the gendered shaping of university leadership in australia, south africa and the united kingdom

The Gendered Shaping ofUniversity Leadership inAustralia, South Africa andthe United Kingdomhequ_523 293..307

Kate White, University of Ballarat, [email protected] Bagilhole, Loughborough University,[email protected] Riordan, organisational psychologist, South Africa,[email protected]

Abstract

This article analyses career trajectories into university management inAustralia,SouthAfrica and the United Kingdom (UK),skills required to operate effectivelyand the power of vice-chancellors (VCs) and their impact on the genderedshaping of university leadership. It is based on qualitative research with 56 maleand female senior managers.The research found that the typical career path wasmodelled on male academic careers. Not surprisingly, in South Africa and theUK the perception of the top university leader was of a man but in Australia,where more women have beenVCs,there was no such assumption.Characteristicsvalued in university leaders in Australia and South Africa were ‘soft’ leadershiptraits,but in the UK‘hard’aggressive and competitive leadership prevailed.VCsare enormously powerful and can shape the gender balance in managementteams and thereby potentially broadening leadership styles beyond the predomi-nant transactional model to include transformational leadership.

Introduction

Universities are experiencing pressures for change but ‘operate mosteffectively if they have a high degree of academic and managerialautonomy’; nevertheless the management of universities in most coun-tries remains vested in national governments (Shattock, 2009, pp. 1–2).In Australia and increasingly in the United Kingdom (UK), collegialgovernance has been subjected to government policy intervention. Rapidchange in the sector has also led to vice-chancellors (VCs) in Australiaand the UK adopting more strategic management and fund-raising roles.

bs_bs_banner

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00523.xVolume 66, No. 3, July 2012, pp 293–307

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Despite the changing profile, selection and recruitment processes forVCs are still largely informal and networking remains an important partof the process (O’Meara and Petzall, 2005).

This article examines the following questions in relation to universitysenior management in Australia, South Africa and the UK:

• What are the paths into senior management and what do seniormanagers consider are the characteristics, personal qualities and skillsvalued in university leaders?

• How powerful are VCs in relation to their senior managers?• Do VCs influence the gender balance of senior management?

The reason for comparing publicly funded universities in these threecountries is that they share fundamental similarities in the development oftheir higher education systems, with Australian and South African uni-versities traditionally based on the British model. Moreover, all operatewithin national equal opportunities legislative frameworks (White, 2011).Furthermore, the three countries share some similar characteristics on theWorld Economic Forum’s (2009) global gender gap index (Table 1).Australia and the UK have a similar female–male ratio in educationalattainment; it therefore might be expected that participation rates ofwomen in higher education might be lower in South Africa. Australia hasa significantly higher female–male ratio than South Africa and to a lesserextent the UK in economic participation and opportunity. In contrast, thehighest female–male ratio for political empowerment is in South Africa(0.44), with the UK at 0.28 and Australia a low 0.19.Thus, while there areeconomic barriers to women’s participation in higher education in SouthAfrica, it might be expected that the proportion of women in universitysenior management would be relatively high.

The under-representation of women in higher education managementbegins at the level of senior lecturer and becomes even more pronounced

TABLE 1Global gender gap index, 2009

Country Globalgender gapindexranking

Economicparticipation& opportunity(f/m ratio)

Educationalattainment(f/m ratio)

Health &survival(f/m ratio)

Politicalempowerment(f/m ratio)

South Africa 6 0.66 0.99 0.96 0.44UK 15 0.70 1 0.97 0.28Australia 20 0.74 1 0.97 0.19

Source: World Economic Forum, (2009).

294 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

at professorial level. The representation of women as professors inAustralia is 21 per cent, in South Africa 18 per cent and the UK 16 percent.

Not surprisingly, the representation of academic women in seniormanagement in each country is generally low (Table 2). However, thereare some differences. The percentage of women as VCs and deputyvice-chancellors (DVCs) is similar in Australia and South Africa butsignificantly lower in the UK.The representation of women as pro-vice-chancellors (PVCs) is considerably higher in Australia than the UK(South Africa does not typically use this rank). One important observa-tion is that the representation of women at dean level is low: rangingfrom 20–38 per cent. Since deanships are an important step in the careerpath into senior management, it is of concern that there are so few femaledeans across the three countries.

