Key Takeaways

• The profile of the business school dean is gradually changing. Female representation has risen from 26 percent in 2020–21 to 34 percent in 2026–27, while the mean age has declined from 58 to 56. Deans also report increasingly international profiles: 63 percent now speak at least two languages, up from approximately 46 percent in 2020–21.
• The pathway to deanship remains predominantly academic, but deans bring broader professional experience. Sixty-seven percent have held a professional position outside higher education, often for a substantial period—the median is eight years—although only 2 percent moved directly into their current deanship from outside academia.
• Deanships are becoming shorter, and current deans are newer to their roles. The average tenure of predecessor deans declined from 6.8 years in 2020–21 to 5.7 years in 2026–27. Meanwhile, the average time current deans have spent in their roles fell from approximately six years to 3.9 years over the same period.
• Financial pressures are the most commonly cited challenge facing deans today. In open-ended responses, 34 percent identify budget, finances, and resources as their greatest challenge, followed by enrollment and student recruitment. About one in five also point to the relevance and value of curricula and programs, with a similar share naming AI.
• AI represents the clearest professional development challenge for deans, regardless of experience or region. AI in education and research ranks second in priority among 49 typical dean activities. It has the largest gap between priority and self-rated proficiency for both new and experienced deans and is also the area where deans most want to develop.
• Development needs extend beyond AI and vary with context and experience. Across all respondents, digital innovation, brand and reputation management, employer engagement, and revenue diversification emerge as prominent areas for professional development. Newer deans also express greater interest in strengthening their capabilities in areas such as organizational change and accreditation.
• Deans see a gap between what their schools need for the future and how prepared they are today. Across all eight dimensions of business school future readiness, strategic priority exceeds current institutional preparedness. AI readiness has by far the largest gap in all regions, and three-quarters of deans identify it among their schools’ three greatest future-readiness challenges over the next five years.
• Beyond AI, future-readiness concerns differ meaningfully by region. Financial resilience and leadership and innovation culture feature particularly prominently in the Americas; global connectedness stands out in Asia Pacific; and research and societal impact receives greater emphasis in EMEA and Asia Pacific than in the Americas.

Today’s business school deans bring a mix of academic leadership, professional experience, and international perspectives to the role. Most are serving in their first deanship, typically following a career within higher education. Yet that academic pathway tells only part of the story: Many also bring substantial experience from outside academia, and most retain connections to faculty roles while leading their schools.

Among 522 non-interim deans surveyed in 2026–27, 67 percent are in their first deanship. The median dean age is 56, and the median time in the current role is three years. Thirty-four percent of respondents identify as female, and nearly two-thirds speak at least two languages.

Today’s Business School Dean, at a Glance

A Profile in Gradual Transition

Over the past three survey waves, deans have become more diverse and internationally experienced, while average time in the current role has declined.

Female representation among respondents has risen steadily, from 26 percent in 2020–21 to 30 percent in 2023–24 and 34 percent in 2026–27. The average age of a dean has slightly declined—from 58 to 57, and now to 56. Deans also report increasingly international profiles. The share speaking at least two languages rose from approximately 46 percent in 2020–21 to 57 percent in 2023–24 and to 63 percent today. Similarly, 42 percent have worked in at least two countries for a year or more, up from 38 percent three years ago.

Leadership experience shows a less linear pattern. The share of respondents in their first deanship fell from 72 percent in 2020–21 to 61 percent in 2023–24, then rose to 67 percent in 2026–27. Meanwhile, average time in the current role declined steadily, from six years to 4.8 and then to 3.9. Whether this trend suggests shorter appointments is explored later in the report through the length of preceding deanships.

Regional differences in profiles appear but are generally modest. Women account for 37 percent of surveyed deans in the Americas and 35 percent in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), compared with 26 percent in Asia Pacific. The share of respondents in their first deanship varies less, ranging from 63 percent in EMEA and 64 percent in Asia Pacific to 70 percent in the Americas.

How the Dean Profile Has Changed

Pathways Into Deanship

Most deans reach their first appointment through a relatively concentrated set of academic leadership roles.

