Beyond Technology: The CIO, CTO and CDO as Transformation Leaders
Higher Education is navigating a period in which digital capability is becoming inseparable from institutional capability. Financial constraint, artificial intelligence, ageing technology, cybersecurity, changing student expectations and the need to improve organisational productivity are converging at precisely the point when universities have less capacity for expensive or poorly targeted investment. This is reflected in recent sector developments. In May 2026, Jisc launched a digital maturity assessment for UK Higher Education in response to challenges including the rapid emergence of AI, entrenched technical legacy, evolving approaches to teaching and learning and changing student requirements. Significantly, the assessment is designed to support executive decision-making and encourage institutions to take an organisation-wide approach to digital transformation. Against this backdrop, the roles of the Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer and Chief Data Officer are becoming increasingly important to the strategic leadership of universities. The titles and responsibilities will vary between institutions. In some universities these responsibilities will sit within a single Chief Digital and Information Officer portfolio; elsewhere they may be distributed between different leaders. The underlying strategic challenge, however, is increasingly consistent. The question is no longer simply how universities manage technology. It is how technology, information and data enable universities to transform. From technology strategy to university strategy Traditionally, technology leadership could be viewed primarily through the lens of infrastructure, systems and services: keeping networks available, maintaining applications, delivering technology projects and providing reliable support. Those responsibilities remain essential. But they are no longer sufficient. Digital capability now touches almost every aspect of university strategy: recruitment and admissions, teaching and assessment, research, student experience, professional services, estates, partnerships and institutional decision-making. Jisc’s digital maturity work illustrates this breadth, encompassing leadership and organisational culture, digital and AI capability, infrastructure and technical legacy, data and knowledge management, education and research, partnerships, sustainability and inclusion. Digital transformation cannot simply be delegated to an IT function because it increasingly involves transforming the university itself. The challenge of doing more with less This transformation is taking place within an extraordinarily difficult financial environment. Universities need to modernise ageing infrastructure, address cyber risk, improve student-facing services, invest in AI and data capability and deliver greater operational efficiency, while simultaneously demonstrating much stronger returns from institutional investment. This creates an important challenge for CIOs and CTOs. The task is not simply to identify the next technology investment. It is to help develop a coherent institutional architecture that reduces unnecessary complexity, enables future change and prevents universities from continually adding new systems to an already fragmented technology environment. Digital Universities UK 2026 captured this changing emphasis in its focus on moving from simply adopting technology towards designing with purpose, including the use of shared resources and greater cross-institutional collaboration. Technology leaders therefore need to help their institutions ask: These are institutional strategic choices, not simply technical decisions. AI changes the conversation Artificial intelligence makes this leadership agenda even more urgent. AI has the potential to influence teaching, assessment, research, administration, student services, operational productivity and institutional decision-making. Current approaches to assessing university AI and digital maturity increasingly consider technology alongside strategy, people, capability and institutional utilisation. But enthusiasm for AI also creates complexity. Universities face questions around information security, intellectual property, academic integrity, data quality, ethics, governance and skills. They must distinguish between experimentation that builds institutional knowledge and the uncontrolled proliferation of technologies that increase cost and complexity without creating demonstrable value. CIOs and CTOs need to provide both ambition and challenge: helping their institutions understand what emerging technologies make possible while being equally clear about what needs to be true for them to be implemented responsibly and successfully. Data as institutional infrastructure The Chief Data Officer brings another increasingly important dimension. Universities hold extraordinary volumes of information about students, research, finances, workforce, estates and organisational performance. Yet having large quantities of data is not the same as being a data-informed institution. Fragmented systems, inconsistent definitions, unclear ownership and variable data quality can make it difficult for leaders to establish a genuinely shared understanding of institutional performance. That challenge becomes more important with AI because the effectiveness of many AI-enabled applications ultimately depends upon the quality, accessibility and governance of the information on which they rely. Recognising this, Jisc’s 2026 digital maturity work explicitly includes data and knowledge management alongside digital leadership, AI capability and technical infrastructure. The CDO therefore has an opportunity to shift the conversation from data as something the university collects to data as a strategic institutional asset. That means asking: The ambition should not simply be better dashboards. It should be better decisions. Cybersecurity as institutional resilience There is another area where the strategic importance of technology leadership has become particularly apparent: cybersecurity. Modern universities are highly connected organisations, combining complex digital estates with extensive external partnerships and large communities of staff and students. Digital infrastructure increasingly underpins the institution’s ability to teach, conduct research and operate. Cybersecurity therefore cannot be viewed solely as a technical problem managed by IT. It is fundamentally an issue of institutional risk, governance and resilience. This wider understanding is reflected in current sector discussion, with Digital Universities UK 2026 explicitly positioning cybersecurity governance alongside privacy and ethical governance as part of enabling innovation, rather than simply restricting it. CIOs and CTOs consequently need strong relationships with University Secretaries and Registrars, risk leaders, governing bodies and executive colleagues so that digital resilience becomes part of institutional governance, business continuity and strategic risk. The challenge is to ensure that the institution understands its exposure, makes conscious choices about risk and has sufficient organisational capability to respond when disruption occurs. The CIO, CTO and CDO as strategic partners All of this points towards a wider evolution of these roles. Technology and data leaders need to be involved early in institutional strategy, rather than being asked at the end of the process to provide the technology or information required to implement decisions already made. A strategically positioned CIO, CTO or CDO can encourage executive teams and governing bodies to ask: That
Executive Search, Interim Management or Leadership Advisory: Which Does Your Organisation Need?
