Abstract
Sweden is among the countries with the highest per cent of women university Vice Chancellors in Europe. In She Figures 2012 the average proportion of female Vice Chancellors in the 27 European Union countries is estimated to be 10 per cent. In Sweden the number is much higher: 43 per cent. Swedish higher education management has witnessed a demographic feminization during the last 20 years. Which factors can explain that women have been so successful in gaining access to these senior management positions in Swedish academia? This paper discusses the demographic feminization, drawing on qualitative interviews with women in senior academic positions in Swedish higher education. The paper suggests that women’s position in higher education management can be analysed using the concept “glass cliff”. This metaphor describes a phenomenon when women are more likely to be appointed to precarious leadership roles in situations of turbulence and problematic organizational circumstances. The findings illustrate that women have been allowed to enter into senior academic management at the same time as these positions decline in status, merit and prestige and become more time-consuming and harder to combine with a successful scholarly career.
Introduction
Despite ambitious policies to promote gender equality, the Swedish higher education sector is characterized by the same leaky pipeline phenomenon as other European Union (EU) countries (Blickenstaff, 2005). Although as many women as men get a doctoral degree at Swedish universities, only 22 per cent of the professors were women in 2011 (Statistics Sweden, 2012). A recent study, examining whether women’s chances of achieving a professorship in Swedish academia changes over time, concludes that career opportunities for women are not improving but still “as bleak today as they were 20 years ago” (Danell and Hjerm, 2013: 1005). Nonetheless, one area in which women have been successful in Swedish academia is senior management. A cross-cultural project of women in higher education management in Europe, Africa and Oceania presents Sweden as “exceptional in having higher percentages of women at all levels in senior management” (Özkanli et al., 2009: 245). Sweden has the highest per cent of female university Vice Chancellors in Europe. In 2010, 43 per cent of Swedish Vice Chancellors were women compared to an average of 10 per cent in the 27 EU countries (European Commission, 2012). The proportion of women in other senior management positions, such as Pro Vice Chancellor (60 per cent), Dean (31 per cent) and Pro Dean (45 per cent), is also high in Swedish higher education (Peterson, 2011).
The current high proportion of women in Swedish academic management reflects a demographic feminization process, that is, the numerical turn when the gender composition of an occupation or a position switches from being male-dominated to allowing women to reach about a third or more in an organization (Bolton and Muzio, 2008). In 1990 Swedish senior academic management was male-dominated, with only 14 per cent of the Vice Chancellors being women, while 19 per cent of the Pro Vice Chancellors and 3 per cent of the Deans were women (Peterson, 2011). This demographic feminization has been attributed to several different factors: political pressure in the form of goals and policies, quantitative target agreements concerning women’s representation in academia, top-level commitment to gender equality goals and a national network supporting, promoting and encouraging women aspiring to become managers in higher education (Swedish Delegation for Gender Equality in Higher Education, 2011).
This article does not seek to explain all the causal mechanisms behind the demographic feminization in Swedish higher education. Instead, the article examines the context surrounding women’s participation in academic management and the nature of the positions they are elected to, by drawing on interviews with 22 women academic managers. More specifically, the article addresses the following research question: Why are women strongly represented in academic management positions in Sweden, as reported by the women managers themselves? In order to problematize the demographic feminization the article develops an analysis using the concept “glass cliff”, developed by British researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam (2005).
The article is structured in four sections. The next section outlines the conceptual framework of the article with a brief overview of previous research on the “glass cliff”. After that the methodological considerations that guided the interview study and the analysis of the empirical data are presented. The subsequent section presents the findings, drawing on semi-structured interviews with women managers in Swedish higher education. The article concludes with a discussion of the most relevant results, an explanation of some implications that can be derived from them and proposals for future lines of research.
