**1. Introduction**

Higher education institutions (HEI) are trusted with multiple tasks, which are equally important to improve the lives of citizens and develop and direct new knowledge and innovative solutions to the challenges bedevilling society [1, 2]. The threepronged university responsibilities include teaching and learning, and research and community engagement. Through community engagement, HEIs are to ensure that

community needs are met to ensure social transformation [3, 4]. This commitment demands quality, efficient and effective leadership.

While institutions of higher education prioritise leadership for teaching, learning and research, the same has not been the case with community engagement. This is despite the notion that community engagement is among the three components or functions of the HEI. Designated top leaders such as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) in community engagement are thought leaders charged with responsibility and accountability to ensure the achievement of the strategic objective of community engagement [5]. On the other hand, the supporting structures or offices will ensure daily operations of community engagement activities across the university. The importance of community engagement is well noted through its endorsement in the policies governing higher education institutions [6]. A plethora of scholars [1, 3] has affirmed challenges for full implementation of the community engagement wing across various universities Such challenges include poor leadership direction, lack of insufficient funding and lack of community engagement outcome evaluation among others [7–9].

The conceptualisation of community engagement has been an issue for decades. For example, in some institutions it is called social responsibility; in others, it is referred to as the Third Mission, while others call it community service, engaged campus, civic or public engagement and so on [5, 8–10]. In most instances, community engagement has been institutionalised to fit the contextual mission of the respective facilities. The 2024 Carnegie First Time Documentation Guide recommended that whereas there are different conceptualisations of community engagement, the important thing is the core value that grounds the process. These are 'participatory practices, reciprocity, co-construction, democratic practices, shared authority, and shared resources' ([11], p. 2). In midst of these various conceptualisations, this chapter will adopt the concept of community engagement. It is acknowledged that the contestation along the conceptualisation of community engagement lends challenges in monitoring and evaluating and reporting outcomes and performance measurement among universities globally [5]. In the absence of clear measuring tools, activities performed by universities as services and skills shared or exchanged with communities or other institutions at the consultancy level may not be quantified or credited correctly to such institutions. For example, in view of Boyer's model (discussed below) in the scholarship of the application when university faculty or academics are invited to provide expert knowledge on national television or radio programme to educate the community on certain social issues. Contrasting views in the conceptualisation impact largely on the measuring of outcomes because one institution would devalue what others values. For example, when community engagement is measured based on benefits to communities or public good, the question is who determines whether the community has benefited or not? How much voice or power does the community have to determine their benefits?

The concept of leadership is elusive and fluid based on the nature of various dimensions played by those in the position [12, 13]. Leaders influence desired organisational culture and goals through various approaches and styles [12]. Community engagement is all about innovation and creativity within the respective disciplines to collaborate with communities to address identified needs. Effective leadership influences members to challenge, build capacity and inspire intellectual capacity to change the status quo and break boundaries to advance change [12]. In academia, senior leaders are responsible for driving the vision and monitoring performance towards the intended goal [14]. According to Arntzen [15] whether the leader is a

*Advancing Community Engagement in Higher Education Institutions in South Africa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108150*

Dean or not academic leadership entails comprehensive responsibility for setting goals for all the functions of the university. Leaders provide strategic direction by infusing energy through their management role to stimulate interest and innate ability to those lead [15].

Leadership inoculates energy among various structures in the university, 'establishing and strengthening culture' by demonstrating the ability to maintain external relations through 'networking, representing, conveying and convincing, transmitting and buffering' [Arntzen p. 53].

Those occupying top positions cannot be dissociated from both leadership and management responsibilities. This is because the leadership position is governed by university statutes, laws and policies, while at the same time the person must influence organisational goals by employing unprescribed innate abilities and experiences. Organisational leadership is a matter of collective efforts because no single person can make an organisation achieve its vision alone [16]. In the case of community engagement, the person assigned and charged with the position uses his situational and authoritative power to influence goal attainment in collaboration with academics, administrators, technical support staff and students to network with external stakeholders for a common goal.

This chapter aims to present leadership challenges and gaps to facilitate the macro-, meso- and micro-levels of community engagement among the four South African universities. The chapter will furthermore present the extent of strategic processes among some universities and related implications, funding and its implications. The methodology, findings and discussion are thereafter presented. The chapter closes by stating the recommendations and concluding remarks.
