women and leadership in higher education in australia

KATE WHITE

WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION INAUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT. Senior academic women in Australian Universities, as elsewhere, continueto experience both direct and indirect discrimination, with the narrow white Anglo-Celticmale management profile a dominant factor in this discrimination. While higher educationremains a hostile work environment for senior academic women their participation ratesare unlikely to increase. This article explores the barriers that senior academic womenexperience. It then examines whether or not diversity management programmes mightprovide a useful management tool to increase the participation of senior women in highereducation. If diversity management can impact on the management culture, more seniorwomen may remain in universities and thereby impact on that culture.

INTRODUCTION

For decades feminist writers in Australia and elsewhere have decriedthe ‘boys’ club’ in higher education management which has effectivelyexcluded many women. The ‘boys’ club’ for its part has questioned theseclaims and instead focused on slowly increasing participation rates ofwomen in academia.

But in 2001 a curious thing happened in Australia. One of the club, asa parting gesture, turned on his own, asserting that universities are a man’sgame and that the competitiveness ‘forced’ on universities by governmentadded to the masculine advantage (Aitkin 2001, p. 7). Professor DonAitkin, in his retiring address to staff as Vice-Chancellor of the Univer-sity of Canberra, asserted that women in higher education were moreconcerned with good outcomes and harmony than with the male focus onwinning, and added:

I do not think that making it easier for women to be more like men will assist the processof converting male single-mindedness into socially useful outcomes . . . Rather, I think weneed to work on ways to emphasise and accredit the instinctive values that women hold(Aitkin 2001, p. 8).

Aitkin called for a transformation of the heavily male value system of themodern university.

This article identifies problems related to the participation of academicwomen in leadership in higher education in Australia and comparable

Tertiary Education and Management 9: 45–60, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

46 KATE WHITE

systems. It then analyses these problems and suggests a possible wayforward. This involves a fundamental change in the culture of highereducation management so that women can flourish in higher education andthey in turn can help the system to flourish. The mechanism suggested forthis transformation is diversity management programmes that could be aneffective strategy to impact on the heavily male value system of the modernuniversity.

THE WIDER CONTEXT

Academic women at senior levels in universities have not achieved a crit-ical mass, despite the existence of equity programmes in universities forthe last few decades. Morley has questioned the effectiveness of publicand organisational policies in bringing about change. Rather, she foundthat mostly for women in academia “equity was simply not affecting themin either material or discursive forms. It appeared that equity and feminismwere operating on quite different trajectories . . . Equity discourses arenot theoretically framed by feminism and are not sufficiently operatingas resistance to dominant epistemologies and ideologies” (Morley 1999,p. 72). Once women reach senior levels in any organisation, they encounterthe power of the male hegemony that is prepared to accommodate somewomen, but not to have its dominance challenged. (Bagilhole 2000a,pp. 1–2; Thornton 1996, p. 290). Universities thrive on the myth of indi-vidualism. As Bagilhole (2000a, p. 5) explains, far from being part of anindividual’s natural talent or personality, the skills needed for a successfulacademic career “can be exposed as part of a socialization process thatsome men and virtually no women participate in”. Reay (2000, p. 19),in describing this individualism, asserts: “Academia, with its ethos of, atbest, mutual instrumentalism, at its worst, individualistic, competitive self-interest and self-promotion lacks any intrinsic ethic of care and this isextremely problematic for female academics committed to feminist waysof working”.

Entwined with this myth of individualism is the notion of merit. Bacchiargues that if more women are to be promoted to senior academic poststhe current designation of merit needs to be questioned (1993, p. 39).Moreover, women academics need to re-educate themselves on the linkbetween merit and reward. Some have “a misguided faith in the idea thathigh quality work and demonstrated commitment would be recognized andrewarded”, and fail to sufficiently promote their careers by “cultivating asystem of active promotion by others” (Bagilhole 2000a, p. 8).

WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA 47

How, then, can women survive and advance in management in univer-sities? O’Connor’s solution is for academic women to challenge thesehierarchical relations. She suggests a range of ‘resistance’ strategies thatinclude: keeping your head down; creating or maintaining a ‘separateworld’; challenging the (socially created) opposition between work andfamily; passing on the challenge to the next generation; tackling the‘enemy’ within; naming aspects of organisational culture that are not‘woman friendly’; and exposing aspects of gendered career structures(O’Connor 2000, pp. 3–7). However, none of these strategies effectivelyseek to re-define an elitist and intransigent management culture. Oseenasserts that hierarchical relations in organisations will inevitably recon-struct difference as lesser; the only way to change this is to constructdifference as contiguity (Oseen, in Prasad et al. (eds) 1997, p. 78). Morleyis more positive arguing that while the academy, like most organisations,“can be experienced as domination, . . . it also offers possibilities forcreativity and critical challenge” (Morley 1999, p. 191).

WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

Recent changes in higher education have strengthened the nexus betweenresearch and promotion and tended to disadvantage women academics.An analysis of women’s participation rates in higher education reveals ahigher proportion of women in the lower ranks, and therefore having feweropportunities to become research active (White 2000a).

The following table shows the number of full-time and fractional full-time academic women and the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)academic women as a percentage of all FTE academic staff in Australia.Lecturer A is below lecturer level, Level B lecturer level, Level C issenior lecturer, and Levels D and E are associate professor and professorrespectively.

The following series shows the employment participation rates offemale academic staff in higher education institutions in Australia across athree-year period.

The number of women at lower levels of academia has increasedslightly between 1998 and 2000, but there is also a disparity betweenthe actual numbers and the number of FTE, indicating that at levels Aand B there is a sizable number of women academics who work less thanfull-time (see also Probert et al. 1998, p. 62).

48 KATE WHITE

TABLE I

Female academic staff participation rates in Australia

Actual number of Fulltime equivalentYear 1998 female staff % of total staff (FTE) % of total FTE

Level A 3,472 51.5 2,923 50.9

Level B 4,906 42.8 4,424 41.9

Level C 2,142 26.7 2,022 26.5

Levels D&E 939 14.5 893 14.4

Totals 11,459 35.0 10, 262 34.1

1999 No. female staff % of total FTE % of total FTELevel A 3,294 51.8 2,762 50.4

Level B 4,908 43.4 4,382 42.7

Level C 2,264 27.9 2,132 27.8

Levels D&E 1,033 15.6 975 15.4

Totals 11,499 35.5 10,251 34.5

2000 No. female staff % of total FTE % of total FTELevel A 3,424 53.0 2,814 51.5

Level B 5,065 44.1 4,434 43.6

Level C 2,419 29.4 2,270 29.1

Levels D&E 1,122 16.1 1,057 16.1

Totals 12,030 36.3 10,575 35.3

Source: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Selected HigherEducation Statistics, Canberra.

This series also indicates that there has been a corresponding increasein the number of women at senior lecturer and professorial level. However,women’s representation in the professorate remains unacceptably low,although higher than in several European countries (O’Connor 2000,pp. 1–2; Leonard 1998, p. 8).

Women academics’ participation rates in higher education in Australiaexplain in part why women are less research active. Given their highparticipation rates at below lecturer and lecturer level, many have greaterteaching and administrative loads and fewer opportunities to conductresearch. Increasing casualisation of the higher education workforcefurther disadvantages women, and the emphasis on globalisation placesadditional pressures on women academic managers in higher education.(White 2001, pp. 67–68).

While 16.1% of the Australian professorate is female, it has been esti-mated that only 11% of full professors are women.1 Ward has constructed aprofile of the typical Australian woman professor: she is 51 to 60 years old,born in Australia of Australian parents, educated in Australia, attended anall-girls city school, and completed her doctorate full-time. She lives with


a partner who does not work in the same field or institution, and has raisedone or two children who have attended university (Ward 2000, p. 3).

A study of women in the professorate in one newer Australian univer-sity explored the hypothesis that these women were being blocked forpromotion (White 2000b). All but one of the fifteen women interviewedwere associate professors rather than full professors. The study found thatat one level surviving and advancing in the professorate is linked in part toearly career choices (see also Soliman 1998, pp. 119–120). These includewhether or not one plans an academic career, tries to juggle full-timeteaching and part-time postgraduate study; chooses to complete a PhDbefore embarking on an academic career; chooses to do a postdoctoralfellowship before becoming an academic; chooses to have children; andchooses to focus on teaching or research or both (White 2000b; also White& Birch 1999). Those women in the study who did not have career breaksand had substantial publications were more focused on promotion but werealso more frustrated at the barriers they experienced in the managementculture of the University.