Empirical and theoretical framework
The fact that women have increased in number in senior management positions can be interpreted as an example of how women are breaking the so-called “glass ceiling” in Swedish academia (cf. Gunluk-Senesen, 2009). However, international studies on demographic feminization processes suggest that the increasing proportion of female academic managers does not prove that women have achieved parity with men (cf. e.g. Leathwood, 2005; Rindfleish and Sheridan, 2003). Instead, feminization often occurs under turbulent conditions with economic, cultural and political restructuring and denotes a situation in which work discursively becomes marked as “women’s work” at the same time as it is transformed into a less prestigious work, with limited opportunities for advancement and weakened job security (England and Boyer, 2009).
Previous research on demographic feminization in management shows that it is the less prestigious areas of management that are being feminized (Broadbridge and Hearn, 2008). Women dominate in human resources (HR)/personnel functions traditionally associated with allegedly female skills and qualities, such as communication, cooperation, organization and emotional support (Bolton and Muzio, 2008). Farzana Shain’s study of managers in the British further education sector indicates that women are recruited to do the “dirty job” of middle management (Shain, 2000). Deem et al. (2000) draw a similar conclusion – that women in British further education are recruited to “carry the burden” of organizational change. They link the feminization of management to changes in both the nature of the core activities being managed as well as the rewards and the conditions associated with management posts themselves – changes that entail decline in status and a de-skilling of management work (Deem et al., 2000). Demographic feminization of academic management is thus supposedly multifaceted and complex to interpret (cf. Airini et al., 2011).
The theory about “glass cliffs” offers a new approach to gender and management and assists new understandings of some of these complex factors that influence women’s representation in management positions. The glass cliff metaphor is used to denote situations when women are appointed to management positions under circumstances different from those of men – in times of organizational crisis when a company faces dramatic reduction in financial and/or reputational well-being (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Taking on leadership roles during these circumstances is associated with an increased risk of negative consequences and the glass cliff metaphor is meant to evoke the dangers of falling from the heights of leadership (Ryan et al., 2010). Empirical research examining the top 100 companies on the London Stock Exchange shows that women are more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions when companies experience declining stock performance (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). Other studies have illustrated the existence of a glass cliff phenomenon in the UK private IT sector (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2006), in the legal profession (Ryan and Haslam, 2007) and in the political realm in the UK (Ryan et al., 2010). In the political arena the definition of glass cliff refers to the fact that women contested seats significantly less winnable than those in which men ran in the UK general election 2005 (Ryan et al., 2010). The glass cliff in the legal profession refers to a pattern that women are assigned more troublesome and less lucrative cases than men (Ryan and Haslam, 2006). Thus, glass cliff positions can be found outside of the business realm and are not necessarily linked to organizational downturn or financial poor performance in a company. Glass cliffs can manifest themselves in multiple ways, but the common denominator that defines the phenomenon is the interrelated notions of precariousness and risk (Ryan and Haslam, 2005).
The processes underlying glass cliff appointments have not all been disentangled. Being a multiple-determined phenomenon, a number of factors are likely to contribute to glass cliff appointments (Ryan et al., 2007). Studies show that women themselves favour explanations to the glass cliff phenomenon involving sexism and the desire to set women up for failure (Haslam and Ryan, 2008). Men on the other hand are less likely to acknowledge the existence of a glass cliff phenomenon at all (Ryan et al., 2007). Besides sexism in the workplace, the appointment of women to glass cliff positions is probably explained by gender stereotypes and expected gender differences (Ryan et al., 2010). Women’s leadership styles are presumed to be different from those of men and based on traditional feminine traits, such as being intuitive, collaborative, empathetic and understanding (Loughlin et al., 2012). A number of experimental studies demonstrate that women are preferentially selected to precarious or risky positions because their leadership skills are regarded as valuable in times of crisis and the traits they are expected to possess are believed to prove useful in a struggling company (Bruckmüller and Branscombe, 2010; Ryan et al., 2007, 2010). Another experimental study illustrates that gender stereotypes also include beliefs that link women with change and men with stability, which implies that if an organization experiences threats such as profit falls and job cuts and needs a change in order to cope, female leadership is favoured and male leadership disfavoured (Brown et al., 2011). The appointment of women managers can thus signal that an organization is innovative and progressive if women are associated with new types of leadership (Eagly and Carli, 2003).
