The impact of neoliberal managerialism on EDI in higher education has become more evident as the landscape has undergone significant changes (Maratos et al., 2019; Denney, 2020; Waddington, 2021). This shift has created a global atmosphere of competitiveness, complexity, and uncertainty, particularly in the UK, where higher education is in a perpetual state of change and turbulence (Denney, 2021b). Neoliberalism's influence on higher education in the UK dates back to the 1970s, coinciding with the political leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and the subsequent global spread of four key changes in political economy capitalism: privatization, deregulation, financialization, and globalization (Radice, 2013). This neoliberal paradigm, as highlighted by Benatar et al. (2018), is associated with negative consequences such as increased poverty, inequality, and the pervasive commercialization of social life and educational systems. Radice (2013) contends that neoliberalism has manifested as new managerialism in the UK public sector, characterized by the adoption of private business sector structures, technologies, and values. Specifically, new managerialism blends hierarchical control with elements of the free market, imposing private sector values on the public sector (Deem, 1998) and shifting the university's focus from elite education to contributing marketable skills and research outputs to the “knowledge economy” (Radice, 2013, p. 408). New managerialism in higher education involves internal cost centers, staff rivalry, marketization of public sector services, and the monitoring of efficiency through outcome measurement and performance evaluation, particularly for academic staff (Deem, 1998). Performativity in managing academic labor in UK universities is a key aspect of new managerialism, as detailed performance measurement shifts the culture from collegial to managerial (Cowen, 1996).

Academic women face unique challenges as a result of cultural shifts in higher education. UK higher education institutions' underlying systems, structures, processes, and cultures are inherently referred to as masculine managerialism since they were designed for men, contributing to systemic gender biases. The combination of masculinized higher education institutions with neoliberalism's performativity has created a challenging environment hindering the progression of academic women into senior leadership roles (Denney, 2021a).

In tandem with gender inequalities, racial disparities persist in higher education, posing a significant concern for academia. Fossland and Habti (2022) highlight ongoing racial inequalities in higher education, emphasizing the continued support for white male scientists and their scientific contributions, diminishing the visibility of research contributions from women and minority scholars. This intersectionality of gender and race underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to address multiple dimensions of inequality in academia.

It is crucial to recognize and rectify inequality issues in UK higher education institutions across various other dimensions. LGBTQ+ representation, disability inclusion, and the intersectionality of identities must also be central considerations in fostering a truly inclusive higher education environment. Research consistently demonstrates that diverse and inclusive institutions not only enhance innovation and research but also contribute to advancements in science (Østergaard et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2017, 2018). Thus, a comprehensive approach to EDI is essential for the flourishing of academics representing diverse groups in higher education, but also the realization of new discoveries and advancements in knowledge.

Considering the EDI challenges faced by academic staff in UK higher education institutions, it is not surprising that many academics struggle in what are experienced as challenging and toxic environment in which to work (Denney, 2020). This is notably reflected in highlights from the latest Times Higher Education University Workplace survey (2016), which included 1,398 (49 percent) UK academics from nearly 150 universities across the UK (as shown in Table 1), revealing that academics are increasingly suffering at work. Consideration of these pre-pandemic findings would suggest that, in the interim, circumstances have likely deteriorated further.¹

As illustrated in Table 1, academics reported experiencing high levels of stress and dissatisfaction with their institutions' leadership, with a significant percentage considering resigning from their roles. Additionally, 54% of academics felt unheard by their institution's leadership (Grove, 2016). These findings are concerning and could be indicative of a dearth of compassionate leadership at UK universities. The survey further revealed that a substantial number of academics were worried about job insecurity, with 40% feeling their positions were at risk of redundancy. Specifically, academics expressed anxiety and pressure related to metrics-based performance measures, as well as concerns about expanding managerialism, frequent performance monitoring, and an increasingly bureaucratic system that eroded professional discretion (Grove, 2016).

A more recent empirical study surveying over five thousand academic staff from across the UK found that academic personnel frequently encountered difficult, stressful, and sometimes humiliating situations (Erickson et al., 2021). More relevant to the state of EDI in UK higher education institutions, this study highlighted those chronic issues of bullying, discrimination, and harassment, along with elevated levels of mental health difficulties, general health and wellbeing concerns, and alarming levels of hopelessness and dissatisfaction among UK academics. Other research has reported that disabled university professors, instructors, teachers, and researchers, were particularly vulnerable to unfair treatment, biased discrimination, bullying, and harassment, placing them at a higher risk of burnout (Wolbring and Lillywhite, 2023).