While these women learnt to prioritise research and to tackle the mascu-line management culture head on, some had reached the level of associateprofessor only to find that they were worn out, dispirited at best by lackof encouragement, and at worst by blatant discrimination, and no longerhad the energy to push on. The majority had been or were currently headsof departments and yet few had received any training for managementand leadership roles. The increasing volume of work and range of dutiesperformed by senior academic staff in Australia has led to increased stressin the higher education sector. Increasingly middle management (such asheads of department and school) are responsible for managing budgetslargely dictated by senior management (Lafferty & Fleming 2000, p. 4).Certainly, many women in this study saw management roles as stressfuland detrimental to their research productivity, and in turn to their promo-tion. Not surprisingly, as Aitkin comments, in this climate women ask whatthey can achieve if they take on leadership roles (Aitkin 2001, p. 8).

Being ignored, excluded, regarded as ‘light weight’ and receivingunequal treatment were recurring themes in this study. Some women in theprofessoriate questioned the commitment of senior management to changeand to making the university more culturally as well as gender inclusive.(White 2000b). Their experiences tended to confirm the hypothesis thatwomen in the professorate perceived that they were being blocked forpromotion through both direct and indirect discrimination.

50 KATE WHITE

THE CHALLENGES FOR SENIOR WOMEN IN UNIVERSITIES IN

AUSTRALIA

The above study of women in the professoriate highlighted that animportant challenge for senior academic women in Australian universities,as elsewhere, is to impact on the highly masculine culture, because theexclusion of women in the workplace is recognised as a symptom of deeperproblems requiring solutions focusing on the existing culture (Sinclair1998, p. 19).

The debilitating and exclusionist male culture in Australian manage-ment is more resistant to change than in most other countries; over thepast thirty years there has been little change in the male, Anglo-Celticexecutive profile (Sinclair 1998, p. 53). A similar narrow executive profileexists in higher education in Australia. Male managers tend to promotethose with a similar profile. Thornton explains: “within the university,the key decision makers, or gatekeepers, . . . are invariably men – whiteAnglo-Celtic, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-class men. [They] tend tofavour those who most look like themselves” (Thornton 2000). Womenare excluded from this ‘boys’ club’, often in subtle ways. The formaland informal networks that operate within senior management are at thecore of this male hegemony (Moore 1999, pp. 214–215). The exclusion isclearest in promotion policies and processes in higher education which actas a ‘gateway’ against women by being interpreted subjectively (Wynn1997, p. 110). As part of promotion, the system of recommendationsof academic referees also discriminates against women; in the pervasiveculture women may find their academic achievements very differentlyvalued and evaluated from those of male peers (Littin 1983, in Bagilhole2000a, p. 2).

Given this narrow executive profile, it might be argued that no womenwould be promoted to senior management. Clearly, some women do getpromoted but often pay a price. Many women must first pay homageto what Thornton (2000) calls ‘The Benchmark Men’ in universities ifthey wish to be promoted to leadership roles. Ironically, many womenwho achieve leadership roles in universities merely replicate the beha-viour of this narrow management profile. And the reason is that, asLorber and Bagilhole assert, senior managers tend to promote tokenwomen (Bagilhole 2000a, p. 9; Lorber 1994, p. 241). Once token womenare promoted into top academic positions they are made ineffectual, asBagilhole explains:

Even if a ‘token’ woman is allowed to enter the pipelines of power, they are activelydiscouraged in recruiting more ‘like them’ or from competing with men for the very top


positions. In this way, men maintain their values and ideas as the dominant ones and ensurethe continued success of people as similar as possible to themselves (Bagilhole 2000a,p. 9).

The presence of token women in leadership roles in higher education doesnothing to further the position of the majority of women, although it couldbe argued that token women have symbolic importance by demonstratingthat some women can reach senior positions. However, as Reay (2000,p. 14) asserts, elite women in universities can use hierarchies to promotetheir own careers “and exploit and marginalise subordinates”.

The impact of the narrow management profile in higher education, as inthe corporate sector, is that women managers tend to leave organisationsand set up their own businesses (Spearritt 1999, p. 45; Geber 2000; TheAustralian, 15 August 2001, p. 3). But this trend makes it even more diffi-cult to establish a critical mass of women in lean organisations, althoughthere is conjecture about whether this would shift the masculine culture.It also results in the loss of “a generation of potential mentors and rolemodels for young women in the core organization” (Spearritt 1999, p. 45).Certainly in the study described above, there are few women full professorsbecause they tend to leave the institution (White 2000b).

