women pioneers as change agents in higher education management

“SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE FIRST”: WOMEN PIONEERS AS CHANGE AGENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT Helen Peterson ABSTRACT Purpose ! The intent of this chapter is to discuss women managers as change agents in higher education. It focuses women’s increased access to senior academic management positions in Swedish higher education and investigates to what extent this increase is accompanied by changes to a masculine management norm. Methodology/approach ! The chapter draws on a study that involved qualitative interviews with 22 women in senior management positions in 10 Swedish higher education institutions. Findings ! The analysis highlights how women managers become agents of change by challenging a masculine management norm in a work setting where men have dominated management positions. The women challenged the masculine management norm by their mere presence as women but also by adopting a different management style. It also

Gender Transformation in the Academy Advances in Gender Research, Volume 19, 395!413 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1529-2126/doi:10.1108/S1529-212620140000019018

395

396

HELEN PETERSON

illustrates the multiple aspects of women’s potential to take on the role as change agent. Social implications ! The results could benefit the development of gender equality strategies and the making of structural changes in organizations dominated by a masculine managerial norm. Originality/value of the chapter ! The study is based on unique empirical material. The interviewees are women pioneers in the Swedish Higher Education Sector, contributing to the demographic feminization of senior academic management positions and the organizational restructuring. Keywords: Women; senior managers; higher education; change agents; Sweden

INTRODUCTION For decades now, gender research and feminist debate has criticized higher education for being an arena where men’s dominance is reproduced through the relationship between science, masculinity, and power (Parsons & Priola, 2013). Academia has been described as permeated by an informal and subtle culture that is “the outcome of generations of masculine ways of thinking” (Knights & Richards, 2003, p. 220). “The authority of science has been male throughout its history” is another way to depict and explain this male-domination (Katila & Merilaïnen, 2002, p. 349). According to Hearn (2001, p. 76), the scholarly ideal is still very much associated with the performance of “white middle-class masculinity” and processes of decision-making are facilitated through committees “of white middle-class male academics.” Consequently, scientific quality and excellence is not objectively defined (Bagilhole & Goode, 2001). Instead, the measuring of merits and the processes of evaluation and assessment privileges males (Krefting, 2003). Policies for recruitment, retention, promotion, and leadership of researchers in higher education often affect career progress of female researchers adversely (European Commission, 2008). The “disrespect of women’s scientific merit” (Kantola, 2008, p. 203) is one key feature that contributes to women’s slow career development in academia. This is why gender balance in decision-making about science policy and among those who determine what constitutes good science is believed to improve the situation for women in academia (Rees, 2002). The underrepresentation of women in decision-making positions in most fields in academia has been highlighted as an area of specific importance to increase

Women Pioneers as Change Agents in Higher Education Management

397

gender equality throughout the higher education sector (European Commission, 2004). Currently, the representation of women in university decision-making bodies is not high enough to guarantee the implementation of a genderbalanced policy (Thomsen, 2008). A small proportion of women in positions such as head of university or head of institution in the Higher Education Sector might also have other indirect negative consequences for women in academia as it: “implies great difficulties for young women in academia to find female role models, and thus to identify with the highest levels of academic life” (European Commission, 2012, p. 114). A greater number of women in academic management is hence supposed to help to ensure “some pockets of change” (Priola, 2007, p. 36). However, previous research grumbles these high expectations attached to women managers’ role as change agents in higher education. It is uncertain to what extent women managers are willing or able to support and promote other women in decisions that affect hiring and promotion and ensure that they are not subject to unfair or biased assessments. These studies point to what is sometimes called “the queen bee syndrome” and highlight that women in top positions do not always support other women’s career aspirations (Duguid, 2011; Ellemers, van den Heuvel, de Gilder, Maass, & Bonvini, 2004). The intent of this chapter is to discuss women managers as change agents in Swedish higher education. I set out to research the impact these women have on the masculine management norm and if and how they challenge this norm. More specifically I address the following research questions: ! To what extent is women’s increased access to senior management positions in Swedish higher education accompanied by institutional and qualitative changes to a masculine management norm? ! To what extent are women in senior management positions in Swedish higher education willing and able to challenge a masculine management norm and undertake activities to promote other women?

PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Transformation of Higher Education Management in higher education constitutes a particularly interesting setting in which to study women managers’ potential to act as change agents

398

HELEN PETERSON

because it has undergone a restructuring the last 20 years involving intensification of administration and increased results-based competition (By, Diefenbach, & Klarner, 2008). Academic and research institutions in most countries are facing similar challenges and are competing for limited financial and personnel resources on global markets (Winter, 2009). To varying degrees in different countries, new legislation for higher education and research have been adopted, introducing more autonomy and increased competition among academic and research institutions, with quality standards in teaching, research and management, and certification procedures introduced as requirements for public support and recognition (Smith & Adams, 2008). These changes have fostered the development of new structures of organization and modes of governance (McRoy & Gibbs, 2009). The educational restructuring presents new challenges and demands on senior and middle managers in higher education to deal with “unprecedented changes, shifts and developments in the structure, systems, strategies, functions, resources and services to the system” (Bosetti & Walker, 2010, pp. 18!19). Introducing performance monitoring measures and systems to evaluate research output, efficiency and quality in an environment permeated by principles of collegiality and employee autonomy is no easy task for management and previous research suggests it might be even more challenging for women than men (McTavish & Miller, 2009; O¨zkanli et al., 2009). In order to handle the restructuring, universities have started to adopt strategic management principles involving profit orientation and finance-driven decision-making that overrides humanitarian concerns (Deem, 2006). This form of new managerialism has been described as an aggressive and competitive top-down management style in keeping with a form of masculinity that poses a threat to women’s participation in academic management while sustaining men’s control and power (Kerfoot & Whitehead, 2000; Leathwood, 2005; White, Carvalho, & Riordan, 2011). However, other researchers have emphasized the need for a different kind of “soft” leadership, a “maternal” management style (Lo´pez Yań˜ez & Sańchez Moreno, 2008, p. 100) and “women-friendly practices” (Goode & Bagilhole, 1998, p. 161) in the restructured university.

Women Managers as Change Agents New demands on a softer approach to management, people skills and a kind of transformative leadership are suggested to promote women as


399

managers (Prichard & Deem, 1999; Young, 2004). Women’s leadership style, presumed to be different from that of men, has also been used as an argument to support the recruitment of women to management positions (Loughlin, Arnold, & Crawford, 2012). The result is that women are recruited to management positions as change agents and are expected to transform the way leadership is performed and to make a positive contribution to organizational decision-making (White et al., 2011). According to some researchers this also means that women are more likely to be recruited to management positions under certain conditions ! in situations of turbulence and problematic organizational circumstances (Brown, Diekman, & Schneider, 2011; Ryan & Haslam, 2005). A number of experimental studies demonstrate that women are preferentially selected for precarious or risky positions because their leadership skills are regarded as useful and valuable in times of crisis and the traits they are expected to possess are believed to prove useful in a struggling company (Bruckmu¨ller & Branscombe, 2010; Ryan, Haslam, & Kulich, 2010; Ryan, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007). Another experimental study demonstrates that gender stereotypes also include beliefs that link women with change and men with stability, which implies that if an organization experiences restructuring female leadership is favored and male leadership disfavored (Brown et al., 2011). However, this line of argument is problematic if it means that women managers “have to carry the burden of proving that they make a (positive) difference” (Hovden, Kvande, & Rasmussen, 2011, p. 409). Women managers are also more specifically linked to changes of gendered structures. Critical mass theory suggests that if the relative number of women increases in an occupation or an organization it will have an effect on the occupational culture and change the symbolic association of the occupation with masculinity (Kanter, 1977). Hence, if more women enter the ranks of senior management the gendered nature of management will be challenged. However, it is unclear whether women managers actually do develop a specific and different feminine, soft, management style or if instead they adopt the masculine style of management (Wajcman, 1998). Rindfleish and Sheridan (2003) found that the majority of the women in their study did not use their role in senior management as a means of challenging gendered structures nor did they see it as their responsibility as managers to address issues of equal opportunity. Other studies focus on the different strategies used by feminist academics to resist a masculine and elitist environment and implement change in their own institution (Parsons & Priola, 2013).

