Abstract
Universities are patriarchal institutions. More males reach upper levels of the academic hierarchy than females. The authors were concerned that their university had a marginally lower percentage of female professors than others in their country and used a survey and interviews to explore the facts behind the figures.
Statistics showed that though fewer females applied for promotion, proportionately more female applicants were successful. The authors researched what helped female professors and associate professors gain promotion and explored views on the spillover between work and family/community roles. Promotion enhancement factors included encouragement from department heads and senior colleagues. Family/community roles were seen to spillover positively to work, though work could negatively affect time for family and community involvement.
These findings could encourage proactive mentoring of female academic staff by managers, and increase HR and HRD support for family-friendly policies and training programs.
Universities around the world share discouragingly skewed statistics when it comes to the numbers of female academics who reach the highest ranks. Nevertheless, some female academics are successful in becoming professors and some even gain entry to their university’s senior leadership team. This research was stimulated because the authors’ university had distinguished itself in the rankings compiled by their country’s Human Rights Commission as the tertiary institution with the lowest proportion of female professors on its staff each year since 2003. The Human Rights Commission’s census (2008) recorded that in 2007, only 14.5% of professors and 24% of associate professors at Massey University were female (McGregor, 2008).
Nevertheless, in spite of feeling disconcerted about the negative message the statistics would give to prospective female academics considering applying for positions at Massey University, the authors refused to be depressed by the bad news. Instead, female professors and associate professors who had gained promotion or been appointed at that level were invited to share their experiences in a case study exploring what had assisted their career advancement and linking in research findings about work–life balance. This article also explores these women’s views on the prevalence of negative and positive spillover between work and family/community life roles, advancing scholarly and practitioner understanding of the complexity of work–life integration (Morris & Madsen, 2007).
The findings presented in this article will be important for women planning their academic careers and will help policy makers and decision makers in universities. There are also implications for human resource development (HRD) and human resource (HR) professionals, department heads (and others involved in performance appraisals and planning), conveners of university promotion committees (including those preparing promotion resources), and stakeholder groups (such as unions and other external bodies that monitor equity outcomes). We were also convinced that much of what was widely accepted about women academics was based on little more than conventional wisdom rather than research-based knowledge. The academic landscape has been a site of volatile change, strongly influenced by external factors, in the last decade and past assumptions are no longer a reliable guide to current and future trends.
In scoping out our research, we will first explain Massey University’s promotion processes and their generalizability to other universities in New Zealand and internationally. In constructing an explanation of the way the existing literature answers our research question, how do successful female academics achieve their success, we will examine research on the progression and promotion of women in academia focusing on both the scarcity model and the expansion model as potential theoretical explanations.
Background and Context
Promotion processes at higher education institutions differ by country and university. Similar to the New Zealand system, higher education institutions in the United Kingdom generally abide by a set of guidelines laid down by Sir Stephen Sedley following a judicial review of promotion processes at Cambridge University (Knights & Richards, 2003). These criteria involve feedback and appeal processes as well as “the use of an ‘analytical’ system of grading applicants on a range of factors relevant to the promotion criteria” (Knights & Richards, 2003, p. 218). The United States appears similar in terms of its promotion system; however, it also typically employs a tenure system. Youn and Price (2009) reviewed the evolution of the U.S. higher education rules around tenure and promotion. These authors found that tenure decisions relied more on “cut and dried” rules, incorporating specifics such as number and type of publications required (p. 227). Promotion decisions, however, were viewed as following more subjective criteria that could be perceived as lacking transparency (Youn & Price, 2009).