MANAGING DIVERSITY PROGRAMMES AND AUSTRALIAN

UNIVERSITIES

Can managing diversity programmes as a strategy for senior manage-ment in Australian Universities produce greater gender equity and leadto a greater proportion of academic women in leadership positions?Certainly equal employment opportunity (EEO) and Affirmative Action(AA) policies have had limited impact on the position of senior womenin Australian universities. Hall (1995, p. 23) argues that one reason forthe relatively slow rate of progress with affirmative action and EEO inAustralia, despite legislation, is the devaluing of women in society and thestructural reproduction of discrimination. Another is the “often mechan-istic and superficial ways that affirmative action and equal employmentopportunity programs are implemented” (Hall 1995, p. 26). Benningtonand Wenn (2000, p. 7) found in Australia that anti-discrimination legis-lation has probably had a role in changing some thinking on issuesof employment discrimination “but its impact on actual behaviours andoutcomes perhaps has not been significant”. Employers in their survey“indicated that they were able to ‘find a way around’ the legislation”.

In higher education in the United Kingdom, universities have been en-couraged and cajoled into offering equal treatment for women, according

52 KATE WHITE

to Bagilhole. She points out that these initiatives are based on an inad-equate definition of the problem and therefore the solutions provided areineffective: “The problem is located in women themselves and leaves thesolutions up to them, to become more like men, thereby leaving the univer-sity institutions intact even though these institutions are what needs to bechanged” (Bagilhole 2000b, pp. 142–143).

In relation to higher education in Australia, Rollison (2000) explainsthat universities complied with anti-discrimination and equal employ-ment opportunity legislation because they thought they had to, “whilemostly believing equal opportunity was a waste of time and money”.Another problem, according to Lafferty and Fleming, is that hierarchicalline management in higher education in Australia has replaced collegialadministration, and has worked to undermine the effective implementa-tion of EEO initiatives (2000, p. 1). Rollison (2000) shares this view,explaining that EEO practitioners in Australian Universities in the 90sbecame coopted by management and equity became “subsumed into themanagement’s corporate agenda”.

Given that EEO and AA programmes have not impacted on ‘the struc-tural reproduction of discrimination’, new strategies are required. Theremainder of this article will examine the implementation of managingdiversity programmes in Australia and whether they could be usefulin higher education. Managing diversity programmes can be defined invarious ways. Smith defines diversity as the quality of being differentand unique at an individual or group level, and diversity management asthe recognition and effective management of each employee accordingto their unique attributes, background and perspectives (Smith 1998,pp. 72–73). Bertone and Leahy (2000, p. 8) identify five definitions:the traditional equal opportunity definition that deals with differencesin gender, racioethnicity and age; broader definitions which recognise arange of human differences such as physical ability, personal attributesetc. not all of which are associated with disadvantage; definitions basedon the broadest possible concept of diversity, incorporating hierarchicallevels, functions and backgrounds; the notion that a culture of valuingdiversity has the capacity to create a pluralistic social order, resulting inorganisational cohesion and international harmony; and business orienteddefinitions, which view managing diversity as driven by business needswith less emphasis on such aspects as organisational cohesion. The busi-ness oriented definition, or what Bertone and Leahy (2000, p. 8) callproductive diversity, is an Australian government policy that has mostlyfocussed on race and ethnicity. However, this policy is not well under-stood by all managers and is not a high priority in organisations. Terms


such as managing diversity, valuing diversity and workplace diversityare preferred by Australian managers, inspired by positivistic Americanliterature (Bertone & Leahy 2000, p. 9).

The benefits of diversity management policies and programmes in theworkplace include retaining quality employees, and reducing turnoverand absenteeism (Teicher & Spearritt 1996, p. 13), increased productivity(Woolf 1998, pp. 80–81), and increased revenues through improvedproblem solving and decision-making (Cox 2001, p. 6). As well, diversitymanagement programmes can convey information, enhance awareness,and teach inter-personal and communication skills; assist employees andmanagers to more effectively serve the client base; and ensure that keystakeholders are involved in planning and implementing the programme(Agocs & Burr 1996, p. 9). In addition, such programmes can provide anastute marketing strategy for organisations (Cox 2001, p. 10).

There are various models for implementing diversity management inthe workplace. Smith suggests six steps in sponsoring diversity manage-ment programmes and initiatives. These are: formation of a diversitycouncil in the workplace; analysis of the organisation; data gathering;interventions – education in diversity, changes in culture and the manage-ment system; monitoring implementation; and review and adjustment(Smith 2000, pp. 77–78). Such diversity management programmes cancomplement equity and affirmative action legislation, but not replace thebroader legislative framework (Agocs & Burr 1996, p. 9).

