Digital leadership competencies for youth development professionals with implications for Youth Union officers in Vietnamese higher education

Universities are changing. For decades, the focus of education reform has been on how teachers deliver lessons and how administrators manage buildings. But a quiet shift is happening in the spaces between classes, in the clubs, the volunteer groups, and the student organizations where young people learn to lead, connect, and grow. As schools become more connected to the internet and artificial intelligence, the people who guide students in these non-classroom settings face a new challenge. They are no longer just organizers of events; they are becoming leaders in a digital world. The question researchers are asking is simple but profound: what does it take to lead a group of young people when their lives, friendships, and learning happen as much online as they do in person?

This question sits at the intersection of two big ideas. First, there is the concept of digital leadership. In the past, being good with technology meant knowing how to use a computer or a specific software program. Today, it means something much broader. It is the ability to guide a group through change, to make sure technology helps people rather than confusing them, and to use data to understand what students need. Second, there is the role of the youth development professional. These are the staff members who do not teach math or history but instead help students build character, find their voice, and engage with their community. In many parts of the world, including Vietnam, these roles are often filled by officers from student unions. Until now, most research on digital leadership has focused on teachers and university presidents, leaving these student leaders without a clear map for how to navigate the digital age.

A team of researchers from several universities in Vietnam set out to fill this gap. They did not conduct a survey of students or run a new experiment in a classroom. Instead, they performed a systematic review, which is a method of gathering and carefully reading existing studies from around the world to see what is already known. They looked at hundreds of documents, including international reports on education, frameworks for teacher training, and policy papers from major organizations like the United Nations and the European Commission. They focused their search on literature published between 2020 and 2025, a period when the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and data analytics has reshaped how schools operate. By weaving together these different threads of knowledge, the researchers aimed to build a single, coherent picture of what digital leadership looks like for the people who work directly with students outside the lecture hall.

The researchers found that the old way of thinking about technology in education was incomplete. For a long time, the assumption was that if a leader knew how to use the latest tools, they were digitally competent. The review suggests this is no longer enough. The new reality is that digital leadership is less about the tools themselves and more about the vision behind them. It is about seeing how a new app or a data system can help a student feel more included, more safe, and more capable. The authors argue that for youth development professionals, the goal is not to become IT experts, but to become leaders who can use technology to deepen human connection and foster responsible citizenship.

From this synthesis of global research, the team proposed a new framework specifically designed for Youth Union officers in Vietnamese universities. They call it the Digital Leadership Competency Framework. It is not a rigid checklist of technical skills, but rather a set of six interconnected areas of capability that work together like parts of a single organism. The first area is strategic vision. This means the ability to look at the big picture, to understand where the university is heading in the digital world, and to align student activities with that direction. It is about planning for the future rather than just reacting to the latest trend.

The second area is communication and engagement. In a digital world, a leader cannot simply send out a notice and expect students to show up. They must know how to build communities online, how to start conversations that matter, and how to make every student feel like they belong, whether they are sitting in a dorm room or a lecture hall. The third area is using data to support students. This does not mean spying on students, but rather looking at patterns in how they participate to understand what they need. If a student group is struggling to connect, data can help a leader see why and adjust their approach, all while keeping student privacy and trust at the center.

The fourth area is perhaps the most urgent: ethical leadership in the age of artificial intelligence. As AI tools become common in schools, leaders must be able to guide students on how to use them responsibly. This involves understanding the risks, such as bias in computer programs or the spread of false information, and teaching students to think critically about the technology they use every day. The fifth area is digital citizenship. This is the educational mission of preparing young people to be good neighbors in the digital world. It means teaching them to be kind online, to respect others' rights, and to use their digital voices to make a positive difference in society.

The final area is innovation and community impact. This moves beyond the campus walls. It is about using digital tools to solve real-world problems, to partner with local communities, and to create projects that have a lasting effect. The researchers emphasize that these six areas are not steps to be completed one by one. They are a system. A leader with a clear vision uses communication to bring students together, uses data to understand them, applies ethics to guide them, teaches them to be good citizens, and finally helps them create something meaningful for the world.

The study suggests that this framework offers a new way to understand the role of these officers. Instead of viewing them merely as administrators who manage student clubs, the framework positions them as essential educational leaders who shape the character and future of the student body. The authors note that in Vietnam, where national policies are pushing for rapid digital transformation in education, these officers are uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between high-level strategy and the daily lives of young people. However, the researchers are careful to state that this framework is a proposal, a conceptual map based on existing knowledge, not a proven solution that has been tested in the field. They suggest that universities should use this model to design training programs, update job descriptions, and create better ways to support these leaders.

The implications of this work extend beyond Vietnam. As universities everywhere become more digital, the people who support students outside the classroom will need new skills. The study argues that investing in the digital leadership of these professionals is just as important as investing in new computers or software. If a university wants to truly transform, it must empower the people who walk the halls, run the clubs, and talk to students every day. By giving these leaders a clear set of competencies, universities can ensure that the digital future is not just more efficient, but also more human, more inclusive, and more focused on the growth of every student. The path forward, the authors suggest, is to recognize that leading in a digital age is not about mastering the machine, but about mastering the art of helping people thrive alongside it.