In New Zealand universities, senior academic staff include those at the ranks of associate professor and professor. The promotion process at Massey University is an annual round of two separate processes; the first for Level 1 and 2 promotions, which include tutor to associate professor positions and the second for professorial promotions (Massey University, 2009). Applications can only be made by staff on a continuing employment (tenured) agreement and must be on a set template. For Level 1 and 2 promotions, applications are sent to the staff member’s College Promotions Committee where recommendations are then made to the University Promotions Committee who confirm the final decision. Level 1 promotions are defined as either accelerated movement within a salary scale or movement over a bar to a more senior position up to the level of senior lecturer, senior tutor, senior clinician, senior veterinarian, or senior research officer (Range 1). Level 2 promotions are defined as movement to and within the higher senior range pay scales or progression to associate professor. Department heads are required to provide a statement in support or otherwise of the application to the College Promotions Committee. Dependent on the conditions of a staff contract, each application must show evidence of work in the three areas of teaching, research, and service (both to the University and the wider community). For Level 1 promotions, “sustained merit” is required in each area, with “sustained excellence” for movement to and within the higher senior range, and “sustained distinction” for promotion to associate professor (Massey University, 2009, p. 5). Examples of types of evidence to be provided are given in the Academic Promotion Round booklet (Massey University, 2009).
Professorial promotions follow a similar process with applications made to a separate Professorial Promotions Committee (Massey University, 2011). There are two pathways to a professorial position: (a) a discipline or industry appointment; or (b) promotion through the annual promotion process. In the latter, applicants must choose to provide evidence of either “outstanding performance and leadership in research and research training” or “high performance and leadership in research and research training . . . combined with outstanding leadership in teaching . . . and/or service” (Massey University, 2011, p. 2).
Overall, fewer women than men have been promoted to senior academic positions at Massey University since 2003 (Massey University Human Resources [MUHR], 2009a, 2009b). However, this appears to be largely due to a substantially lower number of applications from women (MUHR, 2009a, 2009b). For example, in 2009, 14 promotions to associate professor were made (four of whom were women), and seven people were promoted to professor (three of whom were women). Although female applicants generally outperform men in terms of success, as long as there are lower numbers of female applicants each year, whether or not they are more likely to be successful than their male counterparts, the lower numbers of female applicants will perpetuate a disproportionate gender distribution in the top academic ranks (MUHR, 2009a, 2009b).
Reasons given for the lower number of female applicants for promotions are many and varied. McGregor and Tweed (2000) wrote of the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jenny Shipley, blaming women’s innate modesty as the obstacle preventing them from competing for senior jobs, but they considered the problem stems more from “a complex interplay of systemic barriers in the labour market, sex-role stereotyping, and male-norm organizational practices sustained by a media-world view which reinforces a macho corporate culture” (p. 45). One often-cited potential explanation for a low number of female applicants for senior academic positions is the impact of personal life responsibilities on the time and energy required for work commitments. Research has demonstrated that either females perceive barriers to promotion because of family life responsibilities (Airini et al., 2011; Grady & McCarthy, 2008; van Anders, 2004) or, as Perna (2005) showed, women—unlike men—do not benefit in terms of tenure or promotion when family responsibilities are present, suggesting that women are disproportionately responsible for family life. It is also possible that service requirements of promotion processes are hindered where community service commitments focused around children and child care are not as privileged as more traditional masculine forms of community service (or even considered as community service).
Until recently, discussions of negative spillover from work to family life (work–life conflict) and vice versa have dominated the work–life link literature. The concept of negative spillover is based on a scarcity model perspective, which assumes that individuals have limited time and energy for work versus family tasks, with use in one sphere entailing a lack of energy for the other sphere (Marks, 1977). In the last decade, however, attention has increasingly been paid to the idea of positive spillover, work–family enrichment models (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Rothbard, 2001), and work–community enrichment models (Kirchmeyer, 1992). The enrichment model derives from an expansion hypothesis that assumes use of resources in one sphere does not imply a deficit of resources for use in another life domain (Marks, 1977). In fact, the enrichment model posits that resource use in one domain may lead to more energy or positive spillover into other domains (Marks, 1977).
