Catalysts of Transformation Higher Education Leadership in the Time of Disruption
National Convening Insights Report August 2026
Catalysts of Transformation Executive Summary
Higher Education Leadership in a Time of Disruption There has never been a more challenging time to be a higher education president. The external pressures facing colleges and universities are no longer factors to be temporarily managed but have become the new paradigm in which they must thrive. In this new reality, leaders must make consequential decisions faster, with less certainty, and under greater public scrutiny and do so as the academic models and structures that have guided governance in the past are breaking down in the face of changing needs of the future. There is no playbook for how to navigate this strange new world and previous roles in the academic hierarchy have done little to prepare leaders to shepherd institutions who are more financially at risk, publicly scrutinized, and internally disrupted than ever before. How then, does one become prepared to lead our county’s higher education institutions in future? The following report synthesizes insights from Catalysts for Transformation: A National Convening on Innovative Higher Education Leadership, where a group of higher education leaders and partners explored a set of key questions to better understand what it will take to lead institutions through this new era.
Insight to Action: The future of higher education should not be determined solely by external forces, but by the leaders who shape their institutions to respond. Institutional leaders do not lack awareness of the need for change. They lack the experience and capabilities to lead in a future that will look very different from the current context. Closing this gap is the central challenge of leadership development. Meeting this moment will require a commitment to developing leaders who can navigate complexity, mobilize collective action, and shape the future of the institutions and the communities they serve. Catalysts of Transformation | 2
What key challenges are higher education leaders of the future likely to face? The pressures facing higher education leaders are not new. Presidents and their teams have met the challenges of enrollment shifts, public policy and funding changes, and the impact of technologies on teaching and learning before. Why this moment appears qualitatively different is because higher education is experiencing a convergence of these crises simultaneously and in new and unpredictable ways. Traditional financial models are under stress, the public value of higher education is being questioned, and institutions must adapt faster than their historic structures allow. In this environment, leaders are facing a paradox. Our leaders understand the urgency of change but are struggling to act at the pace and scale required. This knowing–doing gap is not a failure of strategy, but a failure of leadership preparation and capability.
What capacities will future higher education leaders need to meet these challenges? As the environment is shifting dramatically, so is the role of the higher education leader. It will no longer be sufficient to steward institutions with the goal of stability. Successful leaders in this new era will need a set of integrated mindsets and skill sets that allow them to: • • • • • •
Navigate ambiguity and paradox while making decisions without complete information Design for transformation by intentionally shaping systems, structures, and environments to align mission, strategy, and action in a constantly evolving context Practice truth-telling with optimism that sustains trust while confronting hard realities Architect teams and culture that enable collective leadership and adaptability Build coalitions and partnerships across internal and external ecosystems Cultivate self-awareness and resilience to sustain performance under pressure
Together, these capabilities redefine leadership as a practice of sensemaking, ecosystem design, storytelling, continuous learning, and resilience.
How can we develop leaders with the mindsets and skillsets needed to lead colleges and universities in an increasingly complex environment? How we think about how leaders become prepared for these roles must evolve to meet the changing times. Leadership preparation has been rooted in traditional academic credentials, linear progression, and episodic training. Preparing future leaders will require a shift to continuous, practice-based development that draws promising leaders from across sectors and experiences. This includes: • • • • •
Embedding systems thinking and boundary-spanning experiences Creating low-stakes opportunities to put theory into practice Strengthening narrative and story-telling skills Building peer networks and mentorship Integrating reflection, resilience, and personal development
Leadership must be cultivated over the course of careers, supported by mentorship, and aligned with institutional succession planning.
