Higher Education, Leadership and Women Vice Chancellors

Fitting in to Communities of Practice of Masculinities

P. Burkinshaw

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137444035
• eBook ISBN: 9781137444042
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Social Sciences

Why are there so few women vice chancellors in UK higher education? In this book, Paula Burkinshaw explores the contemporary conversation around the 'missing women at the top' across UK society through in-depth interviews with the (hitherto) silent voices of women vice chancellors. These women have successfully negotiated with and navigated the gendered leadership cultures of higher education throughout their careers and speak of the masculine communities of their workplaces. Advocating the need to achieve a critical mass of women at the top, this book suggests there is still much to be done in the higher education sphere.

1

Introduction

1.1 Background to this research

Women are significantly underrepresented in senior public and private appointments across the UK such that, on average, women hold 26 per cent of top jobs in the public sector and 10 per cent of top jobs in business (Commission, 2011). According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission landmark Sex and Power report, there are 5,400 women missing from senior appointments in all sectors across the UK (Commission, 2011). Fundamentally, Britain is a country largely run by men (Coalition, 2013).

Women’s representation in senior appointments is important (in higher education and beyond) for four fundamental reasons. First: social justice, which ‘recognises that people are not treated equally and implies intervention to change institutions and society towards being more just’ (Coleman and Glover, 2010) (p:7). Second: equity and parity, to tackle the gender pay and opportunity gap (UCU, 2013, Davidson and Burke, 2011, Prosser, 2006, Ford, 2011). Third: quality, to enhance the quality of higher education leadership it is crucial not to overlook any of the female academic population (Rice, 2014). And last: the economy and business, whereby nationally there is a growing urgency to the conversation about gender equality in leadership, such that the professions have become much more attuned to the business case for equality, diversity and inclusion (Desvaux et al., 2010, Walby, 2011, Phillips, 2012, CIPD, 2005, Deloitte, 2011, Foundation, 2006, Department for Business, 2013). Interestingly, recent research indicates that vice chancellors are most motivated by the social justice and quality rationale in their ambitions for gender equality in their institutions (Ross and Schneider, 2014). So far the corporate sector has avoided the imposition of quotas for the representation of women at board level by seeking to ensure that government targets are met (Davies, 2014). This target is now being reinforced by an inquiry into board appointments mindful that less than a third of the FTSE 100 companies have policies aimed at increasing women’s participation in senior management and to challenge the assertion that there are insufficient suitable women (Commission, 2014).

Moreover, corporate culture is twice as important as individual mind-sets in determining whether women believe they will succeed (CIPD, 2015). Not only must there be an ‘ecosystem’ of diversity measures, these must also be supported by a diverse and inclusive culture reflected in leadership styles and performance models (Devillard et al., 2013). Leadership for diversity and leadership with diversity have been considered across education by Coleman who defines diversity as a concept which:

encompasses many qualities some of which might be easily visible, for example gender, ethnicity and some religious affiliations and disabilities, and others less visible, for example class or sexual orientation.

(Coleman, 2012b) (p:597)

Both women and men benefit from greater leadership diversity and the healthy diversity of senior teams strengthens the effectiveness of organisations overall. Arguably, creating a culture that is more equitable for women will result in a culture that is fairer for all (Devillard et al., 2013). This is not to say simply that more women at the top will necessarily change the culture for women as there is a danger of equating women in positions of power with feminist women in positions of power. Accordingly, Chapter 6 considers the implications of a critical mass of women at the top in a more nuanced fashion. Nevertheless, apparently there is value to be found for the sustainability of the institution when there is a mix:

In considering the further question of whether or not having women in senior management impacts on decision-making in HE, it was clear that having both women and men in senior management teams produced better decision-making.

(Bagilhole and White, 2011) (p:196)

Almost six in ten undergraduates are women as are virtually 50 per cent of early career academics (UCU, 2013). Nevertheless, this trend does not extend to more senior roles where recent data identifies that only 21 per cent of professors and 20 per cent of vice chancellors are women; the proportion of male academic staff earning over £50,000 was more than double that of female academic staff; and the median gender pay gap (in favour of men) in the UK was 14 per cent and the mean 19 per cent (ECU, 2014). (Bear in mind when this research was conducted, in 2011, only 13 per cent of vice chancellors were women – 22 altogether as opposed to 35 now.) More generally, the pay gap is still on average 19 per cent (ONS, 2014), giving concern to how long it will be (70 more years according to an International Labour Organisation report marking International Women’s Day 2015) before equal pay is achieved. Given it is already 40 years since the equalities legislation, from 2015 the government will make free software available which will enable organisations to calculate their gender pay gap easily and identify issues that may be preventing women from being promoted.

Equality is a cornerstone of higher education philosophy and enlightenment and, as such, it matters that the sector embraces gender equality and is seen to be addressing the missing women conundrum (Jarboe, 2013); not least because not only does higher education contribute billions of pounds to the economy but it also receives equally large sums from public funding bodies which, in turn, must demonstrate that they satisfy equalities legislation (HEFCE, 2013). Moreover, as the missing women at the top of higher education has wider and more serious resonances for women’s participation in public life (Warwick, 2004, Morley, 2005) so higher education has a responsibility to model social justice. Consequently, the underrepresentation of women at the top in higher education is a fundamental issue for UK society because:

Higher education is a pivotal institution in society and the consequences of women’s under-representation in positions of authority have wider and more serious resonances for issues of equity and social justice and participation in public life.

