Category: Global Majority Mentoring Programme

  • How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    In 2021, I piloted a city-wide mentoring programme for global majority ethnic staff working in London universities.

    It was born from the bilateral North London Leadership Programme between London Metropolitan University and City St George’s, University of London. Four years later the Global Majority Mentoring Programme is flourishing – but world events show us that we need interventions like these as much as we ever did.

    The Global Majority Mentoring Programme is London Higher’s flagship commitment to championing equality, diversity and inclusion across the capital. It is a cross-institutional scheme that aims to improve career progression for global majority ethnic staff; give mentees a senior mentor from a different institution, outside their institutional hierarchy; and build professional networks across the capital to foster pan-London collaboration. Over 300 participants from 20 institutions have engaged with the scheme, with representation from small specialist institutions, large multi-faculty universities, and everything in between.

    London remains the most ethnically diverse region in the UK. Ten of London’s 32 boroughs (plus the City of London) have a majority non-white population. Newham is London’s most diverse borough, with a population that is 69.2 per cent non-white. In the boroughs of Brent, Redbridge, Harrow and Tower Hamlets, the figure is also above 60 per cent.

    You could also call the capital a microcosm of the wider HE sector. London has the largest concentration of diverse higher education providers in the country. A citywide initiative here has a real opportunity to effect meaningful and visible change. Our universities are proudly outward-looking and global, from research links to equitable international partnerships, yet they are also firmly rooted in place and contributors to local growth, regeneration and prosperity. However, lasting change doesn’t happen overnight; London’s higher education sector was not, and still is not, truly representative of the city it serves.

    Mentoring individuals from global majority ethnic backgrounds aligns with London-wide policy aims and ambitions: there’s a clear evidence base to support this. Along with the London Anchor Institutions’ Network, we’re striving to meet the clear priorities that have been set out for London’s post-pandemic recovery and regeneration, addressing systemic issues of social and economic unfairness. The London Growth Plan and upcoming Inclusive Talent Strategy encapsulate these priorities.

    Growing the pipeline

    We are all acutely aware of the wider narrative around EDI. The second Trump administration’s efforts in the US show us what can happen when a populist government takes up “anti-woke” as a cause. There may be disagreement about the form that EDI work should take and some people may fundamentally disagree with the legitimacy of EDI work as part of a public service agenda.

    However, in a sector in which there is a visible lack of diversity – in all its forms – that worsens, the further upstream in the talent pipeline you go, we need to continue to work to understand the practical and cultural barriers to leadership and drive to overcome them, learning together as we go. A theme that has consistently emerged throughout the programme is gaining a better knowledge of HE, and its systemic complexities and barriers.

    Mentoring programmes like ours create space and connections to make sense of personal experience and explore shared challenges. Participants report feeling a greater sense of empowerment and increased confidence. And tangible impacts on mentees include promotions, collaborations across universities, joint research bids, and even funded PhDs happening as a result of their participation in the scheme.

    Future-proofing

    Career progression and leadership opportunities were identified as key issues from the outset, so it seems appropriate that the programme is supported by Minerva, an executive search and recruitment firm specialising in education. As headhunters responsible for significant appointments, Minerva is in a position of influence to shape the composition of senior university leadership and their boards.

    The programme ensures that a diverse talent pool is in the Minerva team’s line of sight, and can understand more about the challenges global majority colleagues face in moving up the ladder. Minerva also runs yearly masterclass for participants to demystify the executive search process – providing insights into a world that is largely unknown to many of them. This includes a breakdown of recruitment, explanations of things such as the “informal coffee” interview stage, tips on negotiating, conveying a personal brand and profile raising.

    We also tailored a leadership development programme alongside the University of Westminster and Blue Whistle Learning that has been taken up internationally, in countries like the Philippines and South Africa.

    It is my hope that the initiatives like this are viewed not as political footballs or shiny nice-to-haves, but for what they are – interventions based on robust evidence that meet local and sectoral needs and broaden opportunities for collaboration.

    Higher education, especially in London, does not exist in a bubble. It is critical that universities continue to position themselves as integral to driving wider policy change in service of society. A more diverse sector does not mean a watered-down one – it means one that is informed by more voices and perspectives, and therefore better equipped to succeed in tackling the challenges laid out before it.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here. 