When organisations face a leadership challenge, appointing a new executive isn’t always the answer. Understanding whether you need to recruit, bring in interim expertise or develop your existing leadership capability can make a significant difference to organisational performance. Leadership challenges rarely present themselves in the same way. One organisation may be struggling to appoint a permanent Chief Executive. Another may need experienced leadership to deliver a complex transformation programme. Elsewhere, an established executive team may need support with succession planning, assessment or leadership development. Each situation requires a different response. At Veredus, we work with organisations across government, defence, education, transport and the wider public sector to help them identify, appoint and develop the leadership capability they need. Through our Executive Search, Interim Management and Leadership Advisory services, we see how important it is to identify the underlying leadership requirement before deciding how to address it. What is the difference between executive search, interim management and leadership advisory? Executive search, interim management and leadership advisory are three distinct but complementary approaches to addressing organisational leadership needs. The right approach depends on the nature of the challenge, the timeframe involved and the capabilities already available within the organisation. When should an organisation use executive search? Executive search is typically the most appropriate solution when an organisation needs to appoint a permanent senior leader with the experience, judgement and capability to deliver its long-term strategic objectives. Unlike traditional recruitment, executive search involves proactively identifying and engaging potential candidates, including individuals who may not be actively seeking a new opportunity. This is particularly important for senior appointments where the available talent pool is limited, specialist expertise is required or the organisation needs to attract candidates from outside its established networks. At Veredus, our executive search work spans Chief Executive, executive leadership and Board appointments across complex and highly scrutinised environments. We understand that the success of an appointment depends on considerably more than a candidate’s professional experience. Leadership style, organisational context, stakeholder expectations and the ability to navigate change all influence whether an individual will succeed. Our track record includes a 90% successful placement rate across 657 assessed appointments, reflecting the importance we place on identifying the right leadership fit. Executive search is most appropriate when: When is interim management a better solution? Interim management is often the right approach when an organisation needs experienced leadership or specialist capability quickly, but a permanent appointment is not necessarily required. Interim professionals can provide immediate capacity, independent expertise and focused delivery against defined objectives. Although interim management is frequently associated with temporary executive cover, its applications extend much further. At Veredus, we support organisations with interim executive leadership, functional management, programme and project management, and specialist transformation requirements. For example, an organisation undertaking a major restructuring may need an experienced transformation director to lead the programme. A government department may require specialist programme leadership to deliver a time-critical initiative. A university may need interim financial leadership while determining its longer-term operating model. In each case, the requirement is not simply to fill a vacancy. It is to secure the expertise necessary to deliver a particular outcome. Interim management is most appropriate when: Interim appointments can also support longer-term succession planning by creating space for organisations to assess their future leadership requirements without rushing a permanent decision. What is leadership advisory and when is it needed? Leadership advisory focuses on understanding and improving the effectiveness of an organisation’s existing and future leadership capability. Not every leadership challenge requires an external appointment. An organisation may already have talented senior leaders but lack clarity around succession, collective accountability or the capabilities required to deliver its future strategy. Leadership advisory helps organisations make more informed decisions about these issues through structured assessment, insight and development. At Veredus, our Leadership Advisory services support organisations in evaluating leadership capability, strengthening executive team effectiveness and preparing for future leadership requirements. This becomes particularly valuable during periods of organisational change, when the capabilities that supported past performance may not be sufficient for future demands. Leadership advisory is most appropriate when: Can organisations combine executive search, interim management and leadership advisory? Yes. In many cases, combining these approaches provides a more effective response than treating recruitment, interim resourcing and leadership development as separate activities. Consider an organisation preparing for the retirement of its Chief Executive. Leadership advisory may help the Board assess internal succession options and establish the capabilities required of the next leader. Executive search can then identify and assess candidates against those requirements, while an interim appointment may provide continuity if there is a gap between the outgoing and incoming Chief Executive. The same principle applies to organisational transformation. An interim leader may be appointed to deliver immediate change, while leadership assessment identifies the capabilities required to sustain that change. Executive search may subsequently support the appointment of permanent leaders to take the organisation forward. This integrated approach helps organisations address immediate pressures while remaining focused on longer-term leadership effectiveness. How should organisations decide which leadership solution they need? The starting point should be a clear understanding of the organisational challenge rather than an assumption that a particular vacancy needs to be filled. At Veredus, we encourage organisations to consider several questions: These questions help establish whether the most appropriate response is to recruit new leadership, introduce interim expertise, strengthen existing capability or combine several approaches. Leadership solutions for complex organisations Leadership decisions in government, defence, higher education and transport frequently involve competing priorities, demanding stakeholder environments and significant public accountability. Organisations operating in these sectors need leaders who can navigate complexity while delivering measurable outcomes. With experience supporting more than 300 organisations and making over 675 senior leadership placements, Veredus brings an understanding of both the leadership market and the environments in which our clients operate. Our work across Executive Search, Interim Management and Leadership Advisory enables us to consider leadership requirements from several perspectives, helping organisations make decisions that reflect their immediate needs and longer-term ambitions. Frequently asked questions