(Morley, 1999) (p:4)

As women are predicted to be the majority of all academics by 2020 whereas the same projections show that women will not be fairly represented at professorial level until 2070 at the earliest (Leathwood and Read, 2009), an international grouping of senior women called for gender equality to be made a key performance indicator in quality audits of higher education institutions at the British Council’s ‘Going Global’ conference in 2013. Similarly, at this pace of change it will take 30 years to achieve an equal number of senior women police officers, 45 years to achieve an equal number of women in the senior judiciary, 70 years to achieve an equal number of women directors in FTSE 100 companies and 14 elections to achieve an equal number of women MPs. Ultimately there are 5,400 ‘missing women’ in top jobs across the public and private sectors (Commission, 2011). Thus, higher education is not alone as a sector in which women are underrepresented in senior leadership. Even after 40 years of equality legislation women are hardly visible in positions of power (Coalition, 2013). Across higher education ‘the numbers game’ has been revealed as a smokescreen masking inherent misogyny (David, 2014; Morley, 2011).

The so-called ‘private space’ of women and caring for their families, which can be referred to as the gendered division of labour, is often cited as a major reason for this power imbalance. There is a tension here between what may be private choices, practices and responsibilities on the part of women and what actually requires public policy intervention. Many managers still avoid hiring younger women as the cost of maternity leave is too high and women ‘aren’t as good at their jobs’ when they return (The Guardian 12 August 2014). Across higher education research shows that there is a ‘motherhood penalty’ and a ‘fatherhood bonus’ for academic careers (Rice, 2014). Without conducive public policy, caring responsibilities will continue to be a barrier to women’s (and to some men’s) representation at the top. Consequently, much discourse concerns public policy around childcare and broader caring responsibilities given that by equalising labour force participation rates UK GDP could increase 10 per cent by 2030 (McGregor-Smith, 2013).

The need for more women in leadership, so as to create a critical mass, is also a common discourse nowadays (Erkut et al., 2008, Kramer et al., 2006, Klenke, 2011, Osmond, 2009, Zehner and Basch, 2009), and it is possible for this critical mass to challenge entrenched leadership cultures and to offer alternative leadership models and ‘protean organisations’ (Cabrera, 2009, Eagly and Carli, 2007). This is not to say that all will be well even if a critical mass of women is achieved at the top, for this may not equate with a critical mass of feminist women. Moreover, taking positive action to achieve this critical mass is debated widely (O’Cinneide, 2012). An initial UK government review (Davies, 2011) resisted implementing positive action and instead recommended a target of 40 per cent of boardroom posts being held by women by 2020, with an interim target of 25 per cent by 2015. Although the review fell short of recommending positive action quotas, this being a popular approach taken by some other European countries, it nonetheless implied that quotas would replace targets if progress was not substantial – currently 20.7 per cent with one year to go (Davies, 2014). The Cabinet Office aspired to equal numbers of women and men in permanent secretary level posts and for a short time achieved this target (Hunter, 2011), although the recent return to the status quo suggests that even when a critical mass is achieved the representation of women at the top is fragile and requires persistent positive action.

Political parties are well aware that women’s votes count and that women overall are feeling unrepresented at local, regional, national and international levels regardless of their party allegiance. The UK prime minister gave a speech in Brussels in 2012 emphasising the need for a fairer representation of women in all walks of life even though the Conservative Party itself has just 16 per cent of MPs who are women, with Westminster overall managing just 22 per cent women MPs. Only 364 women have ever sat in the House of Commons (7.4 per cent of all persons elected to the House) (Electoral Reform Society, 2014). There is a growing discourse within political circles about adopting positive action to improve the representation of women, despite a Labour MP arguing recently that all-women shortlists have resulted in the feminisation of politics (where women worry about social, educational and family issues rather than international ones). Conversely, both Welsh and Scottish parliaments are losing women and there is concern about why this is happening (Osmond, 2009). The debate about sexism in parliament has been reignited by Harriet Harman who concludes:

You don’t have to openly oppose equality to perpetuate inequality … all it takes is for those in positions of power to do nothing and the status quo prevails. Progress towards equality requires men to change as well as women. Particularly men in positions of power. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/08/harriet-harman-gordon-brown-inequality-labour-sexism.

