A capability review of higher education leadership reveals a need for greater diversity, if we are to achieve systemic change.
The Australian Public Service Commission has released a capability review of the Department of Education, calling for a “holistic systems perspective”. Last year, less than 10% of Australian Vice-Chancellors came from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Can we achieve whole-of-system change without increasing inclusive representation across the system? This is both a conundrum and a concerted effort.
I often reflect that executive search has a privileged role in contributing to the future direction of an organisation. Throughout the period wherein we are deeply entrenched in the search process, the partnership allows us to witness the current state, understand the emerging context, and unpack the capabilities of the entity.
This privileged position is amplified when you work with a sector that has societal impact, and for me, that is education.
A founding principle of our firm has been supporting organisations to achieve diversity in leadership, gender diversity of course, but increasingly leadership teams that reflect the intersectional diversity of the Australian community.
What the Universities Accord Got Right
The Universities Accord Final Report, released in February 2024 with its 47 recommendations for transformative reform, was explicit about the need for inclusive leadership.
The Accord goes on to argue that we need the proportion of Australians with tertiary qualifications to rise from 60% to 80% by 2050. That’s over 1.8 million Commonwealth Supported Places annually. We won’t achieve that kind of demographic transformation without bringing all Australians along on the journey.
Data from journals like Higher Education Research & Development and the Australian Educational Researcher consistently shows that over 50% of articles published in 2024 were related to one or more of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, yet our leadership appointments suggest we’re still optimising for different metrics entirely.
ACER’s latest research on “Rethinking assessment in response to generative artificial intelligence” and “Help for educators daunted by students’ poor mental health” points to exactly the kind of complex, cross-cultural challenges that require leaders who understand systemic disadvantage, not just academic tradition.
The Capability Review’s Uncomfortable Truth
The Federal Department tasked with overseeing our $55 billion education system operates with “varying degrees of responsibility across education sectors” while simultaneously presiding over universities that remain stubbornly monocultural at the top, despite being among our most diverse institutions at student and staff levels.
The capability review identified macro trends including “growing number of Australians living in poverty,” “declining birth rate relative to ageing population,” and “unpredictable geopolitical climate”. These aren’t abstract policy challenges; they’re lived realities that diverse leadership teams understand viscerally.
When the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) launches, it will inherit a system where Indigenous leaders have been “pivotal in embedding Indigenous knowledges and perspectives across disciplines,” yet these roles remain proportionally too low to have genuine impact in systematic transformation.
So, here’s what I’m pondering: if Australia’s National Science Statement emphasises “elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems” as a national priority, why aren’t more executive search firms, like us, conducting leadership searches that determinedly elevate the communities whose knowledge remains in the shadows?
At Future Leadership 3% of the thousands of appointed senior leaders, over two decades, have been executive First Nations and Aboriginal leaders. Many of them, in Higher Education.
This isn’t about optics, it’s about competitive advantage. The research is unambiguous: leadership teams with diverse perspectives make better decisions, drive innovation, and build organisational resilience. With Australia’s Economic Accelerator investing $270 million in 2024/25 and the National Reconstruction Fund deploying $15 billion, we’re making massive bets on sectors that universities must help deliver.
Yet we’re placing those bets with leadership teams that are failing to include the communities, networks, and perspectives essential for success in Asia-Pacific partnerships, Indigenous knowledge integration, and culturally responsive innovation.
The Leadership We Need
The Department’s 1,700 staff are tasked with stewarding an education system serving millions of increasingly diverse Australians. Universities Australia’s 2025 federal election statement calls for ‘building a stronger, more prosperous Australia.’ But prosperous for whom, and led by whom?
The next phase of innovation won’t be purely technological. It will be equity-driven. Leaders who understand systemic disadvantage are uniquely positioned to challenge outdated assumptions about merit, participation, and success. Whether reimagining admissions processes, designing culturally responsive learning environments, or supporting neurodiverse students, diverse leadership ensures inclusivity is embedded into innovation.
An Uncomfortable Conclusion
The capability review’s call for “holistic systems perspective” is spot on.
If the Education Department truly wants to coordinate a complex, federated education system serving diverse communities with varied needs, it needs to model the leadership transformation it expects from universities. And if universities want to remain relevant in an Australia that will be 80% tertiary-qualified by 2050, they need leaders who reflect and understand that future Australia, not the one that appointed them.
My educated guess is that we can’t afford not to diversify our education leadership.
Anyone who’s taken a history lesson must surely agree.
About the Author:
Andrew Norton leads the higher education and vocational education practices at Future Leadership. He partners closely with government sector specialists, appointing and supporting senior executives, academics and board directors. Andrew has built enduring networks at a national and international level and is highly respected as a trusted advisor to clients and candidates alike.