In sum, the pervasive impact of neoliberal managerialist logic on academic life, as evidenced by the stress, dissatisfaction, and mental distress experienced by academic staff, particularly those in vulnerable positions, underscores the urgency of transformative measures. The existing conditions, marked by limited EDI and the resulting toxic work environment in universities, demand a paradigm shift toward organizational compassion. The distress faced by academic members not only highlights the need for immediate alleviation but also emphasizes the imperative to rebuild universities with a foundation rooted in compassion. Beyond addressing the sufferings of academic staff, this transformation calls for a steadfast commitment to respecting diversity, fostering inclusion, and valuing equality, as emphasized by Gibbs (2019). In the upcoming section, we consider the value of compassion and its pivotal role in promoting EDI in the context of higher education.

In the context of fostering EDI within higher education, an essential initial step in fostering healing, is the act of noticing distress. Compassionate leaders play a crucial role in fostering an environment where academic members can openly discuss their distress. By cultivating a culture openness and trust, leaders can inspire employees to support one another through compassionate actions whether through words, presence, or in providing tangible support, such as making available existing resources or coordinating to generate new resources. Such empowerment leads to the cultivation of a collective capacity for compassion, which is crucial during difficult times. These examples indicate that compassionate leadership involves more than showing personal compassion and caring for a colleague or dependent in need (Dutton et al., 2002; Poorkavoos, 2016).

In the context of addressing inequality within the academic setting, noticing becomes the initial step in cultivating awareness of indicators, both visible and invisible (Simpson et al., 2015). Recognizing these signals is crucial for noticing inequality in the academic environment. These subtle signals can demonstrate through changes in mood, energy levels, daily routines, language use, or changes in behavior (Dutton et al., 2014).

In the realm of higher education not everyone openly articulates their struggles. This highlights the importance of leaders being sensitive to these less overt signs. Noticing these subtle signals enables leaders to identify potential imbalance opportunities, access to resources, or instances of bias. A deeper awareness of these subtle indicators empowers leaders to take proactive action, cultivating a more fair, equitable and inclusive learning environment for all (Chang and Milkman, 2020; Özbilgin and Erbil, 2023).

Empathizing is the second step in the NEAR framework. In the pursuit of equality, a leader actively engages in this crucial step by authentically connecting with the challenges faced by their followers, internalizing the team's struggles as if they were their own (Dutton et al., 2014; West, 2021). This empathetic approach, closely connected with recognizing and appreciating each team member's unique perspective, fosters an environment where attentive listening and mutual understanding flourish (Gibbs, 2019).

Appraising is the third step which refers to leaders keenly assess the situation and underlying causes of challenging work situations that contribute to academic staff suffering, demonstrating a keen appraisal of their team's struggles (West, 2019, 2021). In the context of promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion, this proactive assessment aims to identify and rectify any inequalities, job segregation, unfairness, or discriminatory practices that may be triggering difficulties for team members (DiTomaso and Parks-Yancy, 2014). Furthermore, it involves establishing a socially sustainable learning environment (D'Cruz et al., 2023) where individuals are treated fairly and have equal opportunities. This includes addressing issues related to gender inequality and ensuring that every team member, regardless of background, can thrive and contribute to their fullest potential.

Thus far, we have presented the NEA (noticing, empathizing, and appraising) process model of organizational compassion theory. However, a response is required to complete the process (Simpson et al., 2020). Responding involves taking action to address challenges faced by a diverse group of academic members (Dutton et al., 2006; Emirza, 2022). A compassionate response particularly involves recognizing a co-worker's suffering and providing resources to alleviate it. When the response to alleviate suffering is prompt, it indicates efficient compassion organizing to address diverse needs and promote an inclusive environment (Dutton et al., 2002, 2006; Worline and Dutton, 2017). A quick reaction to suffering is seen as a hallmark of genuine care and concern, enhancing the likelihood of gratitude and commitment from the recipient of compassion (Simpson et al., 2013, 2015).

Thus far we have looked at an organizational compassion informed view of how EDI can be cultivated within higher education institutions through a fourfold NEAR process, however, it is also important to consider how this process can be facilitated through leveraging organizational mechanisms. In the following section, we focus specially on the mechanisms of organizational leadership and organizational culture.

Among the six organizational social architecture mechanisms crucial for facilitating workplace compassion, such as relational networks, routine practices, roles, and stories told, leadership and culture stand out as pivotal factors that compassionate organizations can prioritize to enhance their compassion capabilities (Dutton et al., 2006, 2014; Worline and Dutton, 2017). Accordingly, we will discuss leadership and culture in turn within the context of leveraging organizational compassion to enhance EDI.

