‘University Elders’ sound the alarm about HE leadership

The recent appointment of new vice-chancellors (VCs) at the universities of Cape Town and Pretoria respectively – following the premature departure of their predecessors amid controversy last year – has offered some hope for South Africa’s beleaguered higher education sector.

However, those in the know argue that, beneath this veneer of progress, lies a deep-seated crisis of leadership and governance that threatens the very foundations of the nation’s universities.

Pattern of instability and dysfunction

In his 2023 book, Corrupted: A study of chronic dysfunction in South African universities, Jonathan Jansen, distinguished professor in education at Stellenbosch University and a former VC of the University of the Free State, points out that there have been at least 20 interventions by the government into 15 of the country’s 26 public universities since 1994.

This includes the appointment of an administrator at the University of Fort Hare in 2022 to take over the institution’s finances. There have been several attempts on the lives of Fort Hare officials, including that of the VC, Professor Sakhela Buhlungu, who has been trying to root out corruption and financial mismanagement at the institution.

Another institution attracting negative attention recently was the University of the Western Cape, where there was infighting between the institution’s senate and council over the appointment of a new VC. After the recruitment process was restarted, Professor Robert Balfour, currently deputy VC for teaching and learning at North-West University, was appointed in the role with effect from 1 January 2025.

University elders meet to tackle crisis

Against this backdrop of turmoil, Jansen convened a group of seasoned academics, administrators and former higher education leaders – effectively a group of ‘University Elders’ – at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS) recently (on 18 March 2024). Their mission: to diagnose the root causes of this leadership crisis and start charting a path towards a more stable and effective future for higher education in South Africa.

This was considered important because the consequences of the chronic dysfunction identified by Jansen include a loss of teaching time, funder withdrawal, research delays, the departure of top academics and students, and a drop in staff morale – all of which contribute to reputational damage, not just of the institutions involved, but of the very idea of the university as a valuable public institution.

Systemic failures, missed opportunities

The Elders’ discussions* revealed a sector plagued by systemic failures, including the politicisation of university councils, weak governance structures, and a lack of accountability.

The participants pointed out that South Africa’s public universities are, in general, poorly governed, unsafe and unhappy sites of tertiary learning and research.

They placed much of the blame for this at the door of organisational leadership. They agreed that many leaders are unsuited for or incapable of leading universities, and that the structures and people in place to govern universities are dysfunctional and devoid of the norms and values required to lead the institutions primarily responsible for the creation and transfer of knowledge.

In short, they argued, those tasked to lead the university do not fully appreciate what a university is or should be.

However, they also pointed out that individuals, management structures, councils and senates are not the only culprits. Instead, the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) as well as other higher education bodies are also to blame, pointing to systemic dysfunction in the entire sector.

The participants argued that the DHET has been hollowed out of capacity as many senior, experienced and competent bureaucrats left in a relatively short period of time, which has led to significant losses of expertise and institutional memory.

Universities South Africa (USAf) also came in for criticism. As the body representing the country’s 26 public universities, its stated mission is to “create an environment where universities can thrive” and “advocate for the interests of its member institutions”.

However, the Elders said the organisation shies away from speaking out with a unified voice on critical issues, such as ongoing challenges with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which provides financial support to students.

The participants also felt that USAf and the Council on Higher Education (CHE) should provide stronger support to universities, particularly during crises and in dealings with the DHET, the Department of Science and Innovation, the National Research Foundation, and other government departments.

The meeting identified missed opportunities, such as the 2016 revision of South Africa’s Higher Education Act, which failed to adequately address the challenges facing university governance. They stressed the urgency of finding solutions to restore the credibility and effectiveness of South African higher education.

Root causes

The Elders identified several interconnected factors contributing to the leadership crisis in higher education, including the following:

Politicisation: Universities have become increasingly overly politicised at all levels, from councils to student bodies. This has led to the appointment of council members who prioritise sectoral interests over the academic mission of the university.

Weak governance: Many university councils are dysfunctional, lacking the expertise and experience necessary to provide effective oversight. This has resulted in poor decision-making, financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability.

Leadership deficits: Many university leaders lack the necessary skills, experience and integrity required to effectively manage complex institutions, resulting in a series of crises that have eroded public trust.

External pressures: Universities face undue influence from the government, political parties, and other external stakeholders, undermining their autonomy and academic freedom.

Urgent attention needed

The round-table discussions also pointed to several other areas requiring urgent attention.

Participants emphasised the need for council members to be appointed based on their expertise and commitment to the university’s mission, rather than their political affiliations or personal interests. They also called for greater transparency and accountability in council decision-making.

The importance of a collegial working relationship between council, the VC and the rest of university management, as well as the senate, was stressed.

Participants identified the need for open communication, mutual respect and a shared commitment to the best interests of the university.

Concerns were also raised about the remuneration of council members and the practice of appointing them on fixed-term contracts. Participants argued that these practices can lead to unnecessary meetings and discourage long-term commitment to the university.

Recommendations

The Elders offered a range of recommendations aimed at restoring effective leadership and governance. This includes the following steps:

Revitalise university councils:

• Establish a dedicated committee to identify and appoint suitable candidates based on their expertise and commitment to the university, rather than political affiliations;

• Implement a rigorous induction process for new council members, including comprehensive training on university governance, roles and responsibilities; and

• Amend the Higher Education Act to strengthen council accountability, enable earlier intervention when there are warning signals of dysfunction, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of council members.

Strengthen leadership:

• Develop robust succession plans to ensure a pipeline of qualified leaders and avoid abrupt transitions that can destabilise institutions;

• Invest in comprehensive leadership development programmes for current and aspiring university leaders, focusing on skills like strategic planning, financial management, conflict resolution and ethical decision-making; and

• Foster a culture of mentorship and support for university leaders, providing them with guidance and resources to navigate the complexities of their roles.

Enhance collaboration and support:

• Encourage USAF and the CHE to play a more active role in supporting universities, advocating for their interests, and providing guidance on critical issues; and

• Foster a spirit of collegiality and collaboration between council, vice-chancellor, management, and senate, emphasising open communication, mutual respect and shared decision-making.

Address systemic challenges:

• Work towards depoliticising university governance by promoting merit-based appointments and ensuring that council members prioritise the academic mission above political interests; and

• Address the financial challenges facing universities, including the problems with NSFAS, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector.

The way forward

The round-table discussion of ‘University Elders’ at STIAS recently served as a valuable forum for reflecting on the challenges facing South African higher education leadership.

The recommendations that emerged from the discussions provide a starting point for restoring good governance, strengthening leadership, and ensuring that universities can fulfil their vital role in society.

By implementing these reforms, universities can begin to rebuild trust to secure the future of the university as the home of the academic project in South Africa.

*To encourage candid discussions, participants agreed on the Chatham House Rule, allowing the information from their meeting to be shared publicly, while protecting the identities of those present. Official notes of the meeting were made available to University World News by rapporteurs Le-Anne Goliath and Francois van Schalkwyk.