Women's progression to senior positions in English universities
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450610704498 |
| Published date | 01 November 2006 |
| Pages | 553-572 |
| Date | 01 November 2006 |
| Author | Liz Doherty,Simonetta Manfredi |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Women’s progression to senior
positions in English universities
Liz Doherty
Faculty of Organisation and Management, Sheffield Hallam University,
Sheffield, UK, and
Simonetta Manfredi
Centre for Diversity Policy Research,
Oxford Brookes University Business School, Oxford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to explore the career routes and advancement procedures
for both academic and support staff in English universities and the extent to which these might
constitute barriers to progression.
Design/methodology/approach – The research was conducted in four universities, two pre-1992
universities and two post-1992 universities, based in one region of England. Secondary data were
collected in the form of equality monitoring statistics and documentation relating to the universities’
advancement procedures. Primary data were collected through 26 semi-structured interviews with
senior people involved in decision-making about promotions. These included HR specialists and senior
academics such as Deans, Pro Vice-Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors.
Findings – The research showsthat women are now progressing well to the promoted lecturer grade,
but that their careers stall beyond this level. Women’s less developed research profile is the main
impediment to them gaining professorial status. In “old” universities, the processes used for
progression to some senior academic management roles are obscure and may operate as a form of
indirect discrimination. There is some evidence that women adopt a version of the transformational
leadership style, but it is not clear whether this helps or hinders their career progression. In addition,
women are more reluctant than men to put themselves forward for advancement and they value
work-life balance.
Originality/value – This paper provides new evidence about the operation of advancement
processes in universities. It points to specific areas where university HR processes and equality
monitoring need to be improved. It also contributes to the debate about leadership/management and
the extent to which women adopt a style which is different to that of men.
Keywords Women executives,Gender, Universities, Promotion,Management styles, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This article is based on the findings from a study partly funded by the European Social
Fund which explored the barriers to women’s progression from the middle academi c
and administrative grades to senior management and professorial conferment in
English universities. The article presents the findings from the first phase of the
research which involved a comparison of the advancement procedures and how they
operate in four universities in England (two pre-1992 universities and two post-1992
universities). The broad aim of the research was to understand the career routes and
the advancement processes for both academic and support staff, and the extent to
which these might constitute barriers to progression. The research also explored the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
Women’s
progression to
senior positions
553
Employee Relations
Vol. 28 No. 6, 2006
pp. 553-572
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450610704498
differences and similarities between the behaviour of men and women as they took part
in (or avoided) these processes.
The article opens with a consideration of the “problem” relating to women’s
advancement in terms of their current numerical representation and some of the
existing explanations for this based on previous research. It then moves on to des cribe
the research methods used for the study and to introduce the four universities which
were investigated. Following this the main findings are presented under the headings
of women’s profile and progression, advancement procedures, gender difference s and
similarities and management/leadership style. The implications of the findings are
then discussed and conclusions are reached.
The problem
The UK’s higher education (HE) sector was transformed in 1992 following the
introduction of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act. This Act allowed
polytechnics and some institutions of HE (previously controlled by local education
authorities) to be incorporated as universities. This increased the number of UK
universities from 46 to 112 (Morley, 2002, p. 87). The pre-1992 universities are generally
referred to as “old” universities and the post-1992 universities as “new” universities.
The old universities tend to have a stronger orientation towards research than the new
universities whose main source of income is still from teaching.
Oxford and Cambridge universities epitomise some of the characteristics of elite, old
universities structured around colleges with considerable autonomy. The Hansard
Society described them as “bastions of male power and privilege” in a piece of research
carried out as recently as 1990. As a more general observation, Saunderson (2002)
reminds us that women’s entry to academia has been painfully slow and that as late as
1931 women comprised only 13 per cent of teaching staff. Since then women’s
representation has slowly improved such that they now make up around 34 per cent of
full-time academic posts across the whole sector, but around 38 per cent of all academic
posts when part-timers are included (see Table I).
Most researchers use UK-wide Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
statistics to show women’s share of posts. We used the figures presented by HESA
(2003) in relation to the academic year 2001/2002 for this project and at that time no
figures were produced for support staff. Table I clearly demonstrates that wom en’s
representation diminishes as the grades are climbed.
Some of the best and most in-depth recent analysis of the HESA statistics has been
conducted by Halvorsen (2002). Her figures show that men are promoted more quickly
Male % Female %
Professors 12,000 87 1,810 13
Senior lecturers 18,070 73 6,560 27
Lecturers 28,880 58 21,265 42
Researchers 22,385 55 18,000 45
Other grades 7,860 55 6,310 45
Total 89,195 62 53,945 38
Source: HESA (2003), Table 13
Table I.
All academic staff,
2001-2002
ER
28,6
554
To continue reading
Request your trial