Executive summary. Professor Rajani Naidoo is a leading and widely cited scholar in higher education management and the social sciences, with a distinguished academic career that includes senior roles at the University of Bath, a UNESCO Chair, and a Visiting Professorship at Nelson Mandela University. Her trajectory also reflects a transition into senior leadership as Vice President of People and Culture at the University of Exeter, where she has led a range of cultural change initiatives aimed at strengthening wellbeing across the institution. Drawing on a series of conversations, this account highlights how scholarly insight can be translated into organisational practice, and the challenges and opportunities involved in leading culture and people-focused transformation in a university context.

Key takeaways

• Effective wellbeing in universities is rooted in a people centred culture, where belonging, trust, fairness, and inclusion are treated as conditions for performance rather than secondary concerns, supported by clear strategies and cross institutional collaboration.
• Cultural change requires moving beyond top down or purely local initiatives, instead creating mechanisms that connect different levels of the institution, encourage shared ownership, and translate values such as inclusion and wellbeing into everyday practices, policies, and decision making.
• Sustainable wellbeing depends on how institutions handle complexity and tension, balancing competing demands such as performance, equity, and freedom of expression, while building trust through transparency, dialogue, and care, showing that culture is shaped as much by relationships and leadership behaviour as by formal structures.

---

In a series of focused conversations, Professor Howard Thomas, senior advisor to the EFMD, former dean of the business school at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, LKCSB at the Singapore Management University and the Warwick Business School, examines Professor Rajani Naidoo’s approach to institutional cultural change in her role as Vice President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor for People and Culture at the University of Exeter. Rajani outlines her leadership vision, strategic priorities, and the challenges of implementing cultural transformation in higher education.

These conversations follow Howard’s previous interview with Rajani in Finding Purpose in Higher Education: Insights from the Distinctive Career of Professor Rajani Naidoo (Thomas, 2025), where she described her remit as fostering high performance, reducing structural barriers, and enabling interdisciplinary collaboration within a research-intensive, Russell Group university. She acknowledges the support of President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Lisa Roberts and the expertise of her colleagues working in the people and culture arena.

She emphasised the complexity of academic leadership amid global, national, and institutional pressures, noting the difficulty of translating scholarly insights into practice. Rajani set out her ambition to achieve substantive, collaborative cultural change over five years, with impact extending beyond Exeter.

The next phase of conversations between Howard and Rajani span institutional, faculty, departmental, and student perspectives, offering case illustrations of cultural change and highlighting Rajani’s commitment to creating positive academic cultures—not only in the Business School (Jeanes and Naidoo, 2025) but also across a leading, Russell Group University.

Howard Thomas: Rajani, we spoke in the previous interview about what attracted you to the University of Exeter, and what were your main motivations for accepting the job of Vice-President for People and Culture? Two years into the role, have these changed?

Rajani Naidoo: The original motivations have become stronger. I remember a meeting this year with university leaders who had chosen to remain with their colleagues and students in conditions of unbearable humanitarian crisis. When we asked them what we could do to support them since their libraries and laboratories had already been reduced to rubble, they answered “The buildings are not the University. The people are the University, and we are still here.”

This brought home to me that when we are chasing targets or trapped within processes and structures, we may sometimes forget about people and the power of people. Exeter attracted because the support and wellbeing of people was seen as crucial to the University’s collective success. It was also the first time such a role had been created in the sector, so that was very exciting! In a sense, it was a role I had been dreaming of because it touched on how we give everyone a fair opportunity to join us, how we provide conditions for everyone to excel, and how we facilitate collaboration in interdisciplinary education and research to create positive impact in the world.

Howard Thomas: To what extent has your vision of the job changed as you gained more experience in the role? How would you describe your overarching vision now?

Rajani Naidoo: I believe that in a world of rising inequality, political polarisation, climate emergency and financial challenges, universities have a responsibility to contribute to creating a better world. This is encapsulated in our greener, healthier and fairer vision, and in our University Strategy 2030. My focus is to attract the best talent, give everyone a fair opportunity, and create a sense of belonging, sharing and trust to facilitate the right conditions to innovate and contribute to a more just and sustainable world.