Literature review

VCs in the UK and Australia continue to be recruited from a narrowbase. Breakwell and Tytherleigh (2008) found that British VCs were allwhite, mostly male, with an average age of 57.76 years. Most had comeup through the academic ranks and were likely to have had experience atOxbridge either at undergraduate or postgraduate level. In Australia,O’Meara and Petzall (2005) found that VCs were typically career aca-demics, mostly male and their profile was changing towards becomingchief executive officers in an increasingly competitive environment (seealso Meek, 2002).

The changing nature of higher education leadership has led to morecomplexity in the role of VCs. Bolden et al. (2008) described the shiftfrom collegial to more corporate or entrepreneurial approaches in therecent restructuring of higher education and accompanying expansion,merging and even closure of schools and departments to create largerbusiness units reporting directly to senior management. In this context

TABLE 2Percentage of women in senior management

Country VC DVC PVC Dean

Australia 18 36 40 38South Africa 22 30 28UK 8 6 21 20

Sources: Australia (UAEW, 2009); South Africa (university websites), UK (WiS database).

University Leadership 295


Kennie (2008, p. 4) described the role of VCs in the UK as ‘architects’of top teams and likely to address change in these teams during theirtenure ‘either due to a need for a new strategic direction for the institu-tion, or because of a perceived need to alter the membership or approachof the team’. Henkel (2002, p. 40) concurred that these changes haveenhanced the VC’s authority but adds that ‘negotiation, iteration andinfluence remain important for successful leadership’.

Power, according to Weber’s ([1922] 1995) definition, is the capacityto enforce someone to do something even if it is against their own will.Positional power in higher education is the power vested in the positionof theVC and becomes an important source of power as the top positionincreasingly moves to being a chief executive officer (Bagilhole andWhite, 2011a). While expertise is an important source of power in boththe collegial and managerial models, it is arguably the most acceptableform of power within a knowledge-generating organisation such as auniversity (O’Connor and White, 2011). In a managerial perspective thedefinition of expertise changes because the ‘specifically technocratic, andstill usually male-dominated’ (Hearn, (2001, p. 72), basis of expertise isvalued. The strong positional power of VCs has implications for leader-ship styles in universities. Several authors have identified the generalpreference of women for transformational leadership, in contrast to themore traditional and predominant male style of transactional leadership.Transformational leadership is characterised by an interactive style,sharing power and information, using personal power, enhancingpeople’s self worth and making them feel part of the organisation(Rosener, 1990; Sinclair, 1998; Alimo-Metcalfe, 2004). Eagly and Carli(2007) described how transformational leaders establish themselves asrole models by gaining their followers’ trust and confidence, statingfuture goals and empowering them. Miller (2006, p. 15) argues: ‘Womenprefer to lead in ways that are consensual, [and] empowering, encour-aging participation and team work’. However, Alimo-Metcalfe (2004)found that the more senior women become in organisations, the lesslikely they are to demonstrate transformational leadership. Evidence isunclear about the extent to which adopting a ‘soft’ or transformationalmanagement style helps or hinders women’s career progression in uni-versities (Doherty and Manfredi, 2006).

Unchallenged authority is generally identified with a masculine ortransactional view of university leadership. Currie et al. (2002) reportedthat male university managers identified characteristics of successfuluniversity senior managers as including: executive attributes (as opposedto scholarly attributes); common sense; flexibility; motivation; tact; firm-



ness; delivery; aggression; thinking before speaking; knowing how to playthe committee game; getting the ear of management (the VC); beingprepared to sacrifice collegiality; leisure and family time; and acceptingthat the workload is continuous.

