What should Governors really be asking their Executive teams?

Join HEPI on at 1pm today for a webinar launching our new report ’20 Years of the Student Experience’ which looks back on the last 20 years of results from the HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, which first began in 2006. Sign up here to watch the webinar.

This blog was kindly authored by James Clark, Managing Director at Interpath, and Frank Dredge-Hetherington, Director at Interpath.

University governors carry a significant responsibility – one that goes far beyond oversight. In today’s climate of rising costs, constrained funding and increasingly unpredictable student income, the role demands sharp thinking, confidence and crucially, the willingness to ask difficult questions.

Recent events, such as the Gillies Report into the University of Dundee, have highlighted what can go wrong when that challenge is absent. A lack of scrutiny, over-reliance on executive reassurance and insufficient interrogation of financial data allowed serious issues to escalate unnoticed.

The lesson is clear: effective governance depends on curiosity, constructive challenge and a firm grip on reality.

So what should governors be asking right now?

Is our strategy actually robust, or just optimistic?

A strategy can look compelling on paper. But does it truly stand up to the pressures facing the sector?

Governors should push beyond surface-level assurances and ask how rigorously the strategy has been tested. Has it been challenged against shifting student demand? Does it account for economic pressures and the real difficulty of reducing costs?

Understanding your audience is equally critical. If student expectations and demographics are evolving – and they are – how is the institution adapting? A strong strategy isn’t static; it evolves with the world around it. How flexible is our 5 or 10 year plan? Does it allow us to pivot as demand changes? Those with strategies which are rigid will likely be on a difficult path from the off.

Does our estate support, or undermine, our strategy?

University estates are often one of the largest and least flexible cost bases. Yet, too frequently, estate decisions are made in isolation from broader strategic priorities.

Are buildings being fully utilised? Is there excess capacity quietly draining resources? More importantly, does the estate actively enable the university’s ambitions – or hold them back?

Governors should also ensure that estate planning aligns with ESG commitments, from sustainability to social value, and that major capital investments are fully integrated into financial oversight – not treated as side conversations.

Governors will often have to robustly challenge and, if necessary, call out vanity projects. Once committed, these are very difficult to unwind. Rather, ensure any new real estate projects, like the overall University Strategy (referred to above), are flexible and can move with the times.

Have we seriously considered the hard options?

Incremental savings can only go so far. In many cases, meaningful change requires bold, uncomfortable decisions.

That might include exploring structural changes such as partnerships or even mergers. These aren’t easy conversations – but avoiding them doesn’t make the underlying challenges disappear.

Governors should be asking: what options are we not considering – and why? Again, this often requires bold, and possibly unpopular leadership and challenge from the board – standing up against ‘empire preservation’ in the face of potential empire collapse.

Can we trust the forecasts?

Forecasts are only as strong as the assumptions behind them. And in uncertain times, those assumptions deserve careful scrutiny.

Are projections genuinely realistic, or are problems being pushed into future years? Have key risks been stress-tested – particularly those outside institutional control? Ensure you see sensitivity analysis which models different scenarios, for example, based around pricing, student numbers and cost inflation.

It’s also worth looking beyond the numbers. Does the Executive team have the capability and capacity to deliver against these forecasts in a volatile environment?

Do we really understand our cost base?

A surprising number of institutions lack a clear, detailed understanding of what drives their costs.

Sometimes this comes down to poor data or fragmented systems. In other cases, it’s culturally longstanding assumptions about what is ‘fixed’ or untouchable which go unchallenged.

Perhaps most importantly, spending isn’t always aligned with what students actually value. Without that alignment, even significant investment can fail to deliver impact.

If we do understand our cost base, have we got the skillset and bandwidth to pull it apart and examine where savings might be made? Is the Executive team simply delivering low-hanging fruit when, with further effort, additional savings could be made?

The tone at the top – no ‘pass-outs’ – must be set before embarking on any cost reduction programme. The governors have a big part to play in ensuring this is in place.

Can we explain our value to students?

The conversation around value for money is becoming louder and more complex.

With rising tuition fees, a tougher graduate job market, and uncertainty driven by technological change, students are asking harder questions. Institutions must be ready to answer them.

How is income from fees actually spent? How does that spending translate into quality outcomes and experience?

Clarity here isn’t just desirable – it’s essential for trust and competitiveness.

What are we doing differently?

The pressures facing universities are well-known: rising staff costs, increasing utilities, higher national insurance contributions, and a challenging international recruitment landscape.

In this context, standing still is not a neutral act – it’s a risk.

Governors need to have a finger on the pulse of what their customers want. They should be prepared to challenge management feedback in this regard.

Governors should look for tangible, sustained change. Are cost-saving plans backed by credible delivery strategies? Are early warning signs being acted on? Is the institution tackling underlying cultural barriers to cost control?

Too often, savings are assumed but not realised, or initiatives deliver short-term gains only for costs to creep back in later.

Real change requires discipline, clarity, and action.

What happens if things go wrong?

Most management teams track risks. Not all are truly prepared to act quickly when those risks materialise.

Governors should expect clear, actionable contingency plans – not vague assurances. If revenue drops unexpectedly, what decisions would be made immediately? What levers can be pulled, and how quickly?

Preparation isn’t about pessimism – it’s about resilience. This also brings into question the point raised above: if things go wrong, does the Executive team have the experience to deliver the change needed? What supportive relationships exist beyond the University walls which can be called upon in times of need? In fact, do the Governors know what type of support might be needed in the first instance?

Final Thoughts

Strong governance isn’t about having all the answers – it’s about asking the right questions.

In a sector under pressure, those questions matter more than ever. Governors who are willing to challenge, probe, and push for clarity won’t just protect their institutions – they’ll help shape their future.