From Financial Stewardship to Strategic Leadership: The CFO and the Future University
Higher Education is operating in a financial environment in which many of the assumptions that once underpinned institutional planning have become increasingly uncertain. Student recruitment is more volatile. Costs remain under pressure. Universities need to continue investing in people, technology, estates and academic capability while protecting the student experience and research mission. At the same time, institutions are being asked to demonstrate greater financial resilience and make increasingly difficult choices about where scarce resources should be deployed. The Office for Students’ May 2026 assessment found that, while the English sector’s aggregate financial performance had improved slightly in 2024-25, universities’ forecasts for future recovery remained heavily dependent on significant growth in student recruitment. It also observed that much financial risk management remained predominantly short-term. This is not simply a challenge for university finance functions. It changes the strategic importance of the Chief Financial Officer. The modern Higher Education CFO cannot simply tell the institution what it can afford. They increasingly need to help the institution decide what it should choose to afford. From financial control to strategic choice Financial stewardship remains fundamental. Universities need strong financial controls, accurate reporting, effective treasury management, robust forecasting and appropriate oversight of investment and expenditure. But these are increasingly the foundations of the CFO role rather than its limits. The bigger challenge is helping institutional leaders translate financial information into strategic choices. Recent work by PwC, Universities UK and Lloyds Banking Group highlights the importance of stronger financial governance and financial acumen across universities. Only 47% of roundtable participants felt that financial reporting in their institution actively influenced priorities and trade-offs, while only 25% said that information available to decision-makers was clear, timely and supported informed challenge. A university can have accurate financial information without necessarily having decision-useful financial insight. The strategic CFO therefore needs to help leaders ask: These are not simply finance questions. They are questions about institutional strategy. Moving beyond the annual budget Universities understandably devote considerable energy to annual budgeting. But one of the risks in a financially constrained environment is that the budget becomes the strategy. When this happens, institutions can become focused on achieving a particular year’s financial target rather than making the structural choices required for long-term sustainability. The Office for Students has highlighted this tension, identifying increasing action by providers on cost reduction and income diversification while noting that much financial risk management remains short-term. A balanced budget next year does not necessarily mean the institution has a sustainable operating model. Equally, carefully planned investment or restructuring costs today may be necessary to create a financially stronger organisation tomorrow. Financial sustainability should therefore be understood not simply as balancing income and expenditure, but as ensuring that the university’s strategy and operating model are economically viable over the long term. From cost-cutting to understanding value Cost reduction may be necessary, but not every saving creates value. Removing expenditure without understanding the activity it supports can reduce institutional capability, weaken services or create additional costs elsewhere. For CFOs, this means developing a much more sophisticated understanding of cost, contribution and value. The 2026 PwC work on financial acumen specifically highlights the importance of understanding the cost and contribution of different activities and having trusted information that can inform institutional choices. This should allow the conversation to move from “Where can we cut?” towards: “Where should we invest, reduce, redesign, collaborate, grow or stop?” That is a fundamentally different role for Finance. It moves the function from controlling expenditure to helping allocate scarce resources towards the activities that matter most. Challenging optimism and improving forecasting Universities operate in a sector where forecasts depend heavily on assumptions about student recruitment, international demand, research income, inflation, staffing and other factors that may change rapidly. The Office for Students’ 2026 assessment cautions that anticipated sector recovery relies heavily on projected recruitment growth. In this environment, forecasting should not mean producing one confident version of the future. It should mean understanding multiple plausible futures. The strategic CFO can strengthen decision-making through scenario modelling, sensitivity analysis and stress testing: The purpose is not to produce increasingly pessimistic forecasts. It is to ensure that strategy remains resilient when reality inevitably differs from plan. Investment during financial constraint Perhaps one of the hardest challenges facing CFOs is that transformation itself costs money. Universities need to invest in AI and digital capability, cyber resilience, new skills, organisational redesign, estates rationalisation and sustainability precisely when financial capacity is constrained. This creates a tension between affordability today and capability tomorrow. The strongest CFOs will therefore need to resist two equally problematic positions: assuming every transformation programme