The problem with glass cliff appointments is that they come with an increased risk of failure and the leader being held accountable and blamed for negative events (Ryan and Haslam, 2006). Glass cliff appointments also tend to involve less authority, to be less likely to lead on to more senior appointments, offer less material rewards and be less valued in the organization. Another problem is that glass cliff appointments are particularly stressful for women and involve more interpersonal conflict (Haslam and Ryan, 2008).
Carrying out research on glass cliff appointments entails shifting the focus from the abilities of female leaders to the types of leadership positions women achieve (cf. Ryan et al., 2007). Exploring whether women in Swedish higher education management confront a glass cliff involves investigating the context surrounding women’s participation in academic management and the nature of the positions they are elected to – that is, understanding when glass cliffs occur (cf. Ryan and Haslam, 2006). In addition, this study provides an opportunity to investigate why glass cliffs occur, as it identifies factors that women themselves consider responsible for the glass cliff phenomenon (cf. Ryan et al., 2007). This article addresses the call for research on how women make sense of the glass cliff phenomenon and whether women themselves see glass cliff appointments as a form of discrimination or as an opportunity to achieve (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2006).
Methodology and empirical material
The article draws on qualitative interviews with 22 women in senior management positions in 10 Swedish higher education institutions: four Vice Chancellors, six Pro Vice Chancellors, 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 concerning women’s senior management position, higher education institution (taking into consideration if the institution was large or small, old or new and geographical location) and disciplinary field. The interviewed women came from different academic disciplines and faculties, some male-dominated and some quantitatively dominated by women: law, art, medicine, theology, humanities, social sciences, technology, natural sciences and educational sciences.
The interviews were performed between February and April 2010. They lasted between 40 and 70 minutes and were semi-structured and fully transcribed. The semi-structured character of the interviews enabled attention to be paid to individual differences in the women’s unique career narratives. The interviews were 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 how these women experienced senior management in higher education, focusing especially on recruitment to senior positions, management skills and gender relations. The interviewees were asked to describe their current work situation and their academic career, to reflect upon academia as a workplace for women from a more general point of view, and changes occurring over the past 20 years. They were also encouraged to develop ideas about how the increase of women impacted on management culture, styles of management and leadership ideals in higher education.
This is an intentionally female-specific study dealing with how academic women perceive and understand their experiences of a glass cliff in “gendered academia” (Husu, 2001: 94). Placing the emphasis on the importance of experiences, and particularly women’s experiences, is in line with feminist principles about researching discrimination in the workplace and gender-related issues (Bryans and Mavin, 2003; Ryan and Haslam, 2007). The study outline was influenced by a number of different studies on women in higher education and women in academic management (e.g. Airini et al., 2011; Mavin and Bryans, 2002; Priola and Brannan, 2009; Tomàs et al., 2010; Wyn et al., 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: 94).
The interview transcriptions were analysed, 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 (Ryan and Bernard, 2003). The coding process involved consulting research literature and presenting work in progress to colleagues on a regular basis in order to develop and adjust categories and ensure consistency and trustworthiness of the analysis.
In contrast to previous research on the glass cliff, the interviewees were not presented with theories about the glass cliff or asked to react to these theories (cf. e.g. Ryan et al., 2007). The glass cliff was thus not an a priori theme generated from already agreed on definitions or from the questions in the interview guide. Instead, the glass cliff emerged as a prominent theme induced from the empirical data (cf. Ryan and Bernard, 2003). The following section presents the results concerning the glass cliff theme, focusing on two subthemes: when and why glass cliffs emerge (cf. Bruckmüller and Branscombe, 2010).
Results and analysis
Academic manager: a precarious leadership position?
The glass cliff analysis in this article starts off with examining the context in which the interviewees had achieved management positions in the Swedish higher education, that is, trying to understand when glass cliffs occur (cf. Ryan and Haslam, 2009). This part of the analysis involves identifying precariousness and risk in higher education management.