(Accessed 6 August 2014)

Men in ‘positions of power’ like the Peer whose alleged sexism has caused controversy for his party during the past ten years. The ‘everyday sexism project’ is raising awareness of the sexism women encounter in their daily lives, often in higher education and the workplace more generally (Bates, 2014). Research conducted around the world highlighting sexism in higher education made it ‘increasingly clear that unconscious bias against women exists’ (Times Higher Education, 7 August 2014 about comments by the vice chancellor, Oxford University). This is despite women not being a minority group in the UK population as a whole, although the invisibility of women in public office can make it seem as though they are. Apparently society is ruled by straight, white, middle class, ‘default man’ (Perry, 2014). Nevertheless, there is a fear that improving the visibility of women will penalise overrepresented groups (such as white, middle-class, able-bodied men) even though the representation of ‘minorities’ has been found to not only benefit those minorities but also to do so without penalising non-minorities. Thus, representative bureaucracies are more effective than their non- representative counterparts (Meier et al., 1999). Notwithstanding this, positive action may not be ideal as: critical actors may be more important than critical mass; a comprehensive women’s movement might be more effective than simple numbers representation; critical mass relies on a false concept of women as monolithic; more feminist legislators of either sex are better than just more women; and more gratuitous women may result in a counterproductive backlash (Etzkowitz et al., 1994).

In summary, only slow progress is being made towards gender equity in higher education leadership and the gender imbalance amongst senior university academics is not simply a UK problem (Davidson and Burke, 2011). Although these disparities exist in other fields as well, the statistics relating to university gender imbalances are particularly concerning, as Davidson and Burke agree, because of the pivotal role that higher education plays in society. Recent research highlights that universities, which should be leading the way in relation to being beacons of good practice, now lag behind every sector except for the judiciary in relation to diversity and equality (Manfredi et al., 2014).

1.2 The genesis of this research study

I returned to full-time education to study for my PhD after a rewarding career in leadership development. Fifteen years ago this career led me into higher education where I worked with academic leaders at all levels, including vice chancellors and pro vice chancellors, across four very different universities. I designed, developed and delivered leadership programmes as well as providing one-to-one support such as mentoring and coaching. Being in such close contact with the academic leadership community allowed me the privilege of experiencing higher education leadership cultures at first hand. Eventually this varied experience stimulated my enquiry about what I perceived at that time as ‘the missing women’ in academic leadership and I began asking myself the questions ‘where are the women?’ and ‘why are there so few women vice chancellors’?

My experiences in leadership development and my observations around ‘the missing women’ in leadership led me into exploring gendered leadership cultures and how much higher education leadership cultures were gendered too, so this became a focus of my review of the literature. I realised that in the context of higher education gendered leadership, the concept of organisational culture has been used to refer to a ‘complicated fabric of management myths’, values and practices that legitimise women’s positions at the lower levels of the hierarchy and portray managerial jobs as primarily masculine (Deem, 2003). And that gender is done ‘in the symbols, images, rules and values that explicitly and implicitly steer, justify and sometimes question gender distinctions in the organisation’ (Benschop and Brouns, 2003) (p:200). The structural, cultural and procedural arrangements of academic organising relate to gender and the emphasis on scientific quality reflects a hegemonic position privileging masculinity (Benschop and Brouns, 2003). So much so that changing women’s position in universities requires changes to gendered organisational cultures as well as other kinds of change (O’Connor, 2011). Ultimately:

Changing men and men’s position in universities and their cultures for ‘women’s place’ is defined by men and it is a subordinate one. Men are ‘a social category associated with hierarchy and power … management is a social activity that is also clearly based on hierarchy and power … academia is a social institution that is also intimately associated with hierarchy and power’.

(Hearn, 2001) (p:70)

I learned that the interlocked practices and processes that result in continuing inequalities in all work organisations and organisational cultures are inherently gendered (Acker, 2006). Acker refers to ‘inequality regimes’, and the fact that their creation largely by and for men means that, more often than not, organisational work systems, work practices, norms and definitions reflect masculine experiences, masculine values and men’s life situations. Inequality regimes are the intertwined processes and practices that result in systemic inequalities in the workplace. These regimes include norms and assumptions in the work culture that value specific types of work and work processes, define competence and excellence of staff, and shape ideas about the best way to get things done (Meyerson and Kolb, 2000). Leadership in most organisations tends to replicate itself, and in universities, in particular, it operates from a narrow base (Bagilhole and White, 2011). Moreover, gender is not simply imported into the workplace, but itself constructed in part through work whereby it is seen as an organisational accomplishment and leadership cultures are seen as shaping gender identities. Thus, my research study is based upon my interpretation of higher education leadership cultures as both gendered and gendering.

But what is gender and how am I interpreting gender in terms of my enquiry? Although I began my research journey by being concerned with the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership, my fundamental concern is the performativity of gender in higher education leadership and its implications for the learning of leadership. It is clear that gender, or as Acker has articulated, ‘patterned, socially produced, distinctions between female and male, feminine and masculine’ (p:250), is a core concept for discerning what is happening with people in their lives at work, and for understanding how people encounter organisations (Acker, 1992).

Gender performativity takes a number of forms which I interpret to mean: that to do gender is to perform it, that to do gender means we have to work at it and that gender is produced through the repetition of gender norms (Holmes, 2007). In terms of my experience of higher education leadership, higher education leaders were ‘playing’ to th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Higher Education: The Gender Neutral Myth
• 3. Research Methodology and Research Participants
• 4. Negotiating and Navigating Higher Education Gendered Leadership Cultures
• 5. Higher Education Leadership Communities of Practice of Masculinities
• 6. Achieving a Critical Mass of Women at the Top
• 7. The Way Forward
• References
• Index