Universities are changing faster than leadership
Universities are being forced to rethink leadership faster than they can adapt, and many are not ready. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI), data-driven systems, and online platforms is not only changing the face of higher education but also highlighting the constraints of traditional leadership frameworks.
This shift is already visible across institutions. Decision-making is speeding up, with the expectation of increased responsiveness, while staff are unequally supported in adapting to unfamiliar technologies. In most instances, leadership forms created to maintain stability fail to keep pace with the ever-changing environment. It is no longer a question of whether digital transformation is important, but whether leadership is changing quickly to support it.
Why are traditional models falling short?
Leadership in higher education over the decades has been based on hierarchy, predictability, and incremental change. Although these tactics are used to guarantee consistency, they currently pose a risk of slowing innovation at a time when it is most required.
The COVID-19 pandemic increased this tension. Universities quickly transitioned to online teaching, embraced digital tools, and began experimenting with new delivery models. Although this demonstrated adaptability, it also revealed gaps: a lack of coherent decision-making, an imbalance in digital capacity, and poor strategic alignment.
This has led many institutions to a state of transition, trapped between old structures and the requirements of a digital future. This gap will continue to increase without any monitored change.
What does effective leadership now require?
This change is not merely about improving current practices; it requires redefining leadership itself. It is becoming necessary to have four capabilities.
Digital literacy has become a minimum requirement. Leaders need to interact with AI, analytics, and digital systems with confidence, as knowledgeable decision-makers, and not as technical experts. In its absence, strategy risks being out of touch with practice.
It is also imperative to have strategic thinking. Leaders should understand how technologies will transform teaching, assessment, and the student experience, rather than responding to change that has already occurred. This involves making conscious decisions about investment, risk, and long-term direction.
Simultaneously, ethical leadership can also be observed. The adoption of AI raises complex issues related to data privacy, bias, and accountability. Those institutions that fail to address these issues risk eroding the confidence of both personnel and students.
Finally, emotional intelligence remains central. Digital transformation is not a totally technical process- it involves individuals, jobs and identities. Members of staff might feel unsure about the situation, and students' expectations are still developing. Clarifying that leaders who build trust are likely to sustain meaningful change.
From individual capability to institutional impact
These capabilities can only be effective when they are supported on an organisational level. Leadership cannot remain concentrated at the top if institutions are to respond quickly and effectively.
More distributed strategies are starting to make a difference. With leadership distributed not only across academic and professional teams but also within institutions, institutions are experiencing accelerated innovation, enhanced teamwork, and more responsive decision-making. Conversely, strict hierarchies tend to hamper the move and constrain interaction.
However, making this transition will take more than it will. The structures of governance, policies, and cultures must be open to experimentation and collaboration. In the absence of this alignment, leadership endeavours will be confined to remedial changes rather than radical ones.
Moving from adaptation to intentional change
Higher education is currently shifting to pro-reactive adaptation. The technologies, including AI, are not merely improving the existing systems; they are transforming the process of creating and delivering value.
This poses a decisive situation for institutions. The development of leadership cannot be based on its preservation under known conditions of uncertainty, complexity, and continuous change; it must prepare individuals for those circumstances.
The institutions that are investing in this change are already enjoying the benefits: a better understanding of the strategic direction, enhanced alignment between digital initiatives and the institutional priorities, and more confident decision-making. The ones that are not at risk of falling behind, not because they do not have access to technology, but because they lack the leadership capability to effectively use it.
Rethinking leadership before it's too late
Technology is not the problem of higher education, but rather an organisational issue. To help universities succeed, they do not require additional equipment; they require leaders able to steer through the implications of that equipment in the real world.
This demands a paradigm shift in how leadership is perceived, constructed, and reinforced. Leadership is no longer steady and predictable; it is dynamic and integral to corporate success.
With the digital transformation persisting to remodel higher education, one question is becoming more problematic to disregard:
Are universities actively developing leaders who can shape this change or relying on models designed for a very different past?
Dr Inga Olari is Programme Leader in Law for the Law Undergraduate Programmes with St Mary’s University Twickenham, and Fellow of the Association of Higher Education Professionals (AHEP). Her work focuses on legal education, inclusive pedagogy, AI in higher education, student success, and academic leadership. She has presented internationally on digital learning, lifelong learning, and culturally inclusive teaching practices.