From primus inter pares…
The participants situated themselves as academic managers in a context permeated by increased results-based competition between higher education institutions on national and international student recruitment markets (cf. Barry et al., 2006; Ek et al., 2011). As a consequence of this competition, Swedish universities were described as being transformed in a “radical” way from being “arenas for individual researchers” to “hierarchical corporations” (Pro Vice Chancellor 1). This transformation resulted in a new managerial role and new skills requirements for senior academic managers: “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” (Dean 4).
A new kind of management was called for: “Today it’s much more about management. 20 years ago the manager was very much a bureaucrat that signed papers” (Pro Vice Chancellor 1). The informants thus contrasted how academic management was practised “today”, and how it ideally should be practised, in relation to academic management “in the past/before”. The past was depicted as something that needed to be overcome to facilitate a necessary shift of higher education institutions towards becoming modern organizations (cf. Hotho, 2013; McRoy and Gibbs, 2009).
One of the Vice Chancellors described academic management as being transformed into becoming more “professionalized” (Vice Chancellor 4), referring to a distinct separation of the managerial role from the academic role (cf. Teelken, 2012). This was a new way of thinking: “Earlier the best researcher was supposed to be the manager due to the logic ‘if you are good at something you are probably good at something else’” (Dean 5). Traditionally, academic managers are elected by members of the faculty, often based on scholarly reputation rather than leadership skills (cf. Winter, 2009). Hence, it was the established academic reputation as a researcher that was important for the manager. However, being appointed to a senior management position was no longer something that signalled scholarly excellence and that the academic manager was primus inter pares (first among equals), as before (cf. Berdrow, 2010): We need another kind of leadership than 30 years ago. Before, these positions have been distributed between professors according to years of service: “It’s your turn now”. Today, these positions require completely different work efforts and skills. (Pro Dean 3)
…to academic administrator
Instead, the recruitment of senior managers involved considering the candidates’ administrative skills, because the administrative duties for academic managers had increased during the past 20 years (cf. Ek et al., 2011). The need for a new leadership style was explained with reference to the managerial role becoming less ceremonial and collegial but more administrative, demanding and intensive: The management positions are very different today. It’s not a compulsory system with positions involving signing some papers now and then. You have to make a large number of decisions and you have to be very involved. (Vice Chancellor 2)
A Pro Dean with 30 years of experience of academic work described the changes she had witnessed: “The administrative workload for a Pro Dean is really much heavier compared to before” (Pro Dean 1). The situation with increasing “extreme competitiveness” (Dean 4) between higher education institutions regarding external funding meant that higher education institutions were “evaluated and assessed” and had to document how successful they were in reaching teaching and research targets, in order to stay competitive (Pro Dean 3). Ranking factors, performance monitoring measures, quality indicators, systems to evaluate effectiveness and procedures of self-assessment for teachers and researchers resulted in an increasing administrative burden for the academic managers (cf. Czarniawska and Genell, 2002). The context in which they situated themselves as academic managers was hence described in line with the critical discourse about new managerialism that has permeated universities throughout Europe (cf. Teelken, 2012).
Increasing workload
The transformation of the managerial role resulted in a problematic work situation for the academic managers. The participants described a work situation where they were often overburdened with the large number of tasks that they were required to manage. One of the Deans explained that for her predecessor being a Dean was a “routine job” (Dean 2). She compared it with the situation today: “The workload for both Dean and Pro Dean has increased tremendously” (Dean 2). One of the Pro Vice Chancellors had worked in academic management positions for 10 years and described an “increase in tempo” and that “the pace is faster” and “the demands are higher” (Pro Vice Chancellor 6). The work demanded attending “meetings more than 40 hours every week” (Pro Vice Chancellor 6) with committees, boards and different groups working on “new policy proposals”, “following up annual reports”, “making strategic decisions” and “producing an enormous amount of paper” (Dean 3).