    Source link

  • Higher education could make space for many types of leader and ways of leading

    Higher education could make space for many types of leader and ways of leading

    The Global Majority Mentoring Programme, delivered by London Higher, aims to support career progression for Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) staff by providing tailored mentoring relationships and learning opportunities for academics and professional services staff.

    I joined the programme as a mentee in 2023–24 while seeking support during my time as head of two merged divisions in the School of Law and Social Sciences. For me, mentoring is an exchange of knowledge and experience, and I was looking for a woman of colour in a leadership role outside my own institution with whom I could turn to for advice on navigating the unique challenges I was facing in confidence.

    The programme was recommended to me by a colleague who recognised that, as the only non-white member of the school leadership team, I faced specific challenges which, although acknowledged by the rest of the team, could only be supported to a limited extent given that the remainder of the team were white. They understood that someone with lived experience of both race and gender might be better placed to offer the kind of support I needed. I was matched with someone in an Associate Dean role who I met with regularly for three months. She validated my experiences especially when I was second guessing myself, she also offered me guidance and advice on navigating career progression and insights on HE headhunters.

    In addition to the mentoring, I also took part in the two-day Learning Leaders Workshop, delivered in partnership with the mentoring programme and the University of Westminster. I approached the workshop ambivalently while hoping it would offer more than the surface-level training I had experienced in the past. Previous programmes had often been underwhelming, failing to meet expectations and lacking depth. One in particular was overcrowded, with more than twenty participants, which made it difficult to engage in the kind of deep thinking that individual and collective inquiry needs.

    Surface pressure

    Reflecting on these past experiences, I began to question the broader purpose and structure of leadership development in higher education. Despite good intentions, many leadership development initiatives in higher education appear to remain disconnected from the structural changes reshaping the sector. And it is not always clear why line managers support staff participation in these programmes when, in practice, there appears to be limited opportunities to apply or build on the learning.

    This concern feels especially pressing now, as the sector undergoes significant transformation, with widespread voluntary redundancies affecting many institutions across the UK. I fear that higher education is losing emerging talent at an alarming rate. While the current focus is largely on financial viability, we may be overlooking a more profound long-term issue, the need to reimagine what leadership in higher education looks like. The urgency of building a future-focused leadership pipeline is growing, particularly as ongoing threats to equity, diversity and inclusion continue to challenge the sector’s values and resilience.

    Amid this context of uncertainty, where many of us are increasingly time-poor and juggling demanding workloads, I hoped the Learning Leaders workshop would offer a more meaningful and impactful experience. Taking time out of our busy schedules for training must feel worthwhile, rather than merely another tick-box exercise to meet 360 performance management targets. To my surprise, several aspects of the workshop turned out to be both unusual and thought-provoking.

    Leadership through lived experience

    Notably, there were just six of us in the room, all women, all from the global majority. Throughout the two days, I found myself reflecting on this. Why is it that I so often see more women than men who feel the need to be “trained up” for leadership? This prompted broader questions about gender, expectations and who is seen as ‘ready’ for leadership roles in our institutions. Women lead in many areas of life, particularly those of us who are parents or and carers. We are skilled problem-solvers, strong networkers, and we manage complex responsibilities every day.

    In my role as Head of Division, I noticed a recurring frustration among female academics who felt that the emotional labour involved in providing pastoral care to students often went unrecognised. There was a shared sense that this responsibility frequently fell to them, with both students and male colleagues appearing to expect them to take it on. Yet we rarely describe care and pastoral work as leadership.

    The programme was not a traditional form of training in any sense. Instead, it offered a series of facilitated sessions that created space for us to reflect, share, and learn from one another’s experiences. Together, we explored how we each learn which was presented in four quadrants – body, heart, mind, and spirit – and how to make the most of this intel within a team setting. This deeper understanding uncovered the strengths within our own leadership styles and helped us consider how best to apply them in our professional contexts. We took time to reflect on how leadership is defined and, more importantly, where it is learned and practised.

    Leadership, we came to understand, is not something taught in a conventional way but rather something that evolves through lived experience. It happens in both personal and professional settings, though we might not always recognise it as leadership in a formal or professionalised sense. The workshop took a holistic approach and illustrated how knowledge can emerge through embodied learning, incorporating philosophical inquiry to uncover deeper insights into our individual and collective strengths. This is when it occurred to me, for the first time, that developing leadership practice is best done in communities of practice.