400

HELEN PETERSON

Women in Swedish Higher Education Management The governance and management of the Swedish Higher Education system is regulated in the Higher Education Ordinance. Here it is stipulated that the vice chancellor (VC) title refers to the Head of the Higher Education Institution (HEI), corresponding to the title “Rector” or “President” sometimes used in other national contexts. The majority of the Swedish HEIs are publicly funded government agencies and the vice chancellors are appointed by Government decisions for a six-year period on the basis of a proposal from the board of governors of the HEIs. The VC is member of the board of governors of the HEI. The board of governors, also appointed by the Swedish Government after a proposal by the HEI, has the responsibility for the annual reports, budget documentation, and issues relating to the overall operational focus and organization of the institution. The VC has the responsibility and power to decide over the organization of education and research including nominating professors. The VC leads the institution together with one or more pro vice chancellors (PVCs) that act as deputy to serve instead of the VC when he or she is not on duty. The PVCs are appointed by the board of governors at the HEI. Dean (D) is a title that refers to the management position directly under the VC. The dean is the Head of Faculty/School and is the highest ranking administrator and leader of a collection of departments within a HEI. Most deans have one or more associate deans with different responsibilities, usually referred to as pro deans (PD). The Swedish Higher Education system constitutes a particularly interesting setting in which to study women managers’ potential to act as change agents because it has not only undergone the same restructuring the last 20 years as the sector has in other countries (Barry, Berg, & Chandler, 2006; Czarniawska & Genell, 2002; Ek, Ideland, Jo¨nsson, & Malmberg, 2013). In addition, Swedish higher education management has experienced a demographic feminization (England & Boyer, 2009; Go¨ransson, 2007; Peterson, 2011). The demographic feminization in Swedish higher education management means that the proportion of women in the position of VC has increased from only 14 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in 2010; from 19 to 60 percent in PVC positions; and from 3 to 31 percent in the position of dean (Peterson, 2011). This can be compared to the male-domination that still exists on these positions in other countries. For example, this maledomination is illustrated in She Figures 2012 where the average proportion of female VCs in the 27 EU countries is estimated to be only 10 percent (European Commission, 2012). While being ranked high when it comes to


401

women’s representation in senior management, Sweden has only an average position in a European context when it comes to women professors (European Commission, 2012). The average proportion of women full professors in the 27 EU countries was estimated to 20 percent in 2010 (European Commission, 2012), compared to 22 percent in Swedish higher education in 2011 (Statistics Sweden, 2012). However, that women are now gaining access to senior academic management positions in Sweden to a relatively high degree does not necessarily mean that gender relations in management are also automatically being challenged in a more symbolic way (cf. Priola, 2007). On the contrary, previous research has shown that the number of women in academic management can increase while a masculine norm persists (Leathwood, 2005; Rindfleish & Sheridan, 2003). That academic management in Sweden has been permeated by such a norm is reflected in the way VCs have been described as “lonely and strong leader,” “charismatic,” “magnificent,” and “the Vice Chancellor is king!” (Fahlgren, Noreń, & Sandstro¨m, 2007, pp. 14!17). These descriptions expose the masculine connotation of management and the link between management and masculinity that favors the promotion of men but marginalizes women (cf. Wajcman, 1998). The comparison with kings implies the status, prestige, respect and influence the VC position brings with it. But it also constitutes a management role that is self-evident for a man but not so for a woman. Further, the way women in academic management positions in Sweden have described their own experiences of being marginalized, viewed as “odd” and not taken seriously, also reflect the male norm (Nydahl, 2007, p. 21).

METHODOLOGY AND EMPIRICAL MATERIAL The study draws on qualitative interviews with 22 women in senior management positions in ten Swedish higher education institutions: four VCs, six PVCs, five deans, and seven pro deans. Fifteen of them were professors; five were associate professors and two senior lecturers. Their ages ranged from 44 to 64 and they had between 20 and 30 years experience of working as researchers, lecturers, and managers in the Swedish academia. The selection of interviewees was made with the intention to create a heterogeneous sample with regard to management position and disciplinary field as well as size, age, and geographic location of higher education institution. The interviewees came from different academic disciplines and faculties, some