The stresses and strains experienced by academics in these positions were described as considerable (cf. Barry et al., 2006). Virtually all of the managers described extended working hours and feelings of pressure. Only one of the 22 interviewees stated that she worked a regular full-time week (i.e. 40 hours). Generally, they estimated their weekly hours of work to be between 50 and 70. Answering the question how much she worked each week a Vice Chancellor exclaimed: “Oh! All the time! I don’t know. Fortunately I don’t count but…well…an enormous lot of hours” (Vice Chancellor 4). These are the women’s subjective assessments of their workload and of how they tried to balance their multiple and diverse responsibilities (cf. Shain, 2000). Here, “workload” really connotes burden or weight (cf. Wolf, 2010). The long hours qualifies academic management to be labelled as a so-called “extreme job” (Burke and Fiksenbaum, 2009). The descriptions of the heavy workload are in accordance with previous research on the trend towards new managerialism in higher education and increased competitiveness, control and performance measurement (Ek et al., 2011; Teelken, 2012).
Role conflict
The managers struggled with more than the administrative workload. Senior management positions in Swedish higher education are rotating, temporary and often part-time jobs rather than permanent, full-time positions. While the four Vice Chancellors interviewed were appointed to their position for three or six years on a full-time basis, some of the Pro Vice Chancellors, all of the Deans and all of the Pro Deans had a temporary part-time contract as academic managers. They were so-called manager-academics (Deem, 2006), that is, academics that take on a managerial role, often as a temporary part-time job in addition to their activities of teaching and research. This means that in addition to being an academic manager, they were supposed to carry out the other core academic work tasks – that is, they had assumed management roles in addition to their teaching and research responsibilities. Their individual contracts prescribed teaching and research functions within their discipline between 50 and 20 per cent of their working time.
Handling the combination of the management role and the professional scholastic role proved to be challenging for the women, who expressed what can be interpreted as professional role conflicts (cf. Wolverton et al., 1999): “I’m supposed to have time for research but it’s really not possible. It’s quite difficult actually” (Dean 2). Due to the character of management work, taking the shape of “an awful lot of meetings” (Pro Dean 6), it was the academic work and the research tasks that was cut out from their busy schedule when time was scarce: “It’s difficult to find time to do research” (Pro Dean 1). One of the interviewees was a Pro Vice Chancellor on 50 per cent and was expected to do research 50 per cent of her working hours. However, she explained how problematic it was because of the workload as an academic manager: “It’s not unusual for me to have meetings from 8 am until 6 pm. It’s not unusual” (Pro Vice Chancellor 2). Consequently, to work more than 40 hours each week became their only possibility to find time to do research. A Pro Dean explained: “I do more or less all my research during weekends, nights and holidays” (Pro Dean 4).
The role conflict was described as an inherent part of the manager position. It was understood as important for a manager to keep up a relatively active research profile. One of the Deans stated that: “I probably work 60 hours per week” (Dean 3). She explained why she felt it necessary to work these long hours: I’m supposed to be a Dean on 80 per cent and a researcher on 20 per cent but in reality I’m a Dean on 100 per cent. But I need to keep up my research because I’m only a Dean for 3 years and I need something to go back to. (Dean 3)
Even if academic management is becoming more professionalized and recognized as a separate career track, it still has a temporary character (cf. Teelken, 2012). Because of the competitive environment it was necessary to continuously produce new research and not rely on old accomplishments. A Pro Vice Chancellor explained how she reflected upon the conflicting roles: “I don’t want to give up research because it’s very difficult to go back [to research]” (Pro Vice Chancellor 2).
The role conflict was also linked to the academics’ professional identities and their commitment to their disciplines (cf. Floyd, 2012; Inman, 2011; Winter, 2009). A Vice Chancellor explained: “I’m a researcher and a teacher. That’s my profession. My whole professional identity is linked to it and it would be terribly difficult to let go” (Vice Chancellor 1). This professional identity made some of the participants hesitate to accept another management position in the future because it “involves giving up research” (Pro Vice Chancellor 1).