represents worthwhile investment, or assuming expenditure reduction is automatically prudent. Instead, the CFO needs to ask: That final question matters because failing to modernise can itself create significant financial risk. The CFO as an investor in transformation The CFO should increasingly think like an institutional investor. Universities have finite financial capacity. Every pound committed to one priority is, implicitly, unavailable for another. Capital allocation therefore becomes one of the institution’s most important strategic processes. Investments in technology, people, estates, academic portfolios and partnerships should not be viewed as independent business cases competing for approval. They should form part of a coherent portfolio of institutional choices. The question should not simply be whether an individual investment produces a positive return, but whether it is the best use of the university’s limited capacity to invest. Collaboration changes the financial model The financial challenge may also require universities to rethink what they provide themselves. The Universities UK Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce has advocated greater collaboration, shared services and shared infrastructure, alongside digital transformation, benchmarking and new collaborative structures. This introduces a different type of CFO conversation. Instead of asking “How much will it cost us to provide this?”, institutions may increasingly need to ask: “What is the most effective economic model for accessing this capability?” That could mean owning, buying, partnering, sharing or stopping. The CFO can provide the commercial analysis necessary to understand those choices
Why fractional leadership is about more than filling a gap
As more organisations look for senior expertise without the cost and rigidity of a full-time executive, fractional and interim leadership is becoming an increasingly powerful option – especially in the charity sector. In this conversation, Simon Pickerell talks with Kathryn Ward, an experienced Chief People Officer and fractional leader, about why she chose this path, how she protects her energy, and what organisations need to know before bringing in a fractional executive. What first drew you to fractional and interim work rather than a single permanent role? I’ve enjoyed my permanent leadership roles, but I reached a point where I wanted to have a broader impact. Many organisations don’t need a full-time strategic HR leader, but they do need senior people expertise. Fractional leadership allows me to work alongside executive teams and boards on the strategic questions – how people enable organisational strategy, how leadership evolves, and how organisations build capability – while supporting multiple charities rather than just one. What appealed to me wasn’t consultancy alone; it was becoming part of the leadership journey. Building long-term relationships, helping organisations develop their own capability, and contributing where I can make the greatest difference. Outside of work, what’s something you do that actually makes you a better leader when you’re back in the room? It might sound slightly clichéd, but yoga. More broadly though, it’s about creating space. Whether that’s yoga, reading, listening to a podcast or simply switching off for a while; making space helps me stay grounded. Leadership constantly brings competing priorities, emotion and uncertainty. If you know where your own centre is, you can empathise with what’s happening around you without being pulled off balance yourself. That gives you the headspace to make good decisions rather than reactive ones. It also keeps you connected to your values. Whether that’s through journaling, coaching, meditation or other reflective practices, understanding what matters to you makes you a clearer, more consistent leader. What’s a piece of advice, professional or personal, that’s stuck with you throughout your career? There are two. The first came when I stepped into my role at Guide Dogs and everything felt bigger than I’d anticipated. A coach said to me: “It can be hard, and you can still be doing a good job.” I’ve never forgotten that. Stepping into a bigger leadership role should feel challenging. Just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that you’re not the right person for it. The second is: “If not you, then who?” Sometimes that’s about delegation – recognising you can’t do everything yourself. Other times it’s about having the courage to speak up when you see something that needs saying. Both are reminders of what leadership really requires. They’re still written on sticky notes next to my computer today. How do you protect your own energy and wellbeing while working across multiple demanding roles? The first thing is knowing whether this style of work genuinely suits you. I get energy from variety. Moving between different organisations, challenges and groups of people keeps me engaged, but that’s not true for everyone. If variety drains you rather than energises you, this probably isn’t the right model. Beyond that, it’s about understanding your own energy. I know when I’m at my best for one-to-one conversations, when I’m better facilitating larger groups, and how much energy different clients and different types of work require. I structure my diary around that wherever I can. I also build in transition points. That might be going for a walk, listening to music or simply stepping away from my desk. Sometimes, when you work from home, you even need to create your own commute – walk out of the front door and back in again if that’s what helps you mentally switch between roles. It’s about understanding what allows you to show up well, wherever you’re working. When you walk into a new organisation for the first time, what’s the one thing you assess in the first week that tells you what the real priorities are? Consistency. In those first couple of weeks, I’ll speak to people right across the organisation. What I’m listening for isn’t whether everyone uses exactly the same words – it’s whether they’re telling broadly the same story. If senior leaders, middle managers and frontline teams all describe the culture and strategy in a broadly consistent way, you’ve got something to work with, even if that culture isn’t perfect. Where the stories differ dramatically, that’s usually where the real work begins. Those inconsistencies often point to issues around communication, leadership alignment or culture, and understanding those gaps tells you a great deal about what the organisation really needs. What’s a piece of work or a turnaround you’re proudest of that you couldn’t