The one leadership quality that changes everything? It’s not what you think.
After 25 years working with leaders, I can tell you it’s not IQ, it’s not credentials, and it’s not tenure.
It’s coachability.
The willingness to stay curious. To receive feedback without flinching. To sit with the discomfort of not knowing and then actually do something that begins the transition to new growth.
Recently, I’ve been working closely with a number of executive teams, and what strikes me every time is how visible this quality is and how much it matters. The leaders who are genuinely thriving aren’t the loudest or the most polished. They’re the ones who combine real humility with a strong desire for growth. The ones who remain curious and open.
And here’s what I’ve come to believe about why coachability matters so much right now.
Most leadership development is horizontal. It adds new skills, frameworks, and knowledge to a leader’s existing toolkit. It’s valuable. But it has a ceiling. You can load a leader up with new competencies and still find that under pressure, under complexity, under real uncertainty, they revert. The toolkit expands but the leader doesn’t fundamentally change.
Vertical development is different. It’s not about adding more, it’s about growing the capacity of the leader themselves. How they make sense of complexity. How they hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. How they respond rather than react when everything is ambiguous. It’s the difference between a leader who has learned about feedback and one who has genuinely transformed their relationship with it.
Coachability is what opens the door to vertical development. You simply cannot grow vertically without it. And in a world of accelerating complexity, horizontal development alone is no longer enough.
And the data? It’s impossible to ignore.
Research from the ICF and PwC across 64 countries shows that executive coaching typically returns 3 to 7 times the investment, with 86% of organisations reporting positive returns. That’s not a feel-good stat, it’s a business case.
But here’s what I think matters even more than the financial return: Gallup’s research shows that managers influence roughly 70% of the variance in their team’s engagement. Seventy percent. The single biggest lever in your entire organisation sits with your people leaders.
So what’s happening to those leaders right now?
Since 2022, manager engagement has dropped nine points. The largest single-year decline happened between 2024 and 2025, a five-point fall. Managers, who once enjoyed an “engagement premium,” are now only as engaged as the people they lead.
Low engagement cost the world economy approximately $10 trillion in lost productivity last year, roughly 9% of global GDP.
We are asking the people with the most influence over our workforce to carry more than ever: restructures, budget pressure, AI disruption, often with little to no support. And in most cases, the development on offer is purely horizontal. More courses. More frameworks. More content.
What’s missing is the vertical. The development that grows the leader from the inside out.
And yet, when we do invest in that? Research from the ICF and Human Capital Institute found that 72% of organisations report a strong correlation between coaching and increased employee engagement. Not a marginal lift but a consistent, organisation-wide shift. The ripple effects are real and measurable.
Here’s the shift I want every leader to consider:
Coachability isn’t a soft skill. It’s a strategic advantage and it’s the gateway to vertical growth.
The leaders I see thriving aren’t the ones who have all the answers. They’re the ones who keep asking better questions. Who seek out feedback before it finds them. Who see a coaching conversation not as a remediation but as an invitation to grow into a more expansive version of themselves as a leader.
In a world where the complexity of the challenges we face is outpacing the development of the people leading through them, the capacity to grow vertically and not just accumulate horizontally, is the most future-proof investment a leader can make.
If you’re wondering whether coaching is right for you or your leadership team, I’d love to have that conversation.
Aly heads the Coaching and Transition practice at Future Leadership. She is a senior executive coach and leadership consultant with over 25 years of global experience driving measurable outcomes in leadership, performance, and organisational effectiveness. She joins Future Leadership to lead and evolve our Coaching practice, bringing deep expertise in assessment-led transformation, high-potential acceleration, and cultural change. Aly will guide the development of our coaching methodologies to align with market shifts and client needs, ensuring our approach remains evidence-based, future-focused and impact-driven.
Aly has held senior roles in global consulting firms and leading institutions. Her consulting career spans ASX-listed companies, multinationals, government, education, and not-for-profit sectors, where she has worked with CEOs, CHROs and senior leadership teams to navigate changing priorities and lead complex transformations in culture, capability, and organisational performance. She brings a truly global perspective, having worked across East Asia, the Middle East, North America, and Europe on large-scale change and leadership initiatives.
Known for her calm presence, deep insight, and values-driven approach, Aly is trusted by leaders to guide them through complex challenges with clarity, compassion, and impact. Aly holds a Master of Commerce and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Melbourne, and a Graduate Diploma in Psychology from Monash University.
Reflections on the Search for the Foundation Commissioners of ATEC
Reflections on the Search for the Foundation Commissioners of ATEC
At Future Leadership, we see moments of sector reform as tests of leadership at a system level. The establishment of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission is not simply a structural change, it is a defining opportunity to shape how capability is stewarded across government, institutions and communities.
As a capability ecosystem, we partner with boards and executives to examine not just who leads, but how leadership is exercised in complex, contested environments. Our Capability Compass identifies the capabilities most critical to navigating these moments, particularly when it comes to systems thinking, judgement and stewardship beyond institutional self-interest.
Our work with the Federal Department of Education on the search for ATEC’s foundation Commissioners provided a unique vantage point into the sector’s expectations of leadership at this level. What emerged was clear: success will depend less on structure or policy design and more on the calibre, judgement and system stewardship of those appointed.
Emergent Themes
At the end of 2025 and into the first months of 2026, we had the privilege of partnering with the Federal Department of Education in the search to identify the inaugural Commissioners for the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC).
The assignment was notable not simply because of the seniority of the appointments, but because it sat at the intersection of policy, institutional autonomy, tertiary reform and national productivity. The process commenced with extensive consultation across the higher education landscape, seeking advice, perspectives and recommendations from a broad range of stakeholders.
What emerged was not unanimity (nor should it have been) but several themes appeared consistently throughout the consultation process. Collectively, they provide an instructive insight into the expectations, hopes and anxieties surrounding the establishment of ATEC.
Educational Equity The search for “System Stewards”
One strikingly consistent message throughout the consultation was that the sector was not looking for Commissioners who would arrive with a personal crusade, ideological position or narrow institutional agenda.
The consultation clearly pointed to the need for individuals capable of operating at a “whole-of-system” level. There was a clear distinction drawn between leaders who had only operated successfully within the confines of their own institution and those who had demonstrated the capacity to think beyond institutional self-interest and contribute to the stewardship of the broader tertiary ecosystem.
The language used during consultation was revealing. Stakeholders spoke about the need for people who are “of the sector” but not captured by it. Individuals capable of offering frank and fearless advice to Ministers, while also understanding when consensus and pragmatism should prevail over personal opinion.
In many respects, the consultation highlighted a search for institutional maturity. Not simply leadership capability, but judgement.
Stakeholder Accountability
Another emerging capability is external accountability. Public trust in universities and residential institutions is increasingly shaped by transparency, governance and responsiveness. Cultural reviews, student activism, and media scrutiny have permanently altered expectations. College leaders can no longer operate primarily through internal authority structures or closed institutional cultures. They must be able to engage openly with regulators, university executives, parents, students and the wider public. Skills in crisis communication, character definition, stakeholder engagement and evidence-based governance are becoming essential components of effective leadership.
