From Survival to Sustainability: How Charities Can Avoid the Next Leadership Crisis
During and immediately after COVID-19, the charity sector witnessed an unprecedented period of disruption, adaptation and leadership strain. Virtually overnight, organisations had to redesign service delivery, move workforces remote, navigate furlough schemes, manage redundancies, respond to rising demand and deal with significant funding uncertainty. Charity leaders found themselves making critical decisions with imperfect information, often while supporting anxious teams and trustees through an environment nobody had experienced before. The result was predictable. We saw a significant increase in Chief Executive, Finance Director and senior leadership vacancies across the sector. Many talented leaders chose to step away entirely. Some moved sectors. Others left without another role secured, simply because the personal and professional toll had become unsustainable. Today, the question many trustees and boards should be asking is not whether executive burnout exists. The question is whether we are about to see it happen again. Have We Reached Another Breaking Point? Whilst the pandemic may now feel behind us, many charity leaders would argue that the challenges have simply changed rather than disappeared. The past two years have brought a fresh set of pressures: For many executive teams, the pace of decision-making required since 2020 has been relentless. There has been little opportunity to pause, reset or rebuild organisational resilience. Leaders who spent years in crisis management mode are now expected to drive growth, innovation and transformation whilst simultaneously controlling costs and protecting services. That level of sustained pressure inevitably comes with consequences. The Hidden Risk Boards May Be Missing One of the most dangerous aspects of leadership burnout is that it rarely appears overnight. The warning signs are often subtle: Many boards focus understandably on financial risk, operational risk and governance risk. However, leadership risk is becoming just as significant. A charity can survive a difficult funding cycle. It can survive a challenging inspection. What is often much harder to recover from is the sudden departure of a highly influential CEO, Finance Director or Director of Operations when there is no succession plan in place. Grassroots Charities Face the Greatest Challenge Whilst larger national charities often have access to specialist advisors, transformation consultants and strong executive teams, the picture is very different for many smaller and medium-sized organisations. These are the charities I often refer to as the sector’s grassroots organisations. They are frequently delivering some of the most impactful work within communities, yet they are often operating with limited reserves and lean leadership structures. When challenges arise, they simply do not have the budget to engage a permanent Director of Transformation, Strategy Director or Chief People Officer. Nor can they always afford the risk associated with bringing in a full-time executive hire. As pressures increase, these organisations become vulnerable to leadership fatigue, reactive decision-making and stalled growth. Is Redundancy the Answer? Historically, many organisations facing financial pressure have looked first at restructuring and headcount reductions. Sometimes this is unavoidable. However, redundancy alone rarely solves the underlying strategic challenge. Reducing costs without fundamentally addressing organisational sustainability can simply place greater pressure on the leaders who remain. In many cases, charities should first be asking different questions: These are strategic questions requiring strategic leadership. The challenge is having the expertise available to answer them. Why the Fractional Leadership Model Will Become Increasingly Important This is where I believe we will see growing adoption of the fractional leadership model across the charity sector. For organisations unable to justify the cost of a full-time senior executive, fractional leaders provide access to experienced strategic expertise on a part-time, project-based or interim basis. Whether that is: The model allows charities to access proven leadership capability without committing to a six-figure permanent appointment. More importantly, it provides immediate capacity and objectivity at a time when existing leaders may be operating under sustained pressure. We are increasingly seeing boards ask not, “Can we afford a senior specialist?” but instead, “Can we afford not to have one?” For many charities, particularly those navigating change, growth, funding uncertainty or succession challenges, a fractional executive can provide the strategic support required to prevent small issues becoming major organisational risks. Measuring Leadership Risk Before It Becomes a Crisis The conversation around burnout is often reactive. By the time a CEO resigns, a Finance Director leaves unexpectedly or a leadership team becomes dysfunctional, the damage has already started. The sector needs to become more proactive. This is why leadership risk should be assessed with the same rigour as financial and governance risk. Our Leadership Risk Index was developed to help boards and executive teams understand exactly where vulnerabilities exist within their leadership structure. Rather than relying on instinct alone, organisations can assess: The benefit is simple. Boards gain visibility before problems emerge. Leaders gain support before burnout becomes resignation. Organisations gain time to act rather than react. The Next Leadership Challenge Is Already Here The charity sector has demonstrated remarkable resilience over the past six years. However, resilience should not be mistaken for unlimited capacity. Many leaders have carried organisations through a global pandemic, economic uncertainty, changing workforce expectations and significant operational transformation. For some, the cumulative impact is beginning to show. The charities that thrive over the next five years will not necessarily be those with the largest budgets. They will be those with the strongest leadership infrastructure, the clearest succession plans and the courage to seek support before reaching crisis point. The next wave of leadership change may already be building. The question for trustees and boards is whether they will recognise the warning signs early enough to respond. And increasingly, that response may involve combining leadership risk assessment with flexible, fractional expertise that provides organisations with the strategic capacity they need, exactly when they need it most.