402

HELEN PETERSON

male-dominated and some quantitatively dominated by women: law, art, medicine, theology, humanities, social sciences, technology, natural sciences, and educational sciences. While all VCs and some PVCs interviewed in this study were appointed to their position for six years on a full time basis the deans and the pro deans had a part-time contract allowing them to continue to do research and teach between 20 and 50 percent of their working time. They were thus manager-academics (Dearlove, 2002). In addition to being academic manager they were supposed to carry out teaching and research functions within their discipline. Only one of the 22 interviewed women stated that she worked a regular 40-hour week. Generally, they estimated their weekly hours of work to be between 50 and 70. Although it is acknowledged that the study has a weakness in that it does not include men, it is argued that the analysis still has validity in addressing how women managers perceive and understand their chances to take on the role as change agents in “gendered academia” (Husu, 2001, p. 94). Interviewing only women in an interview study is in line with previous research on discrimination in the workplace and gender-related issues (Ryan & Haslam, 2007). The study outline was influenced by a number of studies on women in higher education and women in academic management (e.g., Mavin & Bryans, 2002; Toma`s, Lavie, del Mar Duran, & Guillamon, 2010; Wagner & Wodak, 2006; Wyn, Acker, & Richards, 2000). Liisa Husu captures the common point of departure for these types of studies: “Interviewing academic women provides information about the experiences of those who are the main targets of gender discrimination in academia that would probably not be obtained by using most male academics as informants” (Husu, 2001, p. 94). The interviews were performed between February and April 2010. They lasted between 40 and 70 minutes and were semi-structured and fully transcribed. All interviews were conducted in Swedish by the author. The semi-structured character of the interviews enabled attention to be paid to individual differences in the women’s unique narratives. The interviews were a part of an exploratory study investigating women’s increasing participation in senior management in Swedish higher education. The aim of the interviews was to learn more about policies, practices, and processes that produce, reproduce, and change vertical and horizontal gender segregation in higher education. The interviewees were asked to describe their current work situation and their academic careers, to reflect upon the academia as a workplace for women from a more general point of view, and on changes


403

occurring over the past 20 years. They were also encouraged to develop their own ideas and opinions about these issues particularly in relation to the increasing number of women in higher education management. The interview transcripts were analyzed, identifying salient issues, and noting response patterns for each of the questions. A range of techniques such as coding, categorization, and theme formation were used in order to discover similarities and differences in perceptions and experiences (cf. Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Women as change agents was not an a priori theme generated from already agreed on definitions or from the questions in the interview guide. Instead, change was a prominent theme induced from the empirical data. Four significant subthemes related to women, management and change emerged, focusing on women being different: women’s difference as a valuable contribution to the academic context; being different (from the norm) as a professional challenge for women; women challenging the norm; and finally, women taking responsibility to make a difference and act as change agents. The next part of the chapter introduces the findings and analysis focusing on these subthemes in four different sections. The subthemes are illustrated by selected quotes from the interviews that have been translated from Swedish to English by the author.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Women’s Difference as a Valuable Contribution The interviewed women positioned themselves in a context permeated by the restructuring of higher education. According to the informants this was a context that called for a new leadership style: “We need another kind of leadership than 30 years ago” (PD 3). They contrasted how academic management was practiced “today,” and how it ideally should be practiced, in relation to academic management “in the past/before.” The need for a new leadership style was explained with reference to the managerial role becoming less ceremonial and less collegial but more “professionalized” (VC 4), administrative, demanding and intensive: A couple of years ago being a Vice Chancellor just involved signing some papers now and then. The professors minded their own business. Today it’s very different. (D 4)

404

HELEN PETERSON

This transformation of management was interpreted within a gendered framework: the masculine management style was necessarily replaced by a feminine management style: Of course, if you need to have people enter a war and face death you need a leader that says: “Go!” The leader can’t ask: “But how are you feeling now?” then. But that’s a kind of leader that we don’t want anymore. Today it’s all about: “What can you contribute with? What are your strengths?” And I think women are better at that. Typically. Not all women. But typically. (PD 7)

Typically, this was also how the women managers interviewed in this study described their own management style. A pro dean explained that she felt “most comfortable in the role as a coach” because as a manager she put a lot of focus on making sure that the “co-workers feel confirmed and that they are developing”: “Not just telling them ‘do this.’ I don’t need to use authority to lead people” (PD 6). Another pro dean underlined what she considered her strengths as a manager when she was asked about how she thought she came across to her managerial colleagues that were all men (including the dean at her faculty and deans and pro deans at other faculties). She replied that “they appreciate my feminine-side” and explained what that involved: I take a different view on things and think differently. And it’s my way of thinking as a woman. I am able to see the full picture in a way they can’t. […] I contribute to the group as a woman. I communicate in a different manner, talk in a different manner …. (PD 1)

Being a woman manager that managed differently was thus constructed as a position from which women could contribute with important experiences and knowledge in an otherwise male-dominated managerial community. However, the main contribution the women mentioned did not involve their relations to other managers but focused on how they related to the faculty and academic staff. They used language when talking about their management style that included “being supportive” and “see if someone is not feeling well” (PVC 3), “give a lot of encouragement” (VC 2) in order to reduce their stress and pressure, “induce enthusiasm” and “motivate them to find their creativity” (VC 3). These are examples of how women managers consciously and successfully adopt a management style that has been referred to as “feminized” or “maternal” (Leathwood, 2005). Previous research has highlighted how women managers sometimes draw on caring discourses or experiences of motherhood in order to construct a professional identity (Lo´pez Yań˜ez & Sańchez Moreno, 2008). Some of the interviewed women argued explicitly for that “women and men do have different


