Introduction:

University governance is one of the fundamental pillars to guarantee the quality, legitimacy, and sustainability of higher education institutions. Efficient management is not limited to the administrative sphere but implies the ability to align strategic decisions with the educational mission and with the demands of the global environment. As Huisman and Stensaker (2022) point out, effective governance ensures transparency, accountability, and participation, elements that have a direct impact on academic outcomes and institutional trust.

In this context, educational quality is closely tied to the decisions made by top university leaders, as they define priorities, allocate resources, and shape organizational culture (Frontiers in Education, 2024). However, these leaders do not always have the necessary academic training to adequately understand and guide the processes of teaching, research, and social projection. This mismatch generates a central problem: how to ensure educational excellence when those who run the institution lack a solid academic background?

University governance is not a merely administrative concept, but a comprehensive framework of policies, structures, and practices that determine the academic and strategic orientation of an institution. Recent studies have shown that university governance based on principles of accountability and transparency has a positive impact on both academic and administrative management (Redfame, 2022; ResearchGate, 2022).

However, the literature also underlines that institutional accreditation standards rarely require academic credentials to hold positions as president or provost (CHEA, 2021). This creates a regulatory vacuum that enables leaders without academic experience to assume responsibilities that typically require expertise in research, teaching, and educational management. Addressing this issue is therefore relevant not only to strengthen governance, but also to ensure that institutions fulfil their educational mission in a highly competitive environment.

I.-Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

1. University Governance and Educational Quality

University governance is understood as the set of policies, structures, processes, and regulations that govern an institution is administration and define its strategic direction. Its relevance lies in guaranteeing transparency, accountability, autonomy, and participation (ORE, 2022)
When these principles are applied effectively, tangible improvements in institutional performance and academic quality are observed. A systematic review of Good University Governance concludes that practices such as accountability and shared governance have a positive impact on academic management (Frontiers in Education, 2024). In addition, comparative studies between university systems in Asia and Africa highlight how good governance sustains institutional autonomy and contributes to educational quality (Muftahu, 2023)

2. Academic Leadership Models and Their Theoretical Framework

Leadership is at the heart of institutional change. The transformational leadership model has been associated with improvements in student performance, teacher motivation, and educational innovation (Emeanulu & Sayed, 2024).

Another influential perspective in higher education is distributed leadership: a vision that understands leadership as a shared, active process situated within the organization. This approach, based on distributed cognition and activity theory, goes beyond the view centered on an individual leader and emphasizes collaboration and structured participation (Spillane et al., 2001; Harris & Spillane, 2008).

Finally, Complexity Leadership Theory provides a framework for understanding how educational institutions emerge and adapt in environments of crisis and uncertainty (BeresfordDey, 2024).

3. Academic Governance, Leadership, and Institutional Change

The practice of shared governance acknowledges the importance of academic community participation in decision-making. When this participation is weakened, institutional morale and teacher commitment also decline (Teen Vogue, 2021).

A broader conceptual framework is offered by the Triple Helix scheme (university-industry-government), which illustrates how universities must simultaneously respond to the imperatives of knowledge, innovation, and regulation to strengthen their role in the knowledge society (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1990). Recent extensions, such as the Quadruple Helix, incorporate civil society, broadening the horizons of public and social responsibility (Leydesdorff, 2012).

4. Theoretical Integration and Construction of the Analysis Model

This framework combines multiple theoretical perspectives to analyze why the academic training of university leaders is essential:

• Formal governance defines the principles and limits of institutional action.

• Effective leadership (transformational, distributed, complexity) articulates how governance is exercised in dynamic environments.

• Academic governance ensures internal legitimacy and participation by reflecting the values of teaching.

• Innovation models (Triple/Quadruple Helix) place the university as an engine of social development.