Making AI Safer by Making Research More Inclusive: The University of York’s SAINTS Initiative
Who decides whether an artificial intelligence system is safe, and whose perspectives inform that judgement? As part of Veredus’s sponsorship of the Outstanding Contribution to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion category at the THE Awards 2026, Professor Ibrahim Habli, Director of the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in Safe AI Systems (SAINTS), and Helen Poyer, Centre Manager, at the University of York share how the Centre is addressing structural barriers to doctoral study and building a research community as diverse as the society it serves. Acceptably Safe – But Acceptable to Whom? In AI safety, the question of whether a system is ‘acceptably safe’ is fundamental. Safety is never absolute, and judgements about what is acceptable inevitably involve assumptions about risk and whose interests are being considered. “That raises an uncomfortable question: acceptable to whom, and under what circumstances?” explain Habli and Poyer. This tension sits at the heart of SAINTS and its approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. “EDI is not a box-ticking exercise. It is a research imperative.” AI learns patterns from the data it is trained on and from the metrics, nudges and models researchers choose. Many of these choices are socially and ethically sensitive, meaning that researchers’ backgrounds, disciplines, stories, experiences, preferences and constraints all matter. Yet the current AI safety landscape suffers from poor representation across many characteristics, particularly ethnicity and gender. For SAINTS, the vision from the outset has been to build a research community as diverse as the society it serves, recognising that the people designing and assuring AI systems should reflect those affected by them. Addressing Structural Barriers to Doctoral Study To realise this vision, SAINTS set out to address several persistent structural barriers in access to doctoral study and AI research careers. Gender underrepresentation remains a significant challenge. Higher Education Statistics Agency data cited by the Centre shows that in 2024/25, only 29% of postgraduate students enrolling in computer science identified as female. There are also distinct racial inequalities in doctoral recruitment. Analysis of doctoral applications at the University of York revealed that ethnic minority candidates faced disproportionately lower offer rates compared to White British applicants. Furthermore, traditional academic recruitment can disproportionately penalise non-traditional applicants, such as those transitioning from industry or non-technical backgrounds. Interdisciplinary barriers present another challenge. Conventional AI research often excludes vital perspectives from the humanities, law and health sciences, despite their importance to understanding the wider implications of AI safety. Removing Barriers Through Inclusive Recruitment SAINTS has responded through a targeted, multifaceted approach designed to address these barriers directly. Firstly, the Centre has implemented anonymised, fully blind recruitment where applicants’ names, pronouns, and previous institutions are redacted so candidates remain anonymous until the interview stage, mitigating unconscious bias. Secondly, to address racial underrepresentation, SAINTS ring-fences at least one doctoral place annually for a Black British candidate who meets its academic quality threshold. Thirdly, the Centre offers targeted outreach by hosting dedicated pre-application webinars to demystify the application process and appeal to non-traditional applicants. Diverse Leadership and Interdisciplinary Research The Centre leads by example and has embedded inclusion into its leadership structures. Its leadership team maintains at least 40% female representation and draws expertise from diverse domains, including active legal practitioners, such as part-time judges, and health policy advisers, including NICE policy experts. SAINTS also provides interdisciplinary and industry co-supervision, tailoring supervisory teams around individual student research topics across multiple university departments and external industry partners. Early Evidence of Progress The Centre’s EDI interventions have so far shown pleasing results. SAINTS has achieved a strong gender balance: in its first cohort of 11 doctoral researchers, 5 places were awarded to female students, and in the second cohort, 8 out of 13 places were awarded to female candidates. Additionally, by supporting early-stage applicants, the Centre has successfully established diversified talent pathways, recruiting candidates transitioning directly from industry routes rather than relying solely on standard academic pipelines. Inclusion as a Research Imperative For other higher education institutions seeking to make doctoral education more accessible, SAINTS offers five key insights: Ultimately, SAINTS’s approach reflects a fundamental principle: “The people designing and assuring these systems should reflect the people affected by them.” For Habli and Poyer, building a diverse research community is not simply a matter of widening participation, but a research imperative for developing safer AI systems.