The analysis includes 495 respondents. For those currently in their first deanship, it considers the role they held immediately beforehand; for those who have held multiple deanships, the analysis reflects the role preceding their first appointment.

Across both groups, 59 percent entered their first deanship from three positions: associate dean, department head or chair, and interim or acting dean. Adding vice dean and director or program leader brings the share entering through these five pathways to 83 percent. Among those currently serving in their first deanship, 67 percent were appointed from within their own institution.

Pathways Into First Deanship

While the pipeline is concentrated overall, the leading routes vary by region. Associate dean is the most common pathway in the Americas; department head or chair is more prominent in Asia Pacific; and vice dean and department head or chair are the leading routes in EMEA. Differences in institutional structures and job titles may account for some variation, so these patterns are best interpreted descriptively.

Gender differences are also visible. Women are more likely than men to have entered their first deanship from associate dean or interim/acting dean roles, while men are more likely to have come from department head or chair positions. A similar pattern appeared in the 2023–24 survey.

Current Appointment: All Surveyed Deans

Once in the role, movement between deanships becomes another career pathway. About one in five respondents (21 percent) was already serving as a dean immediately before taking their current position, making dean the most common role preceding the current appointment. Interim or acting dean (17 percent) and associate dean (16 percent) follow.

Internal promotion is a common pathway. Among deans whose previous role was not a deanship, 67 percent were promoted from within the same institution—the same proportion as among first-time deans.

Many deans entered their current role without initially seeking a new position. Just over one-quarter (26 percent) of current deans were invited or nominated to apply despite not actively searching, which is consistent with findings from three years ago. Another 16 percent were directly appointed by their university president, provost, or board, while 12 percent actively searched and applied.

The pattern is similar among first-time deans: 24 percent were invited or nominated to apply without actively searching, making this route to appointment the most frequently reported for this group.

Most current deans are relatively early in their appointments. Among all current surveyed deans, 60 percent have been in their present role for three years or less. The median time in the current role is three years, and the average is 3.9 years.

An Academic Route, With Broader Professional Experience

While the pathway into the deanship is predominantly academic, the experience deans bring to the role is much broader.

Two-thirds of current deans (67 percent) have held a professional position outside higher education at some point in their careers. Yet only 2 percent moved directly into their deanship from a non-academic role.

Among deans with outside professional experience, 97 percent were working in higher education immediately before taking their current dean role. Outside experience, therefore, typically complements an academic career rather than serving as a direct route into academic leadership.

That experience is often notable. Among the 314 deans who reported its duration, the median is eight years and the average is 10 years. Outside experience is more common among deans in the Americas (74 percent) than in EMEA (62 percent) or Asia Pacific (55 percent), but the median duration is eight years in all three regions.

Business and industry roles are the most common sources of outside experience. Of the 339 who indicated that experience, 56 percent had held professional or staff roles; 30 percent had held senior business leadership roles, and 30 percent had been entrepreneurs or self-employed. Business backgrounds are especially common in the Americas, while public-sector experience is more prevalent in EMEA.

Types of Professional Experience Outside of Higher Education

What Deans Gain from Outside Experience

When deans were asked how professional experience outside higher education had benefited them, respondents most commonly pointed to managerial rather than technical expertise.

In an exploratory analysis of 195 open-ended responses, experience in leadership and people management emerges most frequently, appearing in 37 percent of responses. Financial or commercial awareness follows at 29 percent, and strategy and decision-making at 26 percent. Teaching and student relevance and engagement with external stakeholders also feature prominently.

One respondent described the parallels between industry leadership and the responsibilities of a dean:

Another emphasized the transferability of business skills:

A third shared how their experience has helped them lead transformation within their school:

Together, these responses illustrate how experience outside higher education can inform deans’ approaches to management, strategy, and external engagement. However, they do not establish that deans with such experience are more capable. When asked to rate their own proficiency across a range of leadership activities, deans with and without outside experience reported similar levels of proficiency.

Most Deans Retain a Connection to Faculty Roles

Becoming a dean does not necessarily mean stepping away from faculty work. Among 457 respondents, 53 percent still actively teach and/or conduct research, while a further 36 percent hold a faculty appointment or title but are not currently doing either. Only 4 percent report having no faculty appointment or title.