Leaders do not exist in a vacuum but are part of the complex ecosystem of the University. My vision is now linked closely to our collective People and Culture vision, which has been forged by discussion and debate. This falls under 3 pillars:

1. Facilitating a healthy, inclusive and high-achieving student and colleague community
2. Enhancing our skills and expertise as a community and developing pipelines for progression and leadership
3. Enabling good campus relations, freedom of speech and a values-driven speak out culture

A vast body of work sits under each of these pillars, led by cross-functional teams and steered by the Wellbeing, Inclusion and Culture Committee (WICC) jointly chaired by me and the Deputy Registrar and Executive Divisional Director of Human Resources, Culture and Assurance. Membership includes the Deputy Vice Chancellors, Associate Pro-Vice Chancellors from across the Faculties, Heads of Professional Services, and student representatives. As well as being a member of WICC, a significant segment of this work is expertly co-ordinated by the Assistant Director (Culture and Inclusion), the managers and strategic partners responsible for Inclusion, Wellbeing and Charter and the incredible members within these teams.

Howard Thomas: Could you describe in more detail your approach to leadership?

Rajani Naidoo: It is very challenging to be a university leader in contemporary times. We are faced with conflicting regulatory demands, financial pressures and declining levels of trust from parts of government and from some groups in society.

My own research has evaluated university policies and practice in a critical manner, and as a university leader, I continue to defend the importance of research and teaching to develop critiques of education, politics, economics and society, and to call truth to power. However, being in a leadership position has made me understand how difficult it is to find solutions to such critiques and how challenging it is to navigate across different communities with conflicting opinions while holding responsibility for the University as a whole.

It is also difficult to implement change when faced with a challenging external environment and with the stubborn reality of unequal resources, differential power and conflicting regulatory demands. My approach is to engage all parts of our university community, explaining the factors at play, defining the benefits and trade-offs and revealing the unintended consequences of choosing certain actions over others.

I truly believe that we cannot create the best conditions for innovation if we lead through fear, coercion or dysfunctional hyper-competition or what I have referred to as the competition fetish in higher education. By developing shared ownership, trust and belonging we unleash intrinsic motivation and passion. The University also consists of sub-cultures, and I seek to understand the microcultures at play within different disciplines and professional services divisions so that I can learn and connect.

My style has never been command-and-control but collaborative and empathetic. I am genuinely interested in people, and I want to hear what their fears and aspirations are. When members of our community are angry or distressed, I face them, including as a whole group, with the full understanding that I will be the target of their anger or their pain, that I will need to absorb this, and listen. Then I need to talk through options with the group to find the path of least harm. When different groups are in conflict, I take a neutral stance and listen closely to everyone before supporting groups to come to a mediated solution.

Howard Thomas: I would like to go into more detail about your principles and long-term vision. Can you outline key strategic principles in the translation of the vision?

Rajani Naidoo: My research has drawn on the insights of the French social scientist Pierre Bourdieu, who conceptualised universities as existing in social fields that are relatively independent from other fields, such as the field of politics or the field of economics (Bourdieu,1986). The university field has its own belief systems, values, rewards and sanctions (Naidoo, 2004). Individuals and institutions are located in the field with more or less power, dependent on the field-specific resources they possess. Bourdieu referred to these resources as cultural capital, which, although less visible than economic capital, commands vast power. The cultural capital that universities reward is aligned with the culture of the dominant group in society, giving members of this group a major advantage in entering and succeeding in university.

So, for some people, engaging in university life is like being a fish in the water, they understand the culture and the unspoken rules and they can succeed, while for others, it is very alien. These insights enable me to understand how inequalities in society are replicated in universities. So I see my role as evaluating the dynamics of how cultural capital works to reproduce patterns of exclusion, and to develop strategies to distribute opportunities for success, distributed fairly across our University.

The second strategic principle lies in my belief that we can only transform culture through collaboration across the University and that the solution does not lie in top-down or bottom-up leadership but in the magic in the middle. Our Wellbeing, Inclusion and Culture (WIC) work has defined organisational structures for accountability and for implementation. I have created a 3-step WIC Community of Practice forum for engagement, grounded in my understanding that engaging with and energising our people is central to transforming culture.

The first forum brings colleagues from right across the University who hold people and culture roles into a WIC Community of Practice gathering. There is no formal agenda, which is liberating! In the first half, we share local innovations, and in the second half, we surface common challenges.

The second stage consists of a WIC Innovates seminar series where the most impactful local innovation or common challenge from the WIC Community of Practice is presented in more detail. In this forum, solutions are co-constructed, and innovations are cascaded across the Institution.

The third stage is a WIC Solutions meeting, where a common challenge is brought to a senior leader by a group of colleagues, and together they co-construct solutions for change.

Through these mechanisms, we have instituted bottom-up change, including making the ways in which students can report harassment and gain support more accessible, highlighting media attacks on our researchers, understanding the equality, diversity and inclusion impacts of changes in regulation, and the interaction of global partnerships on our university community. There has been excellent attendance, constructive participation and good outcomes. By creating channels for authentic engagement and impact across the University, a greater sense of belonging and agency has been curated with potential for small, authentic steps in genuine cultural transformation, which together can create important tipping points for the institution.