    By the end of the two days, we weren’t “trained” by the facilitator in any traditional sense. Instead, the leadership wisdom we uncovered emerged from within our own group, the Super Six, which is what we have come to be known as and was brought to light through Keith’s expert and highly unconventional facilitation, which gently led us to that shared discovery.

    Many paths to leadership

    In hindsight, the Learning Leaders workshop gave me the space to actively explore the “what next” and “how next” of leadership. A series of thoughtful one-to-one conversations with one of the Super Six proved particularly impactful. Their questions led me to reflect deeply on new possibilities for academic leadership, including working as a freelance scholar, moving to a different institution, or stepping outside the sector altogether. I have always held a personal principle not to remain in one institution for more than ten years, out of concern for becoming institutionalised and limiting my professional growth. After several thoughtful conversations with my Dean, I came to the difficult but right decision to leave at the end of 2024.

    Since then, I have had the privilege of working with several universities and organisations from teaching, advising, researching and collaborating on projects – all of which have been intellectually energising and impactful. There is no one way to lead, and the Learning Leaders workshop reminded me that there are many paths to leadership, each shaped by context, values and personal experience.

    If there is any advice that I could offer to emerging leaders from global majority backgrounds, it would be to identify a sponsor with decision making power within the institution, a mentor outside of the university for confidential developmental advice and identify role models across different sectors and who do leadership well so you can begin building your own community of practice.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here.

    Source link

  • Responsible recruitment means fostering diverse leadership potential

    Responsible recruitment means fostering diverse leadership potential

    Unfortunately, it is no secret that the higher education sector has a long way to go when it comes to equity in progression to senior leadership.

    While the number of staff from global majority ethnic backgrounds in universities has nearly tripled over the last 20 years (now c. 24 per cent), HESA data shows that still only 3.8 per cent of black academics in the UK hold the title of Professor, and less than one per cent of all professors in the UK are black. Though there has been an incredible 93.8 per cent increase since 2012–13, still only 30.8 per cent of professors in the UK identify as women. There has been real progress, but it has been slow.

    Recruitment from the inside

    In our position as a consultancy supporting talent development across higher education and wider sectors driven by social purpose, we’re constantly reminded of the barriers faced by global majority candidates in recruitment processes. We see selection bias; we see lack of communication and clarity around promotion criteria; we see challenges in individual confidence and imposter syndrome; we see anxiety around tokenism.

    There’s additionally a risk that diversity is becoming less of a priority in these times of financial challenge, when obvious questions around sustainability come to the fore. With many institutions going through restructures and cost-saving exercises, executive boards are under enormous pressure to justify any new appointments and associated expenditure. The ability to lead change, diversify income streams, and drive growth with limited resources are now constant topics in our conversations with candidates for senior roles.

    In part due to these pressures, recruitment panels seem increasingly less willing to think widely when appointing to leadership roles. There is often an increased sense of perceived risk when considering candidates from other sectors, overseas, or who would be taking a step up into the role, rather than making a sideways move. As domestic funding challenges worsen, international student numbers continue to decline, and operational costs rise across the sector, there’s understandably often a preference for candidates who have “been there, done that.” This has obvious implications for overall diversity in the sector.

    Though there has been some improvement, staff from global majority backgrounds are still disproportionately concentrated in lower-level roles and underrepresented in senior roles across the sector. It is less likely that a candidate from a global majority background will be in a position to make such a sideways move for a senior role. In our search work, we encourage committees to place a greater emphasis on capability and competence, alongside experience, and to consider which essential requirements on the job description might be more flexible than others. We do also see a growing recognition that things have to change and a genuine commitment to strive for greater representation at all levels.

    As headhunters, we have to strike a difficult balance between supporting and challenging the organisations we work with, particularly around such questions of equity of opportunity and perceived risk. We are committed to making a difference on a very practical level, and we work closely with clients and candidates to find ways to make our search processes more equitable. We take time in briefings meetings to really get a feel for the culture of each organisation we work with; we advise on the accessibility of recruitment material; and we structure interview processes so candidates can engage with an opportunity and organisation in multiple fora, for example.

    There is an inherent limitation to the work that we do as advisors on senior appointment processes, however. Through the lists of candidates we bring together for a role, and the way we support candidates and panels through these processes, we can have a direct impact on the individual and organisation, but we often feel that the most positive impact we can have on the composition of senior teams is through our broader leadership development work.

