Leadership (Re)Defined:

Selecting Beyond Research as Higher Education Transforms

The Malaysian Research Assessment (MyRA) task force and auditor team posed for their individual profile photos after an audit in April 2018. The MyRA team (some of whom were not present during this photoshoot) led and brought about unprecedented reform in Malaysia’s higher education scene. The momentum they created helped Malaysian universities rise in the rankings and gain prominence on the world scene.

The Leadership Paradox in Universities

I have witnessed, as I am sure many academic staff have, a number of recently appointed university administrators who have had extensive experience as eminent researchers, prolific grant recipients, and prolific publishers. The emergence of global higher education ranking systems over the past 15–20 years may have played a major role in the tendency towards preferring younger academic research “stars” among university management. The heavy weight placed on rankings such as the QS World University Rankings and THE give to research outputs, citations, and grants secured may have created an incentive to appoint young leaders who excel specifically in these indicators. Strong research profiles among top leadership bring prestige and support a university’s brand as a “research-intensive” institution, which the ranking metrics favour.

Research-focused leaders are perceived as understanding what factors rankings use to measure academic excellence, hence being most able to strategize to maximise an institution’s rank. Appointing renowned researchers signals that the university itself values research prominence when determining institutional direction and resource allocation. This phenomenon elevates younger scholars through the use of impressive research metrics but may sometimes fail to recognise competent leaders whose qualities are more aptly suited to address the distinctive challenges that future higher education presents. This excessive reliance on research performance as the primary criterion for admissions may be expedient and comfortable, but it can ultimately impair the vision and adaptability of an institution.

Utilising past research successes as the primary indicators of leadership preparedness may be fraught with inherent flaws.

The Pitfalls of Research-Centric Leadership

Firstly, younger leaders who have excelled in research-centric roles often face challenges when adapting to the collaborative nature of university administration. Many have risen to prominence as leaders of specialised research groups or as mentors to graduate students in environments where consensus and compliance are often readily given. However, this experience does not necessarily equip them to navigate the complex, multi-stakeholder environment of a university. Accustomed to a certain degree of deference, these leaders may default to authoritative styles, overlooking the need for consensus-building across diverse groups such as tenured faculty and student activists. This approach can lead to a disconnect, as the collaborative and multifaceted nature of university governance often requires balancing competing interests and integrating diverse viewpoints. The transition from leading a homogenous research team to managing a diverse academic institution can be jarring, potentially leading to an autocratic style that is ill-suited to the inclusive and multifaceted nature of university leadership. Perhaps more experience should be offered to faculty members on the succession path with a longer gestation time, rather than just limiting them to research management.

Photo by Choong Deng Xiang on Unsplash

Beyond Metrics: The Limitations of Research-Based Criteria

Secondly, traditional research metrics like the H-index and citation counts do not adequately translate to the broader skill set required for effective university leadership. These metrics, while indicative of a researcher’s academic impact, offer little insight into their proficiency in essential areas such as financial management, strategic planning, collaboration, and interpersonal effectiveness. For instance, a high citation count may reflect a researcher’s intellectual contributions, but it does not demonstrate their ability to mediate between conflicting faculty interests or to manage complex administrative challenges. Many researchers ascend to leadership roles with limited experience in key administrative competencies such as negotiation, budget management, and communication. This gap often becomes apparent when they are faced with the intricate realities of leading a diverse and dynamic academic institution.

Effective university leadership demands a multifaceted skill set that extends far beyond what is captured by research output metrics.

The Narrow Focus of Researchers and Its Impact on Leadership

Finally, younger researchers tend to have a narrower focus suited to their specialised area than this broad perspective. Researchers who spend too much of their time in labs and libraries can become detached from the realities facing students, faculty, and staff, perpetuating insular research "fiefdom.” This makes it harder for them to empathise with these groups’ needs. Researchers rewarded primarily for individual contributions may struggle to adapt to a leadership role requiring team-building, mentorship, and the support of others. Collaborative skills are essential. With teaching responsibilities minimised, often in a research-prioritized environment, the researcher-leaders may not appreciate the effort required to develop engaging curriculum and pedagogy. This could negatively impact policies around teaching

The overemphasis on research excellence in university ranking frameworks may skew appointment decisions towards candidates with personal track records of research success. This has been accepted as standard practice, but given these leaders’ limitations, it should be reconsidered. In light of declining public funding, rising costs, and increased competition, which necessitate difficult resource allocation decisions, university administrators must not only have exceptional research skills but also superior strategic management abilities.

In an era where enrollment is determined by the student experience and technology is revolutionising pedagogy, leaders must be able to prioritise changing needs. This information can only be obtained through direct student affairs administration, not lab management.

Photo by Pang Yuhao on Unsplash

Rethinking Leadership: A Student-Centred Approach

As artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and micro-credentialing platforms transform higher education delivery models, the enduring value universities offer lies less in academics than in total experience.

While content expertise and research output easily transfer online, traditional campuses retain that singular environment for life experience — questioning, self-discovery, debate, and bonding that are impossible to digitise.