II-Risks of Lack of Academic Training in Senior Management

1. Academic credibility deficit: the absence of academic credentials delegitimizes leaders in the educational community (ResearchGate, 2024).
2. Strategic gap: decisions focused on management can be misaligned with the educational mission.
3. Bureaucratization and diversion of resources: experiences in Australia show how administrative oversizing reduces investment in teaching (Daily Telegraph, 2024).
4. Weaknesses in leadership succession: Without solid academic leaders, the mentoring and training of future rectors are limited (Freeman, 2012).
5. Ethical risk: The “dark side” of leadership without an academic basis includes authoritarian practices and dysfunctional decisions (Shattock, 2024; MDPI, 2023).

III-The Value of Academically Trained Leadership

Strong academic leadership brings legitimacy, coherence, and strategic vision to the university. Rectors and presidents with PhDs and experience in teaching and research understand the internal and external processes that sustain academic quality (CHEA, 2021). Additionally, they can promote innovation, research, and linkage policies that enhance institutional prestige.

Additionally, academically prepared leaders facilitate alignment between accreditation demands and the educational mission. This ensures that strategic decisions not only respond to financial criteria, but also to pedagogical and scientific standards (SACSCOC, 2020).

In short, the academic preparation of university leaders should not be considered optional, but an essential requirement for the sustainable development and excellence of higher education.

IV-Senior university management as an academic and ethical reference

Students enter college not only to take classes, but to be part of a learning community guided by academically minded leaders. When senior management lacks a solid university education, its ability to orient the institution towards standards of academic excellence is weakened. As McClure & Titus (2023) point out, the credibility of leadership in higher education depends largely on academic and research experience.

V-Risk of prioritizing profits over quality

In institutions where the presidency responds more to financial than academic interests, students can be reduced to simple “clients”, and the training mission is subordinated to the business model. Marginson (2018) warns that, under purely entrepreneurial logic, the university risks becoming an organization oriented towards profitability rather than knowledge development. This directly affects the quality of programs and the student experience. Therefore, it is recommended that future students, when choosing an institution, inform themselves not only about rankings, costs, and infrastructure, but also about the academic training and trajectory of the president and the senior management team. This information reveals whether the university can prioritize the educational mission and guide them towards their academic goals, or if it is more interested in profitability than in comprehensive training.

The choice of a university should consider not only the institutional reputation, but also the academic preparation of those who occupy the highest positions. The university president, as a reference figure, directly influences the strategic orientation of the institution and the coherence between the academic mission and administrative management. When a leader lacks a strong academic background, there is a greater risk that business logic will prevail over the educational mission, which can negatively impact the quality of programs and the student experience (Marginson, 2018). In contrast, leaders with advanced academic credentials convey confidence to students and ensure that decisions are based on pedagogical and research principles, favoring the achievement of secure academic goals (McClure & Titus, 2023).

It would be advisable for students who wish to begin graduate or undergraduate studies to consider, among their selection criteria, the academic training and professional experience of the institution’s president or rector. Leadership with strong credentials is a key indicator of commitment to educational excellence and a strategic vision aligned with the academic mission. Accrediting agencies should also establish more straightforward guidelines on the minimum qualifications that leaders of higher education institutions must meet. This would not only strengthen transparency but also ensure that universities are being conducted under standards that prioritize learning, research, and innovation over financial interests (CHEA, 2022; Pellicciari & Rossi, 2024). Ultimately, the demand for competent academic leadership would contribute to preserving the essence of the university as a space to produce knowledge and social development.

VI-Analysis and Discussion

University governance faces the challenge of striking a balance between administrative efficiency and academic mission. In institutions where top leaders lack a strong academic background, a structural tension arises between strategic decisions and the actual needs of students and faculty. According to Freeman (2012), doctoral and academic experience prepare leaders to understand the complexities of learning, research, and institutional culture, competencies that are not always developed in exclusively administrative trajectories.
A university presidency without a higher education background faces limitations in critically evaluating teaching-learning processes, proposing well-founded curricular policies, and leading teachers with legitimate academic authority. Recent research suggests that academic credibility is one of the most significant factors in determining the perception of successful university leadership, alongside adaptability and strategic vision (McClure & Titus, 2023). The lack of this credibility generates distrust in the educational community and weakens the sense of institutional belonging.

