A new study from the University of Johannesburg (UJ) has revealed a growing deficit in leadership competencies within South Africa's retail sector. This gap could negatively impact business performance and limit career opportunities for graduates, as retail is one of the country's largest employers and a key source of employment for youth.
According to the study, graduates often face a significant discrepancy between the knowledge gained in higher education and the actual demands of the workplace. Although the retail sector contributes 11.5% to South Africa's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), generates over 1.1 trillion rand in annual income, and employs one of every five working citizens, many newcomers in this field are insufficiently prepared for management in an increasingly complex retail environment.
The report contains findings from the doctoral dissertation of Mariette Fraser, a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing Management at UJ's College of Business and Economics. Fraser noted that graduates often experience shock because the actual job does not match what they were taught.
The study also found that South Africa's diverse workforce creates unique management difficulties that traditional retail training often overlooks. Professor Emeritus Magda (Lia) Hewitt from UJ's Department of Industrial Psychology and Human Resources emphasized that developing leadership qualities must take into account the country's social and cultural characteristics, rather than relying on general international models. She warned against mistakenly assuming that leadership in retail is universal, as the South African market operates within a specific socio-cultural context.
Researchers discovered that young managers struggle to supervise senior staff in places where age traditionally commands respect. Another issue is managing teams with varying levels of digital literacy amid the adoption of new technologies. Furthermore, it was noted that in some communities, managers are expected to engage with local or community leaders before opening new stores, which is rarely covered in training programs.
The rapid growth of e-commerce and digital platforms puts additional pressure on managerial capabilities. Despite the transformation of customer expectations through online shopping, Fraser believes that physical stores will retain their central role in retail operations. She explained that online will never replace the physical point of sale but will significantly change retailer operating methods. Examples of such hybrid models include Checkers Sixty60, where online order pickers work alongside customers in the store, requiring skilled leadership to maintain efficiency and customer experience.
Retailers are actively investing in addressing this deficit, spending between 60,000 and 100,000 rand to train each graduate. Nevertheless, Fraser pointed out two emerging challenges requiring urgent attention: the increasing influence of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to strengthen self-leadership, emotional intelligence, and resilience among graduates. She noted that the retail workplace is already transforming due to AI-supported services, self-service ecosystems, and data-driven merchandising. However, in her view, emotional intelligence and leadership skills cannot develop as quickly as new technologies are implemented.
Fraser stressed that South Africa cannot afford a slow response, as retail remains one of the most vital pathways to employment. She reminded that retail is one of the largest employers of youth, and it is one of the few sectors where a graduate or even a non-graduate can start on the ground level and rise to management positions within a few years, which is critical for solving youth unemployment.
The researchers called for closer collaboration between higher education institutions and retailers to revise curricula. They recommend more active use of role-playing, simulations, and practical case studies to prepare students for complex workplace dialogues, managing culturally diverse teams, and adopting new technologies. The potential of AI-based chatbots for providing students with practical leadership coaching through modeling complex customer interactions, conflict resolution, and operational tasks was also noted. Fraser advised retailers to play a more active role in developing these training tools to ensure that graduates possess the necessary practical leadership skills in a rapidly changing sector.
For a large number of young South Africans, the job search process involves financial costs, as expenses for transport, internet, and document processing create additional obstacles on the path to employment.
The job search has become an independent activity for millions of unemployed young people, requiring time, effort, sacrifice, and emotional resilience, without guaranteeing a salary. Against the backdrop of one of the world's highest youth unemployment rates, new research and expert opinions reveal a harsh reality: many young people spend money they do not have in pursuit of opportunities that may never materialize.
According to Statistics South Africa, in the first quarter of 2026, approximately 4.7 million people aged 15 to 34 were unemployed. Furthermore, nearly 70% of young South Africans remain unemployed when using an expanded definition of unemployment.
A study conducted by the youth advocacy organization Youth Capital showed that young South Africans spend an average of 1469 rand per month searching for employment. These expenses include 700 rand for transport, 441 rand for internet, and 328 rand for application-related costs. The organization noted that the cost of job searching has significantly increased compared to the previous average of 938 rand recorded in earlier studies.
