The governance paradox: when stability becomes the enemy of survival

By Professor Karen Heard-Lauréote, Associate: Principal Consultant / 22 April 2026

In my experience of working within, and now for, senior academic leadership teams as an independent consultant, I have observed universities grappling with an uncomfortable reality: the governance structures that once provided institutional stability may now hinder the very adaptability needed for survival.

The higher education sector has undergone a fundamental change. Regulatory frameworks have become stricter, while the competition for funding through student admissions and research grants has intensified. In recruitment, student demographics are constantly shifting as international recruitment faces new obstacles. Simultaneously, technology disrupts traditional teaching methods, and employers seek different graduate skills.

Yet despite this constant evolution, many institutions remain constrained by governance structures designed for circumstances that were perhaps once more predictable. Extensive consultation processes, consensus-driven decision-making, risk-averse cultures and the very mechanisms that once provided stability now limit institutional capacity to respond to rapid change.

This is what I call the governance paradox: structures created to ensure institutional continuity later become obstacles to necessary transformation.

Governing in turbulent times

Traditional university governance evolved during an era of relative stability – government funding was predictable, student numbers grew and institutional reputation developed over decades.  Governance systems reflected this environment: deliberative, consultative, built for careful consideration rather than rapid response.

In contrast, today's external pressures arrive with little warning and demand swift action. The Office for Students' recent governance reforms, including new competency requirements for senior roles, signal a regulatory environment expecting institutions to demonstrate agility alongside accountability.

The question isn't so much whether governance should provide oversight and due process, because it must. The challenge is rather more about designing systems that maintain rigorous standards while enabling the speed of response that current conditions require.

This raises the following questions:

• Are governance structures and processes genuinely about oversight or about control over who has decision-making powers? 

• Is the sector’s reluctance to respond with agility masking a deeper fear of accountability? 

• Is governance reform reactive or strategic? What does this mean? 

• What would governance look like if its primary purpose was to enhance institutional intelligence rather than regulate institutional behaviour? 

The tension between speed and consultation 

This plays out perhaps most clearly in institutional decision-making. Proper consultation takes time. Engaging stakeholders, considering implications, building consensus and so on, all these processes can extend over months.

Market opportunities don't wait for committee cycles. Competitive threats don't pause for academic calendars. I've watched institutions handle recent changes to international student visa requirements in starkly different ways. Those with governance structures that enable rapid response could adjust recruitment strategies, modify course offerings, and reallocate resources within weeks. Others found themselves constrained by governance processes that, while thorough, couldn't keep pace with the pace of external change.

The most successful institutions find ways to maintain rigorous oversight while accelerating decision-making. This might involve delegating more authority to executive teams within defined parameters, creating expedited processes for urgent strategic decisions, or establishing standing committees with broader remits.

This raises the following questions: 

• Is there a risk that difficult conversations are avoided at the board level by delegating decisions to sub-committees? 

• Is thoroughness mistaken for safety, leading to increased risk instead of mitigation? 

• Are universities overestimating the dangers of speed while underestimating the risks of delays? 

The problem with board composition

Many boards were assembled when higher education faced different challenges, with expertise reflecting previous priorities rather than emerging uncertainties. While financial acumen, digital literacy and understanding of international markets are increasingly vital, professional diversity alone doesn't solve the fundamental governance problem as boards rely on executive teams to frame institutional reality.

Papers presented to boards have already been shaped through drafts and internal conversations so judgements around what to highlight or downplay have already been made. Signals from students and staff on responses to policy initiatives, for example, are filtered through the executive lens before they reach formal scrutiny. 

A board with extensive commercial experience but limited direct connection to the lived reality of students and staff may possess a sophisticated understanding of risk management frameworks but be somewhat blind to the risks their institution actually faces. The question is not whether executives are trustworthy but whether a system that channels all institutional intelligence through a single point of interpretation can provide the scrutiny governance requires.

Governance also shapes institutional culture. Risk-averse governance creates risk-averse institutions. Slow decisions can signal that speed is undervalued while bureaucratic consultation fosters cynicism about engagement. The most adaptable institutions cultivate cultures where calculated risks are encouraged, decision-making is timely and governance feels like an enabler rather than an obstacle.

Achieving this is harder than it sounds – the insight on the University of Dundee’s downfall is a lived example. 

In my experience, the most significant strategic errors I've seen arise not from too many voices being heard, but from too few. Boards need structures that expose them to multiple interpretations of institutional reality not just executive framing. This could involve:

• Enhanced student representation

• Inclusion of early-career academic voices

• Structured input from professional services staff

Such arrangements may feel uncomfortable to those of us shaped by decades of executive-focused governance as they introduce friction and require boards to engage with institutional complexity. Yet this friction is valuable precisely because it forces governing bodies to grapple with the irreducible complexity of the institutions they oversee.

Best practice

Delegation frameworks: Some institutions have strengthened adaptability without sacrificing accountability by clarifying delegation frameworks that distinguish executive decisions from those requiring approval.

Financial literacy: Improving financial literacy across governing bodies and conducting regular governance effectiveness reviews to focus on impact rather than just compliance also play a critical role. 

Constructive challenge: A culture of constructive challenge matters too.  Boards must feel able to ask difficult questions and in turn executives must feel supported to raise uncomfortable truths.   

Multiple lines of communication and diverse perspectives: Crucially, boards need multiple channels of institutional intelligence - not just executive reports, but direct engagement with students, staff and operational realities.

Looking ahead – A vision for 2030

Thinking about what effective governance for institutional adaptability actually requires comes back to this:

1. Structure matters

   Governance processes must operate at different speeds with clear criteria for when rapid decisions are appropriate and when fuller consultation is required.

   
   

2. Expertise is necessary but insufficient

   Governing body composition should anticipate future challenges not those in the past.  Professional diversity only works with real access to diverse institutional perspectives.

   
   

3. Culture determines whether structures function as intended

   Institutions need environments that support appropriate risk-taking, reward speed of response and view governance as a strategic enabler. Friction and constructive challenge in decision-making can improve the quality of strategic choices.   

   
   

4. Intelligence may be the most critical element

   Institutional intelligence, not cognitive ability, may be the most critical element. Governance systems must give boards access to institutional reality through multiple channels, not solely through executive interpretation. Without this, rigorous scrutiny is impossible.

Conclusion

The governance paradox won't resolve itself. External pressures, tighter regulation and rising competition will only intensify. Institutions that adapt their governance will be better equipped to thrive, while those treating reform as optional may produce perfectly considered decisions for problems that no longer exist. 

Structural changes alone won't transform institutional culture or guarantee better outcomes. Too many one-off governance reviews tweak committee structures, update terms of reference and recruit impressive governors without addressing the power dynamics and how information flows. 

The real challenge is sustaining rigorous oversight and meaningful engagement while developing the agility current conditions demand. This is not a choice between accountability and adaptability but a need to design systems that deliver both. This requires boards to access the full breadth of institutional intelligence not just the executive perspective.

The current orthodoxy - strengthening boards by recruiting members with commercial expertise while leaving executives in control of information flows - addresses only part of the governance challenge HE providers face. 

How we can help

If you would like a conversation about strengthening governance at your university, get in touch. We can support you with: 

• Full governance reviews including a health check against best practice and preparing an implementation roadmap with proportionate actions

• Streamlining governance models with clearly defined terms of reference and delegation frameworks that balance oversight and agility

• Capability-mapping for future-focused governance structures with support for onboarding and developing new and existing governors

• Board intelligence audits to evaluate the information boards receive and the filters they have passed through

• Diagnostic exercise on risk appetite, challenge, behavioural expectations and information transparency