Women can find themselves constrained in trying to forge an effec-tive leadership style. Hey and Bradford (2004, p. 699) asserted that‘some forms of masculinity per se, and hegemonic forms in particular,are more able to ‘appropriate gender’. Consequently, ‘if men deployaspects of femininity to make them more caring managers, they arerewarded, if women employ femininity in the same way, they are justseen to be doing what they are expected to do’ (Skeggs, 2004, p. 55).For women this means that they may position themselves as an ‘out-sider on the inside’ (Gherardi, 1995, p. 194). This outsider status canbe problematic for women aspiring to management roles in universi-ties; for example, in trying to impress selection panels (van den Brink,2009; Neale, 2011).

In summary, VCs in the UK and Australia continue to be recruitedfrom a narrow base.TheVC’s power in both the collegial and managerialmodels appears to be positional and expertise and their strong positionalpower has implications for leadership styles in universities. As women inmanagement prefer ‘soft’ or transformational leadership, powerful VCsmay represent a challenge.

What is not clear from the higher-education leadership literature ishow the increasing power of VCs in the managerial model impacts onleadership styles and what is the impact on women either currently in oraspiring to university leadership roles.

Methodology

The research data in this article forms part of a broader study by theWomen in Higher Education Management Network, an eight-countryconsortium of gender researchers. These three countries were chosenbecause they are based on the British model of higher education. Theinterview schedule that the network used was divided into three sections:getting into and getting on in senior management; doing senior manage-ment, including the dynamics of men and women working in seniormanagement teams and gendered leadership styles; and the structureand broader management culture in universities. The data reported inthis article focuses on responses to questions in the third section.

A total of 56 interviews with male and female university senior man-agers were conducted across the three countries in 2008–2009. Seniormanagers were defined as those mainly academic managers with



university-wide responsibilities: VCs, DVCs and PVCs. Twenty per centof those interviewed were VCs.While the interviewers were not in seniormanagement, each had an established research profile in relation togender in higher education both nationally and internationally. Inter-viewees were selected from a sample of older, more prestigious, univer-sities and newer universities. In Australia the 21 senior managersinterviewed were from 18 different universities, in South Africa 17 seniormanagers interviewed were from 11 different universities and the UK the17 senior managers were from 17 different universities. A total of 40females and 16 males were interviewed in the three countries (Table 3).

All but six of the Australian interviews were face-to-face.The remain-ing six were conducted by telephone due to the challenge of distance. Inthe UK 10 interviews were by telephone due to the demands on theinterviewee’s time and the rest were face-to-face. In South Africa allinterviews were conducted face-to-face. Interviews varied from one totwo hours. In the interests of confidentiality interview numbers andgender identifiers alone are used (for example AUS woman 1). Allface-to-face interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed andnotes were taken during the telephone interviews.

The use of an agreed interview schedule and sampling procedureenabled comparisons to be made across the participating countries aslike was compared to like (Neale and Ozkanli, 2011). De-identifiedsummaries of the completed interviews were circulated and analysed bythe researchers who then selected major themes emerging from the datafor further analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

One limitation of this research is that only women senior managerswere interviewed in the UK, whereas both women and men were inter-viewed in Australia and South Africa. The UK data therefore onlyrepresents the views of female senior managers in higher education; theirmale colleagues may have a different perspective.

TABLE 3Interviews by country and gender

Country Female Male Total

Australia 14 7 21South Africa 8 9 17United Kingdom 18 — 18Total 40 16 56

Note:Total number of VCs interviewed: 11; a breakdown of gender by level is not providedto ensure anonymity.



Results

The research set out to understand typical paths into senior managementin universities and the characteristics, personal qualities and skills valuedin top university leadership. It then focused on the VC’s role in shapinguniversity leadership and influencing the gender balance in senior man-agement teams.

Paths into senior management

In response to the question ‘What do you see as the typical career pathinto senior management in your university?’ most interviewees consid-ered that it reflected a trajectory modelled on a career more typical ofacademic men than women: ‘the typical career path into senior manage-ment is very much through the hierarchical, incremental steps: coursecoordinator, head of school, etc.’ (AUS man 5); ‘it is via a senior role inFaculty, Dean’s position, and senior management roles’ (AUS man 4).

