Accessibility Tools
Do gender-balanced university leadership teams produce better and more sustainable outcomes? For Anne Lequy, the answer is an emphatic yes, and leadership development that supports diversity is a vital strategic investment.
As a child, I wanted to become either a philosopher or a writer. Instead, I became a translator and interpreter, and eventually served many years in university leadership positions. Looking back, these paths all rely on the same patterns: understanding different perspectives and building bridges between them.
Throughout my professional life I got to dig even deeper and ask myself: how do people create meaning together and make good decisions in complex environments? Universities are very complex organisations and leading them requires much more than management expertise. It requires the ability to listen, to connect and to guide through the unknown.
More specifically, do gender-balanced leadership teams produce better and more sustainable outcomes?
My personal answer is clear. I am convinced that leadership teams with balanced gender representation achieve better results. Over the course of my career, I have collected a great deal of anecdotal evidence supporting this belief. Yet personal observations, however valuable, are not enough. They invite us to ask a more important question: what does research tell us?
Surprisingly, one of the most interesting answers comes not from higher education research but from peace and conflict studies.
Studies conducted under the auspices of the United Nations have shown that peace agreements last significantly longer when women participate actively and meaningfully in negotiations. The explanation is straightforward: when women participate, a broader range of interests and perspectives is represented. As a result, agreements are more inclusive, more legitimate and ultimately more sustainable.
The comparison with universities is thought-provoking. What if we were bold enough to transfer this insight to higher education leadership?
We might assume that institutional transformations initiated by diverse leadership teams are more sustainable, more effective and more deeply embedded within the organisation.
Let us take the thought experiment one step further. What would happen if science conclusively demonstrated the ideal composition of leadership teams? Would institutions change their practices accordingly?
The evidence from peace negotiations gives reason for caution. Despite decades of research and international commitments, women remain significantly underrepresented in peace processes worldwide, still accounting for less than 13 percent of participants.
Higher education presents a somewhat more encouraging picture, but only somewhat. In Germany, approximately 35 percent of university leadership positions are currently held by women.
In 2025, marine biologist and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Emma Johnston, reflected on lessons from her research on ecosystems. She argued that resilience depends on two key factors: biodiversity and connectivity. The more species an ecosystem contains and the more connections exist among them, the greater its capacity to withstand shocks, adapt to change and thrive under pressure.
Universities today face profound challenges, and resilience has become one of the defining qualities of their success.
Just as ecosystems depend on biodiversity, organisations depend on a diversity of perspectives, experiences and ways of thinking. Diversity does not guarantee good decisions. But it increases the likelihood that blind spots will be identified, assumptions challenged and innovative solutions discovered.
At the same time, we must be careful not to romanticise diversity. Diverse leadership teams do not emerge naturally. Nor do they function effectively without institutional support.
For decades, discussions about gender equality in higher education focused on increasing the number of women entering academic careers. Today, women achieve degrees and doctoral qualifications at rates comparable to men. In many countries, they are well represented among early-career academics.
As sociologist Jutta Allmendinger has argued, the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’ has not disappeared; it has simply moved further along the career path. The critical barriers now emerge at precisely the moment when permanent academic positions become attainable. Careers remain characterised by prolonged periods of temporary contracts and unclear prospects. For many women, these years coincide with decisions about family formation and caregiving responsibilities.
The real issue is the persistence of structures that were designed around assumptions that no longer reflect the realities of contemporary academic life.
Women often invest more time in teaching, mentoring and administrative work in academic self-governance. These activities are essential to the success of our universities but are frequently undervalued in promotion and reward systems. Women continue to encounter subtle forms of bias, heightened scrutiny and expectations that they remain both highly competent and universally likeable.
The solution cannot be to ask women to become even more resilient. Resilience is important, but cannot compensate for structural obstacles.
Instead, universities must examine how careers are organised, how excellence is defined and how contributions are rewarded. They must create environments in which diverse leadership is not merely possible but sustainable. This includes family-friendly policies, more transparent career pathways, recognition of a broader range of academic contributions and a shared commitment to equality that involves men as well as women.
And as our current and future university leaders progress through their careers, it is vital that leadership development is not a single event but an ongoing journey.
To put this into practice, initiatives like the EUA Leadership Development Programme can make a real difference, by creating a space where diverse leaders exchange experiences openly, learn from one another and build trusted peer relationships across institutions and national systems. Leadership can often feel isolating, particularly when making complex decisions under intense scrutiny. The opportunity to connect with colleagues who understand these realities is invaluable.
At the same time, leadership development should not end when a programme concludes. Structured mentoring opportunities, stronger alumni engagement and sustained peer-learning networks could further enhance the long-term impact of the programme. Investing in women’s leadership is not only an investment in individuals; it is an investment in more resilient, inclusive and forward-looking universities.
Diversity in leadership is not a symbolic goal. It is a strategic necessity.
If universities are to remain resilient institutions capable of navigating uncertainty and serving increasingly diverse societies, they need leadership teams that reflect this diversity. Like healthy ecosystems, resilient organisations draw strength from diversity, connection and adaptability.
The question, therefore, is not whether we need more diversity in university leadership. The question is how quickly we create the conditions that make it possible.
