What do I do? A Categorisation of Informal Leadership Activities Among Female Professors

Before delving into the specific aspects of female professorial leadership, it is crucial to address how academic leadership varies from other forms of leadership in the HEI setting.

HEIs are “complex systems that constantly develop and renew themselves while at the same time shaping society at large” (Braun et al., 2016, p. 353). Leading in HEIs presents unique challenges due to a variety of factors. They include organisational complexity, multiple stakeholders (faculty, administrators, students, employers, local communities, etc.) traditional values, and multiple goals (Kligyte and Barrie, 2014). The autonomous, collegial culture that underpins academia (Miles et al., 2015) adds another layer of complexity. Leading academics has been likened to ‘herding cats,’ yet “the very strength of the university system lies in the independent thought, creativity and autonomy of the people who work in them” (Spendlove, 2007, p. 407).

Historically, universities emerged from the cloistered environment of medieval monasteries and have thus adopted a similar collegial ideology to governance, an approach where decisions are ideally made collectively by the academics concerned with the support of the administration and professional staff (Tight, 2014). In recent decades, the rise of neoliberalism and the rapid expansion and globalisation of the higher education sector has drastically altered how HEIs are perceived and managed. Students are increasingly seen as customers, and education is viewed as a commodity to be marketed and sold (Brooks and Abrahams, 2018). The commercialisation of higher education, as well as increasing emphasis on accountability and transparency, has led to a transition in organisational culture from one of collegiality towards one of managerialism (Burkinshaw and White, 2020; Poutanen et al., 2022). Deem (1998, p. 47) describes managerialism as public sector institutions “adopting organisational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found in the private business sector”. Spendlove (2007) argues that unilateral top-down management clashes with the established values of academic freedom, scholarly liberty, and democratic participation.

Not unexpectedly, the advent of managerialism has led to consternation and resistance from academics, with many seeing managerialism as an attack on the collegial culture of academic work (Bryman, 2007). Fitzgerald (2014, p. 209) states that “in many ways, there has been a retreat from thinking about the intellectual role of professors and the professoriate to a reconstitution of their roles as managers of systems, processes, projects and people”. Interestingly, Bolden et al. (2012) found that nearly half of the professors surveyed held hybrid manager/ academic roles such as Dean, Head of Department or Vice-Chancellor. It would appear that many professors face the challenge of negotiating between the collegial and the managerial model, two very different, possibly incompatible governance approaches, thus requiring different foci and abilities (Žydžiūnaitė, 2018). The resulting dichotomy of managerialism and collegiality has led Albert and Whetten (2003) to emphasise the ‘dual identity’ of universities and liken them as part church, part business. Others, such as McNay (1995) and Braun (1999), have argued against the idea of the collegial-managerialism dichotomy, instead promoting a range of governance models suitable for HEIs. Leading in this environment has been recognised as somewhat different and particularly challenging from leading in other organisations (Anthony and Antony, 2017).

Traditionally professors, as part of their academic leadership, stood as protectors and guardians of academic freedom, culture and integrity (Macfarlane, 2011). They may be regarded as leaders when they are perceived as fighting for a common cause or stand as an inspiration to others within the context of the Academy¹ (Bolden et al., 2012). With commercialism and managerialism continuing to permeate academic work, these traditions are perceived to be under threat of diminishing (Fitzgerald, 2014). Leadership in light of these changes has become more critical (Ball, 2007), particularly informal academic leadership (Bolden et al., 2012), and professors are being called on to lead - but not necessarily in formal ways (Evans, 2017). Such informal academic leadership “arises through engagement with influential colleagues within one’s academic discipline, especially those who play a pivotal role in one’s transition and acculturation into academic life” (Evans, 2017, p. 125). As informal leadership in the Academy is very much a group process, supportive development and empowering leadership underpins this concept, involving activities such as being a role model and a mentor by offering support and access to contacts and resources. Such attributes can play a significant role in shaping the culture and values of academic society and can have a significant impact on the success and well-being of individual faculty members and the institution as a whole. For professors, the role of identity is particularly significant where “professional recognition depends in large part on one’s social and intellectual capital as much as one’s position within a formal hierarchy” (Bolden et al., 2012, p. 10). How individuals moderate their own identity to coincide with the identity of the group has implications for how one is perceived as a group member, ranging from a leader to an outsider (Sinclair, 2011). This leads us to consider the concept of social identity when contemplating informal academic leadership activities.