Representation Versus Understanding
An overwhelming sentiment from universities within the Group of Eight was concern that ATEC could potentially become overly committed to a singular policy orientation or philosophical approach to the sector.
Importantly, this was not framed as a demand for direct representation. Most acknowledged that ATEC was never intended to become a wholly representative construct. Rather, there was a strong desire for the Commissioner cohort collectively to demonstrate a deep understanding of the diversity of the Australian higher education system.
Research-intensive universities sought reassurance that the complexity of their operating environment, international positioning and research mission would be understood within the Commission’s deliberations. Equally, there was recognition that the credibility of ATEC would ultimately depend on its ability to engage meaningfully across all segments of the tertiary landscape.
This distinction between representation and understanding became one of the defining themes of the consultation process.
What’s Next? Experience Versus Fresh Thinking
Consultation also revealed an interesting tension regarding the ideal career stage of prospective Commissioners.
Some advocated strongly for individuals with a lifetime of experience in higher education leadership and public policy. Others argued equally persuasively for the inclusion of emerging leaders, individuals still on an executive trajectory who could bring fresh thinking, energy, persistence and contemporary perspectives to the work of the Commission.
There was a view amongst some stakeholders that a “whole-of-system” leadership role such as ATEC could itself become a formative experience for future sector leaders, broadening their perspective before returning to institutional leadership roles.
Underlying this discussion was a broader recognition that higher education has changed materially over the past decade. Funding pressures, geopolitical shifts, research concentration, student expectations, workforce alignment and technological disruption have reshaped the operating environment.
As a consequence, many stakeholders stressed the importance of currency of experience. Historic achievement alone was not viewed as sufficient. The Commissioners would require recent lived experience of the contemporary sector.
Independence and Trust
Sector leaders were particularly alert to questions regarding independence that emerged repeatedly during the consultation process.
A number of stakeholders expressed concern that the proposed construct of ATEC did not provide the degree of independence they believed was necessary. The fear articulated by some was that the Commission could become overly aligned with, or effectively an extension of, the Federal Department of Education.
This concern amplified the importance of trust in the Commissioner appointments themselves. If the legislative construct left ambiguity regarding institutional independence, then the credibility, judgement and sectoral trust vested in the Commissioners became even more critical.
In many respects, stakeholders appeared to view the Commissioners not merely as policy actors, but as custodians of the relationship between government and the sector.
The Importance of Analytical Capability
Another notable theme was the emphasis placed on analytical capability.
Stakeholders consistently highlighted the importance of Commissioners who could engage deeply with data, interrogate evidence and navigate complexity. As one contributor observed during consultation, “the devil is in the detail”.
This was not simply a call for technical capability. The desired profile combined analytical rigour with negotiation skills, administrative competence and the capacity to navigate competing priorities across a highly complex policy environment.
There was widespread recognition that ATEC’s effectiveness would depend not only on strategic vision, but on the ability to translate broad reform ambitions into operationally credible frameworks.
Teaching, Learning and the Academic Mission
A number of contributors highlighted the importance of deep expertise in teaching and learning.
The proposed mission-based compacts were viewed as requiring sophisticated understanding of pedagogy, academic quality, student experience and institutional educational strategy. Several stakeholders specifically referenced the type of experience commonly associated with the portfolio of a Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic or Education).
This reflected a broader concern that public discourse around tertiary reform can at times become overly focused on funding models, workforce alignment and research performance, while underestimating the complexity of the educational mission itself.
The First Nations Commissioner
The proposed First Nations Commissioner role attracted particularly thoughtful commentary throughout the consultation process.
Stakeholders consistently described the role as potentially “legacy making”. There was recognition that the appointment carried significance not only for ATEC itself, but for the broader First Nations agenda within Australian higher education.
Beyond capability and policy understanding, stakeholders emphasised the importance of trust, community engagement and future-focused thinking. The role was viewed as requiring someone capable of navigating both institutional systems and community relationships with authenticity and authority.
Importantly, the expectation was not that the First Nations Commissioner would operate solely within a First Nations portfolio. Rather, the role was seen as integral to the broader strategic direction of ATEC itself.
ATEC and TEQSA: Questions of Boundary and Overreach
Another recurring theme involved the relationship between ATEC and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
Stakeholders questioned whether the operational boundaries between the two bodies had been sufficiently defined and whether there was a risk of duplication or overreach.
For some, the concern was not merely regulatory burden, but conceptual clarity. Would ATEC function as a steward, advisor and strategic planner, or would it gradually evolve into a quasi-regulatory body operating alongside TEQSA?
The issue was raised frequently enough during consultation to suggest it remains one of the sector’s unresolved questions regarding the future operating model.
Capacity and the Expansion to Five Commissioners
At the consultation stage, the proposed structure comprised a Chief Commissioner, a First Nations Commissioner and a further Commissioner in a fractional capacity.
The response from the sector was clear. Many believed that two full-time Commissioners and one part-time Commissioner would be insufficient to carry the scale and complexity of the proposed ATEC agenda.
When the legislation ultimately passed the Senate on 31 March 2026, the structure was amended to provide for five Commissioners. In many respects, this shift reflected the feedback emerging through the consultation process and the growing recognition of the breadth of ATEC’s mandate.
Tertiary Harmonisation and the VET Interface
The importance of tertiary harmonisation was another prominent theme.
Stakeholders repeatedly highlighted the value of practical experience within the vocational education and training system. At the same time, several noted the structural complexity created by the fact that ATEC does not directly influence VET funding arrangements.
As a result, there was strong support for Commissioners who understood not only higher education, but also the points at which the VET and university sectors intersect, overlap and influence one another.
This was viewed as particularly important in the context of workforce planning, pathways and lifelong learning.
The Research Voice
Finally, a clear tension emerged as several contributors questioned whether sufficient emphasis had been placed on research within the emerging ATEC mandate.
While the Universities Accord process emphasised participation, equity, skills and system coordination, some stakeholders queried where the national research agenda would sit within the Commission’s priorities and whether the foundation Commissioners would collectively bring sufficient research credibility and experience.
For research-intensive institutions in particular, this was viewed as a critical consideration.
Reflections
It should be acknowledged that many of these themes were reflected in the Terms of Reference provided by the Federal Department of Education and became central considerations throughout the selection process.
What the consultation ultimately revealed was a sector that understands the significance of this moment. There was broad recognition that the establishment of ATEC represents one of the most consequential structural reforms in Australian tertiary education in decades.
The consultation also demonstrated that the sector’s expectations extend well beyond technical competence. The foundation Commissioners are expected to embody judgement, credibility, restraint, analytical capability and an ability to operate in service of the broader national interest.
Whether ATEC ultimately succeeds will depend not only on legislation or policy settings, but on the quality of stewardship exercised by those entrusted to lead it in its formative years.
What next?
