From People Management to Strategic Transformation: The Chief People Officer in a Changing Higher Education Landscape
Higher Education is experiencing a period of profound structural change. Financial sustainability, volatile student recruitment, technological disruption, changing expectations of work and increasing pressure to rethink institutional operating models are creating difficult choices for university leaders. The Office for Students’ 2026 assessment of financial sustainability reflects the continuing financial challenges facing providers in England, while recent sector analysis points to restructuring, operating-model change and financial resilience as increasingly prominent institutional priorities. Within this environment, universities understandably focus on strategy, finance and structures. But transformation ultimately happens through people. This makes the role of the Chief People Officer increasingly important to institutional strategy. Just as the University Secretary and Registrar can ensure that governance, risk and institutional capability inform strategic choices, the CPO brings another essential perspective: whether the institution has the people, skills, structures, leadership and culture required to turn those choices into reality. The challenge is therefore much bigger than managing the workforce. The modern Higher Education CPO needs to help the institution answer a more fundamental question: what kind of organisation, workforce and culture will we need to deliver our future strategy? From workforce reduction to workforce strategy Financial pressure makes this question particularly difficult. For many institutions, staff costs represent one of the largest areas of expenditure, meaning that financial restructuring often has significant workforce consequences. Sector analysis in 2026 highlights universities reviewing operating models and undertaking restructures as part of their response to continuing financial pressures. The immediate challenge can therefore become one of reducing cost. But reducing workforce cost is not the same as developing a sustainable workforce. This distinction is critical. Short-term reductions can inadvertently remove skills and institutional knowledge that will subsequently be needed to deliver transformation. Research published by the Higher Education Policy Institute in September 2026 highlights precisely this challenge among professional and support staff. It warns that restructuring, recruitment freezes and reductions in training can erode institutional capability, potentially leaving universities having to rebuild skills they have previously lost. The strategic CPO therefore needs to help leaders look beyond immediate headcount and ask: These are strategic questions, not simply HR questions. AI makes the people agenda even more important Artificial intelligence adds another dimension. It is tempting to approach AI primarily as a technology investment or potential source of efficiency. But introducing new technology without reconsidering roles, skills, processes, behaviours and ways of working is unlikely to deliver its full potential. Recent research into professional and support staff in UK universities specifically identifies the danger of investing in technology while underinvesting in the people, training and process redesign necessary to make that technology effective. This creates an important leadership role for the CPO. The question should not simply be “Which jobs can AI automate?” It should also be “How can AI change the way work is designed, and what new capabilities will our people need as a result?” That could mean redesigning roles rather than removing them, developing data and AI literacy, equipping managers to lead increasingly technology-enabled teams, reconsidering career pathways or creating new relationships between academic and professional services. Seen this way, AI becomes as much a people and organisational transformation challenge as a technology challenge. Leading through uncertainty There is also a profound human dimension to transformation. Repeated restructuring, financial uncertainty and changes to established ways of working can affect morale, trust, engagement and people’s willingness to embrace further change. At the same time, institutions still need talented people to deliver excellent education, research and student services. The CPO therefore has to operate within an increasingly difficult tension: helping the institution change at pace while preserving the engagement, trust and organisational capacity needed to make that change successful. This cannot simply be achieved through good communications once decisions have been made. Successful transformation requires leaders to understand how change will be experienced across the organisation, listen to challenge, communicate honestly about uncertainty and involve people appropriately in designing new ways of working. The CPO has a critical role in making that happen. The CPO as a strategic partner This is why the CPO needs to be involved early in institutional strategy, rather than being asked to manage the workforce consequences of strategic decisions once those decisions have already been taken. A strategically positioned CPO can encourage executive teams and governing bodies to ask: That last question is especially important. A restructuring programme can achieve its financial target and still leave an organisation less capable of delivering its strategy. Conversely, investment in skills, leadership or organisational development may increase expenditure in the short term while creating greater institutional resilience and productivity over the longer term. The CPO brings the people and organisational evidence necessary to help leaders understand those trade-offs. Building the organisation, not simply managing its workforce There is an opportunity here to rethink the purpose of the people function itself. Traditionally, university HR functions have carried substantial operational responsibilities around recruitment, employee relations, policy, reward and employment processes. These remain important, but the transforming Higher Education environment requires the function to develop further. The emerging agenda is increasingly one of organisational capability. That means bringing together workforce planning, organisational design, leadership development, culture, skills, employee experience, equality and inclusion, digital transformation and change capability around the institution’s strategic priorities. It also requires universities to think carefully before treating organisational development and staff development as discretionary activities when finances become difficult. Recent Higher Education Policy Institute research provides a timely warning that cutting development capability can undermine the very improvements in productivity and effectiveness that institutions are seeking. The strategic question is not simply “How many people can we afford?” but “What organisation can we afford not to become?” From Chief People Officer to Chief Transformation Partner Ultimately, Higher Education transformation will not be delivered by a new strategy document, organisational chart, technology platform or financial plan alone. It will be delivered by people. The universities that navigate the current environment most successfully are therefore likely to be those that can align strategy, people, structures, skills,