One successful programme at Hewlett-Packard in Australia started withexecutives forming a Diversity Council to sponsor programmes and initia-tives to engender a greater valuing of diversity at work. (Spearritt 1999,p. 46). One of the company’s most successful diversity programmes isa three-day ‘Diversity Learning Forum’, sponsored by the senior exec-utive team and run by external consultants, for executives, managers andemployees who combine to share experiences of exclusion and inclu-sion and to learn about managing diversity. As well, senior executiveshave established a diversity and harassment advisor program and have30 trained advisors at sites around the country. Advisers are often front-line managers chosen for their listening skills and ability to encourage andsupport individuals in confidential situations (Spearritt 1999, pp. 46–47).

The Australian government has supported diversity managementthrough a collaborative arrangement between the Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affair’s Productive Diversity PartnershipProgramme and the Australian Centre for International Business (ACIB)at the University of Melbourne to develop a Programme for the Prac-tice of Diversity Management. The programme aims to meet the practical

54 KATE WHITE

needs of business by developing a business case for productive diversity;providing business models for diversity management; creating toolkitsand checklists for assessing diversity. This material is being developedin consultation with a range of best-practice Australian corporations.(ACIB 2002). While several larger companies in Australia such as HewlettPackard, Mobil, Esso and Australia Post have embraced diversity manage-ment (Teicher & Spearritt 1996, p. 13; Smith 1998, p. 78; Spearritt 1999,pp. 46–47, Wolf 1998, pp. 80–81; Bertone & Leahy 2000, pp. 8–21), asurvey by ACIB found that only a third of Australian firms had a docu-mented diversity policy, only 27% undertook diversity training, and only12% employed officers responsible for diversity or aboriginal employment(ACIB 2001, p. 7).

Nevertheless, the response of those Australian companies who haveimplemented diversity management programmes indicates that there areclear benefits for employers, employees and clients. While Australianuniversities have not explored ways of focusing on diversity as a meansof achieving greater harmonisation of the workplace, some are currentlydeveloping diversity policies.

Higher education in Australia needs to put in place strategies to addressa perceived low morale in its academic workforce. Academics are increas-ingly expressing a sense of disconnection from universities and find thatmanagerialist work practices “do not engender a favourable, academicmotivational climate: one that encourages continuous learning, imagina-tion, experimentation and creativity” (Winter & Sarros 2000, p. 10), whileBenmore (2001, pp. 3–4) demonstrates that this mangerialism has ledto intensification of academic work, decline in academic autonomy anddegradation of academic work. Coaldrake and Stedman (1999, p. 5) arguethat if universities are to “play a role as problem-solvers and deployersof knowledge, they need to restructure fundamentally their approaches toresearch and teaching”. Managing diversity programmes could be a usefultool in this restructure. A focus on diversity could impact on both “tangiblemeasures of organisational effectiveness (e.g. costs and resource acquisi-tion) and intangible dimensions such as creativity and problem solvingcapacities” (Cox 1991) quoted in Moore (1999, p. 211).

Managing diversity programmes could broaden management, allowinguniversities to recognise and celebrate difference, rather than expecting themanagement profile to replicate itself. Unlike EEO policies that requireexternal compliance, and for which there is little enthusiasm (Rollinson2000), managing diversity as a strategy needs to be driven by seniormanagement as an integral part of its human resources policy, althoughAgocs and Burr (1996, p. 9) see diversity management programmes as “a


complementary initiative towards both equality and greater productivityin organizations”. These programmes could therefore allow universitiesto examine their extremely narrow management profile. Even if univer-sities did no more than carry out an audit of their organisational profileand its relationship to its management profile, this could be benefi-cial. It would also demonstrate some commitment to change. Hopefully,by embracing managing diversity programmes universities could movefurther and implement interventions such as education in diversity, changesin the organisational culture and management system, and monitoringimplementation (Smith 1998, pp. 77–78).

Several Australian writers are wary of managing diversity programs asa means of achieving greater equity in the workplace. Eveline and Todd(2000, pp. 2–3) criticise what they call ‘the managing diversity movement’for fostering a focus on the ‘other’ in workplaces while ignoring the powerof the dominant group. Hall asserts (1995, p. 26) that managing diversityprogrammes try to overcome resistance to change by making managersaccountable for managing diversity, by linking it to productivity rather thanequity and by appealing to the notion of individual difference rather thangroup based disadvantages. She believes this approach is bound to fail.Bertone and Leahy concur, asserting:

Business efficiency, without equity, will lead to counterproductive outcomes both for theeconomy and the society. Diversity is not something that can be separated for specificeconomic focus without due regard being paid to the structural, systemic inequities andbarriers which face those groups who vary from the Anglo-Celtic norm (2000, p. 21).