For leaders across higher education, the establishment of ATEC should not be viewed as a reform happening outside the institution, but as an invitation to think differently about the role each university plays within the broader tertiary ecosystem. The next phase calls for leaders who can engage constructively with complexity, contribute beyond institutional interest and bring evidence, maturity and imagination to the national conversation. Now is the time for university executives, boards and sector leaders to consider how their institutions will demonstrate system stewardship: through clearer mission, stronger collaboration, deeper engagement with teaching and research priorities and a willingness to shape reform rather than simply respond to it.
To discuss leadership, governance and executive capability in higher education, contact Andrew Norton.
Andrew leads the higher education and vocational education practices at Future Leadership. He partners closely with government sector specialists, appointing and supporting senior executives, academics and board directors. Andrew has built enduring networks at a national and international level and is highly respected as a trusted advisor to clients and candidates alike.
For more than two decades, Andrew has worked for ambitious organisations, motivated by a commitment to delivering outstanding outcomes. Since joining Future Leadership’s cornerstone business, Jo Fisher Executive, in 2012, Andrew has continually brought his enthusiasm and passion to inspire and drive success. He works collaboratively to meet the diverse talent demands of the constantly evolving sectors in which he specialises. Andrew has also regularly partnered with client organisations seeking to identify next-generation leaders with the requisite skills, experiences and values to meet their strategic ambitions and future focus. Andrew is well regarded for delivering both in international talent searches and identifying high-quality First Nations candidates locally.
Andrew holds an Honours Degree in Arts from Oxford Brookes University and a Post Graduate Certificate of Education from Oxford University.
The Australian Universities Accord: Future Capabilities for University Colleges
The Australian Universities Accord: Future Capabilities for University Colleges
The Australian Universities Accord draws college leaders into questions of equity, accountability and public trust.
An article Future Leadership Advisor by Amanda Bell
The Australian Universities Accord is often discussed in terms of funding models, participation targets and labour market needs. Yet one of its most significant implications may lie elsewhere: in the changing capability expectations placed on university college leaders. If the Accord succeeds in reshaping higher education into a larger, more diverse and more socially accountable system, then the traditional model of residential college leadership may no longer be enough.
For generations, Australian university colleges have been led through a relatively narrow framework of pastoral care, academic support and institutional stewardship. Success often depended on maintaining tradition, managing alumni relationships and preserving the academic focus of the college community. But the Accord signals a sector moving rapidly toward broader public accountability, cultural scrutiny and social inclusion. In that environment, future college leaders will require an enhanced set of capabilities.
Cultural Leadership
The first is cultural leadership. Residential colleges are no longer judged solely by academic outcomes or student satisfaction. They are increasingly evaluated according to the quality and safety of their social environments. Independent cultural reviews across Australian universities have demonstrated that colleges can no longer treat issues such as inclusion, power, gender dynamics, racial or religious differentiation and student wellbeing as secondary concerns. The next generation of leaders will need the ability to shape institutional culture deliberately and transparently, not merely manage it reactively after crises emerge.
A collective focus such as this requires fluency in organisational change. Historically, many colleges relied on inherited traditions and informal social norms to sustain community identity. But the Accord’s focus on equity and participation places pressure on colleges to reconsider long-standing practices that may inadvertently exclude students from low socioeconomic, regional or First Nations backgrounds. Future leaders will need to navigate the difficult balance between preserving the best of its community traditions and dismantling structures that reinforce privilege or exclusivity. This is not simply a communications challenge; it is a strategic and moral one.
Educational Equity
The Accord also highlights the growing importance of educational equity, which expands the role of residential colleges beyond accommodation providers or elite communities. As universities attract increasingly diverse cohorts, colleges may become critical sites of transition and belonging for students relocating from regional areas or entering higher education without established social capital. Leaders will therefore require stronger capabilities in student development, character education, mental health literacy and community-building across difference. The college head of the future may need to think as much like an ethical architect as an administrator.
Stakeholder Accountability
Another emerging capability is external accountability. Public trust in universities and residential institutions is increasingly shaped by transparency, governance and responsiveness. Cultural reviews, student activism, and media scrutiny have permanently altered expectations. College leaders can no longer operate primarily through internal authority structures or closed institutional cultures. They must be able to engage openly with regulators, university executives, parents, students and the wider public. Skills in crisis communication, character definition, stakeholder engagement and evidence-based governance are becoming essential components of effective leadership.
Intellectual Adaptability
Importantly, future college leadership will also demand intellectual adaptability. The Accord frames universities as institutions deeply connected to national productivity, social mobility and civic life. Residential colleges, traditionally insulated from these broader policy conversations, are now being drawn into them. Leaders will need to understand not only higher education policy but also broader social trends shaping student expectations: affordability pressures, changing attitudes toward identity and inclusion, digital social life and shifting definitions of what constitutes a community.
What’s Next?
In this context, the successful university college leader of the future is unlikely to resemble the symbolic custodian of tradition that dominated earlier eras. Instead, they will need to be culturally intelligent, policy literate, ethically credible and capable of leading complex organisational change.
The Australian Universities Accord does not simply challenge universities to evolve.
It challenges residential colleges to reconsider what leadership itself now means.
Future Leadership has developed the Capability Compass to support leaders navigating complex institutional change, including within higher education and residential communities. If you would like to explore how future-focused capability development can support college leadership, get in touch with us – [email protected]
About the author:
Amanda is a highly experienced leader, an accomplished non-executive director and strategic facilitator. Her successful portfolio career draws on specific expertise in education and governance.Amanda’s advisory work concentrates on strategic futures, leadership development and masterclasses for boards, CEOs and senior managers. Her work translates to opinion pieces and keynote addresses on current issues and new ideas impacting related sectors.
She holds a number of board directorships and is immediate past Principal of The Women’s College within the University of Sydney. Amanda was appointed a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (FAICD), the Australian College of Educators (FACE) and the Australian Institute of Management (FAIM).
Amanda was recognised in The Queen’s Birthday 2017 Honours List as a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for significant service to education, particularly to young women as a leader and academic, and to the visual arts.
Closing Leadership Blind Spots: What Boards Must Know
Closing Leadership Blind Spots: What Boards Must Know
Boards might have strategic muscle, but moving that towards adaptable execution is key to better leadership.
Michelle Loader MAICD (pictured), Managing Director of executive search and advisory Future Leadership™, which works with many of Australia’s board and executive community, sees the pattern clearly. “Organisations continue to hire for stability, even though they’re operating in volatility,” she says. The distinction matters more than it might first appear. The Future Leadership Capability Compass 2026, drawn from assessments and interviews with thousands of senior leaders across 23 industries, maps the alignment between what boards demand from their leaders and how those leaders actually show up.
The high-demand capabilities – strategy and purpose, stakeholder management, communication and influence – show strong market alignment. Australian boards are well-stocked in this respect, but these only provide the licence to operate.
The ability to transform is a different conversation entirely. The Compass reveals some capability gaps that should command board attention:
→ Adaptability and resilience
→ Innovation and creativity
These are not emerging concerns. They are the lowest-alignment capabilities in the assessed talent pool.
“Boards say they want leaders who can navigate disruption, then design governance systems that penalise intelligent failure,” says Loader. “If we systematically reward certainty and short-term stability, then we shouldn’t be surprised when adaptability remains a suppressed capability. The behaviour we incentivise is the behaviour we get.”