Work–life enrichment offers a new sense of the way family and community responsibilities can enhance career advancement (e.g., Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007). Other research (e.g., Kelly & Moen, 2007; Pryce-Jones, 2010) has also shown the more decision-making power and influence people have in their workplace, the less stress they feel. Feeling powerless to change or improve the work situation causes stress. According to Pryce-Jones (2010) the more control people have in their work, the more pressure they can deal with and the better their overall sense of well-being. Her research team found that those who were happy at work experienced 33% more control than those who were least happy. This finding suggests that whereas academic women may be reluctant to apply for promotion, considering that the burden of more responsibility may conflict with their home life, in fact more decision-making power may make them feel more energized both at work and at home.
Enrichment and facilitating factors reported by Massey University female senior academics have provided more specific evidence alongside the numerous studies into barriers to women’s progression and promotion. These facilitating factors are outlined later in this article and translated into practical implications to both enhance the number and quality of promotion applications from women as well as the success of those applications.
Method
Sample
The target population was all senior academic women (associate professor and professor levels) at Massey University in 2009, across the three campuses based in Auckland, Palmerston North, and Wellington. The purposeful sampling method reflected the study’s positive framing of the glass ceiling issue in terms of what can be learned by sharing the views and promotional experiences of successful, senior academic women. Fifty-six percent of the population responded (32 of the population of 57; 59% associate professors, 38% professors and 3% unknown). Potential participants were identified from staff listings in the University’s 2009 Calendar and searches of departmental staff listings online to capture recent staffing changes.
Participants ranged in age from 41 to 66 years. Sixty-six percent identified as New Zealand European, 3% as New Zealander, and 3% as New Zealand European and Māori, while the remainder identified as a variety of nationalities including Australian, North American, Canadian, Spanish, and Indian. Ninety-one percent of those who responded held doctoral-level qualifications. Seventy-two percent of the participants had children, with the majority (41%) having two children and a further 13%, four or more children. However, the majority of the children (56%) were adults. Twenty-two percent of the sample also had dependent relations whom they cared for on a regular basis.
Most (97%) were in permanent full-time employment, while one participant was permanent part-time. Seventy-five percent of the sample had worked at Massey University for 10 or more years. The participants represented all five colleges: Sciences (19%), Creative Arts (9%), Humanities and Social Sciences (34%), Education (16%), Business (19%), and one unknown. The majority had been in their current position for three years or more (56%), but 28% had been in their current positions for less than a year. Fifty-nine percent spent 50 hours a week or more on university-related work.
The majority of participants (84%) had been through at least one promotion process at Massey University during their career, with 81% having one or more successful applications, 22% reporting one or more partially successful applications, and 34% reporting one or more unsuccessful promotion applications.
Tools
Information on factors such as what is needed for successful promotion, perceptions of personal and institutional barriers to promotion, work aspirations, workload, and the influence of mentors, was gathered by using a replication of several items from a 2004 survey of gender and academic promotion at Massey University (Doyle, Wylie, Hodgen, & Else, 2004). The survey items of Doyle et al. (2004) were developed from studies of academic employment and promotion, particularly studies of workload and stress in New Zealand (Boyd & Wylie, 1994; Chalmers, 1998), as well as pilot work with Massey University staff. Opportunities for additional qualitative comments were also provided at the end of each section of the survey to capture further information.
New additions to the survey for the current study included some demographic items and measures of work–life positive and negative spillover. Grzywacz and Marks’ (2000) measure of work–family positive and negative spillover (derived from items in the U.S. National Survey of Midlife Development) was added. This measure incorporates four distinct dimensions of work–family spillover including negative spillover from work to family (Cronbach’s α = .83); positive spillover from work to family (α = .73); negative spillover from family to work (α = .80); and positive spillover from family to work (α = .70).
Kirchmeyer’s (1992) measure of work–community positive spillover was included to assess the impact of nonwork domains outside of family on work role. Kirchmeyer’s scale contains 15 items that are summed into a single score of resource enrichment and/or four resource enrichment scales. When tested across three nonwork domains of parenting, community work, and recreation, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .87 to .90 indicating adequate internal consistency. Participants answered the Kirchmeyer scale with regard to community work and roles that were separate from work or family roles.
