The type of leaders universities need right now to endure, long-term

The African proverb “If you want to go fast, go alone but if you want to go far, you go together” could provide a solution to failing universities currently facing broken governance frameworks, driven in part by self-serving and captured leaders.

“I have had to administer a serial defaulting institution and I have had close up views of institutional capture, the human resources and management processes. We need to go back to basics when we think of the future of the university if it is to be sustainable. If we continue to allow governance to be broken in the manner it currently is, we are going to have perpetual crises and serial defaulting institutions going into administration and us rushing in to try and fix them. But if nothing changes five years down the line, it will be back to the same dire situation.”

He believes that while self-evaluation is helpful it wouldn’t solve problems: “People would score themselves highly and therefore we need an evaluation in which we evaluate ourselves and others annually. Every second year we would also need an independent facilitator. The leadership skills required to work with boards is also a critically important question. It is not only how boards and councils work with universities but also the other way around.”

The solution, according to Professor Rensburg, will be a special kind and better leader to navigate this new reality and the unfolding future — if the sector is to survive and thrive.

“The last thing universities need are high ego personalities who are often toxic. Rather, we want to promote and nurture medium to low-ego leaders who, in turn, foster harmony and fellowship and are compassionate and empathetic as opposed to a top down, strong-arm type approach which has been clearly shown not to work. We should nudge our teams rather than kick them. This does not mean we cannot make decisions or have to ‘walk on eggshells,’ but we do have to be self-aware and realise that we are part of a collective working for the common good.”

Professor Rensburg urged some university leadership to go back to the drawing board. The root of the governance problem, he believes, lies in the sector’s leadership ignoring the prescripts in the Guidelines for Good Governance Practice and Governance Indicators for University Councils (DHET, 2017).  

“We need to look at the size of university councils and governing bodies and the ideal model for university governance. Unfortunately, the DHET 2017 guidelines don’t adequately answer all. However, the document does provide excellent council indicators and other essential information and we need to refer to it.”

He examined the critical attributes he believes university leaders of today will need to possess in order to navigate the current global terrain. 

“They will have to be in possession of highly developed emotional intelligence (EQ); be self-aware, self-critical, empathic, inspirational and motivational leaders who also take care of personal growth; adept and effective communicators; relationship builders with an open and collaborative style of leadership; be effective mobilisers of internal networks and be people-oriented problem solvers,” he says. 

“Today, more than ever, exceptional leadership extends beyond strategy and strategy execution. It requires empathy, humility, authenticity, and ultimately, a very human approach that is essential for setting the tone from the top, transversally and from the bottom-up, and for nurturing high performance teams that can effectively execute strategy, more so in distributed leadership cultures habituated by reluctant leaders, and in a context of intense volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity,” he told delegates. 

Professor Rensburg said the most readily available writing on leadership is based on the work of Western scholars who have their own default settings for knowledge and practice. For example, Dorfman et al (2012) argue: “Some societies romanticise the construct of leadership as is in the case of the US where leaders are given exceptional privileges, accorded high status and are held in great esteem.”

“However, as Olonisakin and Flavin (2024, forthcoming) argue, this idea is not universal and if we are to analyse rather than romanticise conceptions of leadership, we will find a plethora of definitions and practices. They argue further, these different readings of leadership can be in productive dialogue. Leadership can reach across cultures; it does not necessarily have to exclude and it can be flexible within a national context.”

Professor Rensburg examined four intersecting and mutually reinforcing leadership philosophies – Ubuntu leadership, transformational leadership, emotional intelligence and Eastern perspectives – as options for leading at this time. 

Ubuntu is a Southern African moral-philosophical intellectual tradition, also coined African Humanism by Eskia Mphahlele. It rivals leadership accounts prominent in East Asia and the West and its founding principle is ‘being self through others’.  A good leader, according to Metz, is one who creates, sustains and enriches communal relationships and enables others to do so^[i]. This leader is one who advances the common good, values fellowship, harmony and cohesion and exhibits human excellence.

“The leader grounded in Ubuntu is … not a charismatic or transactional visionary leading employees to achieve predetermined business goals. Instead, the leader is a ‘servant’ who facilitates a process through which goals are decided through active participation by employees.” (Woermann & Engelbrecht, 2019).  There is a significant correlation between Ubuntu and Servant Leadership (Brubaker, 2013).  

Professor Rensburg said Ubuntu challenges established theoretical means of evaluating leadership because it is predicated on different conceptions, placing the collective in a position of priority over the individual. 