have achieved in a traditional, permanent role? One of the biggest advantages of coming into an organisation as a fractional or interim leader is bringing fresh perspective. When you’re already part of the system, it’s naturally harder to question how that system works. Coming in from outside gives you permission to ask different questions about leadership structures, organisational design and how functions work together. You’re also able to bring insight from other organisations and benchmark what’s happening elsewhere. Sometimes the greatest value isn’t having all the answers – it’s helping leadership teams ask questions they hadn’t considered before. That’s something I really enjoy about this way of working. What’s the biggest misconception organisations have about hiring a fractional or interim executive? One of the biggest misconceptions is that they don’t need one because someone is already “doing” that role. There’s a real difference between someone delivering the day-to-day function and someone providing strategic leadership. Whether it’s people, finance, digital or AI, organisations often stretch existing teams rather than stepping back and asking what expertise they actually need. Another challenge is that decisions are often made informally – someone knows someone who can help. Fractional leadership works best when organisations take a more strategic approach, defining the capability they
Leading Through Reinvention: The Leadership Skills UK Universities Will Need for the Next Decade
Written by Stephen Hoban. The UK university sector stands at one of the most consequential moments in its modern history. Financial pressures, demographic shifts, changing learner expectations, artificial intelligence, regulatory scrutiny, geopolitical uncertainty, and the increasing demand for demonstrable societal impact are collectively reshaping higher education. The challenge is no longer simply adapting to change. It is learning to lead through continuous transformation. In recent years, many institutions have focused on resilience. Over the next decade, success will depend on reinvention. Universities that thrive will be those led by individuals capable of balancing academic values with commercial realities, innovation with institutional heritage, and rapid change with long-term purpose. The question is no longer whether the sector will transform. The question is whether its leaders are ready to transform alongside it. From Academic Stewardship to Strategic Leadership Historically, leadership in higher education has often centred on academic credibility, consensus building, and institutional stewardship. While these qualities remain important, they are no longer sufficient on their own. University leaders now operate in an environment where financial sustainability has become a primary strategic concern. Institutions face increasing pressure on income streams, heightened competition for students, and growing expectations from regulators, employers, and society. As a result, leaders must become as comfortable discussing transformation programmes, operating models, partnerships, and investment decisions as they are discussing research excellence and educational quality. The most successful leaders will be those who can bridge these worlds rather than viewing them as competing priorities. Skill One: Leading Through Ambiguity The future of higher education will be defined by uncertainty. Student recruitment patterns are becoming harder to predict. The pace of technological change continues to accelerate. Government policy can alter institutional plans almost overnight. International markets, once viewed as reliable sources of growth, have become increasingly volatile. In this environment, leaders must become experts in navigating ambiguity. Rather than seeking certainty before making decisions, future leaders will need to make confident choices based on incomplete information. They will have to experiment, learn quickly, and adjust course where necessary. This requires a mindset shift from “risk avoidance” to “risk management” and from “strategic planning” to “strategic adaptation.” Skill Two: Digital and AI Fluency Artificial intelligence is likely to have a greater impact on universities than any technological development since the arrival of the internet. AI is already reshaping learning, assessment, student support, research processes, workforce planning, and institutional decision-making. The question for leaders is no longer whether AI should be adopted, but how it can be deployed responsibly and strategically. Importantly, leaders do not need to become technology experts. They do, however, need sufficient digital fluency to ask the right questions: The institutions that gain competitive advantage will not necessarily be those with the most advanced technology. They will be those with leaders who understand how technology can serve institutional purpose. Skill Three: Courageous Decision-Making The coming years will require leaders to make difficult choices. Many universities are already reviewing portfolios, restructuring services, rethinking estates strategies, and challenging long-standing assumptions about how education is delivered. Transformation inevitably creates tension. Resources are finite. Not every initiative can be protected. Not every tradition can be preserved. Future leaders will require the courage to make decisions that may be unpopular in the short term but are essential for long-term sustainability. Courageous leadership is not about being ruthless. It is about being clear, transparent, and principled when difficult choices need to be made. Skill Four: Systems Thinking Universities operate within increasingly complex ecosystems. Success depends not only on what happens inside the institution, but also on relationships with employers, local communities, government, research partners, industry, and international collaborators. Future leaders will need to think beyond organisational boundaries. Systems thinkers recognise connections between seemingly unrelated issues. They understand that employability affects recruitment, research affects reputation, partnerships affect financial resilience, and community impact affects institutional legitimacy. The most effective leaders will be those who can see the whole system rather than optimising individual parts. Skill Five: Building Change-Ready Cultures The greatest barrier to transformation is rarely technology or funding. It is culture. Universities are rich in expertise, tradition, and intellectual independence. These strengths can sometimes make institutional change more challenging. Future leaders must excel at