Blind spots
There are also quieter findings, ones Loader describes as blind spots. Personal growth (the capacity to continuously evolve one’s thinking and judgement as context shifts) and digital literacy (the practical ability to harness value from digital tools) rank as the lowest-demand capabilities of all. Directors may believe they have both covered. The research suggests otherwise.
Loader offers a question to ask at your next board meeting: When did we last rigorously challenge our own capabilities in the way we do our CEO and executive team?
Future Leadership’s framework for closing these gaps is deliberately practical – buy the right high-demand capabilities through executive search, borrow adaptive and innovative capabilities through targeted development or interim talent, and build transformational leadership from within.
But the precondition for any of it is cultural. If your reporting rhythm leaves no room for experimentation and setback is treated as failure rather than data, capability investment will only go so far.
Adaptability isn’t just a development nice-to-have. It’s a governance risk that belongs on the board agenda.
Capabilities of the Future: What might Government 3.0 look like?
What might Government 3.0 look like?
Rewiring Capability, Not Just Reforming Government
By David Baber, Senior Partner, Future Leadership
The Australian Public Service is standing at an inflection point. The question is no longer whether government needs to transform, but whether its capabilities, systems, and capacity can keep pace with the conditions it now operates within.
What is emerging is not incremental reform, but the early shape of Government 3.0: a model defined by real-time responsiveness, AI-augmented decision-making, and system-wide capability orchestration. The risk is that we attempt to reach this future with institutions still designed for Government 2.0, hierarchical, process-bound, and optimised for control rather than cognition.
Context: Volatility Only Continues to Increase
Three forces are converging across all tiers of government, and none of them are temporary.
Demand has become nonlinear. Health, housing, climate, and social services are no longer predictable policy domains. Jobs and Skills Australia finds that productivity is now less about efficiency and more about how well systems match skills, participation, and capital in real time.
AI is compressing decision cycles, not simply automating tasks but reshaping how work is defined. The shift is toward blended roles requiring both technical and human capabilities, with a 50/50 convergence expected across most jobs. In government, this collapses the distinction between policy, delivery, and data.
Meanwhile, institutional trust is declining as public expectations are rising. Citizens expect personalised, real-time services; agencies face greater scrutiny, tighter fiscal constraints, and a reputational environment that punishes both failure and inaction.
The Government 3.0 Paradox:The public sector must become faster, more adaptive, and more human, while remaining accountable, equitable, and safe.
This paradox is sharpened by automation bias: the tendency of experienced practitioners to defer to AI outputs even when they contradict professional judgment. Faster processes without stronger critical thinking can degrade decision quality. AI can amplify error at scale where human oversight is weak. As Deloitte notes, leadership in the AI era is about getting the balance right between augmentation and automation.
Government 3.0 demands a shift from process optimisation to cognitive optimisation.
Capability: Hiring for Stability, Operating in Volatility
Data from the Future Leadership Capability Compass reveals a structural tension at the heart of APS workforce strategy.
“We are hiring for stability while asking leaders to deliver in volatility.”
Governments continue to prioritise stabilising capabilities: strategy, stakeholder management, communication. But the environment also demands transforming capabilities: adaptability, innovation, systems thinking. The gap between the two is widening. The challenge is to achieve balance.
————————
Figure 1.0: APS capability demand and alignment, Capability Compass 2026
Five capability shifts define what Government 3.0 actually requires. Adaptive intelligence over policy expertise alone: leaders must navigate ambiguity, not eliminate it. Systems thinking as a core operating skill, because linear policy thinking fails in complex systems. AI literacy as a governance capability, meaning regulatory, ethical, and strategic fluency, not just technical knowledge. Critical thinking as a defensive capability, because in an AI-enabled environment the ability to interrogate outputs is as important as generating them. And stakeholder capability as system orchestration, as government becomes more networked across public, private, and community domains.
Designing AI Systems That Strengthen Judgment
Government 3.0 is not about deploying AI. It is about how AI is embedded into decision systems, and whether those systems are designed to make humans better at their jobs or to quietly displace judgment.
Three design principles matter. Human-in-the-loop must be meaningful, not symbolic: leaders must retain genuine authority to override AI outputs and be trained to exercise it. AI should surface uncertainty, not conceal it, highlighting confidence levels, data gaps, and alternative scenarios. And feedback loops must be real-time and behavioural.
Service NSW illustrates the point. Its 94%+ satisfaction rate was driven not just by digital investment, but by continuous feedback mechanisms, flatter structures, and decision-making redistributed closer to the frontline. Learning happened at the system level, not just the individual level.
Capacity: The Hidden Constraint
The Capability Compass draws a distinction worth emphasising: the issue confronting many APS agencies is often not capability, but capacity.
“Transforming capabilities may be latent, not absent, suppressed by structure, predictability and control.” – Future Leadership Capability Compass 2026
This shows up as leaders too overloaded to think strategically, risk-averse cultures that penalise experimentation, and hierarchical decision-making that slows adaptation. Deloitte’s research reinforces this, noting that organisations struggle to redirect human effort toward higher-value work even where the tools exist.
Government 3.0 requires deliberate reallocation: from compliance toward cognition, from reporting toward decision-making, from hierarchy toward empowered teams.
“If Government 2.0 was built to deliver services efficiently, Government 3.0 must be built to make better decisions, faster than the problems evolve.”
In an AI-enabled economy, productivity is a function of decision quality, not just output. National competitiveness depends on how effectively humans and machines work together, and Australia’s declining rankings in digital competitiveness and future readiness signal that this transition is yet to really gain momentum.
Unless we redesign how government is structured, measured, and led, AI will accelerate the system we have, not the one we need.
David Baber is an executive search professional, leading the Public Sector practice at Future Leadership. He has placed candidates nationally at the highest levels of federal, state and local government and he often supports integrity agencies and government business enterprises. His practice also includes board placements and people advisory. Connect with him.
Unlocking Adaptability and Innovation in Australia’s For Purpose Sector
Unlocking Adaptability and Innovation in Australia’s For Purpose Sector
By Kate Wheeler, Partner, Future Leadership
Across Australia, our leadership capability data is telling a clear and compelling story. The very capabilities required to navigate uncertainty and complexity in an increasingly tech-augmented world, are lagging.
Our Future Leadership Capability Compass to be released in March draws on multi-sector leadership assessments, revealing the most ‘in-demand’ capabilities of 2026 on one hand, and how leaders are showing up against those capabilities, on the other. The report reveals a growing pressure on a cluster of capabilities that are no longer “nice to have”, but essential: adaptability, creativity, systems thinking and digital literacy. These are the capabilities leaders need to navigate uncertainty, integrate technology, respond to shifting community expectations and redesign organisations under constraint.
And yet, across sectors, they are the least consistently developed.
When it comes to Australia’s For Purpose sector, this is not a future risk. It is a present reality. The report reveals not a capability deficit, so much as a capacity deficit. And with the right approach, capacity can be scaled.