Four key attributes of transformational leaders are:

• They are charismatic, meaning they are highly liked role models
• They are inspirational, indicating that they are optimistic about goal attainment
• They are intellectually stimulating, and encourage critical thinking and problem solving 
• They are considerate of individual team members. (Bass et al, 1996) 

Bass and Riggio (2006) argued that “transformational leaders … are those who stimulate and inspire followers to both achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity.” Such leaders enable followers to develop into leaders by responding to the latter’s needs, empowering them and aligning their objectives to those of the leader, the group and the larger organisation. 

Professor Rensburg then examined the key attributes of leaders with high levels of emotional intelligence:

• They progressively achieve trust.
• They nurture team identity and efficacy which facilities enhanced participation, cooperation and collaboration, leading to teams making better decisions.
• They develop more creative solutions.
• They achieve much higher productivity.

The five key attributes of EQ at work are:

1. Self-awareness: The ability to recognise and understand one’s moods, emotions and drivers as well as their effect on others.  
2. Self-regulation: The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods; to suspend judgment and to think before acting. 
3. Motivation: A propensity to pursue goals for reasons other than money or status and to do so with energy and persistence. 
4. Empathy: The ability to understand the emotional make-up of other people, combined with the skill to treat people in accordance with their emotional reactions, thus focusing on retaining and building talent, cross-cultural sensitivity and service.
5. Social skills: Proficiency in managing relationships and building social networks, combined with an ability to find common ground and build rapport^[ii] .  

Professor Rensburg said regulating group emotions was vital as it builds team spirit, 

enables reaching higher emotional team capacity, facilitates greater ability to respond to emotional challenges, creates resources for working with emotions, fosters an affirmative environment that is positive and constructive as opposed to one that is negative. 

On a Taoist perspective on leadership, the leadership guru said it challenges a vertical, hierarchical, position-based conception of the concept. The Taoist model of leadership is more about accommodation than imposing individual will on circumstance. This accommodation can involve the acceptance of irresolution — a position which is problematic within the empirical Western tradition. 

He said leaders versed in Tao understand that all things are subject to change, nothing stands still, and for everything there is a proper time. They adapt to the cycles of change and the rise and fall of fortune, and …  proceed with modesty and caution at all times. (McElhatton & Jackson, 2012). 

He also referred to the Japanese ikigai in leadership — the intersection of one’s calling, passion, mission and expertise. It brings together one’s joy plus skill, what the world needs plus rewards. When you discover your ikigai, you find purpose, fulfilment, satisfaction and contentment. Your ikigai is not just about finding an occupation or job or role you love but rather about creating a meaningful and rewarding life.

Says Professor Rensburg: “The Dalai Lama describes how our ‘strong focus on material development and accumulating wealth has led us to neglect our basic human need for kindness and care. He gives leaders three recommendations. First, to be mindful: ‘When we’re under the sway of anger or attachment, we’re limited in our ability to take a full and realistic view of the situation’. Secondly, he challenges us to be selfless: ‘Once you have a genuine sense of concern for others, there’s no room for cheating, bullying or exploitation; instead you can be honest, truthful and transparent in your conduct.’ Thirdly, to be compassionate: ‘When the mind is compassionate, it is calm and we’re able to use our sense of reason practically, realistically, and with determination’.”

• Ubuntu emphasises the common good, community, harmony, cohesion, compassion and mutual respect.
• Transformational leadership, combined with high EQ, places emphasis on charismatic, inspirational and intellectually stimulating leaders who are self- aware and self-regulating, socially aware and empathic.
• A Taoist perspective on leadership challenges a vertical, hierarchical, position-based conception. Taoist leadership is more about accommodation than imposing individual will on circumstance.
• Ikigai specifically asks us to examine the following questions: What does the world need now? What do I love? What am I good at? and What can I get paid for?
• The Dalai Lama emphasises mindfulness, selflessness and compassion.

Professor Rensburg said that all four styles challenge leaders to consider, explore and reflect on their reasons for being in their role: “But also consider my own personal dictum: Don’t be obsessed with yourself regularly and consciously. Do not take yourself too seriously; however, take your office and role exceedingly seriously.”

In conclusion, he said he believes that it is critical that South African university leadership teams and councils formulate their own responses to global crises and not simply adopt a neutral approach: “As we find ourselves in a place where our entire planet is in grave peril, we need to be able to formulate our own stance, provide intellectual leadership, deep reflection and dialogue and not simply follow government.”

Janine Greenleaf Walker is a contract writer for Universities South Africa.

^[i] Metz, T. An African theory of good leadership. African Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 2, November 2018, 3653.
^[ii]  Goleman, D. 2004. What makes a leader. Harvard Business Review. January.