Howard Thomas: Can you give us some examples of initiatives in this area that perhaps exemplify the principles and your leadership approach?

Rajani Naidoo: Excellent work has already been completed by colleagues at Exeter to apply the principle of distributing opportunities for progression more fairly. The Exeter Academic Framework was developed by a Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor and sponsored by the provost to support academic colleagues to achieve their goals in research, education and impact. What is important about this policy and guidance is that it makes the criteria and process transparent, rather than visible only to those with a cultural understanding of the implicit rules of the system. The criteria also include the breadth of what we value, which includes the ability to educate with rigour and in ways inspired by our research, to advance knowledge and discovery, to translate research into impact, and to be collegiate and collaborative.

In addition, excellent work has been completed by a Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor on the colleague appraisal process, which we call the Performance Development Review, which sets out the aims, the process and the outcomes for both the appraiser and the appraisee. Together, we are now exploring innovative ways using videos of actors in scenarios to support senior academic leads in conducting the appraisal in a way that genuinely supports academic colleagues in progression. I have also set out to ensure that cohorts on programmes for supporting potential such as the 100 Black Woman Professors Now understand how the Exeter Academic criteria work and how to prepare for appraisal and progression.

In addition, following cross-university engagement, and working with colleagues in People Development and a pilot led by a Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor in one faculty, I led on a responsive and flexible university-wide mentoring scheme (including post-doctoral researchers, professional services colleagues and all faculty levels) which enables mentors and mentees to connect across the university based on expertise and needs, rather than role or department, thus encouraging the breaking down of institutional silos. Following an extensive search process, a mentoring platform was purchased, which gives the mentee considerable flexibility to select their mentor following a matching process based on knowledge, skills and expertise. The platform also holds an extensive database of built-in resources, including training and integrated forms to support mentorship, such as goal setting and a mentee journey log. Since its university-wide launch of the platform to mentors in May 2025, around 700 colleagues have signed up to be mentors and mentees, with momentum and awareness continuing.

Our University Strategy 2030 also prioritises health and wellbeing, and this is an area in which I provide strategic leadership, together with the Deputy Registrar and Executive Divisional Director of Human Resources, Culture and Assurance, working with incredible teams led by the WIC Business Manager. We successfully achieved the University Mental Health Charter (UMHC) Award by Student Minds which recognised our commitment to a whole-university approach to mental health and our dedication to mental health and wellbeing as a core priority. The award process helped us to reflect on our progress and successes as well as identify areas that we want to develop further. We have a wide range of initiatives to support our work, including training for managers to support the Mental Wellbeing of their Teams, as well as nature-linked and other therapeutic strategies to support wellbeing.

Howard Thomas: Could you say a little about how you handle critical issues and challenges?

Rajani Naidoo: I try to face challenges with fairness and a willingness to listen. My tenure has coincided with some of the most challenging periods in higher education, marked by tensions around freedom of speech, gender identity, and global conflict. Rather than retreat from difficult conversations, I faced them head-on.

For example, the UK Government Office for Students ruling on the University of Sussex in relation to Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom and the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of sex, particularly as it applies to the Equality Act 2010, were challenging for most institutions. I held open-door meetings with members of our community directly impacted, which were emotional and fraught, but which ultimately built trust. Our policies were reviewed carefully and thoughtfully. I am continuing to engage with members of our community to ensure that fairness is at the core of it all.

I also set up and chair a working group to assess our policies and provisions in light of these developments. We are seeking to identify areas for policy enhancement as well as recommend changes and actions to advance the University’s core values of freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as protection from harassment and good campus relations. Colleagues across different roles have been brought together to work in workstreams.

In a period marked by heightened tensions around protest, freedom of speech, and academic freedom, I contributed to stabilising leadership. At a time when emotions ran high across multiple constituencies, I worked with colleagues to ensure that institutional responses were calm, proportionate, balanced and values-driven. I, and members of my team engaged directly and empathetically with diverse groups, including students who were protesting and members of our community who felt unsafe as a result of such protests, while also clearly articulating institutional boundaries and legal obligations.

In addition, I commissioned and oversaw the delivery of highly-evaluated training for Senior Responsible Officers who are responsible for ensuring that meetings and gatherings on campus enabled free speech, did not lead to harassment and ensured the safety of all. Guild and Student Union officers, and relevant colleagues also attended. This training – delivered in part by actors and by a Senior QC – focused on mediation skills, legal frameworks, and strategies for maintaining institutional balance amidst polarisation.