405

leadership styles” (PD 3) because of their different parental responsibilities and experiences. According to this woman it was important to “recognize that women, at least mothers, are excellent leaders” (PD 3). These are examples of how women academic managers try to implement a leadership style with more “women-friendly practices” involving: “individualized approach to staff development” and “more overt support for workers’ professional endeavors” (Goode & Bagilhole, 1998, p. 161). Difference as a Professional Challenge for Women However, in contrast to these positive stories about how women managers’ difference entails a valuable contribution to how higher education management is practiced and performed, being the first woman in a previously male-dominated management position was described as problematic because of this difference. Some of the women interviewed had experienced being a pioneer as the first woman in a management position on the departmental level, faculty level, or university level. They described the problems they faced: I was the first female Dean and people questioned if it was even possible for a woman to have the title Dean. But no one ever thinks about that anymore. A woman can be a Dean, that’s it. A lot has happened. (D 3)

A woman who was the first female VC at her university described how she encountered a similar problem. According to her, people needed an “adjustment period” in order to “get used to having a woman VC”: After a while it’s easier. It’s not a big deal anymore. It becomes a fact: “This is our Vice Chancellor. She is a woman. OK.” That’s it. I think that when you’ve had one, you get used to it. (VC 4)

She continued to explain more in detail what people had to “get used to.” She challenged expectations to perform as her (male) predecessor and it forced her to struggle to become accepted as a VC who managed differently: “I had to explain: ‘I’m the VC now and you might be used to doing things in another way, but now …’” (VC 4). Another woman who also was the first female VC at her university described how she was “managing differently” and the problems others had with handling this. She confronted her colleagues (both women and men) when, according to her, they started to act “strange” around her. She explained how they had discussed the issue: Apparently they didn’t recognize a woman’s leadership and it made them feel uncomfortable. They didn’t know how to deal with that. I’m very open to discussion and

406

HELEN PETERSON

prefer to listen to others’ opinion and I don’t forcefully instruct people what to do. But they expected me to tell them what to do. They told me I wasn’t like their previous VC. (VC 2)

These experiences are illustrative of how women academic managers enter an organizational culture in which “masculinity is perceived as an integral quality in the achievement of efficient management” (Cole, 2000, p. 204). But this is a perception that can be challenged and changed ! as the interviewees also emphasized.

Women Challenging the Norm The women in senior academic management positions interviewed in this study agreed that when women enter these positions to an increasing degree the previously masculine meaning of management is being challenged. According to the women, the demographic feminization in senior management positions in Swedish academia challenged men as the norm, and perceptions that men were normal in the management positions. The result was a transformation of the symbolic image of academic management: “Today, it’s just as natural to have a female VC as a male one” (PVC 1). For a woman in a management position this meant that she attracted less attention and stood out less: Today, people think that it’s obvious that women can be found in all positions ! it’s different from before. It really has changed. As a woman you don’t feel like you don’t belong. Both women and men can fit in. It’s nothing strange. (PVC 2)

The importance of having a woman VC being superseded by another woman was also emphasized: “When that happens it becomes more and more normal to be a woman in that position. Somehow then you don’t longer notice it so much” (VC 1). These are examples of how the women spoke in a general way about the positive effects of the demographic feminization in senior academic management positions. Being a woman academic manager was understood as easier today than before. A woman academic manager was no longer an exception and therefore more accepted just by way of women’s increased entry into these management positions. None of the interviewed women, for example, describe herself as feeling “odd” (cf. Nydahl, 2007, p. 21) as a woman manager. One of the women was the first woman in a PD position at her faculty and she noted: “Someone needs to be first” (PD 4). This brief expression summarizes the importance of what happens when a woman enters a previously male-dominated position.