A burning (out) capability platform for the For Purpose sector
The For Purpose sector sits at the intersection of rising community need, tightening funding, workforce fatigue and increasing complexity. It employs 1.47 million Australians, engages 3.2 million volunteers, and contributes economic value comparable to some of Australia’s largest industries. At the same time, it is being asked to lead on climate response, digital inclusion, social cohesion and care for our most vulnerable communities.
An early look at our Capability Compass data from the sector shows us what the experience already confirms on the ground: the system is demanding adaptability and creativity faster than it is enabling them.
This is not because For Purpose leaders lack capability or intent. It is because the conditions in which they operate make those capabilities difficult to sustain.
This is not a capability gap. It is an enablement gap.
The For Purpose Sector Development Blueprint released last year by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, is unequivocal. The sector operates under chronic structural constraint. Funding is often partial, short-term and program-specific. Full cost recovery is rare. Investment in leadership development, data capability and innovation infrastructure is frequently categorised as overhead rather than as core to impact and sustainability.
In this environment:
professional development becomes episodic
innovation is discussed, but not well resourced
creativity remains conceptual rather than operational
It is difficult to adapt without time.
It is difficult to create without capital, financial or otherwise.
And it is difficult to learn without exposure to different ways of working.
The Compass doesn’t reveal a failure of leadership. It reveals a misalignment between what the system demands and what it enables.
Why the For Purpose context is fundamentally different
Unlike the private sector, where profit provides a clear organising principle, or government, where policy delivery anchors workforce planning, the For Purpose sector is organised around purpose, trust and legitimacy.
Leaders must navigate:
multiple funders and regulators
volunteers alongside paid staff
boards with fiduciary and moral accountability
communities whose lived experience must shape decisions
This creates a leadership context where influence matters more than authority, where outcomes are long-term and relational, and where failure carries reputational as well as human consequences.
Ironically, these conditions demand more adaptability and creativity, not less.
Yet despite constraint, the For Purpose sector demonstrates strengths many sectors are now trying to build.
The Blueprint recognises the sector’s leadership in co-design, shared decision-making, and systems collaboration; all capabilities critical to addressing complex social challenges. Purpose-led attraction and engagement remain powerful differentiators in a low-trust environment. Leaders develop breadth early, operating across governance, funding, service delivery and workforce wellbeing simultaneously.
These are not accidental strengths. They are forged by necessity.
What’s missing is systematic investment to deepen, scale and sustain them.
Where pressure points are widening
The Capability Compass and the Blueprint converge on the same fault lines:
fragmented investment in leadership and professional development
limited, inconsistent workforce and capability data
fragile succession pipelines and bench strength
uneven digital and data capability
As funding pressures intensify, many organisations are turning to mergers and alliances as a survival strategy. Yet too often, mergers prioritise financial and operational integration, while talent, culture and capability integration are under-designed.
This is a risk, but it is also an opportunity.
Mergers as capability accelerators, not just cost controls
Handled well, mergers are one of the most cost-effective moments to lift capability:
roles are being redesigned
ideas are being cross-pollinated
governance is being reset
leadership expectations are being clarified
Handled poorly, they erode trust, trigger attrition and stall performance.
First, capability must be treated as shared sector infrastructure, not organisational indulgence. Evidence-based, sector-wide capability frameworks reduce duplication, improve targeting and allow investment to scale, particularly when supported by initiatives such as ARC-funded research.
Second, development must shift beyond courses to real-time movement. Cross-sector project teams, secondments, board observer roles and partnerships across sectors are among the most powerful (and cost-effective) ways to build adaptability and creativity.
Third, focus matters. Under constraint, organisations should prioritise a small number of keystone capabilities. Adaptability, systems thinking, stakeholder influence, commercial acumen and practical data literacy are some that unlock performance across roles.
Finally, capability must be designed into mergers, not bolted on after. Clarifying critical roles, aligning capability expectations and deliberately creating cross-entity leadership teams costs far less during integration than repairing damage later.
The moment we are in…
Australia’s For Purpose sector does not lack talent.
What it lacks is enablement at scale.
The Capability Compass, when released in March, will demonstrate where the capability gaps exist. Future Leadership exists to help organisations build capacity where they need it most.
If you choose to partner with us, we will work collaboratively, deliberately and with evidence, to build identified priority capabilities into everyday practice to meet your needs. Through our strategic capability offerings, organisations can buy, borrow or build talent in ways matched to budget and scaled for impact.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Kate Wheeler partners with For Purpose boards and executives on talent strategy, executive search, and leadership capability building. With 20+ years supporting the For Purpose sector through governance challenges, transitions, and strategic growth, she brings practical insight grounded in real-world impact. Connect with her.
Australia’s Biotech Industry: Building a Sovereign Wealth Platform
What struck me at AusBiotech this year wasn’t just the scale: three days, 60+ sessions, 250+ speakers. It was the remarkable consistency of message. From ministers to CEOs to returning expats, the same urgent themes emerged: sovereign capability, global ambition from day one, and the critical need to bridge the gap between brilliant science and commercial leadership.
Get these three elements right, and Australia transforms from a talented R&D destination into a genuine biotech powerhouse where companies go the distance.
Building Global Leadership Through Sovereign Capability
Australia must evolve beyond being exceptional at early stages of commercialisation to become a sovereign platform for biotech success. While we excel at early translational work, our ecosystem must now actively support companies that expand globally while deliberately bringing value—capital, IP, and capability—back home.
The most successful companies will be those that use our ecosystem tactically—leveraging our talent pools, clinical trial excellence, and capital access—while maintaining laser focus on building businesses that can compete and win globally.
It’s encouraging to hear government leaders positioning biotech and medtech as pillars of economic resilience, not just health policy. We have undeniable strengths: clinical excellence, world-class universities, a quality workforce, and established supply chains. Our challenge? A domestic market too small for global scale. The solution requires companies to expand internationally while strategically reinvesting at home.
Senator Ananda-Rajah captured it perfectly, positioning Australia as one of only ten countries with a true science cluster. Her commitment to smoothing the researcher journey from feast-or-famine cycles signals important policy evolution. Meanwhile, practical collaboration through Austrade, state bodies, AusBiotech as examples, helps companies navigate our vast geography and connect meaningfully.
But we must shift our focus from celebrating “the ecosystem” to building transformative companies that change patient lives.
Bridging R&D Excellence with Commercial Muscle
David Gall from the National Reconstruction Fund laid bare our early commercialisation funding gap. With 15% of their pipeline in medical sciences, the unmet demand for scale-up capital is clear.
The critical question: How do we connect Australia’s world-class R&D with the commercialisation expertise needed for later-stage development, market entry, and scaling?
A fundamental mindset shift is emerging. “Getting to first-in-human trials” isn’t the endgame. True leadership means ensuring patients benefit across multiple markets while maintaining control of your company’s destiny.
Mark Womack’s “as-if” principle resonated deeply: act now like the company you intend to become. Choose your clients, set your standards, and behave as if you’re already that scaled, global company—not a hungry startup taking whatever comes.
If we want more Cochlears and Telixs, we must stop just celebrating “grant funded” or “Phase I completed” as victories. Success means defining the endgame, acting “as if” from day one, and building the commercial capabilities to get there.