Thompson’s (2007) measure of positive and negative affect (the short form of the International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule or I-PANAS-SF), which relates to work, community, and family roles, was also included as this has been a recently acknowledged area of importance with regard to work–family interactions. Participants answered the I-PANAS-SF on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to always in reference to emotions felt in response to work, family, and community roles, separately. Cronbach’s alphas of each of the emotions ranged from .61 to .83 suggesting adequate internal consistency (Thompson, 2007). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure model (positive and negative affect), and supportive evidence was found for test-retest reliability, convergent, and cross-cultural validity of the I-PANAS-SF (Thompson, 2007).
Procedure
The research was approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee. During August and September 2009, all female professors and associate professors at Massey University were posted a survey. Return of the anonymous survey implied consent.
Respondents to the survey were asked to separately indicate if they wished to be interviewed about their views. Thirteen research participants took part in a 1-hour face-to-face or telephone interview, providing information on their personal journeys to their current position, including barriers and facilitators.
Results and Discussion
Barriers to academic promotion aspirations are outlined first. This is followed by an outline of the facilitators and, finally, the factors associated with work–family conflict and enrichment and work–community enrichment. The results are given additional depth here by the inclusion of reference to Doyle et al’s (2004) earlier study of gender and promotion at Massey University.
Perceived Barriers to Academic Promotion at Massey University
Respondents were asked to determine to what extent several factors acted as barriers to their academic promotion aspirations. Two participants responded based on their perceptions of barriers for women generally, as they had only successful promotion applications. Table 1 outlines the top two barriers as reported by the survey sample (ranked by the proportion that strongly agree or agree). Time factors involved in representation on committees and teaching workload were discussed most often, factors also identified as important barriers in the Doyle et al. (2004) study. However, nearly half of the survey sample disagreed that teaching workload was a barrier to promotion (which may be at least partly linked to the status of the respondents).
Perceived Barriers to Promotion
When the interviewees were asked about barriers to applying for promotion, three main factors were readily apparent. A lack of clear application guidelines and the absence of robust definitions were problematic for one woman as she applied for promotion to associate professor: “It’s the words that I think I struggle with. I struggled in the associate professor one [with words] like ‘evidence of sustained outstanding leadership and excellence.’ How do you define outstanding?” Another participant identified a second key factor—the sense of mystery surrounding the process of promotion decisions—and its negative implication:
Right now it doesn’t feel fair because there is so much mystery and so much gossip and so much inconsistency of interpretation. My gender generalisation . . . is that because women are reluctant to step up for promotion anyway, if they think there is any backroom, they won’t do it at all.
The third main barrier was the lack of Head of Department (HoD) or senior colleague support, with one woman saying,
I suppose for a system to work well, I think everyone should be encouraged to apply as much as possible. It’s like you’ve got to self-select, and I think that some really good people don’t self-select. It’s only if you have got someone to tap you on the shoulder and that’s not always going to happen.
Similar factors were noted by women in the Doyle et al. (2004) study.
Facilitating Factors for Promotion
Survey participants were asked to give an indication of whether they believed aspects such as transparency around the promotion process, training and development, mentoring, and a climate free of discrimination were addressed well within Massey University. Respondents noted that there was still work to be done in all these areas, with only the provision of clear and transparent information endorsed by more than 50% of participants as good to excellent. This is an interesting conflict with the top barrier of “lack of clarity of promotion information” outlined by the interviewees, suggesting that the interviewees may differ in some way from the survey sample as a whole. However, it must also be noted that 43.7% of participants rated the applicant guidelines as fair to unacceptable in terms of clarity.
Interviewees noted the importance of several facilitators for career progression. The most frequently mentioned facilitator was HoD or senior colleague support in terms of counseling on the best time to apply and encouragement for women to apply since, as one respondent put it, “I would never have done that on my own.” Aligned to this, and endorsed by a majority of respondents, was the importance of mentoring, particularly strategic mentoring and specific feedback. For example,
You have a role in mentoring your staff, to put that criteria in front of them and say “over the next year, you need to do this, this, and this if you want to be eligible.” Sometimes that very clear mentoring is perhaps lacking for some women, and they go about their career in quite an ad-hoc way.