Most Deans Remain Connected to Faculty Roles

This continued involvement places the dean in a distinctive position: The role combines managerial and external responsibilities with an ongoing connection to the school’s academic core.

A Gradual Shift in Dean Tenure

To better track changes in the length of deanships, the survey asked about respondents’ predecessors, whose completed tenures provide a more consistent basis for comparison than current appointments still in progress.

Previous Deans’ Average Tenure (in Years)

The reported tenure of predecessor deans has declined steadily over the past three survey waves, from an average of 6.8 years in 2020–21 to 6.2 years in 2023–24 and 5.7 years in 2026–27. The median reported tenure in the current survey is five years. Along with the earlier finding that current deans have spent less time in their present roles, the data point to a gradual shortening of deanships.

While the survey cannot establish what is driving this trend, deans’ responses elsewhere offer some context. They describe a role shaped by growing complexity and significant financial, enrollment, technological, and organizational pressures, alongside challenges in maintaining work-life balance. These factors may help explain why deanships are becoming shorter, but further research is needed to more firmly establish that relationship.

What Comes After Deanship

For many deans, the next chapter may remain within higher education, although their interests extend beyond traditional academic leadership roles. Faculty positions are the most commonly selected post-deanship option, at 43 percent, followed by 33 percent who seek higher levels of leadership, such as president, rector, or equivalent institutional leadership. Board membership (28 percent), provost-level leadership (27 percent), and retirement (24 percent) are also among the most frequent selections.

Because respondents could select multiple options, these results reflect potential future pathways rather than a single intended next step.

Deans rated 49 activities typically associated with the role of a dean across three dimensions: the priority of that activity over the next 12 months, the individual’s current proficiency in that activity, and the individual’s desire to develop proficiency in that activity, each on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). These ratings reflect deans’ own perceptions of their priorities, proficiency, and development needs. Deans rated all 49 activities as relatively high priorities, with average ratings ranging from 3.22 to 4.61. Strategic planning topped the list at 4.61 and was also an area of perceived strength, with an average rated proficiency of 4.27. The companion overview report provides ratings for all 49 activities.

The more revealing question is where priority outpaces self-rated proficiency. In other words, which activities do deans see as important but feel less equipped to carry out? These gaps point to areas where deans may welcome further development, although they are not objective measures of skill.

AI in education and research illustrates this distinction: It ranks second in priority among all 49 activities but has the largest gap between priority and self-rated proficiency. Other prominent gaps include AI in student recruitment, brand and reputation management, and digital innovation. These areas also rank highly in deans’ separate ratings of where they want to develop greater proficiency, reinforcing their relevance as development priorities.

Where Priorities Outpace Self-Rated Proficiency, Overall and by Region

Regional Patterns

AI in education and research presents the widest gap between priority and self-rated proficiency in every region. Beyond this shared challenge, each region’s 10 widest gaps reveal different areas of emphasis.

• Americas: The gap in AI in education and research is particularly pronounced (1.32 points), followed by AI in student recruitment (0.99). Student recruitment and graduate outcomes also rank among the region’s 10 widest gaps, while neither appears in the top 10 in EMEA or Asia Pacific. This disparity may reflect regional differences in the priorities deans emphasize or the challenges they perceive throughout the student journey. Fundraising is another prominent gap in the Americas.
• EMEA: Deans report narrower gaps in several shared areas, including digital innovation, brand and reputation management, and AI in student recruitment and services. Even so, AI in education and research remains the largest development gap. International student enrollment, rankings, and research quality and impact also feature among the region’s deans’ top 10 gaps, pointing to development interests around international reach and academic standing.
• Asia Pacific: The gaps reflect a strong focus on institutional visibility and connections beyond the school. International student enrollment ranks just behind AI, alongside substantial gaps in brand and reputation management, digital innovation, alumni engagement, and rankings. Research collaborations, research quality and impact, and external research funding round out the region’s list, giving research-related activities a stronger presence here than in the other regions’ top 10 gaps.

These patterns suggest different areas of emphasis for leadership development across regions, even as AI emerges as a common challenge. However, because the findings represent regional averages, they may mask substantial variation among individual deans and schools.

