INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8418

Strategies for Transforming Doctoral Non-Completion into Academic

Leadership Empowerment: Insights from Higher Education Management

Practices

Mohamad Zahir Zainudin

, Sazelin Arif

, Ali Hafizar Mohammad Rawi

, Muhammad Zaki Zaini

Institute Pengurusan Technology dan Keusahawanan Universiti Technical Malaysia Melaka,

MALAYSIA

Centre for Language Learning University Technical Malaysia Melaka, MALAYSIA

Faculty of Islamic Economics and Finance University Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, BRUNEI

*Corresponding author

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0635

Received: 15 October 2025; Accepted: 23 October 2025; Published: 12 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Doctoral non-completion among academic staff presents a persistent challenge for higher education institutions

seeking to maintain competitiveness and leadership capacity. This study explores strategies for transforming

doctoral non-completion into academic leadership empowerment within a Malaysian university context. Using

a qualitative case study design at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), data were collected through

semi-structured interviews with three senior academic leaders. Thematic analysis revealed three interrelated

strategies which are structured personal development, empathetic and collaborative culture, and faculty

development and career advancement. These strategies collectively reposition non-completion as a

developmental pathway rather than a terminal setback. Findings align with Malaysia’s Education Blueprint

(Higher Education) 2015–2025 and AKEPT’s leadership agenda. The noble purpose of this study is to provide

actionable insights that enable universities to retain talent, safeguard institutional reputation, and accelerate

leadership capacity while doctoral completion remains in progress.

Keywords: Academic leadership; doctoral non- completion; higher education management; leadership

empowerment; faculty development.

INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions worldwide recognize the critical role of doctoral qualifications in sustaining

academic excellence, research productivity, and institutional reputation. In Malaysia, the government has

invested substantially through initiatives such as the Academic Staff Training Scheme (SLAB/SLAI) to

increase the proportion of academic staff holding PhDs. Despite these efforts, doctoral non-completion remains

a significant challenge. At Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), for instance, only 68% of academic

staff successfully completed their doctoral studies between 2002 and 2022, leaving 32% unable to finish within

the allocated time.

This issue poses dual concerns: the professional trajectory of faculty members and the strategic objectives of

universities striving for global competitiveness. While academic staff who fail to complete their PhDs return to

teaching roles, their leadership potential and institutional contribution may be compromised. Existing literature

emphasizes the importance of academic leadership in driving innovation, fostering collaboration, and ensuring

quality education. However, limited research addresses how universities can empower academic leadership

among faculty members who experience doctoral setbacks.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8419

This study aims to fill this gap by exploring strategies employed by higher education management to transform

doctoral non-completion into opportunities for leadership empowerment. Specifically, it investigates

institutional practices that support personal development, career advancement, and cultural integration for

returning faculty. By focusing on these strategies, the research contributes actionable insights for policymakers

and administrators seeking to optimize human capital and maintain institutional resilience.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of academic leadership in higher education is widely recognised as a multidimensional construct

encompassing formal administrative roles and broader capacities for influencing teaching, research, and

institutional culture (Rowley & Sherman, 2003; Ramsden, 1998; Spendlove, 2007). Leadership development

frameworks emphasise qualities such as authenticity, trust, and ethical relationships, which are associated with

improved organisational performance and faculty engagement (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Boyatzis, Rochford,

& Taylor, 2015). In the Malaysian context, academic leadership is categorised into teaching, research, public,

and management domains, reflecting the need for holistic strategies to strengthen leadership pipelines (Azman,

Halim, & Komoo, 2012). These perspectives provide a foundation for understanding how universities can

empower leadership among faculty who return without completing their doctoral studies.

Doctoral non-completion remains a global challenge, with attrition rates influenced by multiple factors

including academic self-efficacy, study strategies, institutional adjustment, and social support (Delnoij et al.,

2020; Laurie et al., 2020). Systematic reviews highlight that interventions such as coaching, peer mentoring,

and structured workload adjustments can mitigate these risks, yet many programmes fail to address the most

critical predictors effectively (Delnoij et al., 2019; Hutchings, 2017). Department-level studies further reveal

that financial support and targeted career development significantly predict completion and time-to-degree,

whereas generic academic assistance shows inconsistent effects (Zhou & Okahana, 2019). These findings

underscore the importance of institutional strategies that go beyond completion metrics to focus on leadership

empowerment for non-completers.

Psychosocial wellbeing is another determinant of doctoral success, with evidence showing that students often

under-utilise institutional mental health services and rely on external supports, signalling gaps in signposting

and supervisor training (Waight & Giordano, 2018). In engineering education, workload intensity and limited

access to wellbeing advisors negatively affect persistence, suggesting that recalibrated workloads and

embedded support roles are essential (Chadha et al., 2021). Peer support mechanisms, when culturally

sensitive and formally recognised, have been shown to reduce isolation and foster resilience among doctoral

candidates (Newlands et al., 2025; Frantz et al., 2022). These insights are relevant for institutions seeking to

create empathetic and collaborative cultures for returning faculty.