Tech-Savvy, Borderless Leadership for Tomorrow
The AI conversation has matured significantly. It’s no longer optional. Boards should be asking: What’s our AI strategy? How are we governing it? How will it accelerate time-to-patient and reduce cost-of-goods?
Leading companies already integrate AI holistically—as tool, tactic, and strategy—with explicit governance around where AI will and won’t be deployed. The emphasis is refreshingly practical: define your problem first, then determine AI’s role. Companies that don’t embed AI into drug discovery, project management, and manufacturing will fall behind rapidly.
The geographic centre of gravity is shifting decisively. Asia-Pacific has evolved from sideshow to rising biotech investment hub. Australian companies must design multi-jurisdictional strategies from inception: where to generate data, where to launch, and how to structure partnerships that return value to Australia.
Our biggest underutilised asset? Our diaspora. AusBiotech’s survey revealed that of 1,300+ trained Australian medical research professionals overseas, 60% would consider returning if opportunities existed. Many would contribute as advisors even before relocating. The barrier isn’t willingness—it’s how easy we make reconnection.
Too many Australian biotechs operate with 1-2 year horizons rather than endgame vision. Companies that scale from $4 million to $100 million in a few years do so by acting “as if” from day one—in their hiring choices, client selection, and quality standards.
Five Concrete Moves for Biotech Leaders
Define your global endgame and act “as if” today Map your 10+ year vision: which markets, which patients, what scale. Make every current decision—hiring, quality systems, partnerships—as if you’re already that company.
Design a sovereign-plus-global strategy Explicitly determine what stays sovereign (radiopharma production, core IP) versus where you need global partners (manufacturing, distribution). Use international revenue to deliberately strengthen Australian jobs, infrastructure, and training.
Build deliberate commercial leadership pipelines Map your gaps in late-stage development, market access, health economics, medical affairs, and business development. Engage diaspora talent through advisory boards, fractional roles, and secondments. Value international experience rather than discounting it as “different.”
Establish board-level AI governance Set clear guardrails around ethics, data, and IP with priority use-cases: trial optimisation, portfolio modelling, process analytics, knowledge management. Ensure leadership understands AI as strategic capability, not IT project.
Diversify funding beyond government support Treat R&D tax incentives and grants as leverage, not life support. Build early relationships with strategic pharma partners, specialist life science investors, and corporate venture—particularly in Asia-Pacific where growth capital is re-emerging.
The Path Forward
Australia’s biotech sector stands at an inflection point. We have the science, the talent, and increasingly, the political will. What we need now is the commercial leadership courage to think bigger, act bolder, and build companies that don’t just participate in the global biotech revolution—but lead it.
The message from AusBiotech 2024 was clear: sovereign capability and global ambition aren’t competing priorities. They’re two sides of the same coin. The companies that understand this—and act accordingly—will define Australia’s biotech future.
Sandra Kerr is a Life Sciences and Health Leadership expert and Partner, Executive Search at Future Leadership. Connect for a strategic discussion about your talent pipeline.
An Education Leadership Conundrum: Inclusive Leadership in Universities
A capability review of higher education leadership reveals a need for greater diversity, if we are to achieve systemic change.
The Australian Public Service Commission has released a capability review of the Department of Education, calling for a “holistic systems perspective”. Last year, less than 10% of Australian Vice-Chancellors came from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Can we achieve whole-of-system change without increasing inclusive representation across the system? This is both a conundrum and a concerted effort.
I often reflect that executive search has a privileged role in contributing to the future direction of an organisation. Throughout the period wherein we are deeply entrenched in the search process, the partnership allows us to witness the current state, understand the emerging context, and unpack the capabilities of the entity.
This privileged position is amplified when you work with a sector that has societal impact, and for me, that is education.
A founding principle of our firm has been supporting organisations to achieve diversity in leadership, gender diversity of course, but increasingly leadership teams that reflect the intersectional diversity of the Australian community.
What the Universities Accord Got Right
The Universities Accord Final Report, released in February 2024 with its 47 recommendations for transformative reform, was explicit about the need for inclusive leadership.
The Accord goes on to argue that we need the proportion of Australians with tertiary qualifications to rise from 60% to 80% by 2050. That’s over 1.8 million Commonwealth Supported Places annually. We won’t achieve that kind of demographic transformation without bringing all Australians along on the journey.
Data from journals like Higher Education Research & Development and the Australian Educational Researcher consistently shows that over 50% of articles published in 2024 were related to one or more of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, yet our leadership appointments suggest we’re still optimising for different metrics entirely.
ACER’s latest research on “Rethinking assessment in response to generative artificial intelligence” and “Help for educators daunted by students’ poor mental health” points to exactly the kind of complex, cross-cultural challenges that require leaders who understand systemic disadvantage, not just academic tradition.
The Capability Review’s Uncomfortable Truth
The Federal Department tasked with overseeing our $55 billion education system operates with “varying degrees of responsibility across education sectors” while simultaneously presiding over universities that remain stubbornly monocultural at the top, despite being among our most diverse institutions at student and staff levels.
The capability review identified macro trends including “growing number of Australians living in poverty,” “declining birth rate relative to ageing population,” and “unpredictable geopolitical climate”. These aren’t abstract policy challenges; they’re lived realities that diverse leadership teams understand viscerally.
When the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) launches, it will inherit a system where Indigenous leaders have been “pivotal in embedding Indigenous knowledges and perspectives across disciplines,” yet these rolesremain proportionally too lowto have genuine impact in systematic transformation.
So, here’s what I’m pondering: if Australia’s National Science Statement emphasises “elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems” as a national priority, why aren’t more executive search firms, like us, conducting leadership searches that determinedly elevate the communities whose knowledge remains in the shadows?
At Future Leadership 3% of the thousands of appointed senior leaders, over two decades, have been executive First Nations and Aboriginal leaders. Many of them, in Higher Education.
This isn’t about optics, it’s about competitive advantage. The research is unambiguous: leadership teams with diverse perspectives make better decisions, drive innovation, and build organisational resilience. With Australia’s Economic Accelerator investing $270 million in 2024/25 and the National Reconstruction Fund deploying $15 billion, we’re making massive bets on sectors that universities must help deliver.
Yet we’re placing those bets with leadership teams that are failing to include the communities, networks, and perspectives essential for success in Asia-Pacific partnerships, Indigenous knowledge integration, and culturally responsive innovation.
The Leadership We Need
The Department’s 1,700 staff are tasked with stewarding an education system serving millions of increasingly diverse Australians. Universities Australia’s 2025 federal election statement calls for ‘building a stronger, more prosperous Australia.’ But prosperous for whom, and led by whom?
The next phase of innovation won’t be purely technological. It will be equity-driven. Leaders who understand systemic disadvantage are uniquely positioned to challenge outdated assumptions about merit, participation, and success. Whether reimagining admissions processes, designing culturally responsive learning environments, or supporting neurodiverse students, diverse leadership ensures inclusivity is embedded into innovation.
An Uncomfortable Conclusion
The capability review’s call for “holistic systems perspective” is spot on.
