessity? Is inclusive leadership something we practise in good times but set aside when the stakes are highest? Or is it in those moments that it matters most?
I’ll explore these questions through a concrete experience: our Finance Transformation Project (FTP) at Robert Gordon University, a programme that reshaped almost every aspect of how we operate and resulted in many colleagues leaving the University. It was one of the most complex, consequential, and deeply human undertakings of my career.
Ubuntu and the relational nature of leadership
I hold a deep belief, shaped in part by my South African background, that inclusive leadership is neither fundamentally about consensus, nor about appointed authority. Rather, it is about how we engage people. That belief finds expression in the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are’, or ‘we are because of each other’. Leadership, Ubuntu reminds us, is relational. Institutions are communities. Our humanity is defined by how we treat others, even if they disagree with our decisions.
The context: troubled times
Around two and a half years ago, we identified a significant forecast deficit, with the risk of ongoing structural deficits if no action was taken. We had a choice: delay and hope or act early and decisively. We chose to act.
The FTP involved structural redesign of our Schools and Professional Services, cost reduction, workforce change, and a new operating model. One hundred and eighty-eight colleagues left the University. The question of inclusive leadership was not theoretical. It was immediate, uncomfortable, and deeply personal.
Principles under pressure
In navigating this, I returned to principles I have held throughout my career: build trust through honesty and communication; be open and transparent, even when the message is difficult; respect people’s contribution, and dignity; encourage participation and challenge; take responsibility for mistakes, and above all, be kinder than necessary, even if you are not perceived as being kind.
These principles are tested most in times of crisis. Alongside them, we drew on what I describe as the 6Ps of transformational change (Purpose, Principles, Practice, Participation, Pace, and Pre-mortem). If one of the Ps defines inclusive leadership above all others, it is Participation, because inclusion is not about agreement, it is about voice, engagement, and ownership.
What inclusive leadership actually looked like
Critically important was ownership. Deans, Directors, and Heads were involved directly in developing restructuring proposals and shaping savings plans. We should probably have actioned this engagement earlier in the process – a lesson learned. The most deliberate choice we made was around communication, not just speaking, but listening. From the outset, I made a commitment to openness with staff, students, trade unions, Board members, and external stakeholders. This included regular town halls, open Q&A sessions, drop-in sessions, and sustained engagement with unions even when that dialogue was very challenging. It led to enhanced voluntary severance terms and extended timelines so that as many colleagues as possible could leave voluntarily.
We also conducted a staff survey during this period, at a time when many peers were avoiding doing so. The results were uncomfortable: a fourteen percent drop in staff commitment and significant concerns about clarity of direction. But listening to criticism and responding to it honestly is not optional.
Crucially, we resisted the default response of salami-slicing. Instead, we asked a more fundamental question: what should RGU look like to be sustainable, distinctive, and successful? That produced a Target Operating Model, reducing our Schools from twelve to seven, streamlining Professional Services from twenty-one departments to thirteen directorates, and realigned our structure with sector norms. We were not just reducing. We were reshaping with purpose.
Results, tensions and mistakes
We acted early and decisively. In terms of impact, we maintained institutional stability, preserved stakeholder confidence, and delivered the transformation on schedule. Several Vice-Chancellor colleagues have since approached me to learn from our experience.
But there were real difficulties. Morale declined. With hindsight, the University Management Group should have been involved earlier in strategic decision-making. Feedback loops were not always strong enough. In striving for honesty, my communication was sometimes perceived as overly negative in tone. The pace of change was genuinely difficult for many people, and there is a human cost, despite the best of intentions.
Inclusive leadership does not make difficult decisions easier. It does, however, ensure that people feel informed, listened to, and treated with dignity.
Looking forward: inclusion as a practice, not an event
We are now progressing our Roadmap to 2030 – our ambition is to become the UK’s leading work-integrated university. We started developing this at the same time as cutting costs, recognising that we needed to give people confidence in the future of the institution. Inclusive leadership is not incidental to how we shape that future. It is central to it. We are focusing on fewer, clearer priorities; involving colleagues at all levels in shaping the Roadmap; creating genuine space for challenge; and actively working to reduce change fatigue and manage workloads.
The question inclusive leadership must continually answer is a simple one: do people feel they are part of the journey?
The provocation answered
Is inclusive leadership possible in troubled times? My answer is yes, but it is not about avoiding hard decisions or achieving universal agreement. It is about how we make decisions, who we involve, how honestly we communicate, and how we treat people along the way.
The key lessons: transparency builds trust, but tone and balance matter. Participation must be meaningful, not symbolic. Communication must balance honesty with confidence. Acting earlier, in better times, can significantly reduce the severity of later decisions.
Ubuntu teaches us that our humanity is bound up with one another’s. ‘I am because we are.’ Our collective future depends on whether we can sustain that sense of shared purpose even, and especially, after the hardest of times.
Professor Steve Olivier is an experienced leader in the higher education sector, both in the UK and internationally. He has held leadership positions in Scottish, English and South African universities. He serves on a variety of Scottish and UK-wide higher education bodies and groups.
Executives at the Leading Edge, 2025-26 Member Benefit
Boundary-spanning conversations that shape the future.