Pedagogical innovations such as group supervision and technology-mediated peer learning have demonstrated

effectiveness in sustaining scholarship and reducing isolation, offering scalable alternatives to traditional

supervisory models (Hutchings, 2017; Lee, 2018). Similarly, non-cognitive support frameworks advocate for

integrating resilience, self-regulation, and social belonging into postgraduate education, as these factors

strongly influence retention and professional identity (Frantz et al., 2022). Peer mentoring programmes not

only enhance mentee satisfaction but also develop leadership competencies among mentors, reinforcing the

potential of structured support systems for academic leadership development (Brown & Chartier, 2025).

Policy frameworks such as the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015–2025 and AKEPT’s

leadership pathways emphasise empathy, collaboration, and organisational excellence as core leadership

attributes (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015; AKEPT, 2022). Aligning with these national priorities,

institutional strategies that transform doctoral non-completion into leadership empowerment should integrate

three levers: structured personal development through workload flexibility and coaching, faculty development

via professional certification and career pathways, and cultural interventions that normalise help-seeking and

foster collaboration (Delnoij et al., 2020; Waight & Giordano, 2018). These approaches position non-

completion not as a terminal failure but as an opportunity for leadership growth, consistent with the objectives

of this study.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8420

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study adopted a qualitative case study design to explore strategies for transforming doctoral non

-completion into academic leadership empowerment within a Malaysian higher education context. A

qualitative approach was deemed appropriate for capturing the nuanced perspectives of institutional leaders

and understanding the social processes underpinning leadership development among returning faculty

(Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The case study method allowed for in-depth examination of a

bounded system in Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) where doctoral non-completion is a

recognised challenge and leadership development is a strategic priority.

Population and Sampling

The population comprised senior academic managers from UTeM’s ten faculties, including deans and deputy

deans responsible for academic affairs. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure participants possessed

direct oversight of faculty members returning from study leave without completing their doctoral degrees.

Selection criteria included: (a) holding a leadership position at faculty level, (b) involvement in managing

study leave and reintegration processes, and (c) experience in implementing academic development initiatives.

Three informants consented to participate: two deputy deans (academic) and one dean, representing faculties of

engineering and information technology. This sample achieved thematic saturation, as subsequent interviews

yielded redundant insights (Marshall, 1996; Guest et al., 2006).

Data Collection

Data were collected through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews designed to elicit rich narratives about

institutional strategies and cultural practices. Interview questions were informed by the study’s objectives and

literature on academic leadership and doctoral persistence. Core prompts explored: Support mechanisms for

returning staff (e.g., workload adjustments, mentoring, thesis completion opportunities), career development

pathways beyond doctoral completion (e.g., professional certifications, leadership roles) and cultural and

relational dimensions (e.g., empathy, collaboration, inclusion).

Interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, were audio-recorded with consent, and supplemented by field

notes to capture contextual observations. The conversational style encouraged participants to share both formal

policies and informal practices, revealing creative adaptations to institutional constraints.

Table 1: Informant’s background information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8421

Data Analysis

Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework.

Initial coding focused on identifying strategies aligned with empowerment rather than deficit framing. Codes

were then clustered into three overarching themes (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Themes for the reserch findings

To enhance credibility, data triangulation was achieved by comparing responses across faculties and validating

emerging themes against institutional documents and national leadership frameworks (Malaysia Education

Blueprint 2015–2025; AKEPT guidelines). Reflexive memos were maintained throughout analysis to ensure

interpretive rigour and minimise researcher bias.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Themes

The thematic analysis of interviews with three senior academic leaders revealed three interrelated strategies

that higher education institutions employ to transform doctoral non-completion into academic leadership

empowerment. These strategies are presented as themes: structured personal development, empathetic and

collaborative culture and faculty development and career advancement.

Theme 1: Structured Personal Development

Participants emphasised the importance of creating structured opportunities for returning staff to regain

academic momentum. This typically involved reducing teaching loads to approximately 9–10 hours per week,

removing administrative responsibilities, and granting one to two semesters of protected time for thesis

completion. Leaders also reported implementing milestone-based plans and providing academic coaching to

sustain motivation. As one respondent explained, “We diagnose the barriers and give them space one or two

semesters to complete their writing. The priority is progress, not penalties” (R1). Another added, “We trim the

workload and remove admin tasks. The message is clear: finish first, then we build the rest” (R2). These

measures were perceived not merely as remedial but as developmental, enabling staff to practise leadership-

related skills such as prioritisation, self-management, and reflective learning.