One respondent argued that senior managers were recruited from‘engineering and science disciplines . . . the old boys in the professoriaterotate and appoint and re-appoint each other’ (UK woman 1).

Others saw the problem as: ‘the view that ‘managers are male’ (UKwoman 3) and patronage from the VC being important: ‘Being a friendof the VC is one way to get into senior management’ (AUS woman 16).

Therefore, the career path into senior management is one modelledon a career more typical of academic men than women, which confirmsother research suggesting definitions of leadership have continued toremain male (Blackmore and Sachs, 1999; Madden, 2005). Not only areleaders expected to be drawn from a narrow career trajectory but alsofrom powerful disciplines and to have a track record of bringing inresearch money which, van den Brink (2009, p. 179) has argued, candisadvantage academic women if ‘differences in trajectories and researchtime’ are not taken into account.

VC characteristics

Respondents had clear views on the characteristics of a typicalVC.Therewas broad consensus that the typical VC in Australia needed a strongacademic research record and strong internal and external leadership.One interviewee focussed on research credentials and the disjunctionbetween being a strong researcher and an effective manager:

someone who is a very credible research academic. They get appointedpredominantly for their academic track record and management as such is not



part and parcel of that. It is very different to management in the corporatesector. Yet universities are multi-million dollar corporations and are allworking internationally. (AUS man 5)

In South Africa a typical VC was a black male academic who had atleast one qualification from an overseas university (SA man 2, SAwoman 17). Furthermore, most VCs were politically active in thestruggle against apartheid. UK respondents described a typical VC as amale professor of engineering or science; or a white male academic, oftenwith previous experience of being a VC in another country (UK woman1, UK woman 8, UK woman 11, UK woman 14, UK woman 15, UKwoman 16, UK woman 17).

Thus, in both South Africa and the UK the perception of the topuniversity leader was male, consistent with Breakwell and Tytherleigh’s(2008) findings and Eagly et al. ’s (2003) observation about the ‘incon-gruity’ between leadership roles and female gender roles. It is alsoconsistent with Eagly and Sczesny’s (2009) assertion about the clash ofperceptions between the roles of ‘women’ and ‘leader’. However, Aus-tralian respondents had a much broader perception of who might be aVC, reflecting that approximately one fifth of VCs in the past decadehave been women. None described a typical VC as a male and severaltalked of strong female VCs, for example:

Our previous female VC was the ultimate symbol of gender power. So itcounted for a lot of the intangible tangibles in the culture and the supportiveenvironment. (AUS woman 10)

Characteristics, qualities and skills valued in senior management teams

Interviewees were asked ‘What kind of characteristics do you think arevalued in senior management in your university? What about personalqualities and skills?’The data from the three countries suggested that theassociation of transactional leadership with university management dis-cussed earlier was not strong in Australia and South Africa where respon-dents argued that ‘soft’ management skills were more valued. Australiansenior managers mentioned a broad range of skills that are consistentwith transformational leadership such as strategic vision, strong researchreputation, strong interpersonal skills, openness, transparency, resil-ience, collaboration and consultation.

South African senior managers identified similar attributes: a solidacademic research profile; a strategic approach, people managementskills; courage; ability to balance conflicting interests; and financialacumen (SA man 3, SA man 4, SA man 7, SA woman 10, SA woman 11,SA woman 15). One saw the critical skills as a good academic research



profile, as ‘in the academic world you lead from the front’, as well asstrong people management skills because ‘success does not come fromindividuals it comes from a team’ (SA man 5). In contrast, most UKrespondents (who were all women) focussed on transactional leadershipdescribing ‘hard macho skills, aggression, decisiveness even withoutproper information, cavalier type of management, being ‘ “in the know”[and] . . . knowing the right person, being able to call on favours’ (UKwoman 1); and ‘hard skills, finance, decisiveness, powerful style’ (UKwoman 8). However, one respondent offered a different model of uni-versity leadership: ‘. . . people do appreciate a more facilitative, collabo-rative approach and a devolved approach to decision making coupledwith a strong and explicit set of institutional core beliefs and values’ (UKwoman 4).