As well as the importance of mentoring, freedom from family responsibilities in terms of living alone or having only independent adult children living away from home was viewed as a key facilitator, particularly in terms of getting time to write publications. Other participants noted that where family responsibilities like young children or elderly relatives were present, they benefited from having “the equivalent of a wife” who took responsibility for these tasks at home. Similarly, in the Doyle et al. (2004) project, women from all academic levels were found to be over five times more likely than men to perceive time out of their careers for family reasons as a barrier to their promotion. There is the possibility that female movement into senior academic positions is, for the majority, only able to be supported where the family responsibilities of the applicant are minor to nonexistent.
Satisfaction With Massey University Promotion Processes
It must be acknowledged that satisfaction with promotion processes overall was based on the participant’s own experience which may span several years, during which changes to the promotion process have taken place. Five participants were excluded from this analysis, and the following analysis of barriers, as they had not completed a promotion application within the Massey University system.
In giving a ranking overall, 63% of the respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the promotion process. More than 50% of participants were very satisfied or satisfied with several aspects including the support and advice they received from within their department or teaching area; the opportunities provided to them to apply for academic promotion; their personal experience of the promotion process; and the recognition given to their research or artistic activity for promotion purposes (74% were satisfied/very satisfied with this last factor). Nevertheless, it must be noted that for each of these aspects, there was still a proportion of women who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied ranging from 7% for recognition of research and opportunities provided, to 19% who were dissatisfied with their own personal experience.
Other aspects of the promotion process, while having a large proportion of very satisfied/satisfied respondents, also consistently showed proportions of more than 20% in the dissatisfied categories. Table 2 below outlines the findings for these factors.
Potential Areas for Improvement in Promotion Processes
Interestingly, the above findings differed from those of Doyle et al. (2004) who used the same satisfaction items in their analysis of Massey University promotion processes and gender in 2004. Doyle et al. found women were less likely than men to be satisfied with their promotion opportunities, recognition of their service to the university, and the support or advice they received from their department. One explanation could be the differences between the two samples. Doyle et al. incorporated all academic staff from all levels, whereas only senior academic staff responded to this study. It is possible that, as the senior staff have already reached the higher levels, they are overall more likely to be satisfied with aspects of the promotion process. This is substantiated by Doyle et al.’s finding that satisfaction rates were indeed highest amongst professors, followed by associate professors. In terms of dissatisfaction with support received from colleagues, Doyle et al. found that 27% of senior academic women were dissatisfied compared to 10% of men. In this study, however, the dissatisfaction proportion is lower at 15%. This suggests that HoD or senior colleague support, as outlined by the respondents, is an important facilitator in terms of applying for and potentially dealing with negative outcomes of promotion applications.
Work–Family Spillover
Negative and positive spillover items between work and family life were summed into four categories: negative spillover from work to family; negative spillover from family to work; positive spillover from work to family; and positive spillover from family to work. After parametric assumption testing, paired-sample t tests showed some interesting significant differences (see Table 3). Overall, the women in this study reported significantly less negative spillover from their family lives to their work lives, than vice versa. In fact, the participants were fairly consistent in stating that family influences on their work lives were positive. Nevertheless, the data also showed the women reporting significantly higher levels of negative work to family spillover, rather than the positive benefits of work to family life spillover.
t test Statistics for Work–Family Spillover Factors
Respondents reported that in the past year, their job had sometimes, on average, reduced the effort they could give to activities at home, stress made them irritable at home, they were too tired to pay attention and were distracted by job worries or problems when at home. However they were, on average, unlikely to find the same problems when rating the effect of their home life on their work responsibilities. Stress at home as a cause of irritability was rated as never to rarely happening. This suggests that the respondents’ home lives were arranged in such a way as to give space for a focus on job worries and responsibilities, without adding further to that burden.
