After the change of regime in 1989, Hungarian higher education started to return to its Humboldtian tradition. It was widely accepted that academic freedom could be guaranteed by high degree of institutional autonomy manifested especially in structures of self-governance and avoidance of direct state supervision/interventions. Attempts to introduce boards and other supervising bodies were successfully resisted until 2011. The new government coming into power in 2010, however, introduced new mechanisms of supervision, changed institutional governance and reduced institutional autonomy considerably. Changes in the selection of rectors, the appearance of state-appointed financial directors and inspectors were important milestones in this process (Berács et al 2015; Kováts 2015).

In 2014 a new system of governance was adopted in which state-appointed chancellors became responsible for the finance, maintenance and administration of institutions, while rectors kept their responsibilities in academic issues. This governance system was completed by the introduction of a new board (called consistory) which has veto power in economic and financial issues. The new governance system created institutions the success of which depends on the cooperation of its two independent and interdependent leaders, the rector and the chancellor.

Although unitary leadership is dominant in current management practice and assumed to be more efficient in management theory, dual leadership is not unheard of. In addition to higher education, there are examples in the political and in the business sector when leadership and authority was shared among two or more executives. (e.g. Alvarez - Svejenova  2005; Fjellvaer 2010). Theoretical literature on the issue is fragmented, however (Fjellvaer 2010), which is clearly represented in the lack of clear terms and definitions. Terms such as dual leadership, shared leadership, co-leadership, distributed leadership, top management teams and collective leadership are all used. As a result there is no clear description of the challenges posed by dual leadership situations and the conditions when dual leadership is beneficial. Clear guidelines and recommendations are also missing or fragmented.

Therefore the main questions of the paper are the following:

1. What are the risks and benefits of dual leadership against unitary leadership?
2. What are the key challenges and success factors in dual leadership situations in higher education? What recommendations can be derived from these success factors to higher education policy and institutions generally?
3. How the chancellor system in the Hungarian higher education can be evaluated against these recommendations? How can be the system improved?

Alvarez, J. and Svejenova, S. (2005). Sharing Executive Power: Roles and Relationships at the Top, Cambridge University Press, New York Berács J., Derényi A, Kováts G, Polónyi I, Temesi J. (2015). Hungarian Higher Education Report 2014. Strategic progress report. Corvinus University of Budapest, Centre for International Higher Education Studies, Budapest. Available at: http://nfkk.uni-corvinus.hu/index.php?id=56768 Fjellvaer, H. (2010): Dual and unitary leadership: managing ambiguity in pluralistic organizations. PhD Theses. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Available at: http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/164362 Kováts G. (2015): Recent Developments in the Autonomy and Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Hungary: the Introduction of the “Chancellor System”. In: Berács J, Iwinska J., Kováts G, Liviu M. (eds): Central European Higher Education Cooperation Conference Proceedings. Corvinus University of Budapest & Central European University, Budapest. Available at: http://nfkk.uni-corvinus.hu/index.php?id=58415&L=1