This contrast between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ management characteristics,personal qualities and skills demonstrated that ‘soft’ management wasfavoured by both men and women in Australia and South Africa. Themove away from heroic masculinity (Sinclair, 1998) towards transfor-mational leadership in these countries also demonstrates that gendernotions and relations are continually redefined in the organisationalcontext by both women and men (Butler, 1990; Anthias, 2001; Francis,2001). In contrast, the UK respondents mostly described hard-edgedcharacteristics that have been traditionally the hallmark of universityleadership and which are identified with ‘competition, aggression, thefunctionality of performance management, all framed within notions ofemotional control, rationality and endurance [and] have a distinctivelymaleist, male-oriented dimension’ (Whitehead, 1998, p. 203).

Power ofVCs in recruitment and selection

Respondents were asked to describe the appointment process of seniormanagers in their university and if there were key bodies or individualswho influenced the process. University governing bodies have a key rolein the selection process for senior managers in all three countries,recruitment consultants may be involved and the selection panel usuallyrepresents broad interests across the university. Nevertheless, there wasa strong perception that the VC had a critical role in influencing theprocess in Australia and the UK:

The VC is the key person influencing the appointment process. Our VC hasa very hands-on role on appointment of senior academics within the faculties,as well as senior managers. He sits on panels for appointment of seniorresearch professors. (AUS man 5)



Moreover, if the VC is blocked in appointing their preferred candi-date, they ‘will then not appoint at all’ (UK woman 2), consistent withKennie’s (2008) observation. Also in the UK, some respondents referredto the appointment process as being: ‘Informal, non-transparent’, ‘whoyou know’ and the ‘old boy’s network’ (UK woman 1, UK woman 11,UK woman 12).

In South Africa tensions about race were played out on selectionpanels. Comments included: ‘Race, meaning blackness, definitely over-rides gender in selection processes, our Council is a very political body’(SA man 6); ‘faculties still try to skew appointments in favour of whitemales’ (SA man 8); and ‘selection is seldom competency based’ (SAwoman 14).

Most respondents across the three countries asserted that appoint-ment processes to senior management therefore demonstrated the overtpower of VCs (O’Meara and Petzall, 2005) who in South Africa and theUK are normally perceived as male and the prevalence of informalprocesses and networks that favoured men, reflecting Grummell et al. ’s(2009) finding that homosociability was one of the key values in educa-tional leadership selection. Van den Brink (2009, p. 224) discussed how‘men tend to help their own sex in an unintentional “matter of fact” way’.Thus those VCs who continue to believe that a good leader possessesmainly masculine attributes, are unlikely to support women applying forleadership positions (Mavin, 2006). However in South Africa race is acomplicating factor.

Power and influence ofVCs

More generally interviewees considered thatVCs were very powerful. Forexample, one Australian respondent asserted: ‘The VC is absolutely verypowerful. He approves every appointment at Associate Professor leveland above; his opinion counts’ (AUS woman 14). Another commentedthat the balance of power between VCs and their faculties varied: ‘wehave had examples at other universities where faculties have been morepowerful than the VC’ (AUS woman 1).

Several South African respondents argued that in ‘older’ universitiespower had in fact been devolved to the faculties. One asserted: ‘Deansare very powerful because you cannot implement things without theirsupport’ (SA man 9). Another described the interrelationship betweenthe VC and the faculties as: ‘the critical tension line (fault line) betweenthe central leadership (VC and DVC’s) and Deans’ (SA man 3); whilea third spoke of deans being responsible for academic vision ‘but



the VC answers to Council; so it is a team effort’, suggesting less tension(SA man 5).