Leading for Inclusion: A Defining Leadership Challenge for the Next Decade
As UK higher education looks towards the next decade, universities face a period of profound transformation. Financial pressures, changing student demographics, technological disruption and growing expectations around equality of opportunity are reshaping the sector. Against this backdrop, inclusive leadership is becoming not simply a desirable quality, but an increasingly important capability for institutional success. The challenge for university leaders is no longer just to articulate a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), but to ensure that inclusion informs the decisions, structures and cultures that will shape their institutions’ futures. A changing sector demands a different approach Financial pressures are forcing universities to make increasingly difficult decisions about their future. Across the sector, institutions are reshaping academic portfolios, reviewing organisational structures and redirecting resources to address immediate financial challenges. These decisions will have far-reaching consequences, not only for institutional sustainability, but also for the experiences and opportunities of students and staff. How universities balance these considerations will be an important test of inclusive leadership in the years ahead. Yet financial pressures are only part of the picture. Universities must also prepare for significant demographic shifts. The UK population of 18-year-olds is projected to grow until 2030 before declining in the following decade, bringing renewed importance to widening participation. Reaching communities that have historically been underrepresented in higher education is not only a matter of equality of opportunity; it can also contribute to institutions’ long-term sustainability. As the demographic landscape evolves, universities that successfully remove barriers to participation and engage a broader range of prospective students will be better placed to respond to changing patterns of demand. At the same time, universities are serving increasingly diverse student populations, with different experiences, expectations and support needs. While progress has been made in widening participation, persistent inequalities in student outcomes and progression demonstrate that access alone does not guarantee equality of opportunity. Taken together, these developments reinforce the case for embedding inclusion into institutional strategy rather than treating it as a separate priority. The ability to understand and respond to the needs of diverse communities, remove barriers to opportunity and create environments in which students and staff can thrive will be increasingly important to universities’ future success. From institutional commitment to leadership accountability Most universities have well-established EDI strategies and policies, but the real measure of progress lies in how effectively these commitments translate into institutional practice and tangible outcomes. This places significant responsibility on senior leaders. Creating an inclusive culture requires more than championing equality in principle. It demands the ability to recognise and challenge established practices that may disadvantage particular groups, encourage constructive challenge and ensure that different perspectives genuinely influence institutional decisions. Crucially, inclusive leadership also requires accountability. It means setting clear expectations, understanding where inequalities persist and being prepared to examine whether institutional policies and interventions are delivering the intended results. Without this, even well-intentioned initiatives risk remaining isolated examples of good practice rather than contributing to lasting organisational change. Looking ahead, the ability to lead inclusively should be regarded as a core leadership competency, alongside strategic vision, financial acumen and operational effectiveness. Universities need leaders who can bring together diverse perspectives, navigate competing interests and create environments in which both students and staff have the opportunity to succeed. Are we looking for the right leadership qualities? For those of us working in executive search, the growing importance of inclusive leadership raises an important question: are universities placing sufficient emphasis on the qualities and experiences that will enable their future leaders to build genuinely inclusive institutions? Traditional measures of leadership experience and achievement remain important, but they do not necessarily tell the whole story. As expectations of university leaders evolve, institutions have an opportunity to think more broadly about the backgrounds, perspectives and capabilities that individuals can bring to senior roles. If universities want leaders capable of challenging established thinking, they must also be willing to challenge their own assumptions about what successful leadership looks like. This means looking beyond familiar networks and conventional career pathways to identify talented individuals whose experiences might otherwise be overlooked. Equally, it means assessing not only what candidates have achieved, but how they have achieved it: whether they have created opportunities for others, challenged barriers to progression, engaged meaningfully with diverse communities and fostered cultures where people can contribute and succeed. At Veredus, we see executive search as an opportunity to help institutions think critically about their future leadership needs. By combining proactive, inclusive search strategies with thoughtful assessment of leadership behaviours and capabilities, we can support universities in appointing leaders who are not only equipped to navigate the challenges ahead but also committed to creating more inclusive institutions. Recognising those leading change The initiatives shortlisted for the Outstanding Contribution to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion category at the Times Higher Education Awards 2026 demonstrate what meaningful inclusion can look like in practice. From tackling inequalities in student attainment and improving accessibility to widening participation in research and supporting underrepresented groups, these initiatives show how thoughtful, targeted interventions can help remove barriers and create opportunities. They also illustrate a broader lesson: lasting progress requires institutional commitment, collaboration and leadership that enables good ideas to become embedded practice. Veredus is proud to sponsor this year’s award, celebrating the individuals, teams and institutions making a tangible difference to equality, diversity and inclusion across higher education. For university governing bodies and appointment panels, the challenge is therefore not simply to recruit leaders who support inclusion but to identify leaders capable of embedding it into the decisions, cultures and institutions that will shape higher education for years to come. By Nataliya Starik-Bludova, Practice Lead, Education, Veredus
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.