The social identity theory of leadership proposes that individuals mentally represent groups as prototypes, which can be described as “fuzzy sets of attributes that define and prescribe attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that characterize one group and distinguish it from other groups” (Hogg, 2001, p.187). Within any group, there is a gradient of prototypicality, with some individuals being perceived as more prototypical than others. Being prototypical within highly salient groups is desirable, and those viewed as prototypical are socially attractive (van Knippenberg, 2023). Prototypicality is the perceptual basis for evaluating oneself and other group members. Therefore, individuals watch very closely for and respond to subtle differences in how prototypical others appear (Hogg, 2005). Members of a social group will be more likely to favour and view as a leader those who better align with the group prototype or embody the group’s norms and values (van Knippenberg, 2011). Ingroup members of highly salient groups also want to be close and interact with the group’s most prototypical members and are willing to accept influence from them (Chemers, 2003). According to the theory, these prototypical individuals are considered the leaders and influencers of the group (Hogg, 2001).

Within the Academy, professors are expected and perceived to embody the prototype of being an accomplished and successful academic. They have reached the pinnacle of their career; they are at a point in their career to which other academics aspire. They possess the status, recognition and reputation of academic excellence sought after by others in the profession (Tight, 2002). Evans (2014, p. 54), highlighting the highly prototypical nature of professors, observes, “Professors were often perceived as what are effectively quality yardsticks, by indicating standards of performance to aspire to. Professors unconsciously or indirectly set standards of excellence that impressed junior colleagues, in some cases motivating them to work towards emulating such performance.”

Group prototypicality has important implications for female professors; the professor prototype in HEIs is predominantly masculine, unsurprising since men occupy 71.5% of professorial roles in the UK and 73% in Ireland (Advance HE, 2022; HEAI, 2021; Knipfer et al., 2017; Zhao and Jones, 2017). Consequently, in terms of the attribute of gender (which is one of several attributes associated with the professor prototype), women are not as prototypical as comparable male peers. As such, they may be perceived differently in terms of academic leadership (Ellemers, van den Heuvel, Gilder, Maass, and Bonvini, 2004). Being highly prototypical paradoxically permits leaders to be innovative and modify group norms and direct the group in a new direction (Hogg et al., 2012). Prototypical leaders, therefore, can significantly influence the norms and rules of the group afforded by this prototypical wiggle room. Hogg (2010, p.1196) describes the ability to employ this wiggle room as “a key attribute of effective leadership, [and] is precisely this visionary and transformational activity in which a leader is an entrepreneur of identity who is adept at changing what the group sees itself as being”. It is, therefore, crucial to understand and be aware of the various prototypes associated with perceived academic leadership if one wishes to lead and be influential within the Academy and promote organisational and cultural change.

Sometimes referred to as academic citizenship (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), professorial leadership includes a broader set of collective responsibilities, closely associated with helping less experienced colleagues develop through mentoring processes (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019). There is a stronger sense of duty among female professors to mentor others, thus, being a mentor to other academics is considered one of the most important functions a female professor can perform (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019). This advice and support can be offered in several different ways (Kogan, 1999). First, mentoring on the rules of the game is crucial for career development. Not just the formal rules, but also the important informal or unwritten rules, norms, and practices, which are often difficult to recognise. Additionally, “how to strategise research priorities; how to write grants and help to do so; how to publish and help to do so; how to respond to reviews” (Meyer, 2012, p. 215) are vital elements of informal support, particularly for early career academics.

Elacqua et al. (2009) point out that mentoring is also crucial in providing information that leads to career progression, as mentored individuals are more likely to be promoted. For example, offering insight and support into when and how to say ‘no’ (Meyer, 2012) creates an opportunity for more junior members of the Academy to focus on the tasks and activities that are more likely to be promoted while also considering the need for work-life balance (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019). Equally, offers of and referrals for opportunities help create an impetus for individuals to generate evidence of their own capacity to fulfil a more senior academic role.

It is important to note that a great deal of mentoring also involves guiding, facilitating, nurturing, encouraging and inspiring (Uslu and Welch, 2018).

Macfarlane and Burg (2019) found that mentoring was usually seen as a more central component of female academic leadership and a more significant aspect of women professors’ identity than their male counterparts, despite mentoring adding significantly to the workload of professors. It is important to challenge this imbalance, as mentoring is a key differentiator in ensuring a healthy future Professoriate pipeline. As Meyer (2012, p. 216) highlights: “each professor should be able to name the young academics whom they have supported directly to become the new professoriate: this is a small price to pay for the extraordinary opportunity to be part of a university and develop scholarship”. Unfortunately, these activities are generally not thought of as strategically central within university management structures (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019), reinforcing an under-appreciation of the value of mentoring as a key female professorial activity.