Catalysts of Transformation | 3
Aknowledgments
This report was developed as part of the Catalysts for Transformation: A National Convening on Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a University Design Institute at Arizona State University program in March 2026. Participants included: Randy Bass | Vice President for Strategic Education
Shirley Malcom | Senior Advisor, American
Initiatives, Georgetown University
Association for the Advancement of Science
Trevor Bredenkamp | President, Army University
Trustee, Caltech; Regent, Morgan State University
Terry Brown | Vice President, Academic Innovation
Darcie Milazzo | Design Lead, Academy for
and Transformation, American Association of State
Innovative Higher Education Leadership
Colleges and Universities
Andrew Nelson | Executive Director, Foundation
Lisa Camp | Principal, Livingston Innovation Group,
Development, ASU Foundation
LLC
Scott Olson | Chancellor, Minnesota State System
Carol Carter | CEO, GlobalMindED
Mary Opperman | Senior Vice President and
Paul Cherukuri | Chief Innovation Officer,
University Secretary, Syracuse University
University of Virginia
Mary Papazian | Senior Fellow, Association of
Kim D’Abreu | Coach and Facilitator, Academy for
Governing Boards
Innovative Higher Education Leadership
Amy Parsons | President, Colorado State University
Laura Demarse | Vice President, Charles Koch
Abigail Pringle | Board Member, Denison University
Foundation
Bill Roberti | Board member, Loyola University New
David Dworak | Provost, Army University
Orleans
Kristen Fox | CEO, Business-Higher Education
Jeff Selingo | Founder, Academy for Innovative
Forum
Higher Education Leadership
Steve Galloway | Coach and Facilitator, Academy
Laura Sparks | Board member, Temple University
for Innovative Higher Education Leadership
Ashish Vaidya | President and CEO, Growing Inland
Daniel Greenstein | Chief of Industry
Achievement
Transformation, Ellucian
Shari Veil | Provost, North Dakota State University
This report and the Catalysts of Transformation Convening was developed by: Minu Ipe Vice Chair and Managing Director, University Design Institute Lisa Foss Executive Director, U.S. Practice, University Design Institute Karen Avore Program Coordinator Sr., Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership Tamara Christensen Designer-in-Residence, University Design Institute
Catalysts of Transformation | 4
Introduction
Discussions of leadership and leadership development are not new. Yet the conditions under which higher education leaders now operate have shifted in ways that render many traditional assumptions about the skills and experiences necessary to lead our colleges and universities obsolete. Ambiguity, once understood as a temporary condition to be navigated until stability returned, has become a permanent feature of the environment. This moment has the feeling of an “everything, everywhere all at once” dynamic. Leaders must now operate without stable planning assumptions and guide institutions through paradigm-level shifts rather than incremental change. Leaders are required to hold multiple internal crises and external pressures simultaneously while maintaining a strong clarity of purpose that compels the institution forward. They are expected to drive transformation at scale while also instilling confidence and optimism among stakeholders whose trust is no longer guaranteed. They must respond to growing pressure to transform from the outside while being constrained by legacy systems, governance structures, and cultural inertia on the inside. Responding to these multiple and discordant realities in real time requires a new set of leadership mindsets and capacities. But what are those capabilities and how can they be developed? Answering these questions was at the core of of Catalysts for Transformation: A National Convening on Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a University Design Institute at Arizona State University event that brought together presidents, provosts, board leaders, and senior executives from across sectors to explore the leadership mindsets and capabilities required for higher education’s next era. Three guiding questions anchored the convening: • • •
What key challenges are higher education leaders of the future likely to face? What capacities will future higher education leaders need to meet these challenges? How can we develop leaders with the mindsets and skillsets needed to lead colleges and universities in an increasingly complex environment?
Through facilitated design sessions, interactive discussions, and collaborative exploration, participants discussed how we might cultivate future leaders prepared to navigate complexity, drive innovation, and strengthen the impact of our colleges and universities. The following report highlights the results of the convening in three sections:
Catalysts of Transformation | 5
Part 1
The New Higher Education Reality: Challenges Facing Future College and University Leaders
Part 2
The Leadership Shift: Core Capacities for Future Leaders
Part 3
The Development Imperative: Preparing Future Leaders
Catalysts of Transformation | 6
Part 1 outlines a higher education landscape defined by the simultaneous convergence of multiple systemic pressures, including economic strain, declining public trust, technological disruption, and internal complexity. Leaders are no longer navigating isolated challenges but are instead responding to overlapping demands in real time, with imperfect information and competing stakeholder expectations. At the core of this environment is a persistent “knowing–doing gap,” where institutions recognize the need for transformation but lack the capacity to act with the speed and coherence required.
Part 2 argues that the role of higher education leadership must be redefined to respond to accelerating environmental complexity. In a sector marked by ambiguity, interdependence, and disruption, future leaders cannot rely on legacy models of stewardship and control. They must become designers of transformation who can shape the future of their institution and its environment. This section outlines the core capacities that will matter most in that environment: navigating ambiguity, designing for the future, telling the truth with optimism, building teams and culture, fostering partnerships, and leading with reflection and self-awareness. Together, these capabilities form a new leadership profile for institutions that must not only survive change but shape what comes next.