If the Education Department truly wants to coordinate a complex, federated education system serving diverse communities with varied needs, it needs to model the leadership transformation it expects from universities. And if universities want to remain relevant in an Australia that will be 80% tertiary-qualified by 2050, they need leaders who reflect and understand that future Australia, not the one that appointed them.
My educated guess is that we can’t afford not to diversify our education leadership.
Anyone who’s taken a history lesson must surely agree.
About the Author:
Andrew Nortonleads the higher education and vocational education practices at Future Leadership. He partners closely with government sector specialists, appointing and supporting senior executives, academics and board directors. Andrew has built enduring networks at a national and international level and is highly respected as a trusted advisor to clients and candidates alike.
Be 10% Braver: The Call to Courage for the Next Generation of Women in Leadership
Be 10% Braver: The Call to Courage for the Next Generation of Women in Leadership
By Liz Jones, Managing Partner, Future Leadership Let me start with a confession: I never set out to become an expert in leadership.
But after more than 25 years of sitting across the table from extraordinary leaders (and a few not-so-extraordinary ones), I’ve come to realise that the most important work we do at Future Leadership isn’t just filling jobs, it’s helping people with leadership potential back themselves. Especially women. Especially in education. And especially now.
We’re living in a world that’s throwing curveballs like never before. AI, climate change, social disruption, mental health, neurodiversity, this generation of students (and educators) are coming of age in times that demand not just smarts, but adaptability, resilience, and vision.
So the question for all of us, particularly those who shape our schools and learning environments, is this:
How do we make sure the next generation of women leaders are brave enough to back themselves, and bold enough to build futures they can’t yet imagine?
It starts with us.
What I Look for (and Don’t) in Education Leaders
This July, I had the pleasure of speaking at the #WomenEd Australia Webinar. The event was titled “10% Braver – Planning and Applying for Leadership“. It was a riveting conversation with Michelle Dennis, Head of Digital at Haileybury, and Lauren Sayer, Director at Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and Melbourne Girls Grammar. Here’s something I said at the event, and I say often, because it still surprises people: your CV is not a marketing brochure.
It’s not about puffery or perfect phrasing. It’s about impact. What did you inherit? What did you do? What changed?
When I’m reviewing candidates for senior education leadership roles, I’m not just ticking boxes for years of experience or formal quals (though yes, they still matter). I’m looking for future-ready capability. Things like:
Adaptability: Can you lead through ambiguous and complex times?
Capability growth: Do you understand how to build capacity in others?
Emotional Awareness: Have you created environments where people feel safe to try, fail, and try again?
And here’s the clincher: Have you evolved with the times, or are you clinging to yesterday’s definitions of leadership?
Because schools don’t want status quo. They want transformation. They want leaders who’ve figured out how to integrate AI thoughtfully, engage with cultural complexity, prioritise wellbeing, and create climate-conscious strategies with students at the centre.
CVs and Cover Letters: The No-Fluff Version
A little practical advice (because we all love a tip we can use right away): if you’re applying for a leadership role, read the Candidate Information Pack properly.
I mean really read it. The capabilities listed in there? That’s what the interview is going to be based on. Don’t write a generic cover letter. It’s not 2003. Instead, connect emotionally to the organisation. Reference their values. Mention a school leader you admire. Show me that you’ve done your homework and you give a damn.
And for the love of all things good in education, don’t regurgitate your CV in your interview. Tell me a story. Use the STAR method: Situation, Task, Action, Result and be reflective and ensure you make it relevant to the client. Nail 10 great, scalable stories and be able to deliver them with clarity and energy.
Because when you walk into that interview, the panel already thinks you can do the job. What they want to know now is: How will you do it? And will you do it in a way that fits who we are and where we’re going?
The Spiral Career and the Power of Saying “Yes”
We need to shift our mindset about what a leadership journey looks like.
It’s not always a straight line up. Sometimes it’s a spiral. Sometimes it loops sideways through a secondment or a role in a different sector. That doesn’t mean you’re off track, it means you’re building breadth.
I’ll never forget one panellist, Lauren Sayer, who shared how her first leadership opportunity came through a four-week secondment on interactive whiteboards. Unpaid. Unfamiliar. But she said yes. And that tiny step became the foundation for everything that followed.
We need to teach our emerging women that leadership doesn’t require perfection or readiness. It requires willingness.
Getting Over the “Not Ready Yet” Syndrome
Let’s be honest, we’ve all heard it:
“I don’t tick all the boxes.”
“I’ve never held a formal leadership title.”
“I’m not sure I’m ready.”
Here’s the truth: no one is ever “ready” in the way they think they need to be.
What matters is whether you’ve been developing leadership behaviours before you hold the title. Have you mentored others? Piloted an initiative? Led a tricky conversation? Sat in discomfort and worked through it with integrity?
You don’t need the crown to lead. You need courage.
Interview Prep: The Bit No One Practices Enough
Too many candidates stumble at the final hurdle because they haven’t prepared properly.
Here’s my advice:
Practice your stories like you’re prepping for a role in a movie. Know your data. Your timelines. Your budget figures.
Don’t wing it. Record yourself. Watch it back. Cringe a little. Then get better.
Get comfortable asking bold questions at the end of an interview. Not “What’s the culture like?” (snooze). Ask, “What are the biggest strategic risks you’re facing, and how could this role help address them?” Boom. You’ve just reframed yourself as a partner in progress, not just a candidate.
Capability Over Compliance
Schools used to ask: Can you manage compliance? Keep the trains running?
Now they’re asking: Can you lead a transformation? Navigate complexity? Build a team that thrives through disruption?
If you’re still preparing for yesterday’s interview questions, you’re going to miss tomorrow’s opportunities.
So here’s what you can do right now:
Engage with future thinking. Read about how AI is reshaping assessment. Learn how climate change is impacting school infrastructure.
Build cultural competence. Not just in terms of DEI policies, but real-world, community-led understanding.
Understand neurodiversity, not just as a challenge to accommodate, but as a strength to amplify.
And if you’re serious about stepping up, consider using our Future Leadership Capability Framework (FLCF). It’s a diagnostic tool we use with leadership teams to pinpoint capability gaps and map future readiness. Reach out if you want a link to the interactive version, we use it every day to support leaders just like you.
Onboarding and the First 100 Days
So you’ve landed the gig, big congrats!
Now what?
Forget the old-school 100-day listening tour. The bar is higher now.
Leaders who make a mark early:
Establish feedback loops (yes, include student voice!).
Use diagnostics to fast-track understanding of team dynamics.
Honour the existing culture and begin building adaptive capacity.
And please, be kind to yourself. Impact is expected quickly, but perfection isn’t. Show up ready to learn, and the credibility will come.
The Gendered Double-Bind (and What to Do About It)
Let’s talk straight: women in education leadership still walk a tightrope.
Too soft? You’re seen as lacking gravitas. Too assertive? You’re suddenly “intimidating”. We’ve all been there.
Here’s my advice:
Own your collaborative, emotionally intelligent, systems-thinking leadership style. That’s not a liability, it’s exactly what our schools need.