UK respondents also saw the VC’s role being tempered by the powerof deans, as the tension between collegial versus managerial universityleadership was played out, but also the resistance of the professoriate:‘faculty deans can gang up. But at the end of the day I suppose the VCcould make a ‘dictat’, but male professors are particularly adept atignoring’ (UK woman 1); ‘Deans have a single-line budget which makesthem powerful but the VC is still able to work closely with deans toinfluence faculty strategy’ (UK woman 3). Another commented thatwhile VCs were powerful they found it ‘. . . difficult to control maledeans in charge of their own budgets, and male professors who arearrogant enough to defy policies’ (UK woman 8).

The power of VCs over appointments and budgets was clear.However, there appeared to be a tension between VCs and faculties,highlighting the continuing influence of the collegial model (Deem,1998). The implications of strong positional power of VCs for womenare significant. In Australia VCs provided both roles models and strongsupport for women moving into senior management (AUS man 5; AUSwoman 9) but not so in the UK, as discussed below.

Influence ofVCs on gender balance of management teams

Given the broad power of VCs in management, it was important todetermine if that extended to addressing the underrepresentation ofwomen in senior management in these three countries, as discussed inthe introduction. Respondents were asked: ‘What do you see as the VC’skey contribution to an organisation? What about as regards the genderprofile of senior management?’ Australian senior managers consideredthat VCs can influence the gender profile of senior management by fiatand by supporting leadership-development programmes for women. Asone interviewee explained: ‘The VC has an important role in the genderbalance of senior management in trying to make sure there is activesearching for women to be on short lists, and around leadership training’(AUS man 21). Respondents had strong views about how a VC couldchange the gender balance on senior management: ‘VCs can make ashift. The male VC in my previous university did so. He worked hard toget two women on senior management . . . at a time when as couple ofthe senior women professors were saying to the VC, it is time to changethings’ (AUS man 11) Moreover, interventions by womenVCs had led toa better gender balance on senior management teams; for example,VCs



on occasion had put women in acting management roles and thenencouraged them to apply when the position was advertised (AUSwoman 10, AUS woman 18).

One South African respondent also argued that VCs could interveneby setting performance targets for deans in relation to gender equity:

The faculties provide the pool for recruitment of women into seniormanagement. The VC could influence this process by making sure that he isseen as a direct supporter of gender equity and that gender equity (withtargets) forms a central part of the Deans’ Key Performance Areas (SAwoman 15).

A black male DVC said he had already identified key potential womenin his university who ‘have been quietly achieving’ and were definiterising stars. He said that he seemed to have a history of consciouslylooking for the best person for the job including women but would notcompromise excellence for equity. He believed that ‘you don’t set peopleup for failure’ (SA man 5).

In contrast, UK women respondents were clear that there was lessof an affirmative action culture and VCs generally did not intervene ongender in management teams, expressed in comments such as: ‘TheVC holds the ultimate power. He doesn’t have gender on his agenda’(UK woman 16) and ‘our VC doesn’t think about gender’ (UK woman11).

Whereas in Australia and South Africa respondents considered thatVC’s had a positive role in broadening university leadership and leader-ship styles, consistent with ‘soft’ or transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe, 2004), in the UK respondents argued that the preference ofVCs for ‘hard’ leadership appeared to maintain the status quo. AsMadden (2005, p. 7) has suggested the ‘masculinised context so fre-quently found in HE [higher education] includes the assumption thateffective leadership depends on status and power manifested throughautocratic behaviour’.

Conclusion

This research indicated that paths into senior management are stillmodelled on a career more typical of academic men than women and canthus disadvantage women. Moreover, the perception of a VC in bothSouth Africa and the United Kingdom was male, in contrast to Australiawhere the top job was not regarded as gendered, reflecting Eagly andSczesny’s (2009) assertion about the clash of perceptions between theroles of ‘women’ and ‘leader’.Therefore, if women do not measure up to



this typical career model they may have difficulty demonstrating thatthey have the leadership capabilities required for top jobs. As van denBrink (2009, p. 127) stresses, homophilius relationships in academiamean that ‘the likelihood is greater that a male candidate will be selectedwhen predominantly male gate-keepers search for candidates in theirnetworks’.