Part 3 contends that preparing future higher education leaders will require a redesign of leadership development itself. Models focused on traditional credentials, linear progression, and episodic training are insufficient for a context defined by ambiguity, interdependence, and continuous disruption. Instead, development must become continuous, practice-based, and grounded in real-world challenges, building leaders’ ability to act under pressure and navigate complexity. This section outlines a shift toward development that emphasizes systems thinking, complex decision making, coalition building, collective leadership, and sustained reflection, ensuring leaders are equipped not just to understand the changes required, but the capacities to redesign their institutions and the futures in which they operate.
Part 1
The New Higher Education Reality:
Challenges Facing Future Higher Education Leaders
“It's the combination of the pace of change, combined with a questioning of values by the public, combined with how AI and technology is really transforming the kinds of roles people have and the kinds of skills they need. Those things are coming at universities at the same time. That is different today than it was seven years ago.” - Convening Participant
Colleges and universities are complex organizations. Leading them has never been easy. They have a tripartite mission of teaching, research, and service, funding models that rely on public and private sources, a diversity of stakeholders with deep and sometimes conflicting interests in their outcomes, and shared governance models and academic cultures that create complicated decision processes. Navigating their environments has always required a unique skillset to steward the institution. But today’s leaders are facing unprecedented challenges that are calling into question the types of capabilities and experiences that will be needed to lead in the future.
The Convergence Crisis Today’s higher education leaders are navigating an increasingly complex and volatile landscape, with major forces coming from both inside and outside the institution. The pace of technological change, public erosion of trust, economic and demographic pressures, and affordability are requiring leaders to respond to issues simultaneously, with imperfect information, while navigating competing stakeholder demands and expectations. Rather than sequential challenges that can be addressed in isolation, higher education is experiencing the simultaneous convergence of multiple pressures.
Economic Pressures The historic higher education financial model is under tremendous structural strain. Declining public investment, demographic contraction, and increased competition have created a perfect storm that is upending higher education’s traditional business model. Leaders must reconcile delivering on their mission with maintaining financial sustainability, balancing declining revenue streams with rising concerns about affordability and student debt, and addressing aging infrastructure with pressures to invest in new programs and technologies. The question is not whether the traditional financial model must be fundamentally redesigned but whether leaders can act before the model collapses, taking the future of their institutions along with it.
Legitimacy Crisis The value proposition of higher education is under intensified scrutiny. Questions about affordability, return on investment, institutional priorities, and societal relevance have contributed to declining public confidence in colleges and universities. As a result, institutions can no longer simply assume the public trust and support they once enjoyed.
Catalysts of Transformation | 7
For many higher education leaders, rebuilding trust and reestablishing their institution’s value proposition will be among the most important challenges facing their institution. In an era of heightened skepticism, institutional legitimacy will depend on a leader’s ability to align mission with impact and to demonstrate measurable outcomes and the continued relevance of the institution in addressing their community’s most pressing challenges and needs.
External Disruption Competing ideological and technological pressures are threatening institutional integrity. Universities are increasingly being shaped by forces outside their control, particularly political and technological dynamics. Increasing political polarization, heightened public scrutiny, and more assertive regulatory oversight are reshaping the landscape in which institutions operate. At the same time, rapid advances in artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are transforming the nature of work, accelerating the pace of knowledge creation, and raising fundamental questions about what students need to learn to thrive in the future. These forces are challenging long-standing assumptions about governance, academic programs, and teaching and learning models. For future higher education leaders, the challenge will be to embrace innovation and change while preserving the core values, mission, and academic integrity that define their institutions.
Internal Adaptation Challenges The world in which institutions exist is changing faster than they can adapt. Multiple disruptive forces are arriving faster than current institutional systems are built to respond. Decisions made to address one disruption affect other parts of the system, often in unforeseen ways. Higher education leaders are facing complexity and tensions that make straightforward decision frameworks obsolete and future decisions based only on previous experience not only insufficient but unwise. Decisions will need to be made faster and with tradeoffs, and may require action that violates the traditional norms and cultures of the academy.