Patterns by Dean Experience

Comparing priority-proficiency gaps among new deans—those who began their deanships in 2021 or later—and longer-serving deans suggests that some development needs persist across experience levels. AI in education and research represents the largest gap for both groups, at 1.14 and 1.11 points, respectively. This consistency suggests a shared leadership challenge that experience in the deanship alone may not address. Digital innovation also shows nearly identical gaps: 0.73 points for new deans and 0.75 for longer-serving deans.

Where Priorities Outpace Self-Rated Proficiency: Experienced vs. New Deans

Other differences reflect both the size of the gaps and their relative prominence within each group. Student recruitment and fundraising appear among new deans’ ten largest gaps, while rankings and communications and public visibility feature only among longer-serving deans’ top ten. Rankings illustrate why these distinctions require care: both groups report an identical gap of 0.51 points, but it falls outside new deans’ top 10 because their other gaps are larger. Its inclusion among longer-serving deans therefore reflects its relative prominence, rather than a greater development need.

Where Proficiency Exceeds Priority

For a few activities, deans’ average self-rated proficiency slightly exceeds the priority they assign to them. The largest difference is in faculty promotion and tenure, followed by managing their own research and teaching responsibilities, succession planning, and board governance. These activities also rank relatively low in priority, suggesting that the differences reflect both deans’ confidence in their capabilities and the emphasis they place on these responsibilities.

Where Deans Want to Strengthen Their Capabilities

Deans’ own development interests reinforce the picture emerging from the priority-proficiency gaps. AI in education and research is the area where they most want to build proficiency, followed by digital innovation. Brand management, employer engagement, and revenue diversification also feature among their top 10.

Many of the activities where deans report the largest gaps between priority and proficiency are also those they most want to improve. Eleven activities appear among the leading areas in both comparisons. These are areas where deans see a need to strengthen their proficiency and express a strong interest in doing so, suggesting that development opportunities could be particularly valuable.

Where Deans Most Want to Develop, by Region

Regional Patterns

AI leads development interests in every region, and digital innovation ranks among the top three. Beyond this shared focus, the regional picture reveals different emphases:

• Americas: The desire for developing proficiency in fundraising and student-facing activities is distinctive. Fundraising, student recruitment and retention, and graduate outcomes appear among the leading development interests here but are outside the top 10 in the other regions.
• EMEA: Strategic planning and international student recruitment rank highly, alongside accreditation, revenue diversification, and organizational change. These responses suggest a desire to develop proficiency in activities that shape institutional direction.
• Asia Pacific: Research and relationship-building are more prominent. Research collaboration, research quality and impact, alumni engagement, and institutional partnerships feature among the leading interests here but are outside the top 10 elsewhere.

Where Deans Most Want to Develop: Experienced vs. New Deans

Experience reveals another layer of difference in what deans want to develop. AI and emerging technologies ranks first for both new and experienced deans, followed by digital innovation. Both groups also express strong interest in strengthening institutional reputation, employer engagement, revenue diversification, and student recruitment and retention. Beyond this shared core, their interests suggest somewhat different leadership demands.

For new deans, leading change and strengthening institutional quality appear to be more pressing priorities. Change management and accreditation both feature among their top 10 desired development areas, suggesting a stronger focus on shaping how their schools operate. Neither area appears in experienced deans’ top 10. New deans’ leading priorities also carry similar weight, with ratings clustered between 4.05 and 4.39, suggesting several demands competing for their attention.

Experienced deans, meanwhile, include fundraising, rankings, and career services among their top 10. These interests point toward securing resources, strengthening external standing, and demonstrating value to students. Their ratings are more spread out, ranging from 3.81 to 4.36, with AI positioned more clearly above the other areas.

Alongside the priority-proficiency findings, these patterns suggest that development needs may shift as deans gain experience. Newer deans show relatively greater interest in organizational change and institutional processes, while experienced deans place more emphasis on resources, positioning, and graduate outcomes. The survey cannot establish what drives these differences, but it points to the value of development opportunities that reflect the different demands deans face at different stages of leadership.