Loss of prestige and status
Besides the role conflict, the low status of higher education management was another reason for hesitating to accept a management position because of any other reason than obligation: “It doesn’t have any scholarly merit. It’s a lot of hard work and a lot of responsibility” (Dean 3). The heavy workload, the long hours and the role conflict resulted in diminishing status and prestige for the managerial roles in academia (cf. Deem et al., 2000; McTavish and Miller, 2009). All informants agreed that the prestige linked to senior management positions in academia was decreasing: “To have the position Pro Dean, Head of Department or even Dean is not a merit in academia. And it doesn’t influence the pay very much” (Pro Dean 4). Getting academics into management positions throughout higher education has been described as of pivotal importance, but also as an increasing problem for higher education institutions (Floyd, 2012). One of the participants commented on the difficulties with recruiting managers in academia: “It’s so much hard work and it influences your career as researcher negatively. It has become such a drudgery that no one wants to do it” (Pro Dean 7).
Only one of the 22 interviewed managers had actively considered a management career and was pursuing it as an attractive career option. Most of them had “never aspired to become a manager” (Pro Dean 2) before they were asked to take on that responsibility. Assuming a management position in higher education was 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” (Pro Dean 3). A Pro Vice Chancellor explained about her position: “It’s a very exposed position and it’s difficult to combine with private life. I never considered it before I was asked” (Pro Vice Chancellor 1).
To sum up, the context in which the informants were appointed to senior managers was characterized by difficult and problematic organizational circumstances. Previous research has described the challenges facing academic managers in terms of “extraordinarily complex issues and dilemmas” and the context as permeated by “unprecedented changes, shifts and developments in the structure, systems, strategies, functions, resources and services to the system” (Bosetti and Walker, 2010: 18–19). The interviewees used similar rhetoric to refer to the higher education context. This is a context where glass cliff appointments are likely to appear (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). In line with previous research on glass cliffs, the participants described senior management positions as both precarious and risky. Academic management was thus presented as an unattractive career choice and a professional challenge.
Academic manager: women’s work?
Turning now to the why of glass cliff appointments, the article continues with investigating the range of factors that the women themselves regarded as responsible for their appointments. This part of the analysis involves identifying both pernicious and benign explanations to women’s increasing representation in the precarious senior management positions (cf. Ryan et al., 2007).
Demonstrating equality
The informants referred to several benign explanations to account for women’s increasing representation in academic management. One of the most recurring explanations suggested that the appointments of women were the result of academic decision makers implementing gender equality policies and succumbing to external pressure to promote women (cf. Airini et al., 2011). Answering the question about what had qualified her to become a Pro Dean, one of the interviewees referred to herself as a: “quota-bitch”: I’m a “quota-bitch”. I’m sure that I would never have become a Pro Dean if not the Vice Chancellor had said: “You have a male Dean so now you must have a female Pro Dean”. […] Without such a policy there will always be a male applicant considered more qualified. (Pro Dean 4)
She here referred to the “think manager-think male” paradigm that portrays men as self-evident as managers but presents an obstacle for women to attain senior management positions (Ryan et al., 2011). Gender equality policies, prescribing an equal representation of women and men in management positions, were understood as efficient tools to increase the number of women in positions that would otherwise be preserved for men (cf. Peterson, 2011). A Pro Dean shared her experiences of the role gender played in the election of a new Vice Chancellor at her university: I know that they said: “We want a woman as our next Vice Chancellor”. They didn’t want a woman at every cost because other qualifications were important too, but I know that they wanted a woman as Vice Chancellor. (Pro Dean 6)
A Dean described the process when she was elected in a similar manner, emphasizing how being a woman was expressed as an important selection criteria when the candidates were evaluated: It was a pronounced wish that they wanted a woman this time. I know it was a criterion for the election committee. They thought it was about time. If it was possible it was a great advantage. That’s how I experienced it. They asked another woman first but she said no. (Dean 5)
It is beyond the scope of this study to draw any conclusions regarding why the typical preference for male leaders was reversed in these cases. The women interviewed seemed to imply that pressure from public opinion and political forces had induced the election of women to management positions. However, it is also likely that women were perceived to provide a “breath of fresh air” to the academic management positions and even perhaps bring new ideas to the table (cf. Brown et al., 2011).