The Core Leadership Challenge: Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap Leaders are well aware of the external forces that are impacting their institutions and are increasingly recognizing the scale and urgency of the disruptions they are causing. Yet recognition does not always result in action, especially at the pace and magnitude required to meet the moment. There seems to be a knowing–doing gap that is preventing institutions from innovating and moving forward with the types of strategic and structural change that will be necessary for their institutions to thrive in the future. The persistent knowing–doing gap underscores the central challenge: higher education does not lack awareness of the need for change. It lacks the capacity to act with the speed, coherence, and courage the moment requires. The knowing-doing gap is difficult to overcome for many leaders because it is reinforced by deeply embedded patterns: “They see it in everyone
Narratives that minimize urgency While leaders acknowledge disruption at a sector level, many continue to experience their own institutions as insulated or exceptional. Framing the current moment as “another bump in the road” to be managed dampens urgency and delays decisive action.
Catalysts of Transformation | 8
else. They don’t see it in themselves.” - Convening Participant
Resistance to acknowledging vulnerability It is much easier for leaders to locate risk externally than internally. The pressure to exude confidence and demonstrate stability makes it difficult for leaders to confront institutional fragility. An unwillingness to publicly acknowledge difficulties encourages leaders to postpone critical decisions until conditions are so extreme that strategic action becomes impossible.
A decision toolset that no longer fits the moment Leaders are taking steps to address the challenges facing their institutions. The issue is that they are doing so using decision levers and management approaches that worked fine under conditions of relative stability. But the pace and complexity of the current environment require the ability to quickly translate insight into strategic action and compel their teams to innovate to build a future that looks very different from their past.
Taken together, these dynamics produce a predictable pattern. Institutions recognize urgency around them but either assume that they are the exceptions, act like it is a passing storm that they can weather, or dip into their existing management toolkit and reuse previous approaches that have led them to their current state. The result is too often delayed action until change becomes reactive rather than strategic and is focused on survival rather than transformation. Closing the knowing-doing gap will require overcoming these embedded patterns through a redefinition of leadership itself. Leaders must be able to articulate a set of possible futures that are paradigmatically different from the current state. They must mobilize people and guide them in designing their institutions to thrive in those futures, even with significant uncertainty. They must make decisions amid ambiguity and dare to move forward with imperfect information. And they must be comfortable with the fact that innovation requires risk that will not always be rewarded.
Catalysts of Transformation | 9
Part 2
The Leadership Shift:
Core Capacities for Future Leaders
The preceding section outlined both the scale of disruption facing higher education and the growing complexity of the decisions leaders must make in response. In this environment, the role of leadership itself is being redefined. The future higher education leader is not simply a steward of stability and a manager of established systems, but a transformer of their institution and a designer of the systems in which the institution exists. Leaders are mission-driven entrepreneurs with the ability to operate within uncertainty, shape and respond to evolving conditions, and mobilize others toward a shared future. As institutions become more interconnected with the ecosystems in which they exist, the capacity to manage complexity and interdependence becomes central to effective leadership. This future cannot be met with the capabilities that have defined leadership in the past. Instead, a new set is emerging. Together, these capacities form an integrated leadership profile for the future. Developing these capabilities will be essential, not only for individual effectiveness, but for the long-term resilience, relevance, and impact of the institutions these leaders are called to serve.
Navigating Ambiguity with Purpose Higher education leaders are operating in an environment where uncertainty is a constant, not a temporary condition. In a landscape defined by competing demands and no clear right answers, effective leaders must resist the urge to oversimplify complexity. The new leadership capacity is that of a paradox navigator who can hold multiple truths at once: the shortterm and the long-term, mission and margin, urgency and patience, innovation and stability. Rather than forcing false tradeoffs, they design systems and strategies that acknowledge interdependence and pursue innovations that advance both institutional viability and public purpose. Leading in ambiguity places a premium on adaptability at both the individual and institutional levels. Leaders must cultivate their own resilience while simultaneously building organizations that can flex and respond to external change. This includes designing institutional systems, structures, and cultures that support experimentation rather than perfection and that enable strategic, coordinated action even as the external world continues to evolve. Leaders who can operate in this way position their institutions not just to withstand disruption, but to adapt and remain relevant within it. Over time, the ability to lead through ambiguity becomes a source of institutional strength.
“Where we’re heading is paradigmatically different from where we’ve been. Being able to construct a sense of that paradigm shift for the campus, and then steer everybody toward the uncertainty of it, is the top-level skill of every single leader. Any variation on that is an irrelevant dinosaur of the previous paradigm.” - Convening Participant
Redesigning the Institution for Impact In an environment defined by uncertainty, disruption, and accelerating change, the traditional model of leadership as strategic planner has reached its limits. Higher education leaders can no longer rely on long-range plans built on stable planning assumptions. Instead, they must lead institutions that can continuously adapt as conditions evolve.