Aligned to the above finding, participants were more likely to note a positive spillover from family to work rather than from work to family. Participants particularly endorsed the love and respect they received from their families, stating it made them feel more confident about themselves at work. To a lesser degree, they also found it useful to talk with someone at home about problems at work and felt that their home life helped them to relax and feel ready for the next day’s work. Interestingly, a marked distinction between work and family life was signaled by the respondents, with average rankings showing that the tasks and skills needed at work were only sometimes to rarely seen as useful for dealing with family and home life issues. This distinction between family and work roles supports the assertion that family acts as a supportive buffer to work issues that sometimes affect family life. The proposed buffering from family to work is further evidenced by the finding that there is significantly more negative spillover than positive spillover from work to family, yet there still remains significantly more positive than negative spillover from family to work.
Work–Community Spillover
The Kirchmeyer (1992) scale of resource enrichment used Sieber’s (1974) model, wherein he argues for four benefits of participating in multiple life roles: privileges gained; status security; status enhancement; and personality development. Respondents answered the 15 Kirchmeyer items based on their participation in community groups or recreation or hobby groups and the impact this had on their work life. With the exception of two items, the participants did not find any of their outside-work activities in the community as beneficial, on average, to their work life. The two exceptions were “energises me so I can tackle the challenges of my job” and “develops skills in me that are useful for work.”
Overall, when the four benefits of multiple roles were considered, personality enrichment and status security were endorsed as the most beneficial (M = 16.7 and M = 16.6 respectively), followed by status enhancement (M = 13.4) and privileges gained (M = 9.1). Sieber (1974) argued that status security is a measure of the strains of one role being buffered by participation in other roles. In this case, it appears that while family life provides an effective buffer from work strains, further community and/or recreation commitments do not contribute overly to this buffer. Sieber’s (1974) approach to status enhancement (where the by-products of one role such as networking contacts are of use in another role) is of particular interest, given that this does not appear to be a by-product of the respondents’ interactions, or, if it is present, is not viewed as particularly beneficial for their work role. The amount of time spent by women generally in outside community commitments may therefore be less beneficial to work commitments or networking and may reflect a different type of community commitment than those often taken up by men. For example, one survey participant explained that work commitments meant that there was little time for community and/or recreational involvement. There is the possibility that, for some, engaging in community and recreational activities decreases the time for work responsibilities, thereby making it difficult to achieve within a work role.
Positive and Negative Affect
Overall, participants reported feeling significantly more positive than negative about their work (z = −4.8, p = .001), family (z = −4.9, p = .001), and wider community (z = −4.6, p = .001) lives. Respondents felt equally positive about their family and work lives (z = –.90, p = .37) but also felt significantly less negative about their family life when compared to their work life (z = −3.7, p = .001). This provides further support for the finding that while work strains can negatively spillover into family life, the family life of the respondents acts in such a way as to buffer these strains and enhance positivity.
Implications
The study results have practical implications for academic women at higher education institutions and offer insight for HR and HRD scholars and practitioners looking to improve staff development strategies across a range of workplace settings. The case study at Massey University identified important factors for academic women to focus on in their career development and in developing applications for promotion, thereby enhancing future leadership development strategies. Massey University has recently engaged in a Pay and Employment Equity Review process, the only university in the country that was willing to do so. As a result, an internal system of women and leadership training is being initiated.
To recognize female academics’ abilities to fulfill roles at a higher level in the University, the main recommendation is the use of mentoring processes between up-and-coming academic women and those in senior positions. This could take the form of encouragement from HoDs to apply for promotion as well as guidance on strategically positioning the teaching, research, and service direction of the applicant to University and Department priorities. Currently, mentoring circles have been implemented on Massey University campuses as a group means to discuss career direction. However, a specific suggestion from female senior academics is the implementation of informal mentoring processes, whereby one-to-one relationships are negotiated between a junior and senior academic. This was considered due to the feeling that group mentoring often felt “forced” and did not necessarily focus specifically on issues of concern to each individual. It is likely that these points about the mentoring process are also applicable to HR and HRD practitioners working in other large and hierarchical organizations.
