Leadership, Managerial Reforms, and Teaching Competency Challenges in Nepalese Universities

Universities in Nepal offer courses in different knowledge specialization areas such as financial management, construction management, global leadership, human resource management, research methodology, information systems, data science, and analytics. However, managerial failures, lack of strategic leadership, and administrative inefficiencies prevalent in Nepalese universities indicate that these institutions don't necessarily practice what they teach. 

Moreover, due to administrative sluggishness, inadequate infrastructural development, academic inertia, and leadership failure in our universities, there is a growing concern among Gen Z students that university-level education in Nepal has not been effectively designed to develop scientists, innovators, problem solvers, entrepreneurs, and disruptive thinkers capable of addressing real-world challenges. Therefore, universities in Nepal require a comprehensive leadership framework that incorporates corporate governance, key performance indicators (KPIs), market responsiveness, and professional accountability into their administrative system, human resource management practices, and operational modalities. 

Leadership Challenges

In Nepalese universities, faculty members and professors are promoted to academic leadership positions on the basis of their rank and seniority with reference to their teaching experiences, socio-political affiliations and academic achievements. Academics with leadership positions such as vice-chancellors, rectors, registrars, deans, and heads of department have to deal with multifarious responsibilities such as decision-making, conflict resolution, budgeting, strategic planning, financial inaccuracies, human resource management, and stakeholder engagement, and it is not necessary that scholarly achievements invariably translate into effective academic leadership.

More importantly, because of this leadership gap, universities in Nepal have not been able to keep pace with how young people access and process information in this digital age. As a result, decision-making, organizational change and institutional strategies of our universities have failed to reflect the learning expectations, learning behavior, infrastructural requirements, and technological realities of Gen Z students. Besides, there is a lack of comprehensive leadership framework, career planning and talent management for faculty members in Nepalese universities who are self-motivated to become impact-driven scholars, innovators, public intellectuals, problem solvers, and reflective educators who can engage with multiple stakeholders beyond the walls of university structure, translate complex theories into actionable plans, and develop case studies and conceptual models based on local industrial experiences.

Marginalization of Teaching Competences

Teaching excellence is the core business of higher education; however, the human resource practices, rewards, recognition, and promotional systems within Nepalese universities continue to prioritize activities that are not directly aligned with this core function. Indeed, PhD and post-doc degrees, theoretical knowledge, loads of self-referential research outputs, and citation indexes are important; however, if subject matter expertise is not translated effectively into the teaching quality of faculty members, they only add to administrative and financial burdens on the university system and decline into student learning experience.

Moreover, faculty members in the university system are selected on the basis of their academic degrees, research outputs, subject expertise, and theoretical knowledge evaluated on the basis of a written examination and formal interview sessions with generic questions related to domain knowledge, basic research know-how, and understanding of higher education policies and university regulations. 

Permanent faculty selection procedures in our university system follow the pattern set by the Public Service Commission (Lok Sewa Aayog) in Nepal. The basic issue there is that public service exams are designed for bureaucratic uniformity, whereas universities thrive on multi-level knowledge expertise, interdepartmental specializations, and diversity in research methodologies and the pedagogical orientation of faculty members. Consequently, our universities have become mere extensions of the bureaucracy system prevalent in government agencies and public enterprises with weak institutional frameworks for recognizing and rewarding global competitiveness, international collaboration, industrial grants, patents, applied research, and innovations.

During the faculty selection protocols, there is only limited emphasis on evaluating the pedagogical orientations, teaching competencies, communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism, student mentoring skills, socio-emotional learning, emotional intelligence, cultural awareness, and classroom management abilities of the candidates. Paradoxically, universities in Nepal are focused on developing professional and employability skills of their students without addressing the issue of teaching quality deficiencies, lack of faculty development, and superficial professional commitments of their faculty members within their system. Hence, faculty development gaps and marginalization of teaching competencies remain a challenge in our university system.

Nonetheless, it is important for the university system in Nepal to realize that learning experiences, employability outcomes, professional development, application of theory into practice, course satisfaction, and referral level of students depend on effective communication, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, lifelong learning, cultural awareness, and pedagogical competence of their faculty members. The universities in Nepal can’t remain competitive and sustainable by compromising with their core business of teaching excellence.

Leadership Framework and Managerial Reforms 

Universities in Nepal need to embrace leadership frameworks and managerial reforms that ensure market sustainability, global competitiveness, and administrative effectiveness and efficiencies. After all, universities, like any large enterprises, require strategic planning, transformative leadership, financial management, human resource development, key performance indicators, market responsiveness, and quality assurance for their growth, relevancy, return on investment, and market expansion.

More importantly, universities in Nepal need to learn from and adopt the business-informed practices of foreign universities that prioritize student experience, institutional branding, social media engagement, public relations, measurable performance outcomes, and graduate employability. Universities in Nepal, to attract international students, must transform themselves into centers of learning excellence that operate with the same operational discipline, strategic leadership, and market awareness as multinational organizations competing across borders for consumers and expansion of the market.