Catalysts of Transformation | 10
The new leadership capacity is that of a systems designer who intentionally aligns and redesigns the institution to advance its purpose and impact. They ensure that mission remains the organizing force behind institutional decisions, resisting pressures to pursue prestige or short-term gains at the expense of long-term value. They embed innovation throughout the organization, creating structures and processes that support continuous learning, adaptation, and improvement. They are willing to rethink structures, policies, and business models that no longer serve the purpose of their students and stakeholders, ensuring that the institution’s design consistently advances meaningful outcomes for learners and society. In doing so, they build institutions that are not only resilient in the face of change, but capable of thriving because of it.
Practicing Truth-Telling with Optimism The traditional governance, operational and academic models that form the foundation of many of our institutions are breaking down in our current environment. In an effort to maintain stability within their institutions, leaders may feel pressure to minimize the challenge, delaying critical action. Or they may amplify the need to change to create “a sense of urgency” in ways that overwhelm stakeholders and can lead to resistance or disengagement. Neither “How do you put the reality response creates the conditions for strategic response and meaningful innovation. Leaders must instead navigate a more difficult path. They must ask stakeholders to simultaneously confront uncomfortable truths about their institution while maintaining confidence in its future. This requires the ability to communicate both about the depth and urgency of the challenge and the opportunities for positive change and transformation the challenge provides.
in front of all of these stakeholders — that you need to have confidence in the institution — and do it in a way that compels people to move forward?”
This is not simply a matter of better communication. The new leadership capacity is that of the chief sensemaker, who can confront reality without illusion and translate ambiguity - Convening Participant into clarity without oversimplifying. It is a strategic leadership capability that provides transparency without eroding trust, maintains confidence without minimizing the challenge, and mobilizes action without triggering denial or paralysis. Through clear, consistent communication, they articulate tradeoffs, align stakeholders, and craft a compelling institutional narrative that connects present challenges to future direction.
Architecting Teams and Culture In today’s complex environment, the traditional model of the heroic leader, defined by singular vision and superhuman decision-making skills, has reached its limits. Universities have become too complex, too interdependent, and too exposed to external disruption for any one leader to effectively navigate alone. Leadership in this era is not about having all the answers; it’s about building the collective capacity of the team to interpret signals from the environment, decide a course of action, and act “What drives value for this through innovation.
sector is really the people. It’s not the buildings, necessarily, or even any of the technology, because that’s available to everyone. The competing thing is going to be the people.” - Convening Participant
Instead of a solo act, the new leadership capacity is that of team architect who intentionally designs and develops teams capable of navigating complexity and driving transformation. Team architects align talent and incentives to create high-performing, multi-disciplinary groups capable of addressing the complex challenges in ways that allow institutions to continuously adapt and thrive. Beyond assembling strong teams, leaders shape cultures where people are empowered to do their best work. This means designing systems that enable people at all levels to contribute, experiment, and respond to opportunities, rather than waiting for direction from the top. In doing so, they ensure the institution has not just the right strategy, but the right people and environment to execute it.
Catalysts of Transformation | 11
Building Coalitions and Partnerships In a landscape shaped by complexity and constraint, few institutions can independently assemble all the resources, expertise, and agility required to thrive. Yet many continue to operate as if prestige, autonomy, and competitive rankings are the primary markers of success. Future leaders must help their institutions recognize that pursuing excellence in isolation is no longer a viable path. The new leadership capacity is that of ecosystem builder, with the goal of expanding institutional capacity through partnership and collaboration. Rather than viewing partnerships as transactional, they become uncommon collaborators that build durable, mutually beneficial relationships that expand capacity, accelerate innovation, and position the institution within a larger system of impact while remaining anchored in the institution’s core purpose. Being an ecosystem builder requires the ability to navigate power structures and competing interests, a willingness to share both success and failure, and the alignment of diverse stakeholders around shared outcomes. Leaders must have the ability to move fluidly among boards, shared governance bodies, and stakeholder networks, using these structures not as constraints but as strategic levers. Leaders who can build and sustain these networks will position their institutions to access new resources, expand their impact, and remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.
