½¿É«µ¼º½

Education is not the ultimate lever for social transformation, but without it, transformation cannot occur. (Paulo Freire, 1998, p. 37)

This quote suggests that although education may not be the primary driving force behind social revolution, it is a powerful tool and a fundamental element for any profound transformation to occur, which I strongly advocate for. This aligns with the transformational leadership model and is strongly associated with the work of John Rawls ().

Neoliberalism vs Transformational Leadership

In an age where neoliberal philosophy is increasingly forming the discourse and culture of performance-driven metrics in UK universities (Norris, 2022). Neoliberalism is defined as a discourse that supports market-driven capitalism dominating the socioeconomic framework and supports colonising every aspect of human life ().

Transformational leadership (TL) is defined as an approach in which leaders motivate, inspire, actively foster their followers’ development and champion a vision (). Although universities’ policies may prioritise transformation and inclusion, these objectives are often problematic to fulfil due to the universities’ aversion to change and neoliberal ideology (). This raises crucial questions: What risks could surface when the transformation discourse is absorbed into managerial agendas? Can TL thrive in a framework centred on quantifiable outcomes? How might TL act as a catalyst for academic autonomy, a sense of belonging and inclusion?

Higher education leadership at a crossroads: Towards genuine transformation

Neoliberalism may exacerbate educational inequality (EI) symptoms, but TL may provide a possible solution. A vital aspect that educators need to consider is prefigurative politics, which may focus on reshaping educational spaces that reflect inclusivity, democracy and justice principles (). This may be useful for EI to reduce rather than waiting for reforms.

Biesta () also explored this in a prior study, suggesting that education should focus on promoting democratic involvement and critical thinking. His critique has a profound impact on EI, as neoliberal policies often intensify existing discrepancies, predominantly for people from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not have access to the same opportunities as their counterparts.

‘In the absence of institutional reform, transformational leadership can devolve into a performative storm to be supported with compliance rather than profound transformation.’

Conversely, from a critical lens, this creates organisational pressures. For example, transformational leaders (TLs) might want to nurture creativity and foster inclusive cultures, but their leadership is habitually measured through the lens of a predetermined performance target. In the absence of institutional reform, TL can devolve into a performative storm, supported by compliance rather than profound transformation.

Nonetheless, fostering inclusion involves safeguarding academic autonomy, such as supporting academic experimentation, nurturing discussion and language, and challenging tensions that homogenise educational experience in the name of competence. Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) presents a useful perspective here, proposing that leadership should be committed to exercising emotional intelligence and forming environments where both educators and students can challenge and reform organisational priorities (Skelton, 2023).

In the context of course design or utilising pedagogical practices, it is significant for TLs to acknowledge that not all students are the same, as they have unique identities (Gunn, 2023). For example, intersectionality is the product of the interplay of manifold social factors such as gender, disability, socioeconomic background and race that form students’ educational experience ().

This acknowledgement could lead to creating a student-centred environment. But this can be dominated by compliance burden, favouring the system of measurement over real pedagogical and cultural developments. From a critical viewpoint, this mirrors the systemic challenges that universities face. Without careful application, TL might be converted into performance-driven discourse unless it is used to cultivate social justice and inclusion.

Reflective synthesis: Evolving beyond rhetoric

To conclude, TL provides great potential; however, it is not protected from issues caused by neoliberalism, such as EI. Its value rests in exercising emotional intelligence, nurturing inclusion and safeguarding educational autonomy, which are foundations that support pedagogical practices and inclusive course design to address the diversity of the students’ intersectionality. To achieve social transformation, learning opportunities ought to be uniformly available to all, ensuring students can engage in transformative developments (). Therefore, the government should reconsider its current strategies and formulate approaches that legitimise its policy decisions.

Future research should be conducted to analyse the impact of transformational leadership  in higher education on reducing educational inequality, including evidence-based practices (), from the perspective of equity, diversity and inclusion, which may perhaps ensure equitable educational opportunities and success for all students.

I close with this reflective enquiry: What is our role as educators and practitioners in ensuring that transformation moves beyond conversation and into practice, as a university’s lived reality?

References

Bastia, T., Datta, K., Hujo, K., Piper, N., & Walsham, M. (2022). Reflections on intersectionality: A journey through the worlds of migration research, policy and advocacy. Gender, Place & Culture, 30(3), 460–483.

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46.

Chapman, J. W. (1975). Rawls’s theory of justice. American Political Science Review, 69(2), 588-593. ÌýÌýÌý

Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 8.

Freire, P. ( 1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder & Herder.

Freire, P. ( 1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield.

Goldacre, B. (2013). Building evidence into education. Department for Education.

Gunn, A. (2023). Teaching excellence? universities in an age of student consumerism. SAGE.

Kester, K., Seo, R., & Gerstner, N. (2023). Prefigurative pedagogies for working toward peace and justice in changing times: Insights from Korea. Journal of Peace Education, 21(1), 108–133.

Khan, H., Rehmat, M., Butt, T. H., Farooqi, S., & Asim, J. (2020). Impact of transformational leadership on work performance, burnout and social loafing: A mediation model. Future Business Journal, 6, 40.

Morley, C. (2024). The systemic neoliberal colonisation of higher education: a critical analysis of the obliteration of academic practice. Australian Educational Researcher, 51, 571–586.

Norris, D. (2022, April 14). Teaching sociologically: Critical pedagogy in the age of neoliberalism. ½¿É«µ¼º½ Blog. /blog/teaching-sociologically-critical-pedagogy-in-the-age-of-neoliberalism

Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.

Skelton, K. (2023). Counter-critical pedagogy: A manifesto. Critical Studies in Education, 65(4), 348–365.