Theme 2: Empathetic and Collaborative Culture

The third theme highlighted the role of empathy and collaboration in fostering psychological safety and

inclusion. Leaders described responding swiftly to health or personal challenges and creating opportunities for

scholarly interaction through seminars, visiting professors, and external examiner engagements. Such practices

aimed to reduce isolation and restore professional identity. As one dean observed, “Every organisation should

practise empathy. When health issues surface, we act quickly, support first, then structure” (R3). Another

added, “If someone is stuck, we organise exposure, external examiners, visiting professors, so ideas flow and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8422

confidence returns” (R1). Treating returning staff as colleagues rather than “failed students” was considered

essential for rebuilding trust and belonging, which in turn accelerated leadership emergence.

Theme 3: Faculty Development and Career Advancement

Beyond thesis recovery, institutional leaders actively promoted alternative pathways for professional growth.

Strategies included encouraging staff to pursue professional certifications, engage in industry attachments, and

assume faculty-level leadership roles such as project coordination or committee membership. A dedicated

Study Leave Committee monitored individual trajectories to ensure alignment with career aspirations. One

participant noted, “If motivation for the PhD is low, we pivot: professional certification, industry experience—

anything that builds recognised competence and momentum” (R1). Another stressed, “We strongly encourage

instructors to gain professional credentials; it boosts confidence, classroom authority, and external recognition”

(R2). These initiatives decoupled leadership readiness from doctoral completion, allowing staff to demonstrate

capability and influence across teaching, management, and engagement domains.

Integrated Perspective

Collectively, these strategies illustrate how institutional interventions can reposition doctoral non-completion

as an opportunity for leadership development rather than a terminal setback. By combining structured

academic recovery, career diversification, and cultural empathy, universities create conditions for returning

staff to contribute meaningfully to teaching, research, and governance, thereby sustaining institutional

competitiveness and talent retention.

Figure 2: Model of transforming non-completion into leadership empowerment

DISCUSSION

Structured Personal Development

The strategy of providing protected time, workload reduction, and milestone-based coaching directly targets

modifiable predictors of doctoral persistence such as study strategies, self-efficacy, and institutional

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8423

adjustment (Delnoij et al., 2020; Laurie et al., 2020). By granting one to two semesters of focused writing and

removing administrative duties, institutions create conditions that reduce stress and enable returning staff to

regain scholarly momentum (Waight & Giordano, 2018; Chadha et al., 2021).

These interventions extend beyond remediation; they cultivate leadership-related behaviours such as

prioritisation, reflective learning, and disciplined follow-through. This aligns with evidence that structured

academic recovery fosters resilience and self-regulation skills central to leadership development (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005; Boyatzis et al., 2015). Incorporating group supervision further strengthens connectedness and

reduces isolation, consistent with Hutchings (2017), who advocates collaborative models for sustaining

scholarship.

Empathetic and Collaborative Culture

Empathy-driven practices, including rapid response to health challenges and respectful reintegration, emerged

as critical for restoring professional identity. This finding resonates with Waight and Giordano (2018), who

highlight the under-utilisation of institutional mental health services and the need for proactive support

structures. By treating returning staff as colleagues rather than “failed students,” leaders reinforce belonging

and trust as key antecedents of leadership emergence (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

Exposure to external examiners, visiting professors, and scholarly networks provides intellectual stimulation

and confidence-building opportunities. Such collaborative circuits mirror evidence on peer mentoring and

group learning as mechanisms for reducing isolation and enhancing resilience (Frantz et al., 2022; Newlands et

al., 2025). These practices not only support academic recovery but also signal leadership readiness through

public engagement and scholarly visibility.

Faculty Development and Career Advancement

Institutional strategies that promote professional certifications, industry attachments, and faculty-level

leadership roles enable staff to demonstrate competence and influence without waiting for PhD completion.

This approach aligns with Azman et al. (2012), who conceptualise academic leadership across teaching,

research, public engagement, and management domains. It also reflects Zhou and Okahana’s (2019) findings

that career-relevant supports are more predictive of success than generic academic assistance.

By institutionalising alternative advancement pathways, universities create visible signals of leadership

capability such as project coordination and external partnerships that enhance credibility and retention. These

measures operationalise Malaysia’s Education Blueprint (2015–2025) and AKEPT’s leadership agenda, which

emphasise holistic leadership development and industry engagement as pillars of national competitiveness

(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015; AKEPT, 2022).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that doctoral non-completion need not represent a terminal failure; rather, it can serve

as a strategic entry point for academic leadership empowerment when supported by targeted institutional

interventions. Three interrelated strategies; structured personal development, empathetic and collaborative

culture, and faculty development and career advancement emerged as critical levers for transforming setbacks

into leadership opportunities.