Another key finding was that ‘soft’ or transformational managementwas favoured by both male and female respondents in Australia andSouth Africa suggesting a strong shift in management styles, perhapsinfluenced by increasing numbers of women moving into universitymanagement. In Australia, it was also linked to initiatives of femaleVCs who actively sought to include more women in leadership teamsand a genuine openness in exploring broader leadership styles. Bycontrast in the UK the perception of women senior managers wasthat ‘hard’ aggressive and competitive leadership prevailed (Whitehead,1998).

The research also established the power of VCs in appointment pro-cesses in the three countries and informal processes and networks.Although, in South Africa and the UK, that power was often mitigatedby the influence of powerful faculties, nevertheless the considerablepositional power of VCs in these findings concurs with O’Meara andPetzall’s (2005) research demonstrating the influence ofVCs in selectingsenior managers.

The strong positional power ofVCs means that they have the capacityto use this power to provide role models and support for women movinginto senior management but may not necessarily exercise that authority.In Australia and South Africa respondents considered that VCs had apositive role in broadening university leadership and provided examplesof VCs identifying, mentoring and encouraging women for leadershiproles, putting them in acting positions and setting performance targetsfor gender equity. However, in the UK respondents argued that VCs didnot acknowledge gender inequality in management and merely sup-ported the status quo; that is, the extremely low representation of womenin the top positions of VC and DVC.

Therefore, if VCs use their positional power to encourage morewomen into senior management, as has occurred in Australia and SouthAfrica, it is likely that the representation of women will increase andleadership styles will broaden. As Bagilhole and White (2011b, p. 202)argued, ‘Achieving broader acknowledgement and understanding of theadvantages and strengths of gender diverse management teams could beused as a catalyst to lever institutional change’.



References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2004) Leadership: A Masculine Past but A Feminine Future? Genderand Excellence in the Making. Brussels: European Commission, pp. 161–168.

Anthias, F. (2001) The Material and the Symbolic in Theorizing Social Stratification:Issues of Gender, Ethnicity and Class. British Journal of Sociology, 52 (3), pp. 367–390.

Bagilhole, B. and White, K. (2011a) Building A Feminist Research Network. In B.Bagilhole and K. White (eds.), Gender, Power and Management:A Cross Cultural Analysisof Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16.

Bagilhole, B. and White, K. (2011b) Towards Interventions for Senior Women. In B.Bagilhole and K. White (eds.), Gender, Power and Management:A Cross Cultural Analysisof Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 192–205.

Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J. (1999) Managing Diversity or Managing for Diversity in theCorporate University. Melbourne: Australian Association for Research in Education.

Bolden, R., Petrov, G. and Gosling, F. (2008) Developing Collective Leadership in HigherEducation, Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Breakwell, G. and Tytherleigh, M. (2008) The Characteristics, Roles and Selection of Vice-Chancellors. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Butler, J. (1990) GenderTrouble:Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.Currie, J., Thiele, B. and Harris, P. (2002) Gendered Universities in Globalised Economies.

Oxford: Lexington Books.Deem, R. (1998) ‘New Managerialism’ and Higher Education: The Management of

Performances and Cultures in Universities in the United Kingdom. International Studiesin Sociology of Education, 8 (1), pp. 47–70.

Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. (2006) Women’s Progression to Senior Positions in EnglishUniversities. Employee Relations, 28 (6), pp. 553–572.

Eagly, A. and Carli, L. L. (2007) Leadership. Harvard Business Review, September, pp.63–71.

Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. and Van Engen, M. (2003) Transformational, Trans-actional and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women andMen. Psychological Bulletin, 19 (4), pp. 569–591.

Eagly, A. and Sczesny, S. (2009) Stereotypes aboutWomen, Men and Leaders: HaveTimesChanged. In M. Barret, K. Ryan and M. Schmitt (eds.), The Glass Ceiling in the 21stCentury:Understanding Barriers to Gender Equality. Washington: American PsychologicalAssociation, pp. 21–48.

