Governance and Sustainable Growth in Globally Expanding Universities
I have sat through enough long meetings to know that enterprises linked to the knowledge economy and specifically higher education institutions don’t lack quality thinking.
A culture of academic rigour is beneficial for sharp situation assessments but can equally slow down decision-making.
“If you don’t want to do something, establish a committee for it.”
While certainly exaggerated, we all know there is some truth in this.
In my experience, universities usually have clear visions and detailed strategic documents. What they do lack, however, are:
- Clarity on the level of concrete actions and incremental steps, and not just KPIs
- Momentum, which does not favour flawless plans, but doubling down on the number one objective, and the willingness to let go of others as needed
- A results-driven mindset, including feedback mechanisms and flexibility to pivot
I step in with true ownership, alignment, and disciplined execution to achieve major ambitions, rather than just the next impressive strategy document. Let’s see when and how.
When consolidations don’t deliver
In post-consolidation and merger scenarios, academics, research and infrastructure are usually examined carefully for compatibility, and overlaps are analysed in detail. However, there is often no genuine incentive alignment beyond a few senior leaders. The integration is frequently “outsourced” to a rector’s commissioner, which seems sensible on paper, as a dedicated individual ensures focus. In practice, this person often operates as an advisor rather than an executive with authority.
Reporting to the CEO does not automatically translate into impact, and ownership suffers at the first sign of conflict.
In the corporate world, acquisitions are equally complex. After all, it requires successful navigation of market dynamics, stakeholder interests, and operational reform at the same time. These endeavours succeed when accountability is measurable and operating models are redesigned rather than simply combined.
If 1+1 is to become more than 2, value must be questioned at every level.
- Can you list the concrete, tangible benefits for students, researchers, professors, and investors?
- Are those benefits from joint programs, increased mobility, tighter integration with businesses, infrastructure optimisation, improvement in grant attraction capabilities, and others quantified clearly?
If these aspirational benefits yield only half the expected benefits, is it still worth the trouble?
If you answered “no” or “not sure” to any of the above, we have work to do.
Schools and faculties as business units
Most institutions employ a hierarchical structure, but in many cases, schools and faculties are rarely treated as empowered business units. This ultimately undermines growth and transformation.
In the business world, Agile, and methodology such as Amazon’s “working backwards” offer insights into how to organise around true value, maintain focus, and execute well.
That mindset is often missing and results fall short of ambitions.
A head of school or dean is effectively a business head. After the President/CEO, this is the most critical position. Yet too often they lack full budget authority, and are responsible for outcomes without decision rights. They are also often chosen for academic merit rather than business acumen.
Mature governance recognises this reality, and builds the leanest possible processes around ownership. Vice Presidents and other leaders should not compete for authority but work horizontally and lead with best practices and by opening doors and facilitating partnerships without suffocating entrepreneurial initiative.
While more distributed power structures may work as well, it may be more difficult to guarantee real ownership and empowerment. All structures contain traces of both, but very few apply the right mix.
Governance and compliance without suffocation
Compliance is essential. Predictability, auditability, and regulatory adherence are non-negotiable. However, when compliance becomes the dominant logic, innovation stalls.
I have questioned the necessity of internal processes more times than I can count.
I have seen too many contracts with multiple countersignatures not to recognise an inefficient system when I see one.
Pointing that out was often unwelcome but became gradually appreciated when I explained that I was not suggesting staff cuts. Fewer tasks mean more time for meaningful work, and I was ready and able to open new growth opportunities to occupy staff in more productive ways.
In environments where fear of audit findings shapes decisions, risk-avoidance hinders value creation, and processes become self-serving. For the reader trained in Agile, this is when “people over process” is turned upside down.
I am not arguing for weakening compliance. Far from it. But I also know that through organisation and technology, paired with a mindset set on true value, a vast number of processes can be overhauled to free up resources to fulfil the institution’s mission.
International student revenue in a volatile Europe
Geopolitical instability in some regions increases outbound mobility. Migration policies shift flows unpredictably. Currency fluctuations significantly affect application volumes. This volatility is not only risk. It is opportunity.
Europe is in a uniquely dynamic position in both space and time. As extreme approaches in all walks of life dominate headlines, sustainability, resilience, and balance are becoming increasingly appealing in international recruitment.
Higher education recruitment has also transformed. Traditional SEO-driven marketing is no longer the main lever.