Don’t water yourself down to fit a broken mould. Break the mould.
You don’t need to mimic masculine leadership to be effective. You need to model courageous, human-centred leadership. And that’s often a space women occupy brilliantly.
For the Educators Shaping Tomorrow’s Women
This article isn’t just for the aspiring leaders in the room. It’s for the education leaders already at the helm, those shaping the pathways for the next generation of brave women.
Here’s your challenge:
Say yes to mentoring. One conversation can shift a career.
Create leadership opportunities before titles, invite your emerging leaders into decision-making spaces.
Celebrate spiral careers. Value what people learn outside the box.
Make space for reflection. Ask your team what they’re learning, not just what they’re delivering.
And most importantly: tell the truth about your own journey. The messy bits. The pivots. The doubts. That’s what gives other women permission to dream, and permission to dare.
Final Thought: Bravery Begets Bravery
We tell our girls they can be anything. But unless we model bravery ourselves, unless we show what it means to put our hands up before we feel ready, to ask the hard questions, to speak when it’s easier to stay quiet—we’re sending mixed signals.
So let’s be 10% braver. Not just in how we lead, but in how we lift.
Let’s raise our voices, open doors, and pave the way for a future where no young woman doubts she belongs at the table, or at the front of the room.
Because if we don’t back them, who will?
About the Author:
Liz Jones is Managing Partner at Future Leadership. With over two decades of experience placing senior leaders across the education sector, she’s a straight-talking champion for capability over credentials, people over performance, and brave women backing themselves. She leads Future Leadership’s national education practice and is a firm believer that a 10% braver mindset can change everything.
Council Capabilities Under Constraint: Insights from Alexandra Deng’s LGPro Webinar
Council Capabilities Under Constraint: Insights from Alexandra Deng‘s LGPro Webinar
In a recent LGProwebinar, Alexandra Deng, Associate Partner of Talent Acquisition at Future Leadership, delivered compelling and practical insights on ways Local Government can develop leadership capabilities whilst operating in an increasingly constrained and high-demand environment.Her presentation, titled “Capabilities Under Constraint,” addressed one of the most pressing questions facing local government today: What are the top Council capabilitiesneeded for the future?
Capabilities to future-ready the Council workforce
Drawing on extensive experience in organisational development and talent acquisition at Future Leadership, our Organisational Psychologists have developed the Future Leadership Capability Framework (FLCF) to help organisations tackle emerging talent challenges. This structured framework supports conversations around talent acquisition, succession planning, and learning and development.
Council leaders consistently highlight several capabilities as pivotal for future-readying their teams. Focusing on these capabilities through targeted development ensures Council not only survives in a complex environment but thrives under pressure.
Systems thinking: a “whole of Council” approach
The most frequently cited capability for development is systems thinking, also known as enterprise leadership. This encourages leaders to adopt a “whole of Council” perspective on strategy, decision-making, and implementation. Many Councils operate in functional silos, missing opportunities for collaboration and efficiency. Systems thinking helps leaders understand how services, departments, and external stakeholders interconnect, which is essential for tackling complex community issues.
Leaders can foster systems thinking by designing cross-departmental projects, mapping cause-and-effect across teams, offering secondments, and creating shared goals beyond individual KPIs. Psychologically safe workplaces, where challenge and collaboration are welcomed, provide the ideal environment for this capability to grow.
Ethics & integrity: strong governance
Operating in the public sector with public funds requires leaders who demonstrate integrity and ethical decision-making. Councils increasingly expect officers and Councillors to champion governance and accountability.
Developing ethical leadership can include senior leaders modelling ethical choices, creating mechanisms for staff to call out questionable behaviour, and empowering all levels of staff to take ownership of governance as part of their day-to-day responsibilities.
Organisational capability: aligned talent & match-fit systems
Delivering on community needs depends on having both the right people and systems in place. Strategic workforce planning, acting or interim roles to bring fresh perspectives, and early engagement with People & Culture teams help ensure the Council has the right capabilities.
Trusted partnerships with aligned recruitment providers also strengthen the organisation, ensuring talent is sourced that can sustain long-term success and deliver on the Council’s vision.
Commercial acumen: maximising resources and finding synergies
Financial maturity is essential to balancing short-term needs with long-term sustainability. While many public sector leaders excel in service delivery, commercial realities can pose challenges.
In practice, commercial acumen involves monitoring industry trends, using insights to make informed, risk-aware decisions, understanding political and funding environments, negotiating and innovating revenue streams, and communicating decisions effectively to ratepayers.
Session results
When we asked session participants which capabilities they considered most important for Council, their teams, and their own development, the majority chose Systems Thinking, followed by Commercial Acumen. Together, these capabilities enable faster, more efficient decision-making and innovation in a resource-constrained environment.
Systems thinking does not always come naturally and benefits from training that clearly shows what enterprise leadership looks like at every level and in every role. Practical ways to encourage this “whole of Council” approach include:
Link systems thinking to real results & lived experience: Show how collaboration drives measurable outcomes such as Council revenue, community satisfaction, and project delivery. Highlight where siloed behaviour has caused delays or missed opportunities.
Reward enterprise behaviour: Recognise and reward team members who engage across the Council. Tie performance measures, acting-up roles, and learning opportunities to enterprise thinking.
Remove barriers to collaboration: Siloed teams often resist working across functions due to inefficiency or lack of clarity. Clear processes, shared goals, and discussion forums make collaboration straightforward and motivating.
If you’d like to know more about how to future proof your council leadership with the right capabilities, reach out to me: [email protected]
Alexandra Deng is an Associate Partner specialising in agile talent within Future Leadership’s Interim Executive practice. with a focus on senior appointments in the Public Sector, she works across all levels of Government, with a functional speciality in People & Culture. Alexandra is diversely experienced in Human Resources and Law, having held senior positions in People & Culture across industries including technology, R&D, horticulture and construction.
We’re making moves…
Stay in touch with the latest leadership opportunities, appointments and industry insights when you sign up for our newsletter.
We take your data privacy very seriously.
We collect cookies to ensure you have a great experience here on our site, and optimise our website performance. We do not collect or share your personally identifiable data unless you specifically provide it to us by submitting an application for a role, subscribing to our newsletter, or filling out a form to stay in touch. Future Leadership is built on trust, and we prioritise yours.
We acknowledge the first and continuing custodians of the countries and the grounds upon which we live, lead, and learn. We recognise the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and the land the world over. We welcome their deep knowledge and lessons in stewardship.
Andrew leads the higher education and vocational education practices at Future Leadership. He partners closely with government sector specialists, appointing and supporting senior executives, academics and board directors. Andrew has built enduring networks at a national and international level and is highly respected as a trusted advisor to clients and candidates alike.
Amanda is a highly experienced leader, an accomplished non-executive director and strategic facilitator. Her successful portfolio career draws on specific expertise in education and governance.Amanda’s advisory work concentrates on strategic futures, leadership development and masterclasses for boards, CEOs and senior managers. Her work translates to opinion pieces and keynote addresses on current issues and new ideas impacting related sectors.