    Insider information

    We’ve been involved in the London Higher Global Majority Mentoring Programme for the last few years. In our annual masterclass with the programme’s participants, we discuss practical topics about engaging with opportunities for development and progress including at the level of CVs and cover letters, navigating informal interviews, internal marketing, and LinkedIn. We aim to demystify the recruitment process and help equip them with some tools to help them move into their next leadership positions. These topics are framed in the context of structural barriers to progression facing individuals from marginalised groups, which often hold candidates back from bringing their authentic selves to recruitment processes.

    We often hear about candidates’ experience of covering parts of their identities in interviews, feeling imposter syndrome when interviewing with a panel of white senior leaders, and concern around being a “token” on a shortlist.

    Several years ago, we developed Aspire, which is a pro-bono programme that supports mid-career professionals from global majority ethnic backgrounds as they work to move into senior leadership positions. The programme runs over six months and explores themes such authenticity and leadership profiles alongside practical approaches to promotion and recruitment. The programme aims to create a space in which participants can share their lived experience and create a community of practice as they look for their next role.

    Launched last year, Board Prospects pairs individuals from historically under-represented groups with non-executive boards. The participants join the board without voting rights for a year, before being appointed as full members.

    Participants across the programmes we work on have reported promotions, external job offers and more – though it is of course impossible to determine exactly how much the specific programme contributed to this success. The most significant impact reported is often the networks created through the sessions, and the sense of empowerment which can develop from a space in which experiences, support, and advice are shared safely. We’ve seen research collaborations, invitations to conferences and more emerge from these communities of practice.

    Our involvement in the Global Majority Mentoring Programme, and our work on our own leadership development programmes, is valuable in helping us shape our executive search work to be as inclusive and equitable as possible. We’ve learnt (and continue to learn) a huge amount from the programmes and their participants. Through hearing about participants’ lived experiences of career progression, we learn more about where we can provide the best support for development, and how we might advise clients on the “sticking points” in recruitment processes which can be especially limiting or off-putting to individuals from underrepresented groups.

    We also recognise that recruiting diverse talent is just one step in building inclusive and equitable organisations. Creating an environment in which staff from marginalised groups can thrive and progress requires a much more holistic approach that seeks to fundamentally change working cultures. Our work with individual institutions, such as the LEAP into Leadership Programme with the University of Greenwich, in which a group of mid-career delegates from global majority ethnic backgrounds are formally paired with a senior sponsor within the institution, has also stressed to us the need to acknowledge and engage with structural barriers and allyship at all levels of an institution if we are to ever meaningfully break down barriers to senior leadership.

    While recognising the huge amount of work that still needs to be done, and the ever-growing challenges facing universities across the UK, we’re hopeful that collaborative schemes like the Global Majority Mentoring Programme, alongside a commitment to challenging and adapting recruitment processes, can ultimately have a real impact in creating more diverse leadership teams which better reflect society and are best equipped to deal with sector challenges.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here.

    Source link

  • Learning is the defining characteristic of modern leaders

    Learning is the defining characteristic of modern leaders

    Are leaders born to the role? Does one simply come into the world with the charisma, ability to inspire, take tough decisions and communicate well? Or, is it within the ken of any individual to develop themselves as a leader?

    Whether we believe the answer to be one or the other or a combination of both, the bottom line will always remain “learning.” Leadership is a complex business, requiring an equally complex set of skills and these can be developed and honed over time through continuous learning. Even those who are born blessed with the key leadership traits can only become true learning leaders if they are willing to become conscious of their experiences and practice.

    Definitions of leadership are wide and varied. Everyone, it seems, has some idea of what it is and what makes the best leaders. For our purposes we can draw on a simple, and perhaps profound, definition that I picked up from an Ethiopian cohort:

    If you think you are a leader and you don’t have any followers you are just taking a walk.

    And, given the world we are living in, it’s worth adding that true learning leaders will have willing followers, as opposed to those coerced into following whether through fear or manipulation – or even hierarchy for that matter.

    To ask what makes a good leader is therefore to think about the qualities that make someone “followable.” And without much doubt we are looking at the traits of authenticity, courage, empathy, vision and, most of all, someone who can “walk the talk” and follow through on their promises.