creating cultures where innovation is encouraged, experimentation is valued, and continuous learning becomes the norm. This does not mean abandoning the traditions that make universities unique. Rather, it means helping people understand that preserving mission often requires changing methods. Leaders who can create psychological safety, build trust, and bring people along on the journey will be significantly more successful than those who rely solely on formal authority. Skill Six: Stakeholder Influence and Narrative Building In an increasingly contested environment, leadership is becoming as much about storytelling as strategy. Universities face growing scrutiny regarding value, relevance, employability outcomes, and public investment. Institutions must articulate clearly why they matter and how they contribute to society. Future leaders will need exceptional communication skills. They must be capable of building compelling narratives that connect institutional purpose with societal needs. They must inspire staff, reassure students, engage policymakers, and convince partners to invest in shared futures. The ability to shape a clear and credible story will become a major leadership differentiator. The Defining Leadership Challenge Perhaps the greatest leadership challenge facing the sector is balancing continuity and change. Universities are custodians of centuries-old traditions, but they are also engines of innovation. They must preserve academic freedom while embracing technological change. They must protect quality while driving efficiency. They must remain financially sustainable while advancing social purpose. This balancing act cannot be achieved through management alone. It requires leadership. The institutions that flourish over the next decade will not necessarily be those with the largest endowments, the strongest brands, or the most ambitious strategies. They will be those led by individuals who can navigate uncertainty, embrace technology, make courageous decisions, foster adaptive cultures, and inspire others around a shared vision. The future of UK higher education will be shaped not simply by external forces, but by the
JOIN OUR LIVE PANEL DISCUSSION: Leading Transformation at Pace
The New Operating Model of Public Sector Leadership
Every executive search gives us a window into how organisations are changing. Over the past year, we’ve seen a noticeable increase in organisations redesigning executive teams before they come to market. New leadership portfolios are emerging across central government, higher education, transport, infrastructure and arm’s-length bodies, with growing demand for Deputy Chief Executives, Chief Operating Officers, Chief Transformation Officers and Executive Directors of Delivery. These appointments reflect a broader evolution in public sector leadership. Executive teams are being configured around transformation, programme delivery, digital capability, commercial leadership and organisational performance, alongside their more traditional responsibilities. It’s a trend we’ve been watching closely because executive structures often reveal where organisations believe their biggest challenges – and opportunities – lie. From strategy to delivery Much has been written about the scale of change facing the public sector, but less attention has been given to what that means for executive leadership. Across our markets, organisations are balancing long-term transformation with the demands of day-to-day delivery. Universities are responding to financial sustainability and changing student expectations. Government departments and ALBs are delivering increasingly complex policy programmes. Transport and infrastructure organisations are managing major investment alongside operational performance, regulatory requirements and decarbonisation. Defence organisations are scaling capability at pace while responding to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. The common denominator is delivery. Many of these priorities sit alongside one another rather than replacing each other. As a result, organisations are creating executive capacity in areas that have become strategically critical. Executive portfolios are evolving Titles differ from one organisation to another, but the underlying themes are remarkably consistent. We’re seeing greater demand for executives responsible for transformation, organisational performance, programme delivery, digital, commercial operations and cross-functional change. In some organisations, these responsibilities sit with a Deputy Chief Executive or Chief Operating Officer. Elsewhere, they’re reflected in newly created Chief Transformation Officer positions or Executive Directors with responsibility for strategy and delivery. These roles rarely exist in isolation. They are designed to coordinate programmes that cut across organisational boundaries, align multiple stakeholders and maintain momentum over several years. That’s a very different remit from the operational leadership portfolios many of these roles would have carried even five years ago. Organisation design is becoming part of the leadership conversation One of the more interesting developments is that conversations increasingly begin with executive structure rather than individual appointments. Boards and Chief Executives are asking whether existing portfolios reflect the organisation’s priorities, whether executive capacity is aligned to future delivery requirements, and whether responsibilities should be redistributed before recruitment begins. For some organisations, that means creating entirely new executive roles. For others, it means redefining existing portfolios or bringing in interim leadership to establish new functions before making permanent appointments. Executive search is becoming one part of a much broader discussion about leadership capability. Looking ahead Executive structures have always evolved in response to changing priorities. Today’s priorities include digital transformation, AI adoption, financial sustainability, infrastructure investment, organisational reform and increasingly complex stakeholder environments. They demand executive leadership with the time, experience and authority to drive delivery at scale. We expect this trend to continue as organisations continue to adapt to new policy, funding and operational challenges. The titles may differ, but the direction of travel is becoming increasingly clear. Public sector organisations are reshaping executive leadership around the capabilities required to deliver long-term transformation, not simply to manage today’s organisation. Get in touch to discuss your leadership requirements.