Beyond Representation: How Leeds Trinity University Is Driving Institutional Change on Race Equality
Tackling racial inequalities in higher education requires more than good intentions or isolated initiatives. As part of Veredus’s sponsorship of the Outstanding Contribution to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion category at the THE Awards 2026, we spoke with Syra Shakir, Associate Professor in Learning and Teaching at Leeds Trinity University about institutional courage, the importance of student voice and what it takes to turn a commitment to race equality into meaningful change. “It does take institutional courage to admit that racism is real.” For Syra Shakir, this willingness to confront uncomfortable realities is fundamental to tackling the persistent racial inequalities that continue to affect students across higher education. At Leeds Trinity University, that recognition has helped shape more than a decade of work to address disparities in student experiences and outcomes, moving beyond individual interventions towards an approach that embeds race equality throughout the institution. A significant turning point came around a decade ago, when the University began its journey with Advance HE’s Race Equality Charter, prompting Leeds Trinity to examine its data, listen closely to students and staff, and develop targeted anti-racist actions. In 2025, Leeds Trinity became the first university in Yorkshire and the Humber, and only the seventh nationally, to achieve the Race Equality Charter Silver Award. Putting Student Voice at the Centre For Syra, one of the most important lessons has been recognising that racial inequalities in access, continuation, progression and degree outcomes are complex problems that cannot be resolved through a single intervention. Understanding students’ experiences has therefore been central to developing effective responses. “It’s the students who are affected by these disparities that actually hold the keys,” she explains, emphasising the importance of involving students directly in shaping institutional action. This commitment to co-creation has informed a whole-institution approach, encompassing everything from the University’s Curriculum for Social Justice and academic support to mental health services, recruitment practices, staff development and library resources. The aim is to ensure that responsibility for race equality extends across academic and professional services, rather than sitting solely with specialist EDI teams. Creating Space for Difficult Conversations One example is Re:Tension, an anti-racist education programme that Leeds Trinity has delivered to staff across the University for approximately six years. It addresses the topic of institutional racism and the gap in student retention amongst Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students within British universities and was inspired by analysing statistical data that highlighted the unexplained dropout rate of BAME students. Built around a short, dramatised film co-created with students, the programme uses lived experiences, poetry, storytelling and theoretical perspectives to develop race literacy and encourage critical reflection. It is also embedded within the curriculum for foundation and first-year students, introducing conversations about race and racism from the beginning of their university experience. For Syra, creating environments where people feel able to engage openly with difficult issues is essential. “We call people in rather than calling people out,” she explains. The intention is to encourage people to reflect on their assumptions, acknowledge discomfort and challenge their thinking without feeling that making mistakes will lead to judgement. Syra believes this approach has contributed to a significant cultural shift, with colleagues increasingly willing to discuss racism openly, challenge assumptions and engage in difficult conversations. The programme has also attracted considerable external interest, with Leeds Trinity delivering training to around 50 organisations across the country both within the higher education sector and beyond. Coaching the Gap: Turning Support into Student Success Alongside this broader cultural work, Leeds Trinity has developed targeted initiatives to support students experiencing difficulties with academic engagement and progression. Coaching the Gap provides professional coaching for racially minoritised students who may be struggling with attendance, assessment performance or engagement with university life, sometimes alongside mental health and wellbeing challenges. Working with an independent external coach over an academic year, students receive personalised support focused on their individual goals. This is complemented by wellbeing workshops and connections to wider university support services. The outcomes have been particularly encouraging. All participating second-year students successfully progressed to their final year, while all final-year participants completed their studies and graduated. The programme has continued into a further year and involves collaboration with a local Black-owned charity, bringing community expertise into the University. For Syra, its success illustrates the importance of combining personalised support with wider institutional action, recognising that students’ experiences are shaped by multiple, interconnected factors. From Commitment to Lasting Change Despite the progress achieved, Syra is clear that meaningful transformation requires more than increasing representation or introducing visible diversity initiatives. “Representation alone won’t mean transformation,” she says. While diversifying curricula, increasing staff diversity and celebrating different cultures are important, lasting change depends on addressing the institutional structures and processes that perpetuate inequalities. That means embedding race equality into governance, strategic priorities, policies and accountability frameworks, supported by sustained commitment from university leadership. “It’s not something that’s an add-on that we simply do later,” Syra explains. “It’s something that has to be embedded in our structure and our governance.” For other universities seeking to address racial inequalities, Leeds Trinity’s experience demonstrates the importance of combining institutional courage with practical action: listening to students, creating space for honest conversations and ensuring that responsibility for change is shared.