Outcomes from my and my colleagues’ work has been demonstrable. We avoided the need for a police presence during protests, experienced no major conflicts between campus groups, and were not cited by the Office for Students for breach of free speech duties. Our approach was further recognised through inclusion in a Universities UK good practice publication and invitations to present at conferences. Individual comments from members of impacted communities have affirmed the credibility of these initiatives.

Howard Thomas: The broad and interesting nature of the examples, show how your principles have been applied thoroughly and carefully in empowering culture and people at Exeter. Could you talk about an external issue that you faced, which might demonstrate external issues universities are facing more widely, and where you can share good practice?

Rajani Naidoo: Freedom of speech in the UK and elsewhere has become a highly contested issue. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act places a legal duty on universities to actively secure lawful free speech and academic freedom. The Office for Students has the power to investigate and sanction institutions that fall short. We also have obligations under the Equality Act—to prevent harassment and discrimination—and we have a duty of care for the wellbeing of our community. So, universities now operate within multiple, sometimes conflicting, legal and moral frameworks. University leaders are being asked to reconcile laws, values, and expectations that sometimes pull in opposite directions.

The University of Exeter is one of the most exciting and politically plural institutions I have ever worked in. It is a community of vibrant debate and strong conviction. But that vitality brings its own challenges.

Over the past year, colleagues and I have been at the centre of some of the most complex and sensitive issues in university life. We have navigated student demonstrations, controversial speakers, and intense social media scrutiny.

We have managed these moments by affirming our relationships as human beings and our duty of care to everyone. We have not resorted to calling in the police, and – most importantly – tensions have not escalated to create deep fractures in our campus community.

Exeter’s approach has evolved through both policy and practice, and – importantly, through learning from missteps and disagreement. I would like to share what has helped us achieve this balance and the ongoing work still ahead.

The primary step was for the senior leadership team to articulate a set of guiding principles that speak to the heart of who we aspire to be.

First, we affirmed that freedom of speech and academic freedom are not optional luxuries; they are fundamental to university education and research. These are the conditions under which knowledge can grow, as elaborated by Annick Castiaux , President of the University of Namur, Belgium, in our panel in the British Council Going Global 2025 conference in London.

Second, we recognised that rights often collide. Freedom of expression is protected by law. So are protections against harassment and discrimination. Both are vital. But sometimes they pull in opposite directions.

The law speaks of proportionality. But proportionality is not a mechanical process; it is a moral and cultural practice. At Exeter, we draw inspiration from Professor André Keets notion of holding tensions productively, not erasing conflict, but living with it as part of an open, plural academic community. Our role is to hold the space where disagreement can happen safely and fairly, and hopefully constructively.

A third principle emerged from reflection: In theory, every member of our community has the same right to speak. In practice, not everyone enters a debate with equal power. A professor’s controversial comment might be viewed as ‘academic freedom’, while a student’s emotional response may be framed as aggressive. There are very real imbalances of power, confidence, and cultural capital, which shape how ‘free’ speech really is. True freedom of speech is not only about removing restrictions, it is about creating fair conditions for participation.

The second step for us was to turn these principles, through careful design into practice.

First, through policy. Our Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom policies were co-created with our staff and student unions. Our Speakers and Events Policy emphasises transparency, risk assessment, and fairness. Our Community Protest Guidance offers clear, accessible information about what lawful protest looks like, what conduct crosses a line, and how students can seek support if they feel unsafe. We communicate openly ahead of contentious events—providing forums for dialogue, guidance on conduct, and opportunities for Q&A.

Second, we work together in a small, cross-functional group for scenario planning and crisis response. This group brings together expertise in communications, equality, welfare, legal affairs, and security. I would like to pay particular tribute to: the Registrar and Senior Vice-President; the General Counsel and Director of Legal and Student Cases; the Assistant Director (Culture and Inclusion) in Human Resources, Culture and Assurance; the Director of Campus, Residential and Commercial Services; the Assistant Director (Communications, External Engagement and Global), the Head of Security, the Chief Executive and the Community Empowerment Manager of the Students’ Guild. We prepare in advance for flashpoints: international crises, protests, or moments of heightened emotion, so that we can respond proportionately and with empathy rather than panic.

Third, through culture. We have learnt as a leadership team not to take protest personally. We try to see legal, peaceful protest not as threats to order, but as members of our community motivated by strong feelings. Equally, we recognise that those who feel unsafe by protest require protection and support.

Crucially, we have made it a priority to build relationships – both with those leading protests and with those impacted by them. By maintaining open lines of communication with organisers and with affected groups, we can anticipate flashpoints and attempt to mediate differences early.