While managing diversity programmes could lead to a more diversemanagement profile in Australian university management they couldalso, like affirmative action, become hollow rhetoric (Spearritt 1998,p. 46). Moreover, the emphasis in these programmes on individualismand flexibility can threaten ‘to propagate substantive injustice’ (Marsden,in Prasad, 1997, p. 109). As well, the focus on diversity as ‘under-standing’ in managing diversity programmes transforms gender inequality,for example, into issues where workers “simply have different pointsof view which need to be discussed or accommodated” (Bacchi 1999,p. 105). A further difficulty is that, unlike affirmative action, there iscurrently no legislative framework for managing diversity programmesso that their implementation and success relies on a firm commitment bysenior management.

Despite these criticisms, managing diversity programmes couldproduce positive benefits for women in universities. Diversity managementrecognises that policies and programmes need to be relevant to the organ-isational context (Cox 2001, pp. 21–22). They also emphasise analysis of

56 KATE WHITE

organisations, interventions and evaluation (Smith 1998, pp. 77–78); andthey acknowledge the complexity of employees’ profiles (they “remind usthat the idea of ‘typical’ worker in any one setting is more a construc-tion than a reality” Moore 1999, p. 210) In the context of the narrowmanagement profile in Australian Universities, a strong impetus for changecould be that evidence suggests “diverse groups can enhance their perfor-mance to a level that exceeds that associated with homogenous groups”(Moore 1999, p. 211). Moreover, diversity management may have partic-ular benefits for women academics. It is argued that women are likely tofind both the tangible and intangible forms of recognition of managingdiversity programs particularly motivating which may produce “positivework outcomes for both the individual and the organisation” (Wiley 1997,quoted in Moore 1999, p. 212).

To be effective, managing diversity programmes need to be properlydesigned and implemented to address aspects of organisational culture“as part of a broad employment equity strategy designed to bring aboutchange in organisational culture, employment policies and practices, andnumerical representation of those underrepresented in the workforce”(Agocs & Burr 1996, p. 9). Part of the organisational culture that needsto be addressed is engaging managers in the process (Bertone & Leahy2000, p. 20). Middle managers, in particular, lack sufficient understandingof managing diversity programmes, indicating that additional diversityawareness training is needed in this area (Steger & Erwee 2001, p. 92).Moore emphasises that any diversity awareness training must be accom-panied by other types of organisational support mechanisms and skillsbased intervention (Moore 1999, p. 214). It also needs to be specificallydeveloped for each institution rather than Universities using ‘off the shelf’training courses (Moore 1999, p. 215).

Although there is no evidence of senior management in higher educa-tion in Australia embracing managing diversity programmes as a manage-ment tool, the new quality audit process implemented by the AustralianUniversities Quality Agency (AUQA) asserts that “quality and its assur-ance involve both professional and management functions. The mainte-nance and improvement of quality require professional commitment inthe context of well-designed systems and processes” (Woodhouse 2001,pp. 1–9). AUQA states that these processes are more than documenta-tion: “This approach also incorporates an appreciation of risk assessmentand risk management [and] self-monitoring to identify the need for andconsequences of doing things differently” (Woodhouse 2002, pp. 1–2). Areview of management and human resource systems could be one initi-ative that universities implement as they review their quality systems.


This may then encourage university to explore ‘doing things differently’by introducing managing diversity programmes on the models discussedabove.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that the narrow profile of senior management in Australianuniversities has a negative impact on senior academic women, as indicatedby the above study of women in the professoriate. This is reinforced inWard’s survey (2000, p. 4) of women in the professoriate in Australia, andAitkin’s (2001, p. 9, pp. 7–8) assertion that senior women were mostlyuninterested in further career advancement. It is therefore unlikely in thisclimate that the proportion of academic women in management and leader-ship roles in Australian Universities will increase substantially without asignificant change in the culture of higher education. Organisations need torethink notions of difference “where getting things done can be an actualgoal rather than a mask for power held by a few” (Oseen, in Prasad et al.(eds) 1997, p. 79). Managing diversity programs could be one strategy thatcould impact on the culture of higher education by changing the narrowsenior management profile, making it more representative of the widerstaffing profile and reversing the pattern of senior academic women leavinghigher education. A fundamental change in the culture of higher educationmanagement could allow women to flourish and they in turn could helpthe system to flourish. But to be effective, managing diversity programmesneed to be focussed not just on economic benefits, but also on an insti-tution’s creativity and problem solving capabilities (Moore 1999, p. 211;Teicher & Spearritt 1996, p. 13).