Consequently, the leaders best positioned to steward universities through gathering storms are those most immersed in understanding and enriching campus life itself.

Personally, I believe that taking leadership from student affairs management is a better path forward. With all of the expected changes, the only thing that remains to justify attending a university is the student-campus experience. The following are a few reasons why I believe student affairs leaders might be well-suited for future university leadership positions:

1. Student affairs professionals are deeply invested in understanding and improving the overall campus experience. This will become a significant competitive advantage for universities as online and AI alternatives expand. Leaders with student affairs experience understand its significance.
2. Working directly with students and a variety of student issues and crises provides these leaders with valuable insights into the changing needs, demands, and expectations of key university stakeholders. Researchers often lack this direct student perspective.
3. Leaders with experience in student services administration have most likely honed critical “soft skills” such as communication, mediation, crisis management, and working with young adults. These will prove valuable with increasingly diverse student bodies.
4. Tighter university budgets will necessitate tough resource trade-offs. Experienced student affairs leaders understand firsthand the effects of budget cuts on the student experience, which helps them make better decisions.
5. Student affairs positions necessitate collaboration among multiple university departments. This system-thinking ability will enable leaders to balance competing priorities and improve coordination.

Photo by VD Photography on Unsplash

Shaping the Future of University Leadership

As previously stated, I would like the transition to be from research-experienced leaders to student affairs leaders. As the student experience becomes universities’ long-term value proposition, this firsthand perspective will be invaluable. However, we must agree that whatever future selection approach requires ongoing tuning, not knee-jerk reversions. It’s a long game, and universities must commit to sustainable leadership suited to mounting challenges.

Selecting succession based on research metrics provided an unambiguous, convenient approach for university boards in the past. As priorities shift to harder-to-measure criteria such as collaboration, social impact, and adaptability, board selection processes will need to be reconsidered. Introducing the following may be the responsibility of the university’s board of directors or selection committee:

1. Competency frameworks that encompass abilities such as strategic visioning, creative problem-solving, ambiguity management, influencing diverse groups, and forming external partnerships, in addition to research metrics,
2. Experienced in demonstrating the ability to initiate cross-disciplinary projects, cultivate mutually beneficial community relationships, and empower faculty and students to drive social innovation are essential selection criteria.
3. Interviews and evaluations that place significant emphasis on theoretical situations that necessitate the management of resources, the planning of future campus environments, and the changing tertiary sector.
4. Psychometric and 360-degree feedback instruments that provide insightful information regarding an individual’s risk tolerance, emotional intelligence, and propensity for innovation.
5. In order to evaluate interviewees’ teamwork, they may be expected to produce a collaborative presentation with other finalists that tackles a substantial real-world challenge that universities are about to face.

While this makes selection more labor-intensive, it yields valuable data on the complex characteristics required to lead 21st-century universities while preventing charismatic individuals from coasting solely on research accomplishments.

If a current university leader with a dedicated research background recognises these shifting expectations, they could implement a few proactive changes:

• Seek professional development focused specifically on collaborative leadership, cross-sector partnership building, and fostering social innovation. Being an individually brilliant researcher does little to prepare someone for catalysing institutional impact. Dedicated training in these critical skills for the future is vital.
• Establish a high-level committee of diverse internal and external stakeholders tasked with assessing university priorities and offerings in light of global challenges like inequality, sustainability, etc. and identifying gap areas. Let this set institutional direction rather than personal research agendas.
• Launch new collaborative seed funding opportunities encouraging unconventional, multidisciplinary projects focused on impact—especially partnerships extending beyond academia into industry, government, and community groups. Incentivize social over academic entrepreneurship.
• Recruit and appoint leaders known for facilitation and creative collaboration into prominent roles like deanships—those with track records of building engagement across diverse groups.
• Given a lack of experience in these areas, solicit regular feedback from committee members and unlikely partners about engagement levels, concerns, and suggestions. Commit to a continuously evolving leadership style.
• The key shift required is embracing a much more collaborative, networked, and decentralised leadership approach focused on empowering broad institutional impact. This likely represents a major personal change for many career researchers, who are abruptly assuming the university’s reins

In conclusion, the landscape of higher education is rapidly evolving, and with it, the qualities and competencies required for effective university leadership must also transform. While research prowess and academic accolades have traditionally been the benchmarks for leadership selection, this approach is increasingly misaligned with the multifaceted challenges facing modern universities. While maintaining a research-oriented management team that helms departments might be applicable to research universities, the shift towards a more holistic model of leadership, one that values and integrates the diverse skills brought by student affairs professionals, is not just a theoretical ideal but a practical necessity.

Leaders who understand the needs of students, can handle complicated budgets, and can navigate the complex dynamics of a vibrant university community will be better able to guide their institutions through the uncharted waters of changing student demographics, technological advancements, and evolving societal needs.

In reimagining university leadership, we are not just choosing administrators; we are shaping the future of education and, by extension, the future of our students and their role in the global community. The time to broaden our horizons is now