Leaders in higher education have a duty to not only uphold certain shared values such as a passion and commitment to the pursuit of the truth, knowledge dissemination, and freedom (Dearing and National Committee of Inquiry Into Higher Education, 1997). Additionally, they are responsible for promoting an inclusive environment where all members, such as academic members and students, feel welcomed, valued, and respected regardless of their identities, backgrounds, and experiences (Emirza, 2022). These fundamental values provide an opportunity for those who work in higher education, particularly academic members, to engage more to community and teaching activities for the benefit of all (Waddington, 2021). Therefore, universities would benefit from cultivating a compassionate caring working atmosphere, with leaders playing a significant role. It is observed, however, that this is often not the case, especially for academics (Maratos et al., 2019), particularly those representing EDI domains.

Research findings show that traditional equality, diversity, and inclusion training within institutions have faced criticism for being ineffective or even having some negative effects (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018). Furthermore, universities' hectic and toxic work environments significantly impact the physical health, emotional wellbeing, meaningful social connections, and cognitive performance of academic members (Waddington, 2016; Denney, 2020, 2021a). Despite the growing stress among academic members at work, universities have the potential to be compassionate caring environments for all academic staff and students (Waddington, 2016, 2021).

Within the context of suffering and EDI, leaders can start the healing process by role modeling compassionate behavior through their presence, leading processes of sense making, and providing resources to take action in addressing distress (Dutton et al., 2002, 2006; Worline and Dutton, 2017). Furthermore, leaders have the resources and influence to promote compassion and make meaning in the institutions they lead (Dutton et al., 2006; Worline and Dutton, 2017; Simpson et al., 2019a, 2020, 2022). Compassionate responses may involve attention from leaders, empathic listening (Worline and Dutton, 2017), counseling and psychological support, financial aid (Simpson et al., 2019a, 2020), compassionate leave, and hybrid working during times of crisis, such as COVID-19. These compassionate leadership interventions can enhance inclusiveness and support diversity (Emirza, 2022).

An argument for positing that leadership and inclusive culture are perhaps the most important organizational compassion mechanisms for rebuilding learning environments to align with the principles of EDI, is that leaders significantly influence the extent to which inclusive culture mechanism may be deployed or undermined (see Table 2). Accordingly, we next discuss culture.

Culture is an important explanatory organizational concept (Schein, 2010) that refers to the combination of the members' shared patterns of meaning, beliefs, attitudes, and practices (Simpson et al., 2019a, 2020). It can be observed at three levels: artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions. Artifacts include visible organizational structures and processes such as an institution's physical environment, the architecture of university buildings, interior design, landscapes, technologies, and uniforms. Espoused values include organizational' strategies, goals, and philosophies such as value statements, code of conduct, mission statements. Basic assumptions are the unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, values, and feelings that underpin an organization's culture (Schein, 2010). Level one, artifacts, is the most visible. Level two, espoused values, and beliefs are found in published organizational statements on websites, annual reports, policy documents and training material. Level three, basic assumptions, are the most difficult to observe and define (Schein, 2010).

Compassionate leaders can play a significant role in shaping espoused values and basic assumptions, which are critical aspects of a university's culture that influence compassion competence. When compassionate cultures promote the inherent value, capability, and deservingness of all humans, members are more likely to interpret pain generously and engage in compassionate action. Organizational cultures that support compassion competence are characterized by humanistic values such as respect, teamwork, collaboration, inclusiveness, stewardship, dignity, and fairness. To promote a compassionate organizational culture, compassionate leaders should articulate and support values, beliefs, and norms that support human wellbeing, dignity, respect, and inclusion for all members of the academic community (Worline and Dutton, 2017; Gibbs, 2019; Emirza, 2022). As Schein (2010) noted, leadership and culture often go hand in hand, and compassionate leadership can have a significant impact on developing a compassionate institutional culture. Compassionate leadership can promote EDI and shape the culture of their university through their leadership behavior and the structures, routines, rules, and norms that they help to implement individually and collectively (Schein, 2010; West, 2021).

Research findings show that cultivating organizational compassion has numerous benefits for both individuals and organizations (Simpson et al., 2020). These include higher levels of positive emotions, employee loyalty, affective commitment within an organization, and high-quality connection among members of the organization (Lilius et al., 2008, 2011) along with a strengthened sense of authenticity (Ko and Choi, 2020). Consequently, organizational compassion practices hold much promise for alleviating suffering and addressing high levels of staff burnout, anxiety and turnover (Simpson et al., 2020), particularly within the higher education sector. This aligns with the values of equality, diversity, and inclusion, contributing to a more compassionate and caring working environment for staff and learning environment for students.