These expenses often force people to sacrifice basic needs. Youth Capital found that 85% of respondents reported having to choose between buying food and looking for work, and seven out of ten relied on relatives to finance the search process.
The study's findings echo concerns raised by Build One South Africa (BOSA) during an inspection of the Regional E Youth Advisory Centre in Johannesburg. BOSA found that the youth support centre was effectively unable to function because the key position responsible for program implementation had remained vacant for over a year. A BOSA representative, Graham Charteris, stated that government programs intended to help youth are often evaluated based on activity levels rather than actual impact.
He emphasized that municipalities should report how many young people find jobs, complete skills training, enroll in higher education, or remain employed after receiving support, not just the number served monthly.
Budget analyst Mathdiso Lenkoasa believes that South Africa's economic structure continues to let down its youth. She stated that unemployment statistics point to an economy that has failed to create jobs for the majority of the population, especially the youth. Lenkoasa also expressed concern over the growing normalization of youth unemployment, noting that structural problems are not being solved despite mentions in speeches and conferences.
She criticized South African policy, arguing that it is insufficiently focused on creating jobs at the scale necessary to absorb millions of unemployed young people, pointing to a gap between policy discussion and the real experience of young residents.
The problem is exacerbated by spatial inequality in South Africa. The Youth Capital study showed that many young people live far from economic centers and spend significant amounts on travel for interviews and workplaces because available housing does not align with job concentration areas. The report notes that for some low-income workers, transport costs can consume up to 80% of their earnings, making self-employment financially unsustainable.
Economists warn that weak economic development continues to undermine job creation, condemning applicants to a cycle of financial hardship and unemployment. Furthermore, prolonged unemployment, Youth Capital established, contributes to the development of stress, anxiety, and depression among youth, while constant rejections and lack of feedback from employers cause feelings of disappointment and exclusion from the economy.
The study also revealed a paradoxical situation: employers demand experience, while eight out of ten unemployed young people have never had a job. Lenkoasa insists that the solution lies not only in expanding youth programs but also in fundamentally transforming the economy to create more jobs. She concluded that economic policy must stimulate job creation and invest in industries that genuinely generate employment in the country.
Thus, against the backdrop of record youth unemployment in South Africa, it becomes clear that the younger generation bears the burden not only of unemployment but also of having to pay for the job search process itself—including transport, data, and dignity—while waiting for an opportunity that may never come.
School principals in South Africa are expressing serious concern regarding the burdensome administrative load caused by outdated management practices. According to the report, the education system stifles leadership qualities due to an excess of paperwork, and a genuine dialogue is needed to transform the accountability system into an empowerment tool.
The National Report by the Governance Board Fund (GBF) on the workload of public school principals should not be viewed merely as another educational survey, but as a distress signal from the people who are supposed to support schools. According to this report, 84% of principals regularly work after hours to cope with administrative demands. Furthermore, 92% stated that the administrative burden has increased or significantly increased compared to five years ago.
Moreover, 71% note the negative impact of this burden on their ability to perform their core duties as school leaders, and 59% believe the strain forces them to seriously consider leaving their positions. The principal is the backbone of the school, as the atmosphere of care, discipline, and safety created by the leadership directly affects the institution's academic performance and the decision of young teachers to stay or leave the profession.
When nearly six out of ten school leaders are considering resigning, the government should review its own systems rather than demanding new reports. The most alarming aspect is not the principals' employment itself, as leading a school has always required long hours and strong dedication. The problem is that a significant portion of this time is now spent filling out forms, re-compiling reports, maintaining files, responding to urgent requests, duplicating information, and complying with requirements.
Many principals spend overtime not developing better pedagogical strategies, mentoring young teachers, or interacting with parents, but servicing bureaucracy that too often fails to distinguish meaningful accountability from administrative noise. Time is not an elastic resource; every hour a principal spends filling out a template is an hour not used for observing lessons, supporting staff, assisting students, addressing safety issues, strengthening school culture, or planning improvements.
