The top job in Pakistani higher education is, by design, a temporary one. The chairperson of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) now gets a mere two years — instead of four — to steward the country’s higher education resources, broker peace between academics and stakeholders, and set a strategic course for 274 higher education institutions.

The chairperson’s appointment criteria in HEC’s recent advertisement raise several other important questions.

According to the requirements, the candidate must: A) be a distinguished person of international eminence, with academic and administrative experience in higher education; B) have a minimum of 15 years of experience in the field of higher education; C) possess at least 10 years of post-PhD experience; D) demonstrate a distinguished portfolio of research publications; E) be not more than 65 years of age; F) have experience of teaching at a prestigious university; and, most strikingly, G) the term of the chairperson’s appointment is set at only two years.

The question is: how did these criteria evolve and how successful have they been in finding a suitable candidate to lead the HEC?

What does it take to steer a nation’s higher education system? Is it an impeccable academic record or the ability to administer, strategise and build relationships? The recent advertisement for the chairperson of Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission seems to have already chosen its answer — and it’s a controversial one

ORIGINS OF HEC AND EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

The task force on the improvement of higher education in Pakistan first proposed the idea of establishing the HEC in March 2002. In defining the commission’s role, functions and relationship with the government, the task force drew heavily on international models, particularly the Higher Education Funding Councils in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, and Scotland). Later that same year, these recommendations were incorporated into the HEC Ordinance 2002.

According to the Ordinance: “The Controlling Authority (the Prime Minister) shall appoint a person of international eminence and proven ability, who has made a significant contribution to higher education as teacher, researcher or administrator, as Chairperson on such terms and conditions as it may determine” (Sec. 5). The ordinance further stipulates that “the Chairperson shall hold office for a period of four years” (Sec. 6(5)).

However, in March and April 2021, the federal government reduced the chairperson’s term to two years, through two consecutive amendments, while keeping the tenure of commission members at four years. Thus, the current form of the Ordinance contains the conditions noted earlier as A and G. The origin and essential rationale of conditions B through F, however, remain unclear.

Furthermore, this narrow focus on academic achievements, such as research publications and teaching experience, effectively excludes the “administrator” path that the Ordinance itself explicitly recognises as a valid source of leadership.

Ironically, the HEC Ordinance 2002 is silent on the selection criteria for the executive director (ED), who serves as the head of the HEC Secretariat and is appointed by the commission.

Instead of defining the complex skills needed for the chairperson's role, the HEC has taken a shortcut. It relies on vague criteria, such as "international eminence", that are easy to measure with status symbols, such as a degree from an elite university, high publication counts or international job titles. The problem is that these symbols do not guarantee the candidate actually has the real-world skills needed for the job, such as deep local knowledge or the ability to build consensus and relationships.

MYOPIA AND INSTABILITY

Instead of defining the complex skills needed for the chairperson’s role, the HEC has taken a shortcut. It relies on vague criteria, such as “international eminence”, that are easy to measure with status symbols, such as a degree from an elite university, high publication counts or international job titles.

The problem is that these symbols do not guarantee the candidate actually has the real-world skills needed for the job, such as deep local knowledge or the ability to build consensus and relationships. In essence, the HEC is choosing a candidate who looks good on paper rather than doing the hard work of finding the person who is best for the job.

This approach of settling for a “good enough” option that meets a simple — but less relevant — standard is a classic organisational shortcut. This reveals that HEC has not developed a clear model of the competencies a chairperson truly needs to succeed.

As a result, conflicts have persisted at least at three levels over the past two decades. First, tensions between the HEC and the federal government, including over budget cuts, funding allocations and accountability, are regularly reported. Second, conflict between the HEC and higher education institutions has also remained a recurring issue, from autonomy and regulation to accountability. Third, internal disputes within HEC have been entrenched, including those between the chairperson and the executive director (ED) on the one hand and between the ED and staff on the other.

Since its inception, one in five full-time chairpersons has been removed unceremoniously. Similarly, three of the four full-time EDs were ousted from their positions. For almost one-fourth of its existence, HEC operated under an acting ED, while for nearly one-sixth of its existence, it had no ED at all. In addition, for just under one-seventh of its lifetime, the commission was led by an acting chairperson.

The conflict seems to stem from three root causes. First, an insufficient emphasis on relationships and a lack of the skills needed to manage them effectively. Second, persistent power struggles within the HEC, particularly between the chairperson and the ED. Third, a shortage of qualified professionals among HEC staff.

THE UK PRECEDENT: A DIFFERENT MODEL

To understand the relevance of the chairperson’s appointment criteria (A through G), I examine the selection criteria of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). HEFCE, which existed from 1992 to 2018, oversaw about 110 public sector universities, including Oxford and Cambridge.

The HEFCE chairperson and members were appointed primarily based on their expertise in education or their experience in industry and the professions. Between 1992 and 2018, HEFCE had five chairpersons. While all of them possessed significant administrative experience related to higher education, none came from academia. Its founding chairperson, Sir Ron Dearing, author of the influential ‘Dearing Report’, was a career civil servant who also served as chancellor of the University of Nottingham before joining HEFCE.

By contrast, during the same period, HEFCE had six full-time executive directors, four of whom were professors. The funding councils for Scotland and Wales exhibited a similar leadership pattern. In fact, most of their chairpersons would not have met the current selection criteria prescribed for the HEC chairperson.

LESSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES

Furthermore, global trends in higher education leadership appointments over the last two decades in Europe, China and Russia are converging toward the United States (US) model. Consequently, the US offers a valuable point of reference for understanding the leadership qualifications required for higher education governance and coordinating bodies.

According to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, higher education falls under the authority of state governments. As a result, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have their own governing and coordinating bodies. These bodies serve as learning and innovation hubs for higher education governance, coordination, funding and policy development. These state-level agencies share several functional similarities with Pakistan’s HEC, Punjab HEC and Sindh HEC.

Most of these state-level agencies are governed by lay boards, including their chairpersons. Typically, the members of these boards are not professionally affiliated with the institutions or the field they oversee. They are not faculty or administrative staff but external appointees, such as alumni, business leaders or community representatives, who bring independent oversight and diverse perspectives. Professional expertise is primarily expected from the agency staff or the chief executive officer (CEO), a role comparable to the HEC ED.

Still, more than three-quarters of these agencies do not specify stringent selection criteria or academic background requirements for their CEOs. While experience in higher education is often considered an advantage, it is not treated as a prerequisite.

In 2017, only 15 percent of agencies required prior higher education experience for the CEO and, even then, in very general terms. As a result, only about 40 percent of CEOs actually had such experience.

In terms of qualifications, approximately 60 percent held a PhD or a doctoral degree in education (Ed.D.), 21 percent held a master’s degree, 14 percent a Juris Doctor (JD), and the remainder a bachelor’s degree.

The Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), often considered an innovative agency, provides an interesting case. Its chairperson is the governor of Tennessee, while its CEO earned an Ed.D. in 2019.

For this reason, the requirement in Pakistan’s HEC chairperson appointment criteria of holding a PhD with at least ten years of post-PhD experience (criterion ‘c’) appears difficult to justify.

The tenure of chairpersons and CEOs varies from state to state, with some serving for more than a decade. None of the agencies require a record of research publications, teaching experience at a prestigious university or an age limit.

Chairpersons and executive officers primarily serve two broad roles: overseer and advocate. As overseers, they act on behalf of the government to ensure accountability of higher education institutions. As advocates, they represent the interests of those institutions, striving to protect academic freedom, safeguard institutional autonomy and secure stable public funding.

In other words, they operate at the intersection of public priorities and universities’ ability to generate research, innovation and solutions, seeking to bring them into harmony. Their role requires frequent work across sectors, as they engage with diverse stakeholders. As a result, they often find themselves torn between their conviction to champion the institutions they serve and the reality that their statutory obligations demand objectivity and close relationships with their appointing authorities, governors and legislative bodies.

To succeed, they need a practical skill-set focused on relationships, political navigation and change management. This requires expertise in collaboration, negotiation, advocacy and stakeholder engagement, to build consensus and drive reform — competencies far removed from those of a distinguished researcher or teacher.

Outside the United States, systems that have recognised the real challenges of higher education leadership have also been reforming their governance structures, leading to a decline in what is often described as “academic oligarchy” — the dominance of academics in governance.

AN ALTERNATE ROADMAP

These multifaceted conflicts make it essential to critically evaluate the leadership appointment criteria for both the chairperson and the ED. Drawing on the higher education cases discussed above, I propose a set of recommendations below.

First, no system discussed above prescribes such detailed appointment criteria as the HEC’s. The highly restrictive requirements risk excluding strong candidates. Therefore, the HEC should simplify its criteria to ensure a wider pool of qualified applicants can be considered.

Second, HEC should avoid prioritising academics for the role of chairperson or for both the chairperson and the ED. In line with international trends, it may consider appointing leaders from outside academia — such as business, industry, public service, media, politics, military and the non-profit sector — who demonstrate a genuine interest in and commitment to higher education. Such leaders can, in some cases, be more effective in driving change, and Pakistan’s higher education urgently needs such change agents.

Third, if HEC intends to hire an academic for any leadership position, it should prioritise placing them in the ED role. As the head of the HEC Secretariat, the ED will be more directly engaged with higher education institutions on a day-to-day basis.

Fourth, HEC should emphasise broad skills for the chairperson and ED, including collaboration, negotiation, conflict resolution, communication, advocacy and stakeholder engagement, familiarity with governing bodies and accountability mechanisms, data literacy, adaptability and innovation, the ability to see the big picture while navigating political pressures and, above all, the capacity to build and sustain relationships. A PhD should not be a requirement for the ED, especially since HEC itself removed this requirement in 2019.

Fifth, to limit potential power struggles, the HEC should ensure that the chairperson and the ED do not possess similar qualifications, particularly if they also possess comparable political clout.

Sixth, given the peculiarities and the growing complexity of higher education, both leaders from inside and outside the higher education sector need time to grasp the challenges of heading a national-level higher education regulatory and coordinating body. Therefore, prior experience in higher education should be considered an advantage.

Seventh, for the same reason, limiting the chairperson to a two-year term would undermine effective leadership.

Finally, the role of the HEC Secretariat should be strengthened. Rather than serving merely as an “executing wing”, it should develop evidence-based policy proposals for the commission’s deliberation and contribute to strategic planning.

In the US, research and policy evaluation are among the primary functions of state higher education governing and coordinating agencies. The HEC Secretariat should similarly build professional in-house capacity. This shift would ease the unrealistic burden currently placed on the chairperson.

The writer is PhD in Higher Education Administration from the University of Georgia in the US. He can be contacted at ijaz.ahmadg37@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 14th, 2025