From Early Preparation to Current Support Needs

Beyond rating their proficiency in individual activities, deans were asked to identify the three areas of preparation or support they felt would be most valuable to their success. Reflecting first on their early months as first-time deans, they rated a set of options, then they considered the same question in the context of their role today.

Looking back, respondents most often identified fundraising, leading organizational change, and people management as areas where additional preparation or support would have been valuable.

Some of those needs remain prominent today. Fundraising and donor engagement is the most widely sought area of support (36 percent), closely followed by digital innovation and data-informed decision-making (35 percent) and leading organizational change and transformation (32 percent). Together, these responses highlight demand for support in securing resources, building digital capabilities, and guiding change.

Where Additional Development Support Would Be Valued by Deans, by Region

The regional picture brings these needs into sharper focus. In the Americas, support in fundraising and donor engagement stands out, selected by 44 percent of deans. Digital innovation leads in EMEA (39 percent) and draws especially strong interest in Asia Pacific, where just over half of deans (51 percent) would value additional development and support.

Additional support in leading organizational change is a shared need, selected by roughly one-third of deans in every region. Beyond these top areas, executive leadership development features prominently in the Americas and Asia Pacific, media relations and strategic communications in the Americas and EMEA, and accreditation and continuous improvement in EMEA and Asia Pacific.

These patterns point to the value of combining support for shared leadership challenges with opportunities that reflect regional interests.

Where Additional Development Support Would Be Valued by Deans: Experienced vs. New Deans

The support deans seek is broadly similar across experience levels. New and experienced deans share the same three leading interests: fundraising, digital innovation, and organizational change. Fundraising ranks first for new deans and digital innovation for experienced deans, but the differences are small.

Beyond this shared core, newer deans show relatively greater interest in support for financial management and accreditation. Both feature among their seven most-selected areas, suggesting a focus on navigating the role’s core responsibilities. Experienced deans’ top selections instead include strategic communications and peer learning, pointing toward support for external engagement and learning from fellow leaders. Interest in executive leadership development is identical across both groups, at 18 percent.

Finding Time to Develop Is Challenging

Identifying where development would be valuable is one thing; finding the capacity to pursue it is another.

The findings suggest that development is not simply a matter of identifying the right topics or opportunities. For many deans, time—and to a lesser extent, funding—may be as important as the availability of relevant development itself.

High Fulfillment, but Mixed Work-Life Balance

These pressures do not translate into broad dissatisfaction with the role. A substantial majority of deans report feeling fulfilled by their work, and a similarly large share feel positive about their career progression in academic leadership. Views on work-life balance are more varied.

Deans’ Fulfillment and Work-Life Balance

Half of respondents say they have the balance between their personal and professional lives that they want, while 32 percent disagree. This represents an improvement from three years ago, when 42 percent reported having their desired balance. Yet the broader picture suggests a persistent tension: Deans can find the role highly fulfilling while still struggling with its demands on time and capacity, leaving little of either for development or life outside of work.

These findings point to a development agenda spanning established leadership responsibilities—such as fundraising and people management—and growing demands around digital innovation and organizational change. They also suggest that supporting deans effectively requires attention not only to what they need to develop but to whether they have the time and resources to do so.

The next section shifts from deans’ individual experiences to the challenges facing their institutions and how prepared they feel to respond.

The areas where deans seek to grow offer insight into the institutional pressures shaping their leadership. When asked in their own words to describe the greatest challenge they face today, budget, finances, and resources emerge most frequently, mentioned by 34 percent of respondents. Enrollment and student recruitment follow, while about one in five deans raised the relevance and value of curricula and programs, and a similar share identified AI.

Top Challenges Facing Today’s Business School Dean

Deans Share

These challenges provide important context for understanding not only where deans want additional support but also what they believe effective leadership now requires.

What Makes an Effective Dean

In their own words, deans describe effective leadership as a combination of setting direction and bringing people with them. When asked to identify the top competencies of an effective dean, their open-text responses most often emphasize strategy and vision (44 percent) alongside communication and listening (43 percent). Managing people and teams, leadership, and interpersonal and emotional intelligence are also recurring themes.

Competencies of an Effective Dean

Regional differences add texture to this shared picture:

• Americas: Communication and listening receives the strongest emphasis, mentioned by 46 percent of respondents. Financial and resource management, along with fundraising and advancement, also surfaces more frequently than in other regions.