407

When that first woman enters, the masculine connotation of that position is challenged and the male norm can be changed. Until that first woman enters such a position “there will always be another male candidate that will be considered as more qualified” (PD 4). That first pioneer woman breaks “the initial level of bias” (D 5) that faces women and prevents them from being considered as potential managers. Demographic feminization in academic management can thus be interpreted as a necessary condition for alternative, non-masculinist management ideologies to develop (cf. Deem, 2003). The pioneer woman had an important role to play as an inspiration for other women: “I do make a change by being a role model” (VC 3). The women suggested a kind of snowball effect following after the first woman in a management position, due to the establishment of a more womenfriendly environment (cf. Cole, 2000): I’ve seen how important role models are. I was the first female doctoral student in my discipline and at my Department but after me followed first one woman, and then another one etcetera. It spreads. One woman breaks the walls and others will follow. (D 4)

Hence, women had reached what could be described as a critical mass in senior academic management. Women had brought about qualitative changes in the gendered symbolic image of senior academic management. According to these women managers their mere presence as women, and being “different” as managers just by being women, was enough to challenge the masculine management ideal and actually bring about change. To what extent did they also intentionally try to bring about changes concerning this aspect? If they did intend to take the role as change agent in this aspect, what means did they use? The Importance of Making a Difference as a Woman The women did agree on that they had special responsibilities being women academic managers. They presented themselves as if they did make a difference and that they intentionally set out to make a difference ! as managers and as women (cf. Wyn et al., 2000). The most fundamental responsibility that the women acknowledged they had as women in academia was to accept taking on management positions if these were offered to them. Most of the women had “never aspired to become a manager” (PD 2) and expressed that “I never considered it before I was asked” (PVC 1). Only one of the 22 interviewed managers had actively considered a management career and was pursuing it as an attractive career option. She was a

408

HELEN PETERSON

career-track manager (cf. Floyd, 2012). Most of the interviewed women accepted the management position only as part of a compulsory system (cf. Inman, 2011). In the higher educational system the managerial role was seen as “a duty” (PD 4) and: “a responsibility we are supposed to share. At one point it’s your turn to take on that responsibility” (D 1). Assuming a management position in higher education was thus not perceived as an attractive career option compared to the research career-track (cf. Dearlove, 2002): “I can’t see myself aspire for an administrative academic career. To become a dean, and then pro vice chancellor and then vice chancellor. No, I’ve never considered that” (PD 3). Notwithstanding, the women explained that they were responsible to take on a managerial role. Even if it was in conflict with their career plans they accepted management positions because they considered themselves as accountable to other women: I think it’s embarrassing, as a woman, to say no. The fact that you’re a woman makes it impossible to say no whether you want it or not because you must support women’s struggle for equality. I’m not a feminist otherwise but if you’re asked you must do it. (D 2)

The responsibility the women acknowledged that they shared because they were women in academia included using the power they had as managers to improve and promote women’s position in academia: If you have a management position you have to take responsibility to promote other women. You have to introduce women to what you do, leave responsibilities to them, delegate to them and congratulate women who are successful. (PVC 4)

In spite of the hesitation some of the women expressed regarding the management career they did emphasize how rewarding they regarded the managerial roles. They appreciated the opportunity to take part in, and influence, the long-term strategic planning of higher education (cf. Floyd, 2012; Inman, 2011; Priola & Brannan, 2009). The interviewed women also expressed several different ways in which they consciously used management techniques in order to disclose, confront, and transform the masculine organizational culture that permeated higher education management practices. The meeting culture was explained as especially problematic because it allowed men to use oppressive strategies to exclude women. One of the PVCs for example explained that the (male) VC sometimes “give more feedback to men” in meetings, something that she confronted him with, explaining that being “very perceptive in meetings” when it came to these things was part of a gender perspective that she explained “I always bring with me” (PVC 6).


409

Trying to change meeting culture was understood as “extremely important” and as a way of “promoting gender equality on a day-to-day basis” (PD 5) especially if being chair in meetings. This included “being perceptive,” “to distribute the word evenly” and “interrupt monologues” (PD 5). The women challenged existing dominant (masculine) styles of doing academic management by, for example, encouraging the use of collaborative and inclusive patterns of seminar talk (cf. Mavin & Bryans, 2002): I think I bring my heart into management more than I believe men do. I give a lot of praise and encouragement. I ask how people feel and I comment if they look tired. I’m very, very perceptive if people are quiet in meetings or if someone is being under attack. I don’t accept people behaving rude in meetings. I bring my heart and my feelings with me in a way that men around me don’t. (PVC 4)