Training has also been central to this cultural shift—training Student Union officers in using skills of mediation when facing groups in opposition to each other, security staff in de-escalation and engagement rather than crowd control, and colleagues in facilitating difficult conversations. Training has involved live simulations with actors that build confidence and trust, rather than tick boxing exercises

All this work is brought together through what I call our Living Laboratory for Learning—the Freedom of Speech, Academic Freedom and Good Campus Relations Group, which I chair.

It is not a bureaucratic committee but a learning community—bringing together students, academics, legal experts, welfare staff, and security colleagues to horizon-scan to identify gaps and test policies. This group helps us reconcile policies, anticipate tensions, and learn from experience before crises erupt. It is a proactive approach—one that treats free speech as education in action. There are important pockets of innovation already flourishing—within our Students’ Guild, in our academic departments and across our professional services, that show great potential. My aim working together with colleagues is to surface these innovations, design co-learning across the institution, and create a university-wide approach embedded both in our curriculum and in the fabric of our institutional culture.

The years ahead are not going to get any easier. It’s going to get more and more difficult. And I think we as universities have to be really clear what it means for us, and we have to take hold of that and really make it our own.

Howard Thomas: One final question – How do you know you are doing a good job? What would you say are signs of a positive institutional culture?

Rajani Naidoo: In a constantly evolving institutional, national, and global context, there is no point at which one can say the work is ‘done’. Universities are living systems, shaped by social change, policy shifts, and the lived experiences of the people within them. While an enormous amount of work has been undertaken by myself and by colleagues across the institution in relation to people and culture, I remain acutely aware that this work is necessarily ongoing. This awareness is an important indicator of integrity and responsibility in my role.

I recognise progress in what I would describe as meaningful indicators rather than isolated achievements. For example, I see glimmers of hope in small shifts in the data: increased representation of diverse colleagues and students at entry points, improved progression and retention rates. But equally important are relational and cultural signals that are harder to quantify. I know I am doing something right when members of our community trust me enough to share experiences of vulnerability, uncertainty, or injustice—often quietly and without expectation of immediate solutions. Trust of that kind reflects a belief that one will be listened to, taken seriously, and treated with care. I also see positive culture when colleagues I work with feel psychologically safe enough to challenge my views, disagree openly, or ask for support without fear of judgment or repercussion. A culture that allows for respectful dissent is, in my view, a sign of institutional maturity.

A further indicator aligns with intersectional theory and collective models of social justice. At Exeter, I have observed that groups who experience specific structural disadvantages frequently act in solidarity with other minoritised groups facing different barriers. For instance, initiatives led by one equality network often explicitly acknowledge and support the concerns of others, recognising that systems of inequality are interconnected rather than discrete. This form of cross-group advocacy reflects a shift from individualised understandings of disadvantage to a more systemic and relational conception of justice—one that is essential for sustainable cultural change.

Further evidence comes from the colleague experience survey, which highlights two significant strengths: the quality of relationships within teams and the value placed on flexible working. Strong team relationships suggest environments where people feel respected, supported, and able to collaborate effectively. The appreciation of flexible working indicates an institutional recognition that people bring whole lives to work and that productivity and wellbeing are not in opposition but mutually reinforcing.

I would like to conclude with a personal experience that, for me, powerfully illustrates what a positive institutional culture looks like in practice. Recently, my husband became suddenly and seriously ill. The response of the Vice-Chancellor and President was immediate and unequivocal: “Forget about us. Focus on him. Tell us what you need.” This was not a performative gesture but a sustained, authentic, and profoundly human response that continued throughout that period. It demonstrated leadership grounded in care, empathy, and trust.

Alongside this, I received extraordinary support from my Executive Assistant and Business Manager, and colleagues across multiple teams. Their actions—practical, compassionate, and quietly consistent—reinforced for me that institutional culture is also defined by ‘embedded care’; where empathy, responsibility, and mutual support are part of the institution’s normative fabric.

---

Postscript

Rajani’s presentation at the British Council Going Global Conference 2025 on this topic was recently published in The Times Higher Education supplement under the title ‘University leaders should not take student protests personally and should focus on creating a campus atmosphere where disagreements can happen safely and fairly’.

---

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986) “The Forms of Capital” in the Handbook of Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press

Jeanes, E. and Naidoo, R. (2025) “Addressing Gender Equity and Economics as a Discipline in a UK Business School”

Thomas, H. (2025) “Finding Purpose in Higher Education: Insights from the Distinctive Career of Professor Rajani Naidoo.” (pp. 28-34; 106 – 114) in Women in, and Around, Business Schools (eds, Eric Corneil, Nicola Kleyn, Howard Thomas and Matthew Wood). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.