From a practical standpoint, universities should institutionalise protected recovery periods with reduced

teaching loads and milestone-based coaching to restore scholarly momentum. Parallel career pathways,

including professional certifications, industry engagement, and faculty-level leadership roles, should be

embedded within staff development frameworks to decouple leadership readiness from doctoral completion.

Equally important is the cultivation of an empathetic and collaborative culture, which fosters psychological

safety, encourages help-seeking, and strengthens scholarly networks through exposure to external experts and

peer mentoring.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8424

These strategies align closely with Malaysia’s Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015–2025 and the

Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) agenda, which emphasise holistic leadership development,

talent optimisation, and institutional resilience. By operationalising these national priorities at faculty level,

universities can retain valuable human capital, safeguard institutional reputation, and accelerate leadership

capacity even as doctoral completion remains in progress.

In sum, the proposed framework offers a pragmatic response to a persistent challenge in higher education,

bridging the gap between policy aspirations and institutional realities. Its adoption can contribute to sustaining

academic excellence and positioning Malaysian universities competitively within the global knowledge

economy.

CONCLUSION

This study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research employed a single-

case design focused on Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), which limits the generalisability of

findings to other institutional contexts. Second, the sample size was small (n = 3), comprising only senior

academic leaders; perspectives from returning staff who experienced doctoral non-completion were not

included, which may have introduced a managerial bias. Third, the qualitative approach, while providing

depth, does not allow for statistical inference or measurement of the effectiveness of the identified strategies.

Finally, cultural and policy factors specific to Malaysia may influence the applicability of these strategies in

different national or institutional settings. Future research should address these limitations by incorporating

multi-institutional samples, mixed-method designs, and comparative analyses to validate and extend the

proposed framework.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express gratitude to Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka particularly the Institut

Pengurusan Teknologi dan Keusahawanan for the sponsored this grant project of PJP/2022/TD/IPTK/S01843.

Also to and the research group of PRICE.

REFERENCES

1. AKEPT. (2022). Mission, vision & core values. Higher Education Leadership Academy.

https://akept.mohe.gov.my/en/corporate/mission-vision-and-roles

2. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive

forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

3. Azman, N., Halim, S., & Komoo, I. (2012). Academic managers or leaders? Developing a new paradigm

of academic leadership for university organization. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and

Change Management, 11(3), 71–83.

4. Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K., & Taylor, S. N. (2015). The role of the positive emotional attractor in

vision and shared vision: Toward effective leadership, relationships, and engagement. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6, 670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00670

5. Brown, L., & Chartier, A. (2025). Peer mentoring in postgraduate education: Enhancing leadership and

retention. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1(1), 45–62.

6. Chadha, D., Kogelbauer, A., Campbell, J., & Hale, C. (2021). Are the kids alright? Exploring students’

experiences of support mechanisms to enhance wellbeing on an engineering programme in the UK.

European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(6), 1080–1098. https:// 10.1080/03043797.2020.1835828

7. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

8. Delnoij, E., Dirkx, K., Janssen, J., & Martens, R. (2020). Predicting and resolving non-completion in

higher (online) education: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 29, 100313.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100313

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 8425

9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32).

Sage Publications Ltd.

10. Frantz, J., Cupido-Masters, J., Moosajee, F., & Smith, M. R. (2022). Non-cognitive support for

postgraduate studies: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 834567.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.773910

11. Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006) How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with

Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

12. Hutchings, M. (2017). Improving doctoral support through group supervision: Analysing face-to-face and

technology-mediated strategies for nurturing and sustaining scholarship. Studies in Higher Education,

42(3), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058352

13. Laurie E.C. Delnoij, Kim J.H. Dirkx, José P.W. Janssen, Rob L. Martens. (2020). Predicting and resolving

non-completion in higher (online) education – A literature review, Educational Research Review, 29,

100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100313

14. Lee, A. (2018). How can supervisors develop the modern doctorate? Studies in Higher Education, 43(5),

857–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1438116

15. Marshall, S., Adams, M., & Cameron, A. (2000). In search of academic leadership.

http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/ aset-erdsa2000/procs/marshall.html).

16. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015–2025.

https://www.um.edu.my/docs/um-magazine/4-executive-summary-pppm-2015-2025.pdf

17. Newlands F, Markan T, Pomfret I, Davey E, King T, Roach A, et al. (2025) “A PhD is just going to

somehow break you”: A qualitative study exploring the role of peer support for doctoral students. PLoS

One 20(6): e0325726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325726

18. Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London, New York: Routledge.

19. Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership. Management

Decision, 41(10), 1058–1063. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310509580

20. Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for Effective Leadership in Higher Education. International Journal

of Educational Management, 21(5), 407-417.

21. Waight, E., & Giordano, A. (2018). Doctoral students’ access to non-academic support for mental health.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(4), 390–412.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1478613

22. Zhou, E., & Okahana, H. (2019). The role of department supports on doctoral completion and time-to-

degree. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(3), 359–383.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116682