Determinants of Leadership in Higher Education Institutions of India and the United States of America

Leadership in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is increasingly recognized as a critical driver of institutional resilience, innovation, and strategic relevance. In both India and the United States, HEIs face unprecedented challenges ranging from digital disruption and funding volatility to shifting regulatory mandates and growing expectations around inclusivity and accountability. While their historical, political, and educational contexts differ significantly, HEIs in both nations are being compelled to redefine leadership for the 21st century.

In India, the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has introduced sweeping reforms affecting institutional autonomy, curriculum structure, and multidisciplinary expansion. Meanwhile, in the U.S., higher education leaders contend with fluctuating federal funding, rising ideological polarization, and increasing calls for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Against this backdrop, identifying what makes leadership effective in HEIs is essential not only for academic success but also for long-term sustainability and societal impact.

While in US as a Fulbright Scholar from January to May 2025, Dr. Manjula Srinivas had the opportunity to meet faculty and students from different streams and from different parts of the globe. The experience made her conclude that leadership is getting redefined in HEI.

At any institute, students are the backbone of running a program. In the post-COVID era, universities are becoming increasingly concerned about students’ mental and physical health. The more rigid and firm one keeps the system as a leader, the more challenging it becomes to implement relevant policies. Work from Home (WFH) is very difficult for a lot of people in HEI as the experience of a campus and of meeting the people in physical space assumes paramount significance. Unlike other work set-ups, universities cannot operate with an option of WFH as students require continuous hand-holding and mentoring.In the Indian context, leadership is often influenced by regulatory compliance, hierarchical culture, and centralization.

 In contrast, HEIs in the U.S. operate with greater decentralization and institutional autonomy but face leadership challenges around resource mobilization, stakeholder engagement, and safeguarding academic freedom. Across both countries, emerging leadership paradigms now emphasize adaptability, digital competence, shared governance, and inclusive practices.

Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness

Based on cross-national interactions with senior academic leaders from India and the U.S., five primary determinants of leadership effectiveness in HEIs were identified:

1. Adaptive and Digital Leadership: Both Indian and U.S. leaders highlighted the growing importance of digital tools, AI integration, and crisis-response agility. Indian institutions, catalyzed by NEP 2020 and post-COVID digitization, report that over 80% of their leadership now engages in some form of digital transformation. In the U.S., adaptive leadership was key during the pandemic, with universities implementing learning management systems, hybrid formats, and data-driven decision-making models.
2. Leadership Style: Transformational and servant leadership styles were consistently associated with high levels of team engagement and institutional innovation. U.S. leaders leaned more toward authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), emphasizing relational transparency and ethical conduct. Indian leaders, while rooted in more hierarchical systems, demonstrated a hybrid of transactional and transformational (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) approaches-balancing regulatory expectations with institutional vision
3. Institutional Culture: Institutional culture, including norms of collaboration, openness, and participatory decision-making, was a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness. U.S. institutions benefit from long-standing traditions of faculty senates and shared governance, allowing for bottom-up leadership approaches. Indian institutions, particularly newer private universities, are increasingly experimenting with flatter organizational models and inclusive team structures.
4. Policy and Autonomy: Policy context plays a crucial moderating role. Indian HEI leaders must navigate complex UGC guidelines, NAAC requirements, and NEP-driven structural reforms. The lack of complete academic and financial autonomy limits strategic flexibility. U.S. leaders, while more autonomous, face external political pressures—particularly around DEI policies, state-level legislation, and research funding dependencies. In both contexts, leaders cited policy coherence and trust-based autonomy as essential for sustainable leadership.
5. Inclusion and Diversity: Inclusion remains both a challenge and an opportunity. In India, women occupy less than 10% of senior HEI leadership roles, with structural barriers such as mobility constraints, mentorship gaps, and opaque appointment processes persisting. In the U.S., institutions have made measurable progress in increasing gender and racial representation in leadership, though recent political backlash against DEI programs poses new threats. Leaders in both countries emphasized the importance of inclusion for institutional credibility, innovation, and student engagement.

Conclusion

Leadership in HEIs is no longer confined to academic excellence or administrative competence. It now demands a complex integration of vision, values, digital literacy, emotional intelligence, and policy acumen. India and the U.S.-despite their divergent systems-face overlapping pressures and opportunities that demand a rethinking of what effective leadership entails.Comparative findings reveal that leadership effectiveness is shaped not by a single factor, but by an ecosystem of interdependent variables: personal adaptability, leadership style, institutional culture, regulatory environment, and commitment to inclusion.

As higher education faces increasing complexity, leadership models that balance strategic foresight with operational pragmatism and ethical grounding will define the next wave of excellence.

Implications:

For Institutions

1. India: HEIs should establish structured leadership development programs that prioritize digital fluency, innovation management, and policy navigation. Building mentorship pipelines-especially for first-generation leaders.
2. United States: Institutions must strengthen support systems for leadership continuity, crisis management, and inclusive governance. Investing in authentic leadership development is vital for stakeholder trust.

For Policymakers

1. India: Empowering institutions with greater autonomy while maintaining accountability can unleash leadership creativity. NEP 2020 must be supported by consistent implementation and regulatory clarity.
2. United States: Federal and state agencies should safeguard academic freedom and stabilize research funding to reduce volatility in leadership decisions. DEI programs should be protected as strategic priorities, not ideological targets.

If the policies laid down by the government are not consistent and aligned with the vision of established institutions and their leaders then very soon a student wanting to join the institute as a stake holder will start losing trust in HEI. This will be a challenge across the globe.

Authors: Prof. Manjula Srinivas, Faculty of Media & Journalism, FLAME University; Prof. Ninad Patwardhan, Faculty of  Psychology, FLAME University; & Dr. Manpreet Kaur, Professor, SOIL School of Business Design.