Gender stereotypes
This study cannot verify that the motivations of decision makers to recruit women included beliefs about female leaders doing things differently. However, the notion that women bring something different into academic management was echoed by the women themselves (cf. Bagilhole and White, 2008). They interpreted the transformation of academic management within a gendered framework: the masculine management style was necessarily being replaced by a feminine management style. They described the new management ideal in academia as reflecting the belief that women were more suitable than men to lead: Of course, if you need people to 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. (Pro Dean 7)
Typically, but not exclusively, this was how the managers interviewed in this study chose to describe 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: “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” (Pro Dean 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 who were all men. 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. (Pro Dean 1)
Being a woman manager that managed differently was thus constructed as a position from which women could contribute with important experiences and knowledge (cf. Eagly and Carli, 2003). However, the main contribution the interviewees mentioned did not involve their relations to other managers but instead focused on how they related to the faculty and academic staff. They used a language when talking about their management style that included expressions such as “being supportive and see if someone is not feeling well” (Pro Vice Chancellor 3), “give a lot of encouragement” (Vice Chancellor 2) in order to reduce their stress and pressure, “induce enthusiasm” and “motivate them to find their creativity” (Vice Chancellor 3). These are examples of how women managers adopt a management style that has been referred to as transformational but also “feminized” or “maternal” (cf. Leathwood, 2005; Loughlin et al., 2012).
Men’s privilege to turn down positions
Ryan et al. (2007) identify several pernicious explanations for glass cliff appointments, one of which they call “ingroup favouritism”. This explanation refers to the discriminatory practice when more attractive positions are reserved for men while the unattractive ones are given to women. Some of the managers interviewed in this study argued in a similar way and concluded that the declining status and prestige of academic management positions meant that men would continue to retreat from these positions. What they described is a specific case of feminization when jobs become associated with women while simultaneously being de-skilled and undervalued, leading to a degrading of prestige (cf. Bolton and Muzio, 2008). A Pro Dean explained the increase of women in senior management with reference to the decreasing attractiveness of management positions: “Some of the men that would be next in line for a management position might not be interested in it anymore. Because it’s too much hard work” (Pro Dean 3). One of the interviewees also touched upon the link between the workload for managers and the number of women in the management position: “A management role is easily transformed into a servant role. Especially if many women hold the position” (Pro Dean 2). She continued to explain: The academic management positions will follow the same pattern as we see everywhere. When women reach over 50 per cent the positions will lose all prestige. And then even more women will be allowed to enter. (Pro Dean 2)
The same trend, that men now abandon these academic positions, was highlighted by one of the Deans: Does this mirror that academic work has low status? It could be the case. That there is a feminization because it’s not worth anything anymore. There can be reasons for concerns about this. (Dean 2)
From this it follows that it is possible that men will be less interested in academic management positions and instead more focused on teaching and research – the “real” business of the university (cf. Bosetti and Walker, 2010). Abandoning the managerial positions in order not having to deal with the administrative workload reflects the attitude that such work tasks are: “best left to the donkeys, so that the stars can get on with their research” (Dearlove, 2002: 270).
Lack of opportunities or taking the opportunity
Why did the women accept these precarious management positions? Ryan et al. (2007) suggest that one explanation as to why women accept precarious management positions is that they have less opportunity than men to be offered more stable ones. In line with this, the interviewees expressed how much they appreciated the opportunity to take part in, and influence, the long-term strategic planning of higher education (cf. Floyd, 2012; Inman, 2011). However, the analysis also adds another gendered dimension to why women accept glass cliff appointments. According to the participants, they had special responsibilities being women in academia. They stated that they made 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 participants acknowledged they had as women in academia was to accept taking on management positions if these were offered to them. Even if it conflicted with their career aspirations as researchers, 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. (Dean 2)
Women’s responsibilities 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. (Pro Vice Chancellor 4)
The interviewed women 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. In particular, the meeting culture was explained to be problematic because it allowed men to use oppressive strategies to exclude women. A Pro Vice Chancellor for example explained that “the Vice Chancellor will sometimes give more feedback to men” in meetings, something that she confronted him with (Pro Vice Chancellor 6).