• EMEA: Strategy and vision is the leading theme, cited by 48 percent of respondents. Leadership and the capacity for resilience, patience, and self-management are also more prominent here than elsewhere.

• Asia Pacific: People management stands out, mentioned by 47 percent of respondents, compared with nearly 30 percent in the other regions. Academic and sector knowledge also receives greater emphasis, appearing in about one-third of responses.

Across regions, these responses suggest that a dean’s effectiveness rests on connecting strategic ambition with the relationships, understanding, and judgment needed to turn it into action. This combination also provides a lens for considering how prepared their schools are for what comes next.

How Ready Are Business Schools for the Future?

Deans’ responsibilities and relationships give them a broad view of the demands facing their schools. We asked them to look beyond their own development needs and assess institutional readiness across eight dimensions, rating each dimension’s strategic priority and their school’s current preparedness. (A full listing of what each dimension entails can be found on page 50 of the Overview Report).

Deans Rate Their Schools’ Future Readiness, by Region

Across all eight dimensions, strategic priority exceeds current preparedness. AI readiness stands out as the clearest shared challenge, with the largest gap overall—1.46 points on a five-point scale—and in each region. It is also the dimension for which deans rate their schools as least prepared.

This echoes the earlier development findings: Deans see AI readiness as both a leadership and an institutional challenge. They want to strengthen their own AI capabilities while also building the skills and capacity needed across their schools.

Beyond AI, the different regional pressures emerge:

• Americas: Financial resilience has a particularly large gap, followed by learner value and industry connectivity. These findings suggest that readiness depends in part on a school’s ability to sustain resources while demonstrating value to learners and employers.
• EMEA: Digital and organizational capability presents the second-largest gap. The remaining gaps are more closely grouped, suggesting a broader set of readiness challenges beyond AI rather than one clear secondary concern.
• Asia Pacific: Research and societal impact has the second-largest gap (1.08 points), with industry connectivity and global connectedness also prominent. Deans see room to strengthen both their schools’ external relationships and the impact they achieve through them.

These gaps should be considered along with the underlying ratings. A smaller gap does not necessarily mean stronger readiness. For example, global connectedness has a relatively small gap in the Americas (0.29 points), but deans there rate both its priority and their schools’ preparedness lower than their counterparts elsewhere.

The gaps between priority and preparedness reveal key areas for schools’ future growth. Looking ahead, we also asked deans which three dimensions they expect will pose the greatest challenges over the next five years. Their responses echo several of the readiness gaps while sharpening the regional picture.

AI readiness emerges as the strongest shared concern, selected by three-quarters of deans overall and at least 74 percent in every region. Percentages reflect the share of deans who included each dimension among their top three challenges.

Biggest Challenges to Business School Future Readiness

Beyond AI, the regional picture reveals different expectations about what will test schools most:

• Americas: Financial resilience (68 percent) and leadership and innovation culture (56 percent) stand out more strongly here than in other regions. Deans’ responses suggest particular concern about sustaining their schools financially and building the leadership and culture needed to adapt.
• EMEA: Financial resilience remains prominent (51 percent), while research and societal impact is also among top challenges (35 percent)—nearly three times the share in the Americas. Responses are more spread across dimensions, pointing to several anticipated challenges beyond AI.
• Asia Pacific: Global connectedness is a distinctive concern, selected by 39 percent of deans, compared with 20 percent in EMEA and 9 percent in the Americas. Research and societal impact also feature prominently, similarly to deans in EMEA, at 31 percent.

These responses broadly reinforce the priority-versus-preparedness findings. AI is a shared challenge across regions, while financial resilience and leadership and innovation culture feature particularly strongly in the Americas. Global connectedness stands out in Asia Pacific as an area to focus on, and research and societal impact is more widely identified as a challenge for business school future readiness in both EMEA and Asia Pacific than in the Americas. 

In Their Own Words

The eight dimensions provide a structured view of future readiness, but deans’ open-ended responses reveal some of the pressures and tensions behind those ratings—and several issues that do not fit neatly within the framework.

In Closing

Back to top