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,
The UK bus industry’s leadership challenge: Finding the talent to deliver transformation
The UK bus industry is undergoing significant change. From franchising and fleet electrification to evolving passenger expectations, operators face an increasingly complex set of operational and commercial demands. But is the sector equipped with the senior leadership talent needed to deliver? The challenges facing Britain’s bus operators are well documented. Franchising and enhanced partnerships are reshaping how services are planned and delivered, while decarbonisation targets and investment in electric fleets are creating new operational requirements. At the same time, operators must continue to deliver reliable, commercially sustainable services while meeting the expectations of passengers, local authorities and other stakeholders. For those responsible for running bus businesses, this creates a difficult balancing act. And according to Peter, one of our transport sector recruitment specialists at Veredus, it’s having a noticeable impact on the senior recruitment market. How are senior leadership requirements changing in the bus industry? Historically, the success of senior operational leaders in the bus sector has been measured primarily through service reliability, punctuality, financial performance and operational efficiency. These remain fundamental measures of success. However, the expectations placed on Operations Directors, Managing Directors and Heads of Operations are becoming considerably broader. Senior executives are increasingly expected to combine operational expertise with the ability to lead significant organisational change. This can include introducing new technologies, managing complex stakeholder relationships, improving customer experience, supporting cultural change and delivering sustainability objectives. Crucially, all of this must happen without compromising day-to-day service delivery. The challenge is therefore not simply finding experienced operational leaders. It’s identifying individuals who can maintain performance while helping organisations adapt to a changing operating environment. Why is recruiting senior leaders becoming more difficult? One of the recurring themes in our conversations with bus operators across the UK is the difficulty of finding candidates who combine strong operational credentials with commercial acumen and transformation experience. An experienced Operations Director may have an excellent track record in service delivery, but that doesn’t automatically translate into experience of managing large-scale organisational change. Equally, executives with significant transformation experience may not have the depth of operational knowledge required to manage the complexities of a bus operation. For employers, this creates a particularly challenging recruitment brief. The strongest candidates are not necessarily those with the longest CVs or the most extensive industry networks. Increasingly, organisations are looking for individuals who can demonstrate sound operational judgement, commercial awareness and the ability to bring people with them through change. These capabilities are particularly important when transformation programmes must be delivered alongside demanding operational responsibilities. What does this mean for bus operators recruiting senior executives? As the requirements of senior roles evolve, organisations may need to reconsider how they define and assess leadership capability. There are several important considerations. Defining the balance between operational delivery and transformation Not every senior appointment requires the same combination of skills. Employers need to be clear about which capabilities are essential from the outset and where additional expertise or support may be needed. Looking beyond traditional career progression Experience within the bus industry remains highly valuable, particularly given its operational and regulatory complexities. However, evaluating candidates solely on previous job titles or years of sector experience may overlook individuals with relevant capabilities developed in other transport environments. Assessing the ability to deliver change A candidate’s track record in managing operational performance is important, but so is their ability to engage employees, work with stakeholders and implement change effectively. Considering the wider leadership team Not every capability gap needs to be addressed through a single appointment. In some circumstances, strengthening the wider senior team or introducing interim expertise may provide a more effective approach. What does the future hold for senior recruitment in the bus sector? Policy, investment and technology will continue to influence the future of UK bus services. However, the ability of operators to respond successfully will depend in part on the experience and capabilities of the people responsible for implementing these changes. For organisations recruiting at Managing Director, Operations Director and other senior operational levels, the challenge is increasingly about finding the right balance between established industry expertise and the capability to deliver transformation. At Veredus, our work across the transport sector gives us direct insight into the changing requirements of senior appointments and the difficulties organisations face when recruiting for complex operational roles. As Peter’s observations highlight, the demand for executives who can combine operational performance with organisational change is becoming an increasingly important consideration for bus operators. And with the sector continuing to evolve, it’s unlikely that these recruitment challenges will become any less complex. Specialist executive recruitment for the transport sector Veredus supports organisations across the transport sector through Executive Search, Interim Management and Leadership Advisory, helping clients identify, appoint and assess senior executives for complex operational and strategic roles. Explore our transport sector expertise
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
JOIN OUR LIVE PANEL DISCUSSION: Leading Transformation at Pace