To sum up, the analysis reflects why these women accepted the management positions and their awareness of the glass cliff phenomenon. Previous research has highlighted how academics accept precarious management positions out of a sense of duty and obligation and with reference to academic collegiality (Hotho, 2013; Tomàs et al., 2010). In this study, the women accepted the management positions out of a sense of duty to their gender. Rather than emphasizing women’s lack of career opportunities (cf. Ryan et al., 2007), the interviewees stressed that glass cliff appointments provided them with a special opportunity to contribute to change affecting their own locus (Faculty/School and University) and gendered norms regards management.
Concluding discussion
This article makes several theoretical and empirical contributions. Firstly, it adds to previous research on gender and academic management by being the first study that builds on the theoretical concept of the glass cliff, although some previous qualitative results have indicated the existence of this phenomenon also in higher education (cf. e.g. Bagilhole and White, 2008; Deem et al., 2000; Shain, 2000). Secondly, the article also makes a contribution to previous research on the glass cliff by investigating whether the glass cliff phenomenon extends outside the boardroom and into the academic management arena (cf. Ryan and Haslam, 2005, 2007). Finally, the contribution also concerns the empirical field investigated. Higher education management is a relatively under-researched area in Sweden. There is an absence both of general work on management in higher education and a particular absence of work on gender and higher education management. This study was conducted in response to this identified need for further research in this area.
The analysis demonstrates the existence of the glass cliff phenomenon in the Swedish higher education sector. Women’s increased access to senior management positions was accompanied by management work becoming an administrative, undervalued, low status job, less associated with men. The work situation for senior academic managers was described as shaped by a number of challenges that affected the attractiveness of the managerial positions negatively and discouraged academics from taking on managerial tasks. When academic management positions become more and more difficult to combine with a successful scholarly career, these positions become less and less attractive and with dubious status. Studying glass cliff appointments in the higher education setting thus reveals new insights to when the glass cliff appears. The article contributes by extending the definition of glass cliff appointments to include management positions undergoing a loss of prestige and status – from previously being attached with the status of “King” to a current role description as “servant” (cf. Berdrow, 2010). Consequently, although women appear to break the glass ceiling this is not sufficient to claim that gender relations are not still structuring senior academic management (cf. Neale and Özkanli, 2010).
The article also contributes to the theoretical development of the glass cliff concept, as it brings new insights to why some women choose to accept glass cliff appointments. As stated by the women interviewed in this study, these positions can empower women and can be used as a platform to empower other women in academia. However, this study can only present a preliminary investigation of why women are appointed to glass cliff appointments in Swedish academia because it does not include an analysis of appointment decisions and what recruitment boards base their judgements on (cf. Grummell et al., 2009). Then again, the aim of this article is not to explain why the recruitment of women to senior management positions in Swedish higher education increased at this time. It is not possible to answer this question in its full complexity from within a small-scale project such as this, as larger social processes also need to be analysed. Instead, the article has set out to research whether there are reasons to suspect that women’s increase may not only be taken as evidence that academic management in Sweden is becoming more gender equal.
This study was intentionally female-specific, which raises questions that could be the subjects of future studies. There is no claim that all women managers in higher education share these experiences or that no male managers have similar experiences. Further research is required to investigate whether or not women and men actually have different reasons for taking on management roles in higher education, as stated by the women in this study.
The findings have implications for future research, pointing out the importance of conceptualizing gender relations in academic management beyond access. Research is needed to develop tools to recognize glass cliffs and their challenges, as well as ways for women and organizations to deal with them. Even if the findings in this small study of Swedish higher education cannot be generalized, they provide insights that an increase of women in academic management in other countries can successfully and fruitfully be examined using the glass cliff concept. The higher education sector all over the world is experiencing trends towards accountability and managerialism, providing an interesting backdrop against which to investigate gender relations in higher education institutions and how these are changing.
Footnotes
Funding
This work was supported by Forte: Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the women who made this research possible by their participation. The author is indebted to the two anonymous reviewers of Educational Management Administration and Leadership for their very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.