ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ

Across the higher education (HE) sector, academic institutions understand the importance of inclusion, belonging and diversity (see for example and ). Yet one dimension which is not getting the attention it requires is neurodivergent leadership. Leadership shapes institutional culture, decision-making and working conditions. Universities have made progress in developing support for neurodivergent students (Anderson et al., 2018), but there needs to be .

Neurodiversity and leadership in higher education: An overlooked dimension

HE leadership highlights themes such as , academic identities, managerialism and transformational practice (see also Bolden et al., 2009; Floyd, 2016). Across this literature, neurodiversity is rarely discussed despite leadership’s role in shaping academic cultures and practices. Where neurodivergent research is discussed in HE research, it focuses on students or the general experiences which are faced by neurodivergent academics (see Botha, 2021; Brown & Leigh, 2018; Jones, 2023). Jones (2023) and Botha (2021) argue that the structural challenges which are faced by autistic academics include masking pressures, institutional inaccessibility and exclusion.

Structural barriers and the absence of neurodivergent leadership pathways

Some broader analyses of staff with disabilities and neurodivergent staff in academia emphasise persistent structural ableism (Brown & Leigh, 2018; Waterfield et al., 2018), yet this literature also stops short of addressing how neurodivergent staff fare within leadership pipelines. Recent work examining autistic academics’ workplace experiences (Jones, 2023; Botha & Frost, 2018) similarly identifies barriers and facilitators, but again does not explore leadership representation. Sectors such as technology and finance have begun recognising strengths neurodivergent leaders bring in innovation and . Higher education has not yet fully engaged with questions about the representation, experiences and potential organisational contributions of neurodivergent leaders.

‘Higher education has not yet fully engaged with questions about the representation, experiences and potential organisational contributions of neurodivergent leaders.’

Why neurodivergent leadership matters for institutional effectiveness

This lack of research matters for several reasons. First, cognitive diversity can be linked to improved group performance on complex tasks, with cognitively diverse problem-solving teams across organisational and policy contexts to outperform more homogeneous groups. In higher education, universities have benefited from the strengths that are associated with neurodivergent cognition. Such strengths include systems-level thinking and identifying structural issues across .

Neurodivergent staff do exist across HE settings; however, disclosure rates remain low because of the stigma, fear of bias, and concerns about how this may impact career progression. Without evidence on how neurodivergent staff experience leadership pathways, institutions will not be able to address barriers or design leadership cultures which are inclusive.

Institutions prioritising inclusive teaching and student experience must consider whether their leadership structures reflect inclusive values, such as equity, accessibility and participation. Leadership norms often reflect expectations around communication, emotional labour and sensory environments. Many of these reflect neurotypical preferences and can put staff which are neurodivergent at a disadvantage. Botha (2021) highlights that masking in professional settings can result in exclusion (that is, suppressing or adapting neurodivergent traits to conform to dominant workplace norms), suggesting that these leadership cultures built on these norms can potentially filter out neurodivergent talent.

The evidence gap in neurodivergent leadership research

There is a need for research into neurodivergent leadership in HE across these three dimensions: the lived experiences of neurodivergent leaders; organisational practices which could affect career progression; and the potential gains academic institutions could make from their cognitive strengths.

As universities pursue inclusion, the absence of neurodivergent leadership in higher education research highlights a major gap. Addressing this gap would support more inclusive leadership cultures in higher education.

References

Anderson, A. H., Carter, M., & Stephenson, J. (2018). ÌýPerspectives of university students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 651–665.

Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277.

Botha, M. (2021). Academic, activist, or advocate? angry, entangled, and emerging: A critical reflection on autism knowledge production. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 727542.

Botha, M., & Frost, D. M. (2020). Extending the minority stress model to understand mental health problems experienced by the autistic population. Society and Mental Health, 10(1), 20–34.

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: Where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society.

Jones, S. C. (2023). Autistics working in academia: What are the barriers and facilitators? Autism, 27(3), 822–831. h

Floyd, A. (2016). Supporting academic middle leaders in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development.

Waterfield, B., Beagan, B. B., & Weinberg, M. (2018). Disabled academics: A case study in Canadian universities.ÌýDisability & Society,Ìý33(3), 327–348. Ìý