This awareness and perceptiveness was explained with reference to how they themselves had experienced “men’s techniques for domination” (PVC 5). These experiences made it impossible for them not to confront the person who used these techniques and impossible to remain indifferent.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION This study highlights how women managers become agents of change by challenging a masculine management norm in a work setting where the management positions have been numerically dominated by men. It also illustrates the multiple aspects of women’s potential to take on the role as change agent. The women challenged the masculine management norm by their mere presence as women but also by adopting a different management style. In addition, they made a difference not just by adopting an alternative management style but by actively challenging the masculine management norm, thereby staying committed to improving gender awareness. The results from this study nuance the link that previous research has made between the introduction of an aggressive managerialism and the transformation of higher education (cf. Deem, 2006; Kerfoot & Whitehead, 2000; White et al., 2011). The interviewed women managers perceived themselves as agents of change in the changing environment of higher education. According to the women this was an environment that needed a “feminized” management style rather than a masculinized managerialism (cf. Leathwood, 2005). These women emphasized the importance of being “emotional managers” and the affective support function of managers (cf. Tyler, 2005). The women thus argued for that they, as women, brought

410

HELEN PETERSON

new and different values into management. The problem with the “women making a difference”-approach is that is also fosters the “women are different (from the norm)”-approach. This way of arguing in support of women managers is hence not straightforwardly positive for women in that it might create problems with keeping authority as it conflicts with a traditional, established, and familiar (masculine) management ideal (cf. Priola, 2007). However, being different from the norm also means that the norm is challenged. The women described how their difference challenged and changed the masculine norm. The change they contributed with was a consequence of a critical mass of women entering the senior academic positions (Kanter, 1977; Parsons & Priola, 2013). They made a difference as women academic managers and they contributed to increased gender equality in a quantitative manner, but also in a qualitative manner. Just as in the study from Wyn et al. (2000) the women considered themselves as bringing something unique as women in academic management. They thus did not seem to consider it a “burden” having to prove “that they make a (positive) difference” (Hovden et al., 2011, p. 409). Instead, they considered it as their responsibility.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank the women who made this research possible by their participation. The author is indebted to the editors of this volume for their very helpful comments and suggestions. Financial support from Forte: Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 161!180. Barry, J., Berg, E., & Chandler, J. (2006). Academic shape shifting: Gender, management and identities in Sweden and England. Organization, 13(2), 275!298. Bosetti, L., & Walker, K. (2010). Perspectives of UK vice-chancellors on leading universities in a knowledge-based economy. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(1), 4!21. Brown, E., Diekman, A., & Schneider, M. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930!941.


411

Bruckmu¨ller, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 433!451. By, R. T., Diefenbach, T., & Klarner, P. (2008). Getting organizational change right in public services: The case of European higher education. Journal of Change Management, 8(1), 21!35. Cole, P. (2000). Men, women and changing management of further education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(2), 203!215. Czarniawska, B., & Genell, K. (2002). Gone shopping? Universities on their way to the market. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 455!474. Dearlove, J. (2002). A continuing role for academics: The governance of UK universities in the Post-dearing era. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), 257!275. Deem, R. (2003). Gender, organizational cultures and the practices of manager-academics in UK universities. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 239!259. Deem, R. (2006). Changing research perspectives on the higher education: Can research permeate the activities of manager-academics. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(3), 203!228. Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104!115. Ek, A.-C., Ideland, M., Jo¨nsson, S., & Malmberg, C. (2013). The tension between marketisation and academisation in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1305!1318. Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1!24. England, K., & Boyer, K. (2009). Women’s work: The feminization and shifting meanings of clerical work. Journal of Social History, 43(2), 307!340. European Commission. (2004). Gender and excellence in the making. EUR 21222. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission. (2008). Mapping the maze: Getting more women to the top in research. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission. (2012). She figures 2012: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Fahlgren, M., Noreń, K., & Sandstro¨m, B. (2007). Akademiskt ledarskap nu och i framtiden. Fokus pa˚ rektorsrekrytering. Va¨xjo¨: IDAS. Floyd, A. (2012). “Turning points”: The personal and professional circumstances that lead academics to become middle managers. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 40(2), 272–284. Goode, J., & Bagilhole, B. (1998). Gendering the management of change in higher education: A case study. Gender, Work and Organization, 5(3), 148!164. Go¨ransson, A. (2007). Ko¨n, makt och statistik. Beta¨nkande fra˚n utredningen om kvinnor och ma¨n pa˚ maktpositioner i det svenska samha¨llet. SOU 2007:108. Stockholm: Fritzes. Hearn, J. (2001). Academia, management and men: Making the connections, exploring the implications. In A. Brooks & A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Gender and the restructured university. Changing management and culture in higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