Likewise, the lack of academic preparation in senior management can lead to prioritizing business logic over academic reasoning. As Marginson (2018) warns, a management model dominated by financial interests’ risks transforming the university into an organization more concerned with tuition and income than with educational excellence. This not only affects the university’s reputation but also erodes its commitment to research and social innovation, pillars of its role in the knowledge society.

On the other hand, the lack of explicit regulation of the accrediting agencies in the face of this phenomenon is worrying. While accreditation standards are typically stringent regarding the preparation of teachers and academic directors, there is a lack of clarity on the requirements for rectors or presidents (CHEA, 2022). This regulatory vacuum opens the door for private institutions – where the owners occupy the presidency without university credentials – to operate without guaranteeing an academically informed conduct. This contradiction weakens the coherence of the quality assurance system.

Finally, direct consequences of the student community are identified. Without leaders with solid academic backgrounds, the possibility of establishing long-term educational visions is limited, mentoring future academic leaders is difficult, and ethical commitment in decision-making is weakened. As Pellicciari and Rossi (2024) point out, the absence of an academic culture in management favors practices of authoritarian power and decisions that are misaligned with the university’s mission, which can impact institutional morale and the perceived quality of education.

In this sense, it is necessary to reconsider the role of academic training as a fundamental requirement for those who lead higher education institutions. It is not only a criterion of merit, but also a condition to guarantee coherence between the mission, strategy, and educational results.

Conclusions

The evidence analyzed confirms that effective university governance largely depends on the academic profile of those occupying the highest positions. The absence of a solid academic background in senior management increases risks of institutional misalignment, bureaucratization, loss of legitimacy, and possible ethical deviations.
Therefore, both universities and accrediting agencies must promote more rigorous criteria in the selection of presidents and rectors, ensuring that these leaders possess academic experience and credentials in line with the educational mission of their institutions.

References

Beresford Dey, M. (2024). Complexity leadership theory in higher education. Journal of Learning and Development Studies.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2021). Standards and policies for accreditation. CHEA.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2022). Standards and policies for accreditation in higher education. CHEA.
Daily Telegraph. (2024, enero 5). Sydney University spends more on administrative staff than academic staff. News Corp Australia.
Emeanulu, R., & Sayed, Y. (2024). Transformational leadership and student performance in UK universities. Journal of Higher Education Studies, 12(3), 45–63.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1990). The triple helix model of innovation. Knowledge Society Journal.
Freeman, S. (2012). The influence of doctoral education on university leadership. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 93–124.
Freeman, S. (2012). The path to the presidency: The role of doctoral education in preparing higher education leaders. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7(1), 93–124.
Frontiers in Education. (2024). Good university governance to universities performance: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1447357.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership. Management in Education, 22(5), 31–34.
Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B. (2022). University governance and performance: A comparative perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 44(2), 145–160.
Marginson, S. (2018). The new higher education: Neoliberalism, markets and the knowledge economy. Policy Futures in Education, 16(2), 137–155.
McClure, K., & Titus, M. (2023). Credibility and legitimacy in higher education leadership. Journal of Higher Education Management, 38(2), 45–63.
MDPI. (2023). The dark side of academic leadership: Risks and dysfunctions in higher education institutions. Administrative Sciences, 13(12), 246.
Muftahu, M. (2023). Governance in higher education in Asia and Africa. International Journal of Educational Governance.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. (2016). University governance. Oxford University Press.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. (2022). Governance in higher education. Oxford University Press.
Pellicciari, A., & Rossi, F. (2024). The dark side of leadership in academia: Power, ethics and institutional trust. Administration Sciences, 13(12), 246.
Raza, K. (2024). Systematic review of shared governance. Higher Education Review.
Redfame Publishing. (2022). The effect of good university governance on management performance: A literature review. Business and Management Studies, 8(2), 45–56.
ResearchGate. (2024). Importance of leadership in higher education. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies (IJSSES).
Saha, S., et al. (2010). Academic governance strategies and their impact on the quality of educational performance. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(1), 1–12.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Distributed leadership in schools. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 23–28.
Teen Vogue. (2021). Campus cancels culture and governance. Teen Vogue.