    Learning is life

    The Learning Leader course is a reflection of this philosophy; conceived and designed around leaders who want to learn and develop themselves. It is designed for people who are ready to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, but also to explore their own beliefs and values so that they are as consciously authentic as they can be. It takes as a maxim the view frequently attributed to Mark Twain that “continuous improvement is better than delayed perfection.”

    Learning Leaders is founded on four foundation pillars: learning; leadership; consciousness; change. And it is consciously focused on learning that keeps pace with change, drawing on the Reg Revins formula:

    Rate of learning > Rate of change = Life

    Rate of learning

    The course is intentionally more about facilitation than teaching. It is focused on learning “outputs” much more than teaching “inputs.” We provide frameworks to help participants make sense of the outputs, but these are deliberately simple – though not necessarily easy – and can be adopted at a personal and collective level. In other words they are much less culture bound than other (largely Western) theories and models.

    Most of all we use tools and techniques that create a safe and respectful environment wherein participants feel so comfortable with each other they not only exchange their own experiences and insights but also help each other to explore the deeper meaning of what it is to be a leader in today’s world.

    To have Learning Leaders as part of the Global Majority Mentoring Programme throws up other dimensions relating to culture and diversity. Participants are exclusively from Global Majority backgrounds and are more conscious than most of their diversity. It is interesting, too, that the dominant profile has been a female one.

    We could all readily agree that leadership in this modern, fast changing, complex world should always be open to learning, indeed, it is learning or the ability to learn in a conscious way that is a defining characteristic of the modern leader.

    Consciousness raising

    Over two days participants worked through multiple course elements including change framework, philosophical inquiry and practising disagreement, a “walk the talk” exercise and a reflection instrument. But a key collective “Aha!” moment arose from an exercise to explore individual learning leader styles. That was a moment where all of us, myself included, found a new way to look at diversity: not just as a “nice” thing to do but as an essential strengthening underpinning to all that we do.

    The assessment of learning leader styles begins with introducing a learning cycle model. We emphasise at this point that our world has become a place where “Plan-Do” is dominant and that this, more visible, element is what organisations like to encourage and reward. This has come at a cost to “Reflect-Think” and consequently to our ability to learn. This helps to frame where our focus will be and why. The participants will have a rare chance to really indulge in some quality individual and collective reflection and thinking.

    By segmenting the cycle into four quadrants we find that we have four different areas that accommodate or position leadership learning styles or preferences.

    • Body (between Plan and Do) – learning from experience and being aware of our behaviour.
    • Heart (between Do and Reflect) – learning from emotion and being aware of our instinctive intelligence.
    • Mind (between Think and Plan) – learning from knowledge and being aware of our ego.
    • Spirit (between Reflect and Think) – learning from wisdom and being aware of our beliefs.

    With the use of a short questionnaire, we are able to identify our leadership learning styles and the relative position on the cycle. This is a good visual to discuss further what having a particular approach might mean for an individual and to explore the consequences of our collective preferences. The below diagram illustrates where different people might position themselves on the various quadrants.

    Having someone in each quadrant gives us a more complete learning group. I like to see things get done offering practical insights. M and Z remind the group how important it is to be aware of our feelings and be open to creativity and new ideas. S and J require that questions are asked, and sense is made before rushing onto the next thing. Finally, we have N who also likes to make sense but who is unlikely to procrastinate too long and can help a group converge learning into a decision and way forward.

    Provided we become and remain conscious of this diversity it becomes a real strength in any group or team. Only when we are unconscious can differences lead to division, fragmentation and misunderstanding. Without this awareness learning is non-complimentary and will erode respect and trust.

    Having looked at our complimentary styles we applied this insight into all that we did for the rest of the two day course. For example, participants enhanced the effectiveness of the “walk the talk” exercise when they paired up with a complimentary style and experienced new perspectives, insights and ideas. But most of all we could see graphically how diversity is always a strength (especially in a leadership team) when we are conscious of ourselves and others’ approaches and preferences.

    That this is the real and positive message from any EDI initiative. With the consciousness of a Learning Leader we could never be divided! I am already looking forward to next year’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme cohorts and to enjoy the diversity and experience the profound insights that come out of this potent mix of leaders.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here. Keith would like to extend special thanks to the University of Westminster and Dr. Randhir Auluck, Head of School, Organisations, Economy & Society at Westminster Business School without whose vision, not to mention organisational skills, this Learning Leaders course would not have seen the light of day.

    Source link