412

HELEN PETERSON

Hovden, J., Kvande, E., & Rasmussen, B. (2011). Gender and the production of elites in the Nordic countries: New directions in research. Gender in Management, 26(6), 408!418. Husu, L. (2001). Sexism, support and survival in academia. Academic women and hidden discrimination in Finland. Helsinki: Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki. Inman, M. (2011). The journey to leadership for academics in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 39(2), 228!241. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Kantola, J. (2008). “Why do all the women disappear?” Gendering processes in a political science department. Gender, Work and Organization, 15(2), 202!225. Katila, S., & Merilaïnen, S. (2002). Metamorphosis: From “nice girls” to “nice bitches”: Resisting patriarchal articulations of professional identity. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(3), 336!354. Kerfoot, D., & Whitehead, S. (2000). Keeping all the balls in the air: Further education and the masculine/managerial subject. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(2), 183!201. Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 213!238. Krefting, L. A. (2003). Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: Evidence from academic employment in the USA. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 260!278. Leathwood, C. (2005). “Treat me as a human being ! don’t look at me as a woman”: Femininities and professional identities in further education. Gender and Education, 17(4), 387!409. Lo´pez Yań˜ez, J., & Sańchez Moreno, M. (2008). Women leaders as agents of change in higher education organizations. Gender in Management, 23(2), 86!102. Loughlin, C., Arnold, K., & Crawford, J. B. (2012). Lost opportunity: Is transformational leadership accurately recognized and rewarded in all managers? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 31(1), 43!64. Mavin, S., & Bryans, P. (2002). Academic women in the UK: Mainstreaming our experiences and networking for action. Gender and Education, 14(3), 235!250. McRoy, I., & Gibbs, P. (2009). Leading change in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(5), 687!704. McTavish, D., & Miller, K. (2009). Management, leadership and gender representation in UK higher and further education. Gender in Management, 24(3), 178!194. Nydahl, E. (2007). Utan en obstinat gen hade jag inte fo¨rso¨kt. Intervjuer med 62 framga˚ngsrika kvinnor inom universitet och ho¨gskola. Va¨xjo¨: IDAS. O¨zkanli, O¨., de Lourdes Machado, M., White, K., O’Connor, P., Riordan, S., & Neale, J. (2009). Gender and management in HEIs: Changing organisational and management structures. Tertiary Education and Management, 15(3), 241!257. Parsons, E., & Priola, V. (2013). Agents for change and changed agents: The micro-politics of change and feminism in the academy. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(5), 580!598. Peterson, H. (2011). The gender mix policy: Addressing gender inequality in higher education management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(6), 619!628. Prichard, C., & Deem, R. (1999). Wo-managing further education: Gender and the construction of the manager in the corporate colleges of England. Gender and Education, 11(3), 323!342. Priola, V. (2007). Being female doing gender: Narratives of women in education management. Gender and Education, 19(1), 21!40.


413

Priola, V., & Brannan, M. J. (2009). Between a rock and a hard place: Exploring women’s experience of participation and progress in managerial careers. Equal Opportunities International, 28(5), 378!397. Rees, T. (2002). National policies on women and science in Europe 2002. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Rindfleish, J., & Sheridan, A. (2003). No change from within: Senior women managers’ response to gendered organizational structures. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 299!310. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, R. H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85!109. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are overrepresented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81!90. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamic surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549!572. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 56!64. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2), 182!197. Smith, D., & Adams, J. (2008). Academic or executives? Continuity and change in the role of pro-vice-chancellors. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 340!357. Statistics Sweden. (2012). Women and men in Sweden: Facts and figures 2012. Stockholm: SCB. Thomsen, B. (2008). Report on women and science. European Parliament: Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Toma`s, M., Lavie, J. M., del Mar Duran, M., & Guillamon, C. (2010). Women in academic administration at the university. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(4), 487!498. Tyler, M. (2005). Women in change management: Simone De Beauvoir and the co-option of women’s otherness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(6), 561!577. Wagner, I., & Wodak, R. (2006). Performing success: Identifying strategies of self-presentation in women’s biographical narratives. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 385!411. Wajcman, J. (1998). Managing like a man. Women and men in corporate management. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. White, K., Carvalho, T., & Riordan, S. (2011). Gender, power and managerialism in universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2), 179!188. Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121!131. Wyn, J., Acker, S., & Richards, E. (2000). Making a difference: Women in management in Australian and Canadian faculties of education. Gender and Education, 12(4), 435!447. Young, P. (2004). Leadership and gender in higher education: A case study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(1), 96!106.