Francis, B. (2001) Relativism, Realism and Feminism: an Analysis of Some TheoreticalTensions in Research on Gender Identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 11, pp. 39–53.

Gherardi, S. (1995) Gender, Symbolism and Organisational Cultures. London: Sage.Grummell, B., Lynch, K. and Devine, D. (2009) Appointing Senior Managers in

Education: Homosociability, Local Logics and Authenticity in the Selection Pro-cess. Educational Management. Administration and Leadership, 37 (3), pp. 329–349.

Hearn, J. (2001) Academia, Management and Men: Making The Connections, Exploringthe Implications. In A. Brooks and A. Mackinnon (eds.), Gender and the RestructuredUniversity. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Uni-versity, pp. 69–89.

Henkel, M. (2002) Emerging Concepts of Academic Leadership and Their Implicationsfor Intra-Institutional Roles and Relationships in Higher Education. European Journalof Education, 37 (1), pp. 29–41.

Hey, V. and Bradford, S. (2004) The Return of the Repressed? The Gender Politics ofEmergent Forms of Professionalism in Education. Journal of Educational Policy, 19 (6),pp. 691–713.



Kennie, T. (2008) The Composition, Challenges and Changes in the Top Team Structures of UKHigher Education Institutions. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Madden, M. (2005) 2004 Division 35 Presidential Address: Gender and Leadership inHigher Education. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 29, pp. 3–14.

Mavin, S. (2006) Expectations of Women in Leadership and Management—Advancementthrough Solidarity? In D. McTavish and K. Miller (eds.), Women in Leadership andManagement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 71–88.

Meek, L. (2002) On the Road to Mediocrity? Governance and Management of AustralianHigher Education in the Market Place. In A. Amaral, G. Jones and B. Karseth (eds.),Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Amster-dam: Kluwer, pp. 253–278.

Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book.London: Sage Publications.

Miller, K. (2006) Introduction Women in Leadership and Management: Progress ThusFar? In D. McTavish and K. Miller (eds.), Women in Leadership and Management.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–10.

Neale, J. (2011) Doing Senior Management. In B. Bagilhole and K. White (eds.), Gender,Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher Education. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 140–167.

Neale, J. and Ozkanli, O. (2011) Research Design. In B. Bagilhole and K. White (eds.),Gender, Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher Education. Basing-stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 78–89.

O’Connor, P. and White, K. (2011) Similarities and Differences in Collegiality/Managerialism in Irish and Australian Universities. Gender and Education, 27 (3), pp.903–920.

O’Meara, B. and Petzall, S. (2005) Vice Chancellors for the 21st Century? A Study ofContemporary Recruitment and Selection Practices in Australian Universities. Man-agement Research News, 28 (6), pp. 18–35.

Rosener, J. (1990) Ways Women Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, pp. 119–125.Shattock, M. (2009) Entrepreneurialism and Organisational Change in Higher Education.

In M. Shattock (ed.), Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy.Maidenhead: Open University, pp. 1–8.

Sinclair, A. (1998) Doing Leadership Differently. Carlton South: Melbourne UniversityPress.

Skeggs, B. (2004) Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.Universities Australia Executive Women (UAEW) (2009) Gender and Leadership in Higher

Education. Canberra: Universities Australia.Van den Brink, M. (2009) Behind the Scenes of Science: Gender Practices on the

Recruitment and Selection of Professors in the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoralthesis, University of Nijmegan.

Weber, M. ([1922] 1995) Économie et société. [Economy and Society]. Paris: Plon/Pocket.White, K. (2011) Legislative Frameworks for EO. In B. Bagilhole and K. White (eds.),

Gender, Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher Education. Basing-stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 20–49.

Whitehead, S. (1998) Disrupted Selves: Resistance and Identity Work in the ManagerialArena. Gender and Education, 10 (92), pp. 199–215.

World Economic Forum (2009) Global Gender Gap Report. http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf, last accessed 10 July 2010.



the gendered shaping of university leadership in australia, south africa and the united kingdom

Documents