Access to mentors is a separate issue. While some institutions formally facilitate mentoring, it is essentially the mentor’s decision who they choose as a protégé. This presents a potential issue for women, and other minorities among the current Professoriate, as mentors and mentees usually prefer to associate with others with similar characteristics, such as age, race, and gender (Diezmann and Grieshaber, 2019). Thus, female underrepresentation in the Professoriate makes it less likely to secure a female professor mentor. Consequently, we argue that providing mentorship is particularly important for female professors as they are uniquely positioned to guide and support upcoming female academic leaders, being personally cognisant of women’s struggles and barriers to advancing in the Academy. That said, female academics securing male mentors has the advantage of providing women with access to the male power base, networks, and the informal rules and norms of the institution (Diezmann and Grieshaber, 2019).

Due to their professional achievements and academic reputation, professors serve as role models (Braun et al., 2016). Although being a role model was primarily associated with their scholarly prowess, professors are now expected to be role models across most or all facets of their academic role (Macfarlane, 2011). Female professors have shown specific capacity to inspire others through teaching as well as research excellence. Inspiring others is closely associated with being a role model (Uslu and Welch, 2018). Evans et al. (2013, p. 683) argued that “a professor should exemplify the pinnacle of what we academics aspire to (in research and teaching) and be able to inspire and encourage others into the field”. In a Festschrift in honour of Marilynn Brewer, a renowned social psychology professor, Livingston, Leonardelli, and Kramer (2011, p. 12) expressed;

Her career communicates not only her commitment to rigour and relevance but also her commitment to people. Marilynn touched and changed the lives of many graduate students, postdoctoral students, and professional colleagues from America to Australia, Italy to Israel, and Chile to China. As befitting the individual who inspired them, the chapters in this book pay homage to her enduring influence.

Professors are also expected to embody the prototype of being a successful academic. This embodiment is a reliable source of information about the group norms and acceptable behaviour from which other academics can draw (Hogg et al., 2012). While all professors are expected to fulfil this role, female professors may face particular challenges, due in part to their minority status. Schein (1973) coined the phrase ‘think manager, think male’ referring to how individuals associate managers with masculinity and agentic traits. Tharenou (1994, p. 222) argued that this phrase applies equally to academia; coining ‘think professor, think male’ suggesting that women may be considered less prototypical than men regarding the Professoriate and leadership. This can lead to some female professors feeling like outsiders and having to prove themselves by working harder than their male peers (Zhao and Jones, 2017). For example, Evans (2017) described that some of her female respondents felt the need to be constantly aware of the demand to act as role models, which led to unremitting pressure to fulfil the expectations of being a professor. While the concept of burnout is beyond the boundaries of this paper, it is a worthy consideration when considering the well-being of minority senior academics.

The under-representation of women in the Professoriate has resulted in fewer role models and mentors for upcoming male and female academics (Subbaye and Vithal, 2017). Cabrera (2007) highlights the importance of female role models for women, arguing that they show that attaining a certain level of success is possible. Howe-Walsh and Turnbull (2016, p. 423) support this view and stress that “the lack of women in senior positions in itself acts as a barrier to more women reaching higher levels within institutions. The absence of ‘top tier’ women perpetuates the dominant male culture in academia, and more women are needed in senior roles to encourage others to aspire to senior level positions.” Female professors as role models also play a crucial part in influencing and serving as an example to men who have the potential to act as powerful advocates of gender equality, which will ultimately aid in the deconstruction of the gendered norms and process of the Academy (Gould, 2001).

Professors are usually perceived to be intellectual leaders; their credibility, international reputation and scholarly competence form the base of their influence in their institution and the broader community (Macfarlane, 2011). Some professors view their role primarily as being an intellectual leader (Evans, 2015; Macfarlane and Burg, 2019). Professors are expected to be leaders in their field of research; as such, they are expected to show competencies in scholarship and intellectual skills which are often linked with active research and an international profile, reflecting a high reputation and academic esteem (Rayner et al., 2010). Oleksiyenko and Ruan (2019) stress professors, as intellectual leaders, should possess a unique publication-based authority and power that is independent of their management and administrative roles. In addition to creating new knowledge, a perceived duty of all academics, especially professors, is the notion of being guardians or stewards to ensure academic standards, values and traditions are being maintained through editing and reviewing papers, examining doctoral students, chairing committees and any gatekeeping activities (Žydžiūnaitė, 2018). Macfarlane (2011) emphasises that being a guardian is part of a professor’s good citizen role, which becomes more prominent as a researcher progresses in their career and becomes better known in their field.