Veredus Appointed to the APUC Framework to Support Executive Search Across the UK Public Sector
Veredus is pleased to announce its appointment to the new APUC Framework, strengthening our long-standing partnership with APUC and providing organisations across the UK with a compliant route to access our executive search expertise. The framework is available to universities, colleges, the NHS and a wide range of public sector organisations, enabling them to procure executive search services through a trusted, pre-approved supplier. As part of the new framework, Veredus has been appointed to: Supporting Leadership Across the Public Sector Public sector organisations are operating in an increasingly complex environment, balancing financial pressures, organisational transformation, evolving governance requirements and growing expectations for public service delivery. Against this backdrop, securing exceptional leadership has never been more important. For many years, Veredus has partnered with APUC to support organisations in identifying and appointing senior leaders who combine strategic capability with the experience to lead through change. Our continued appointment reflects the strength of that relationship and our commitment to delivering high-quality executive search services across the public sector. Executive Search Designed Around Every Organisation No two leadership appointments are the same. Our executive search methodology is designed to adapt to the unique requirements of each organisation, combining rigorous market mapping, extensive stakeholder engagement, leadership assessment and inclusive search practices to identify exceptional candidates across diverse markets. Whether appointing executive directors, chief executives, governing body members or Chairs, we work collaboratively with clients to deliver recruitment processes that are robust, transparent and aligned with organisational priorities. A Trusted Procurement Route The APUC Framework provides organisations with a compliant and efficient route to procure executive search services, reducing procurement complexity while maintaining the highest standards of governance, transparency and value. As an approved supplier, Veredus looks forward to continuing to support universities, colleges, NHS organisations and public bodies across the UK with executive and board-level appointments that strengthen leadership capability and enable long-term organisational success. If you would like to discuss an upcoming executive or board appointment through the APUC Framework, we’d be delighted to speak with you. Contact us.
Veredus appointed to the Government Commercial Agency’s RM6394 framework
Veredus is pleased to announce its appointment to the Government Commercial Agency’s Executive & Non-Executive Search 3 Framework (RM6394), providing public sector organisations with a compliant and efficient route to access our Executive Search, Interim Management and Leadership Advisory services. The framework has been designed to simplify the procurement of senior leadership solutions, enabling organisations to engage pre-qualified suppliers through an established commercial route. By reducing procurement timescales and administrative complexity, RM6394 allows organisations to focus on what matters most – securing the leadership capability needed to deliver organisational priorities. Supporting leadership across the public sector For decades, Veredus has partnered with organisations across central government and the wider public sector, supporting critical leadership appointments and organisational transformation. Our appointment to RM6394 reflects that experience and provides clients with access to a broad range of leadership solutions through a single framework. Executive Search Every executive appointment presents different challenges, governance requirements and stakeholder expectations. Our modular Executive Search methodology enables organisations to access the level of support appropriate to each assignment, whether that’s executive market mapping, leadership assessment, candidate benchmarking or a fully retained executive search campaign. This proportionate approach ensures every appointment is aligned to organisational priorities while maintaining the governance and assurance expected through RM6394. Interim Management Leadership requirements don’t always follow a permanent recruitment timetable. Periods of transformation, machinery of government change, financial recovery and major programme delivery often require experienced executive capacity at pace. Through RM6394, organisations can access Veredus’ network of senior interim leaders with extensive experience across government and the wider public sector, providing immediate capability to maintain momentum and strengthen delivery. Leadership Advisory Executive Search is increasingly just one part of effective leadership planning. Leadership Advisory enables organisations to define future leadership requirements before recruitment begins, supporting organisational design, succession planning, executive assessment, leadership capability and board effectiveness. By combining public sector insight, market intelligence and leadership assessment, we help organisations make informed leadership decisions that support long-term organisational objectives. A strategic partner for public sector leadership The challenges facing public sector organisations continue to evolve. Financial pressures, workforce reform, transformation programmes and increasing public scrutiny mean leadership decisions have never been more significant. RM6394 provides a trusted and compliant framework through which organisations can access the expertise required to address those challenges. Whether the requirement is Executive Search, Interim Management or Leadership Advisory, Veredus brings extensive public sector experience, independent judgement and a collaborative approach to every engagement. If you’d like to discuss how RM6394 can support your organisation’s leadership requirements, we’d be delighted to start the conversation. DOWNLOAD THE FRAMEWORK BROCHURE HERE.