Therefore, the government must answer the question not whether schools have submitted the necessary documents, but whether those documents have led to improvements in teaching, leadership, or service delivery. If there are no improvements, the system is not strengthening education; it is exhausting it. This is an example of the most destructive managerialism—the belief that institutions can be improved by increasing goals, plans, reports, monitoring, and measurable 'evidence.'
This approach is often disguised as efficiency and accountability, but in extreme forms, it generates the opposite: distrust, duplication, fear, risk aversion, and formal compliance without gaining knowledge. In the field of education, managerialism is gradually turning principals into clerks, teachers into data operators, and departments into machines that demand proof of activity rather than evidence of real impact.
There is a concept called 'bureaucratic bluffing': the system appears busy, generating files, dashboards, templates, signatures, and reports, creating the illusion of control. However, the key question remains unanswered: what does all this administrative activity lead to? Is it read carefully? Is it used to provide better support to schools? Does it help departments allocate resources and solve problems when budgeting? Does it identify risks earlier? Does it improve teaching and learning? Or does it simply move from one desk to another, creating the illusion of important work being done?
A voluminous compliance file does not mean the school is improving; a signed plan does not guarantee a student can read; a submitted report does not mean a teacher received support; a completed checklist does not mean the student dropout rate decreased. The government must stop confusing paperwork with effectiveness. The visible existence of administration is not proof of value; on the contrary, excessive administration may indicate the system's loss of trust in its own professionals.
It is necessary to allow principals to focus on their primary task—leadership. The word 'principal' comes from the Latin 'prīncipālis,' meaning 'most important, chief, leader.' That is what they should be. Accountability should focus attention, not scatter it. It should support leaders, not exhaust them. The principal sets the tone, shapes the culture, builds trust, and stimulates productivity—this is the heart of the school.
The first lesson in leadership from the GBF report is that accountability must be targeted. Good leaders do not request information arbitrarily; they request it because it will help make a decision, initiate support, reduce risk, improve learning, or protect resources. If a reporting requirement does not pass this test, it should be abolished. Public institutions must follow a simple principle: no form without purpose, no template without a user, no report without a decision, and no compliance requirement without visible value.
The second lesson is that trust is not the enemy of accountability, but its foundation for high performance. Schools need clear goals, ethical governance, financial discipline, and transparency. But they also need professional space. Leaders must be trusted in their ability to lead, not just controlled for compliance. Departments should spend less effort extracting evidence from schools and more effort understanding the needs of schools to increase efficiency. A system built only on suspicion will lead to defensive compliance; a system based on reasonable trust will ensure responsibility, initiative, and improvement.
This lesson applies not only to schools. Municipalities, hospitals, universities, and government agencies face a similar model: more plans, more reports, more audits, more registries, more performance indicators, and more short-notice information requests. Some reporting is necessary because public money requires public accountability. However, when compliance becomes excessive, duplicated, and detached from service delivery, it turns into a productivity tax, consuming the time of those who should be delivering results.
Successful organizations are increasingly realizing this. Highly effective institutions do not eliminate accountability; they simplify it. International examples, such as Toyota, Haier, and Buurtzorg, demonstrate that organizations can increase productivity by reducing unnecessary hierarchy, trusting frontline workers, and bringing decision-making closer to the point of actual work. This model goes beyond administrative overload.
Across the entire governmental structure, warning signs are often noted in reports, studies, and advisory bodies long before a crisis occurs, yet decisive action is often taken only after the crisis has happened. The xenophobic mobilization that culminated in the June 30th march did not happen suddenly; South Africa had experienced repeated outbreaks of xenophobic violence since 2008, but many root causes remained insufficiently addressed. Similarly, the frustrations that eventually led to the #FeesMustFall protests were evident years before reaching a national critical point. Gathering information is not the same as taking action based on it.
The GBF report must provoke a nationwide conversation about the burden placed on schools and government institutions. The government must audit every recurring report and ask three simple questions: Who reads this? What decision does it inform? What difference has it made? South Africa does not need less accountability; it needs higher quality accountability.