Although intellectual leadership remains crucial in modern universities, there is a sense that this important role is being subsumed by the increasing administrative demands placed on the shoulders of many professors with hybrid roles to the point that in modern universities, the expertise and intellectual influence of professors has diminished (Fitzgerald, 2014). Bolden et al. (2012, p. 35) argue, referring to department heads, “that there is simply no time to engage in intellectual leadership; in fact, anyone who wants to maintain prominence in an intellectual field may feel it is best to avoid such jobs”. Interestingly Macfarlane (2011) found a mismatch between what professors perceived their roles were and what they perceived was expected of them by their universities. The perception was that universities expected professors to focus on predominantly administrative tasks, most notably income generation, while professors perceived their role as much more collegial. If we assume an intellectual leader is “someone who has the ability to influence and inspire others based on the power of their ideas as opposed to position power” (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019, p. 263), this form of leadership is an effective means of developing the next generation of academic leaders (Morgenroth et al., 2015). Therefore, professors must guard against the increasingly neoliberal focus, which overemphasises business modes of productivity so that the development of the next generation of academic leaders remains a central activity of the Professoriate.

As intellectual leaders, professors are expected to be ambassadors for their institutions and departments, representing their national and international interests. Activities associated with this role include giving keynote addresses at conferences, research collaboration, organising academic events and any other activity that builds their universities reputation and profile among the wider academic community. Furthermore, professors must also be able to engage and communicate with non-academics and the broader community regarding contemporary issues on T.V. or radio programmes and write articles for the general public (Uslu and Welch, 2018). While gender does not appear to play a significant role in being an academic ambassador, female professors acknowledge a perceived gender-ambassador role, separate from that of their academic activities. As articulated by a female professor to Ward (2003, p. 129):

There is probably less room for error if I mess up, than if I were a male. I think that there is that duty to make sure that my contributions are of a high standard and my integrity is beyond reproach, and that I am a good ambassador for my gender.

In a related vein similar to the role of ambassador, where professors represent their institutions, there was a strong theme suggesting professors should engage in advocacy for their discipline or profession and to promote conceptual and socio-political standpoints often connected closely with their field (Fitzgerald, 2014). Indeed Macfarlane (2011, p. 68) argues that “being an advocate goes well beyond researching or publishing ‘a lot’. It is about being, in the words of one respondent, an ‘independent champion’ of a cause.” Advocacy appears to stem from the scholar’s passion for their field of work in the attempt to either promote their field or, in the case of some social issues, remedy perceived injustices and use their powerful voice as professors to further their views (Oleksiyenko and Ruan, 2019).

It would seem that not only do women professors represent their institutions but also, much like the ambassador role, some feel the added pressure or a sense of duty to advocate for their gender both inside and outside their university. There is a risk here; taking on gendered responsibilities can result in an excessive amount of time-consuming and lowly esteemed service work. Ultimately, this can delay (or prevent) their promotion chances (Macfarlane and Burg, 2019).

Similar to advocacy for their field or cause, professors who are seen to be advocating on behalf of other academics within their own university and beyond are perceived to be excellent leaders (Arquisola, 2016). Bolden et al. (2012, p. 3) note that “people are unlikely to be regarded as leaders unless they are perceived to be working on behalf of the group, helping to frame group identity, and/or putting in place structures and processes that further the interests of the group”. Professors may become regarded as leaders when they are perceived to fight for a cause that is important to the group’s identity. Professors by virtue of their influence and reputation, can demonstrate their academic leadership by standing against and resisting threats to the group’s social identity on issues such as the aforementioned excess of managerialism encroachment on academic values, traditions and freedoms (Bengtsen and Barnett, 2017; Oleksiyenko and Ruan, 2019). Bolden et al. (2012) found in their study that academics recognised leadership in actions that provide and protect an environment that facilitates productive academic work, encourages, and develops shared academic values and social identity and engages in ‘boundary spanning’ on behalf of others. They define boundary spanning as the “ability to create opportunities for external relatedness, getting things done via institutional administrations, mentoring colleagues into wider spheres of engagement” (Bolden et al., 2012, p. 2).

As well as being a champion for other colleagues in general, by virtue of the under-represented nature of women in senior academic roles, female professors are especially valuable as leaders and role models for other female academics (Tang, 2019). However, Diezmann and Grieshaber (2019) warn that some successful female professors may be ambivalent or unsupportive of upcoming women, a phenomenon known as the ‘Queen Bee’ phenomenon. Scheifele et al. (2020) argue that the queen bee effect is a response to social identity threat, as some women in senior roles may have had to overcome major obstacles and make considerable personal sacrifices to reach their position; when that position is perceived to be threatened or devalued, the result may include defensive and unsupportive behaviour.