Britain’s Drone Moment: Turning Defence Ambition into Industrial Advantage
Words by Gareth Wood, Director of Defence. One of the most important lessons from recent conflict is not simply that UAVs matter. It is that speed now matters as much as scale. For decades, defence advantage was often measured in platforms, larger ships, more advanced aircraft, longer-range missiles, more sophisticated sensors. Those capabilities remain essential. But the UK’s Defence Investment Plan makes clear that the next phase of military advantage will also depend on something different: the ability to develop, manufacture, adapt and deploy autonomous systems at pace. The Government has committed more than £5 billion over the next four years to drones and autonomous systems, including strike and surveillance drones, uncrewed land vehicles and capabilities linked to a more hybrid force structure. This is not a marginal adjustment to the defence budget. It is a signal to industry that uncrewed systems are moving from the edge of defence thinking to its centre. That matters because drones change the economics of conflict. A relatively low-cost uncrewed system can find, track, disrupt or destroy equipment worth many times more. First-person-view drones, loitering munitions, autonomous surveillance platforms and electronic warfare payloads have all shown how quickly technology can alter battlefield assumptions. The result is not the end of traditional defence platforms, but the arrival of a more complex operating model: crewed and uncrewed systems working together, supported by data, autonomy and resilient communications. The technical direction is clear. Future UAVs will be increasingly modular, software-defined and mission-adaptable. One airframe may support multiple payloads: ISR, communications relay, electronic attack, target acquisition or logistics support. AI and computer vision will improve navigation, recognition and decision support. Edge processing will allow systems to operate when bandwidth is limited or communications are contested. Mesh networking will help platforms share information across dispersed formations. Swarming will create mass without requiring every system to be individually controlled.This is where the industrial challenge begins. The UAV market does not move at the tempo of traditional defence procurement. Platforms are adapted in months. Software is updated in weeks. Operational feedback loops are immediate. That means manufacturers need more than production capacity; they need engineering cultures built around rapid iteration, test, evaluation and continuous improvement.This is why Swindon is such an important development. The opening of Europe’s largest drone testing centre at the new DroneTEX facility in Swindon is significant not just because of its scale, but because of what it represents: the ability to develop and field drone capability in weeks, not years. Alongside this, TEKEVER’s investment in Swindon as its main European manufacturing facility shows how the UK can begin to build the industrial backbone needed to support sovereign uncrewed capability. In practical terms, this means bringing together disciplines that have too often been treated separately: aerospace engineering, robotics, embedded software, AI, secure communications, advanced manufacturing, cyber security, systems integration and operational delivery. It also means thinking differently about workforce capability. The winners in this market will not simply be those with the best technology. They will be the organisations that can scale without losing agility. They will need leaders who understand regulated defence environments but can still operate at commercial technology pace. They will need manufacturing teams comfortable with digital engineering, modular production, additive techniques, quality assurance and secure supply chains. They will need programme leaders who can connect technical ambition with operational reality. As Veredus’ recent work across UAV manufacturers and high-growth defence innovators has shown, the organisations best placed for this shift are those that combine technical excellence, leadership strength and manufacturing resilience. The Defence Investment Plan should therefore be read not just as a funding announcement, but as a strategic signal: industry now needs to innovate fast, scale smart and lead confidently through complexity. There is a wider opportunity here too. The technologies being developed for defence UAVs will shape civilian markets: infrastructure inspection, emergency response, offshore energy, environmental monitoring, logistics and border security. The dual-use potential is substantial. Done well, this could create not only stronger national security, but high-value employment, export opportunities and a more resilient British manufacturing base. The UK has the ingredients: engineering heritage, world-class research, innovative SMEs, serious defence customers and now a clearer investment signal. But ambition is not enough. If Britain wants to lead in autonomous defence systems, it must build the ecosystem around them: factories, testing facilities, supply chains, leadership capability and skilled people. Drones may be the visible technology. The real strategic advantage will come from the industrial system behind them. That is the opportunity now in front of us. — From our perspective at Veredus, these shifts are already shaping the conversations we’re having with clients across the defence sector. As organisations look to scale UAV capability and bring increasingly sophisticated autonomous technologies into operational service, the leadership challenge becomes every bit as important as the engineering one. We’re seeing growing demand for executives who can combine deep technical credibility with experience of manufacturing scale-up, complex programme delivery, defence procurement and organisational growth. As investment in uncrewed systems accelerates, identifying leaders with that blend of capabilities will be critical to turning strategic ambition into operational success.