Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across Europe are undergoing profound and continuous transformation, driven by forces such as globalisation, technological innovation, demographic shifts, and policy reform (Walsh, 2018; OECD, 2023). In Ireland, this transformation is particularly evident in the establishment of Technological Universities (TUs), which represent a significant structural change in the higher education landscape. These developments have introduced new complexities that challenge traditional models of governance, leadership, and organisational culture. This paper seeks to address the research question: What are the challenges for change management and leadership in higher education?
The study draws on empirical evidence from a mixed-methods case study of an Irish TU, situating its analysis within a conceptual framework that integrates change leadership theory and complexity theory (McSharry, 2025). HEIs are conceptualised as complex adaptive systems where change is non-linear, emergent, and influenced by multiple stakeholders operating within dynamic environments.
The findings reveal challenges that impede effective change management and leadership. Resource constraints and funding uncertainty emerged as a dominant theme, with persistent financial pressures limiting institutional capacity for innovation, research development, and staff upskilling (OECD, 2023). Despite policy commitments to enhance funding for higher education, the reality remains that fragmented funding streams and performance-based allocations create tension between strategic ambitions and operational realities (Higher Education Authority, 2022).
Cultural resistance and entrenched practices constitute another significant barrier. The research highlights the persistence of a hierarchical culture, which prioritise stability and control over agility and innovation. These cultural dynamics manifest in resistance to unlearning established practices and reluctance to embrace new governance structures, particularly during mergers and restructuring processes. Such resistance is amplified by fears of rationalisation and perceived threats to academic autonomy, creating an environment of uncertainty and mistrust (Barnett, 2000).
Policy-driven pressures and compliance requirements further complicate the change landscape. The introduction of performance frameworks and accountability measures under the Higher Education Authority Act (2022) has intensified managerialism within Irish HEIs (Higher Education Authority, 2022). While these mechanisms aim to enhance governance and transparency, they often conflict with the values of academic freedom and collegial decision-making.
Finally, the study identifies critical gaps in leadership capability. Traditional hierarchical leadership models are increasingly inadequate in addressing the complexities of supercomplex environments (Barnett, 2000). The research underscores deficits in adaptive capacity, distributed decision-making, and strategic foresight among senior leaders. And findings reveal a striking discrepancy between the perceived importance of key leadership characteristics and their actual presence within the institution. This gap signals an urgent need for leadership development initiatives that prioritise complexity-informed approaches and foster resilience in the face of uncertainty (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
The paper concludes by advocating for a paradigm shift in leadership practice within HEIs. Recommendations include targeted investment in leadership development programmes that emphasise adaptive and collaborative strategies (Fullan, 2020), enhanced communication and trust-building initiatives to mitigate resistance, and whole-institution engagement processes that align academic, administrative, and policy objectives. By adopting these measures, HEIs can strengthen their capacity to navigate the challenges of transformation and sustain organisational performance in an era of unprecedented change.
This research contributes to the growing body of literature on change leadership in higher education and findings have practical implications for European HE systems undergoing similar transitions, reinforcing the need for systemic thinking, distributed leadership, and resilience in navigating the uncertainties of the future.

The research employed a mixed-methods case study design situated within an Irish Technological University context. This approach was selected to capture both the depth and breadth of stakeholder experiences, recognising that the complexity of organisational change cannot be fully understood through a single methodological lens. The study was guided by a pragmatic paradigm, which prioritises methodological pluralism and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data to generate actionable insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data collection was structured around four complementary sources. Document analysis was initially undertaken to examine policy frameworks, TU designation reports, and strategic plans. This provided a foundational understanding of the external drivers shaping institutional transformation and the formal objectives articulated by governing bodies. Three focus groups were then conducted with senior leaders, comprising a total of fifteen participants, to explore perceptions of change drivers, cultural dynamics, and leadership challenges. These sessions enabled the identification of themes that reflect lived experiences within the institution. A comprehensive staff survey was administered to capture broader organisational perspectives. The survey, completed by 371 respondents, assessed the perceived importance and presence of twenty-five change leadership characteristics derived from the literature. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale, and the resulting data were analysed to identify gaps between desired and actual leadership behaviours. Finally, a semi-structured interview was conducted with the TU president to elicit strategic insights into managing barriers and fostering organisational adaptability. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using NVivo software, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis. Quantitative data were processed using SPSS, employing descriptive statistics to summarise responses. The conceptual framework underpinning the study combined Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) competing values model with complexity leadership theory (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). The competing values model facilitated an assessment of organisational culture, while complexity leadership theory provided a lens for interpreting leadership behaviours in dynamic environments. This dual framework enabled a nuanced understanding of the interplay between structural, cultural, and leadership dynamics, offering a robust foundation for the analysis and interpretation of findings.

The research demonstrates that challenges for change management and leadership in higher education are deeply interconnected and context-dependent (Barnett, 2000). Structural barriers, including fragmented governance arrangements and persistent resource constraints, undermine efforts to achieve strategic alignment and organisational coherence. These limitations restrict the capacity of institutions to invest in innovation, research development, and staff professionalisation, thereby constraining their ability to respond effectively to external pressures. Cultural inertia emerged as a particularly formidable obstacle. The persistence of hierarchical and clan cultures within HEIs fosters resistance to change and inhibits the adoption of agile practices (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Leadership capability gaps further exacerbate these challenges. The study reveals a significant discrepancy between the leadership characteristics deemed essential for successful change—such as adaptability, collaboration, and trust-building—and their actual manifestation within the institution. This finding highlights the inadequacy of traditional hierarchical leadership models in navigating the complexities of contemporary higher education environments. To overcome these barriers, the research advocates for a comprehensive approach to leadership development that prioritises complexity-informed strategies and fosters distributed decision-making (Fullan, 2020). By synthesising insights from complexity theory and change leadership literature, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamics shaping organisational change in higher education. Its findings have practical implications for policymakers, institutional leaders, and scholars seeking to navigate the uncertainties of an increasingly volatile and supercomplex environment. Ultimately, fostering resilience, adaptability, and fairness in leadership practices is critical for sustaining transformation and safeguarding the future of higher education.

Barnett, R. (2000) ‘Supercomplexity and the Curriculum’, Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), pp. 255–265. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101. ISSN1478-0887 Cameron KM & Quinn RE. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Third edn. Jossey Bass, USA. DES (2019). Connectedness & collaboration through connectivity. Report of the Technological Universities Research Network to the Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/39280/174b686cce5741a896c7264fed7edfd9.pdf#page=null Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (Second ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass. Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for change competence.’ Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 116-130. doi:10.1080/714042459 HEA Act (2022). Retrieved from https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2022/act/31/enacted/en/html Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. McSharry, T. (2025). Change Leadership Framework for Higher Education. In: McDermott, O., et al. Advances in Operational Excellence in the Higher Education Sector. ILSSforHEI 2024. Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84816-2_27 OECD (2023). A review of technological university academic career paths, contracts and Organisation. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ireland/a-review-of-technological-university-academic-career-paths-contracts-and-organisation-in-ireland-2b7ee217-en.htm Uhl‐Bien, M., & Arena, M.J. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. Leadership Quarterly, 29, 89-104. Walsh, J. (2018). Higher education in Ireland, 1922-2016. Palgrace MacMillen, London