½¿É«µ¼º½

Introduction

Across the globe, , yet in many contexts, including Pakistan, . This gap is not only about glass ceilings; it is also about the collision of two powerful forces: patriarchal norms and the neoliberal turn in higher education. Our recent research explored how five women leaders in Pakistani universities navigate this challenging terrain. Using in-depth interviews and document analysis, we examined how their personal values such as integrity, empathy, collaboration and resilience interact with performance-driven, competitive institutional cultures (Rind & Kurio, in press).

The personal meets the political economy of higher education

For the women we interviewed, leadership was less about positional authority and more about moral responsibility. One leader put it simply: ‘Integrity is everything in leadership. You have to lead by example.’ Others emphasised empathy as a practical strategy for motivating overburdened teams, and collaboration as the cornerstone of departmental success.

Yet, in institutions where success is often defined by key performance indicators (KPIs), rankings and measurable outputs, these values were not formally rewarded (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). Official policy documents we reviewed prioritised research income, student retention and institutional branding, with little acknowledgement of ethical leadership or relational work.

‘The women we interviewed were committed to delivering institutional results, but they refused to abandon the human-centred principles that shaped their leadership identities.’

This is where the tension lies. These women were committed to delivering institutional results, but they refused to abandon the human-centred principles that shaped their leadership identities.

Balancing two worlds

The pressures extended beyond campus gates. All five leaders juggled work and family responsibilities in contexts where domestic expectations are deeply gendered. In nuclear families, women sometimes had more autonomy; in extended families, competing demands often led to constant negotiation over time and priorities.

One leader noted: ‘No matter what position I reach at work, at home, I am still someone’s daughter, wife, or mother.’

Institutional cultures compounded the strain. Policies assumed leaders would be available beyond working hours and evaluated purely on professional deliverables, disregarding caregiving commitments. This mirrored what global scholarship calls the double burden – the expectation to overperform both at work and at home (Morley & Crossouard, 2015).

Strategies of navigation

Faced with these realities, the women developed hybrid leadership strategies. Some translated values-driven initiatives into the language of performance management – for example, framing student wellbeing programmes as retention strategies. Others selectively embraced competitive targets while protecting spaces for collaboration and care. This approach, which researchers have called ‘value smuggling’, reflects a quiet resistance. Leaders work within institutional frameworks while subtly reinterpreting them. However, it comes at a cost in the form of emotional labour, longer hours and the constant mental balancing of competing logics.

What needs to change

Our findings point to a pressing need for structural reforms, not just individual resilience. Institutions in Pakistan and elsewhere should:

• broaden performance metrics to include relational and ethical leadership
• formalise family support policies and flexible workload models
• recognise emotional and collaborative labour as core to effective leadership
• mentor and promote diverse leadership styles rather than privileging corporate, output-focused models.

Women in leadership bring essential capacities for inclusion, ethical governance and social responsibility (Novotney, 2023). These qualities should not be sidelined in the rush for rankings and revenue.

Global relevance

While our cases are rooted in Pakistan’s sociocultural landscape, they echo global challenges. Neoliberal reforms in higher education, with their emphasis on metrics and marketability, risk eroding leadership values that put people before performance.

As higher education becomes more complex and competitive, rethinking what we value in leadership is urgent. The women in our study remind us that care, ethics and collaboration are not soft extras, they are essential for building resilient and equitable universities. At the same time, our research poses some important questions for further research:

• How can institutions design evaluation systems that genuinely capture ethical, collaborative and value-driven leadership practices?
• What specific policy frameworks (e.g. family-friendly policies, flexible workloads) are most effective in supporting women leaders across different sociocultural contexts?
• In what ways do women leaders’ strategies of ‘value smuggling’ influence long-term institutional culture and change?
• How do intersections of class, ethnicity, region and religion further complicate women’s leadership experiences in higher education in Pakistan and beyond?
• What lessons can be drawn from comparative international studies to reframe leadership models that prioritise care, ethics and social responsibility?

Addressing these questions may contribute not only to gender equity in higher education but also to the reimagining of leadership itself as a socially responsible and inclusive practice.

References

Morley, L., & Crossouard, B. (2015). Women in higher education leadership in South Asia: Rejection, refusal, reluctance, revisioning. British Council.

Novotney, A. (2023). Female leaders make work better. American Psychological Association.

Rind, I. A & Kurio, F. N (in press) Navigating neoliberalism: Women leaders in Pakistani’ higher education and the intersection of personal values and institutional demands. International Journal of Leadership in Education.

Smith, N., & Fredricks-Lowman, I. (2020). Conflict in the workplace: A 10-year review of toxic leadership in higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5), 538–551.