AI-referenced, high-quality content drives leads, and first movers can build cost-efficient and targeted recruitment engines relatively easily.
At the same time, the global representative ecosystem requires a disciplined approach. Hundreds of representatives may contact an institution, promising volume but posing brand erosion and non-genuine student risk.
Therefore, real growth requires focus:
- selective partnerships aligned with geography and program strategy,
- willingness to challenge and decline partnerships that create distraction rather than impact overall strategy,
- clear performance monitoring and feedback mechanisms.
Business discipline and resource prioritisation is as relevant in universities as it is in global corporations.
A pragmatic approach to rankings
Global rankings are great for reputation and support the brand internationally. Executing the hygiene steps to put your institution on the map is essential, investing heavily to rise can waste resources.
Especially for less well-known and rebranded institutions, listing appearance and significant movement can be achieved through disciplined administrative measures:
- standardised naming conventions everywhere and specifically in publications,
- proactive engagement with ranking bodies to understand methodology,
- strategic selection of relevant rankings rather than chasing generic global lists.
Not every ranking matters equally, and boards should focus on those that align with geographic footprint, portfolio, and recruitment strategy.
Accept that it can be a perfectly valid strategy to cap out at a certain ranking when diminishing returns kick in.
This is not negligence but intentional resource commitment.
Hybrid campus as strategic capital allocation
Some claim that virtual learning using AI-driven personalisation is set to replace traditional universities. As with many things in life, I see this as an evolution rather than a revolution of learning. In my mind, the future campus is neither purely online nor classroom-bound.
Sure, certain markets and target groups require fully online delivery. That’s one business line. But the main direction is utilising a mix of on-site networking, immersive collaboration, and AI-augmented learning. Therefore, the sustainable and profitable model is hybrid.
Physical space should evolve by:
- putting less emphasis on large frontal lecture halls,
- becoming collaborative, stimulating, and innovative blended learning environments.
Bringing education beyond four walls is important, while integrating successful industry leaders alongside academic excellence creates complementarity.
This should be a capital allocation decision that affects brand positioning and retention, and underpin long-term financial performance.
Digital transformation and AI as leverage
Embracing digital technologies to streamline decision cycles, track accountability, and support continuous improvement has been the practice for decades. Where they often go wrong is when they become procurement or IT projects rather than opportunities for institutional advancement.
Speed matters, and handling complexity especially in international markets requires state-of-the-art solutions but they should be embedded into institutional strategy.
I have implemented paperless administration processes for a major university before, and redesigning decision flows, clarifying ownership, and embedding accountability were the biggest questions to answer by far.
If unclear about these, no technology will serve you as intended.
Large language models and natural language prompting have undoubtedly opened up new horizons in teaching but also in understanding the data we already possess about student journeys and more. I have seen firsthand the power of AI-assisted insights based on big data for the airline industry, which is one of the most complex, globally connected, process- and data-heavy industries in the world.
Adopting similar technologies in higher education and knowledge businesses is still low-hanging fruit, and comparably much less complicated to implement.
This means there is still significant first-mover advantage for employing these technologies to improve customer experience or grab new market share, especially if AI is used to augment human expertise rather than imitate it.
This is not an academic debate. It is leadership.
Academic excellence is indispensable.
But operational excellence determines sustainability.
Many individuals in leadership positions hold unquestionable academic credentials. That does not automatically translate into experience in scaling revenue, structuring incentives, or managing complex multi-entity integrations.
The value I bring is not replacing academic leadership. It is complementing it with execution capability.
Who this approach is and isn’t for
Opportunities convert to sustainable advantage through clear ownership, empowerment, and focus on customer value. My approach aims to achieve Results in complex transformations through Clarity and Momentum, and it fits well with those who understand that the winning strategy is one that’s simple, clear and hits the core. But it may not be the most sophisticated or eloquent.
This approach is not for:
- Institutions seeking symbolic change and process preservation over performance improvement.
- Governance, which is not ready for empowered leaders who are accountable to a global corporate standard.
It is for:
Boards seeking CEO-level transformation and growth leadership.
Institutions considering mergers or structural consolidation.
Private owners or foundations aiming to scale internationally.
Once one of the youngest chiefs of staff in higher education, I have since operated in competitive industries, and have executed M&A and post-merger integrations in the corporate world. Relentless prioritisation, and a growth mindset are often underrepresented in higher education governance.
That is where operator-led leadership makes the difference.
Let's start a conversation today
Always confidential and commitment-free.