The number of women in academic leadership positions in Australianuniversities, and those in other western countries, will not increaseappreciably unless there is a strong internal or external impetus forchange. While government may encourage universities to adopt productivediversity programmes, universities themselves must recognise the need tochange their leadership profile. But the male value systems of universitieswill not change unless they become less masculine (Aitkin 2001, p. 7). Thedangers of maintaining the status quo in senior management are evident.Senior academic women will either separate from the institution by leavinghigher education or remain but contribute less and, therefore, under-utilisetheir capabilities. Some women in higher education management create aseparate world – a retreat to the bunker as O’Connor calls it (2000, p. 3).Most are aware that their personal experiences of discrimination relate towider political issues of power within the University (Fuss 1989, p. 17).

58 KATE WHITE

While these women have been, in Morley’s words, “knowledge agents,micropolitically making interventions” in the organisation as well as theirteaching (Morley 1999, pp. 6–7), unless universities focus on diversity asa means of achieving greater harmonisation of the workplace, academicwomen in leadership and management positions in Australian universitiesand elsewhere will continue to exit universities (White 2000b; Ward 2000,p. 4). In doing so they send powerful negative signals to female earlycareer researchers that merit alone will not lead to promotion and that the‘prize’ of reaching senior management and leadership roles is not worththe professional or personal effort.

NOTE

1. The Department of Education, Employment and Youth Affairs Selected Higher Educa-tion Statistics do not seperate out professor and associate professor; the two categoriesare reported as ‘above senior lecturer’. The Australian Vice-Chancellors CommitteeRegister of Senior University Women (www.avcc.edu.au/80/avcc/pubs/rsuw.htm) doesdistinguish associate and full professors. However, this is a voluntary register and doesnot include all women professors. I estimate that approximately 43% of those listed inthe register are full professors. Ward (2000) asserts that, on the basis of analysis of theregister, 11% of all full professors are female.

REFERENCES

Agocs, C. & Burr, C. (1996). Employment Equity, Affirmative Action and ManagingDiversity: Assessing the Differences, International Journal of Manpower 17(4/5), 1–11.

Aitken, D. (2001). The Last Boilerhouse Address, www.canberra.edu.au/secretariat/speeches/vcaddr25-7-01

Australian Centre for International Business (ACIB) (2002). www.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/acib/diverse/overview.html

ACIB (2001). Capturing the Diversity Dividend: Views of CEOs on Diversity Managementin the Australian Workplace. Melbourne.

Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems.London: Sage Publications.

Bacchi, C. (1993). The Brick Wall: Why so few Women Become Senior Academics, TheAustralian Universities Review 36(1), 36–41.

Bagilhole, B. (2000a). The Myth of Superman: A Feminist investigation of AcademicCareers, paper presented to the 2nd European Conference on Gender Equality in HigherEducation, Zurich.

Bagilhole, B. (2000b). Too Little Too Late? An Assessment of National Initiatives forWomen Academics in the British University System, Higher Education in EuropeXXV(2), 139–145.


Benmore, G. (2001). Perceptions of the Contemporary Academic Employment Rela-tionship, paper presented to the Higher Education Close Up Conference 2, LancasterUniversity, 16–18 July.

Bennington, L. & Wenn, R. (2000). Anti-discrimination Legislation in Australia: Fair,Effective, Efficient or Irrelevant? International Journal of Manpower 21(1).

Bertone, S. & Leahy, M. (2000). Social Equity, Multiculturalism and the ProductiveDiversity Paradigm: Reflections on Their Role in Corporate Australia, paper presented tothe National Conference on Reconciliation, Multiculturalism, Immigration and HumanRights, University of Technology, Sydney.

Burton, C. (1997). Gender Equity in Australian University Staffing. Canberra: AGPS.Coaldrake, P. & Stedman, L. (1999). Academic Work in the Twenty-first Century:

Changing Roles and Policies, Occasional Paper Series, 99H, Higher Education Division,DETYA, Canberra.

Cox, T. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organisation: A Strategy for Capturing thePower of Diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eveline, J. & Todd, P. (2000). The Politics of Managing Diversity in University Teaching,paper presented to 9th International Women in Leadership Conference, Perth.

Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference. London: Rout-ledge.

Geber, H. (2000). Follow up Study of South African Professional Women’s Re-entry tothe World of Work, paper presented to NAWE International Conference on Women inHigher Education, New Orleans.

Hall, P. (1995). Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity. Canberra: AGPS.Leonard, D. (1998). Trends in Higher Education in England from a Gender Perspective,

paper presented to conference on Gender in Higher Education in England, Mexico andthe USA, Mexico.

Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Moore, S. (1999). Understanding and Managing Diversity among Groups at Work: Key

Issues for Organisational Training and Development, Journal of European IndustrialTraining 23(4/5), 208–217.

Morley, L. (1999). Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy. New York:St Martin’s Press.

O’Connor, O. (2000). Resistance in Academia, paper presented to NAWE InternationalConference on Women in Higher Education, New Orleans.

Prasad, P. et al. (eds) (1997). Managing the Organisational Melting Pot: Dilemmas ofWorkplace Diversity. London: Sage Publications.

Probert, B. et al. (1998). Gender Pay Equity in Australian Higher Education. Melbourne:National Tertiary Education Union.

Reay, D. (2000). ‘Dim Dross’: Marginalised Women Both Inside and Outside the Academy,Women’s Studies International Forum 23(1), 13–21.

Rollison, K. (2000). The Cost of Equity on Campus, The Age (Melbourne), 15 March.Sinclair, A. (1998). Doing Leadership Differently. Melbourne: Melbourne University

Press.Soliman, I. (1998). Many Routes One Destination: Profiles of Successful Academic Women.

Armidale: University of New England.Smith, D. (1998). The Case for Business Diversity, Mt Eliza Business Review 1(3), 72–79.Spearrit, K. (1999). Deconstructing the Challenges Facing Australian Corporate Women,

Mt Eliza Business Review 2(2), 40–47.

60 KATE WHITE

Steger, M. & Erwee, R. (2001). Managing Diversity in the Public Sector: A Case Study ofa Small City Council, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 4(1), 77–95.

Teicher, J, & Spearritt, K. (1996). From Equal Employment Opportunity to DiversityManagement: The Australian Experience, International Journal of Manpower 17(4/5).

Thornton, M. (2000). Nexus 10(5), July.Thorton, M. (1996). Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession. Melbourne:

Oxford University Press.Ward, B. (2000). The Female Professor: A Rare Australian Species – The Who and

How, paper presented to the 2nd European Conference on Gender Equality in HigherEducation, Zurich.

Winter, J. & Sarros, J. (2000). The Academic Work Environment in Australian Univer-sities: A Motivating Place to Work? Department of Management Working Paper Series,Monash University, Working Paper 73/00.

White, K. (2002). Being Ignored: A Case Study of Women in the Professoriate in Australia.In C. Wiedmer (ed.), Sound Changes: An International Survey of Women’s CareerStrategies in Higher Education. Universelle 4, Zurich: Office for Equal Opportunities,University of Zurich, 45–56.

White, K. (2001). Women in the Professoriate in Australia, International Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour 3(2), 64–76.

White, K. (2000a). Strategies for Improving Research Productivity: Women and Researchin Higher Education in Australia, paper presented to NAWE International Conference onWomen in Higher Education, New Orleans.

White K. (2000b). Being Ignored: A Case Study of Women in the Professoriate inAustralia, paper presented to the 2nd European Conference on Gender Equality in HigherEducation, Zurich.

White, K. (2000c). The Business Case for Diversity Management, invited presentationto Department of State and Regional Development Team on Women in Management,Melbourne.

White, K. & Birch, L. (1999). Strategies to Increase Research Output of Women in HigherEducation, paper presented to AWORC seminar, Deakin University.

Wolf, J. (1998). A Case Study in Diversity: Mobil Oil Australia, Monash Mt Eliza BusinessReview, November, 80–81.

Woodhouse, D. (2001). Australian Universities Quality Agency: Audit Manual. Melbourne:AUQA.

Woodhouse, D. (2002). Australian Universities Quality Agency: Audit Manual. Melbourne:AUQA.

Wynn, J. (1997). Senior Women Academics in Education: Working through Restructuringin Australian Universities, Melbourne Studies in Education 38(1), May 1997, 103–127.

Senior Project OfficerSenior Management GroupVictoria UniversityAustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

women and leadership in higher education in australia

Documents