Cultivating Reflection and Self-Awareness The demands of leading in today’s higher education environment extend beyond strategy and execution. Leaders are operating in conditions of sustained pressure, ambiguity, and scrutiny. The pace and weight of decision-making create real personal risk, where isolation and burnout are not abstract concerns but real possibilities. Sustaining performance under these conditions requires intentional practices of personal care and renewal, making self-awareness and reflection essential leadership traits. The new leadership capacity is that of a reflective practitioner who focuses on cultivating emotional resilience and steadiness, along with habits that allow them to recover, recalibrate, and maintain perspective over time. This includes recognizing personal limits, managing energy, and creating space for reflection even amid constant demands. Building strong leadership skills is not a one-time endeavor but must be actively cultivated over time. Cultivating a personal network or board of directors helps leaders stay accountable to their own development. Investing in personal development is not separate from institutional success. Leaders who commit to this work strengthen not only their own capacity but the resilience and effectiveness of the institutions they are entrusted to lead.
Catalysts of Transformation | 12
Part 3
The Development Imperative: Preparing Future Leaders
The shifts outlined in the external environment and the leadership capacities required to navigate it challenge our existing notions of how higher education leaders are developed. Positional experiences have become weak proxies for leadership readiness in a context defined by ambiguity, interdependence, and continuous disruption. Instead, leadership development must become an ongoing, integrated process that builds both the mindsets and skill sets required for this new era. This includes rethinking how leaders are identified, developed, and supported across their careers; designing intentional transitions into and out of leadership roles; and embedding development within institutional planning. The need is to move from episodic preparation to continuous capability-building, supported by peer networks, mentorship, and real-world practice.
Start with the Paradigm Shift Leadership development must begin by confronting the scale of transformation facing higher education. Too often, leadership programs treat demographic, economic, technological, and political changes as contextual factors before moving onto discussions of traditional leadership competencies. This approach prepares leaders for a world that no longer exists. Higher education is undergoing a structural transformation that is reshaping institutional business models, public expectations, workforce needs, and the role colleges and universities play in society. Preparing leaders for this future requires helping them fundamentally rethink the environment in which they will lead. Without this foundation, leadership development risks producing leaders who apply yesterday’s solutions to tomorrow’s challenges. Effective programs must help participants understand the forces driving change, confront institutional assumptions that no longer hold, and recognize the consequences of inaction. They must address the persistent knowing-doing gap that prevents institutions from responding effectively to emerging realities. Leadership development should reshape how leaders see the system, interpret change, and understand the work of innovation and institutional transformation.
Provide Experiences Not Just Knowledge Much of traditional leadership development focuses on knowledge acquisition rather than action. Closing the knowing–doing gap requires programs that immerse leaders in real, high-stakes decision-making under conditions that mirror the pressures they will face. Capability is built through practicing the skills needed to make consequential choices with incomplete information, navigate tradeoffs, and experience the outcomes of those decisions. This shifts development from abstract theory to applied learning. Leaders must work on real institutional challenges, engage in scenario planning tied to actual decisions, and participate in simulations that surface tradeoffs embedded in any decision. Critical domains, such as financial strategy, business model redesign, partnership development, and AI governance, must be addressed not as theory, but as lived problems requiring strategic action. The goal is to build the ability to translate environmental signals and insights into decisions under pressure.
Catalysts of Transformation | 13
Emphasize Systems Thinking and Action Future leaders must be able to see and operate across complex, interconnected systems. This requires more than intellectual understanding. It demands direct exposure to how different parts of the institution and external ecosystem interact. Leadership development must therefore create opportunities for boundary-spanning experiences that expand perspective and deepen systems awareness. These experiences should intentionally move leaders outside their areas of expertise. Rotations across institutional functions, externships in other sectors, and immersive experiences that surface the student perspective all help leaders understand how decisions ripple across the ecosystem. Global exposure further challenges assumptions by introducing alternative models of higher education. By experiencing the complexity of the system firsthand, leaders develop the capacity to design solutions that reflect interdependence rather than relying on narrow, siloed thinking or a single institutional view.
Develop Narrative and Legitimacy-Building Capacity In an environment of declining trust and heightened scrutiny, storytelling is not a supporting skill; it is a core leadership capability. Leaders must be able to describe complexity with clarity and articulate hard truths without eroding confidence, with the goal of mobilizing stakeholders toward action. This requires a disciplined approach to narrative that goes far beyond traditional communication training. Development programs must therefore focus on helping leaders practice communicating under pressure and uncertainty and the ability to align diverse audiences around a coherent direction. Leaders must learn to name risks honestly while sustaining belief in the institution’s future. Done well, this capability enables leaders to build trust, maintain legitimacy, and drive coordinated action even in challenging circumstances.