Enhanced transparency around the promotion process within the higher education institution was also highly recommended for junior faculty/academic staff. Specific suggestions included promotion committee members working to “demystify the process” and promote self-confidence with regard to the fairness of the process. Aligned with this, it is suggested that junior faculty/staff apply to sit on promotions committees, thus gaining a firsthand view of how applications are assessed and the different criteria balanced. Finally, improving the feedback processes to unsuccessful applicants and giving specific feedback rather than generalized statements would be helpful.
Employee workshops, particularly around the specifics of self-promotion within the application itself, were seen as important. Help with a short, succinct writing style and the sharing of exemplars of successful applications were all viewed as valuable to helping craft the application and gaining confidence in applying.
The findings of positive spillover from family to work yet negative spillover from work to family indicate that family acts as a buffer to the stressors of work. This buffer may allow the individual to avoid burnout and also reenergise the individual to address these work stressors effectively. However, as noted in the Doyle et al. (2004) survey of junior and senior academic women, family responsibilities were a barrier for women’s career progression, and a lack of family responsibilities was seen in this study as a facilitator. The implication is that career progression is hindered by responsibilities such as young children at home (and the lack of a partner who takes over these responsibilities). As a positive family environment appears to support work achievement, it is imperative that HR departments and HRD specialists note that providing support in this area (e.g., flexitime, a change in culture that views time-out for family reasons as having potential for career growth) would be a useful step, particularly for academic women. Future research that involves detailed analyses of work–family life enrichment antecedents and the function of specific types of positive spillover (as suggested by Warner & Hausdorf, 2009) would provide more understanding of how such processes work and, therefore, where HRD practitioners, training and career development support staff, and HoDs might intervene to support these processes.
More work could also be usefully done around the way universities define and interpret issues of service in relation to promotion. This is likely to be a more mysterious and potentially off-putting component for many applicants (teaching and research are increasingly quantifiable, especially in the Performance-Based Research Fund era). Skills and commitment gained by women in the community sphere should have a value for promotion purposes; yet a high proportion of our survey respondents were neutral or dissatisfied about the way contributions to the wider community were recognized in the promotion process and reported little flow-on benefit from their community involvement to their work roles. There is a possibility that male bias is operating here in terms of what is seen as valuable in terms of community work. Women may feel that the contributions they make in the community are discounted by male line managers as being at the lesser level of women’s work and thus not valued or rendered invisible in the way Fletcher (1999) described relational practice at work as being discounted because it is just what women do. Female academics may benefit from assistance, especially from training and development staff and senior managers in making the connections between what they do in the community and their role and progression in the university system.
Nevertheless, female academics also need to be wary of being pressured into accepting HoD roles as the focus in these positions shifts more toward supportive care and mentoring of staff and students and no longer has the prestige of being automatically accorded professorial ranking. Higher academic administrative roles with responsibility for strategy and policy may tend to become the preserve of male academics, while female academics are seen as more suited to areas with less involvement in high-level decision making. The impact of organizational change within the internal and external environments of universities needs to be constantly reviewed in terms of its impact on female academic staff.
Conclusion
In the 2006 New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation, Massey University was commended for being the institution that most improved its proportion of senior women academics, an outcome partly attributed to a mentoring system introduced in 2004 and to increased visibility around the issue of women’s public status (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006). The report authors, however, noted union concern that the imminent shift to a performance-based research funding model was likely to compound existing inequalities and urged the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee to provide greater leadership in relation to gender equality. While our study has focused on the experiences of senior women at one university, it points to the ongoing need for wider and more systematic monitoring of human resource processes and outcomes within universities in general. Questions around facilitating factors for promotion, process and work–family spillover could be usefully explored with academic women at a variety of career points, and provide a helpful insight to human resource development practitioners operating in academic contexts.
Footnotes
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Massey University Research Fund.