Prioritize Collective Leadership Development The complexity of modern higher education requires leadership that is collective, not individual. Development efforts must shift from focusing on individual leaders to building high-performing teams, networks, and collaborative capacity. Leadership is exercised through relationships, and development must reflect that reality. This means investing in cohort-based learning, peer networks, and team-based development models that strengthen trust and shared capability. Structured mentorship, cross-institution collaboration, and deliberate focus on coalition-building help leaders learn to operate within and across systems. Development should also include alignment between governing boards and executive leadership, recognizing that institutional outcomes depend on the effectiveness of these relationships. By prioritizing collective capacity, leadership development strengthens not just individuals but the systems in which they operate.
Integrate Reflective Practice and Personal Development Sustained leadership effectiveness in this environment requires a strong internal foundation. Leadership development must therefore address not only external capabilities, but also the personal dimensions of leadership, including identity, resilience, and self-awareness. Without this, leaders are at significant risk of burnout, isolation, and diminished effectiveness. Programs must embed structured reflection, coaching, and feedback as core components. This includes 360-degree assessments, guided sense-making practices, and support during key leadership transitions. Leaders must develop the ability to understand their own drivers, manage stress, and maintain steadiness under pressure. Equally important are practices that support long-term sustainability, including mentorship networks and wellness strategies.
Catalysts of Transformation | 14
Conclusion: From Insight to Action
This report makes clear that higher education is not facing a single challenge, but a convergence of forces that together demand a fundamental rethinking of leadership and how leaders are identified and developed. The conditions described in Part 1 are not temporary disruptions to be managed but are structural shifts in the environment in which institutions operate. As a result, the leadership capacities outlined in Part 2 and the leadership development needs described in Part 3 are not aspirational enhancements to existing roles. They create a new leadership paradigm for higher education. Across the report, several cross-cutting themes emerge: • First, leadership is no longer an individual endeavor but a collective one, dependent on the strength of teams, networks, and partnerships. • Second, the ability to make decisions without certainty while maintaining trust and direction is foundational. • Third, legitimacy must be actively built through transparency, results, and sustained engagement with stakeholders who are increasingly skeptical. • Finally, the internal work of developing self-awareness, resilience, and reflection is inseparable from external effectiveness. Together, these shifts redefine leadership as a practice of continuous sensemaking, bold and collaborative action, and adaptive development. The implications for leadership development are equally clear. Preparing the next generation of leaders will require more than incremental adjustments to existing programs. It calls for a systemic redesign that moves beyond credentials and episodic training toward continuous, practice-based development embedded in real institutional challenges. This includes building pathways that span career stages, strengthening peer networks and mentorship structures, and integrating development with succession planning. Looking ahead, there is an imperative for institutions, associations, and leadership development organizations to collaborate in advancing this work. No single institution can solve the leadership challenge alone. Developing leaders who can navigate complexity, build coalitions, and drive transformation will require shared investment, coordinated effort, and a willingness to rethink long-standing assumptions about how leaders are formed. Ultimately, the future of higher education will be shaped not only by external forces, but by the leaders who interpret and respond to them. The question is not whether change will occur, but whether institutions have the leadership capacity to proactively design and drive that change. The path forward presents an opportunity to reimagine leadership in ways that strengthen both institutions and the communities they serve.
Catalysts of Transformation | 15
The future of higher education will not be determined solely by external forces, but by the leaders who respond to them. Institutions do not lack awareness of the need for change. They lack the capacity to act with the speed, coherence, and imagination required. Closing this gap is the central challenge of leadership. Meeting this moment will require a system-wide commitment to developing leaders who can navigate complexity, mobilize collective action, and shape the future of the institutions and the communities they serve. Part 1
The Changing Context: Challenges Facing Future Higher Education Leaders Navigating the convergence crisis and closing the knowing-doing gap
Part 2
The Leadership Shift: Core Capacities for Future Leaders Core capacities for future leaders: systems design, truth-telling and team architecture
Part 3
The Development Imperative: Preparing Future Leaders Redesigning leadership preparation through continuous, practice-based development
The University Design Institute Arizona State University | udi.asu.edu