Breaking through the glass ceiling: Experiences of academic women who have advanced to leadership roles in tertiary education in New Zealand

There has been a lot written about the glass ceiling—a metaphorical limit to women's professional success that blocks women advancing to senior positions (Jahaur & Lau, 2018). While some women do advance, there continues to be an underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in tertiary education in New Zealand. Although women comprise approximately 42% of full-time academic staff in New Zealand, this figure is misleading; women dominate the lower levels of the academic scale with the number of men increasing as the pay and status of roles increase (Walker et al., 2020). Recent figures show that men comprise 64–69% of associate professor/Head of Department (HOD) and 74–81% of professors/deans (Human Rights Commission, 2012; Walker et al., 2020). This is despite equal numbers of female students completing doctoral degrees (48% in 2002, 51% in 2017) and therefore, not a pipeline issue of inferior postgraduate completion rates or an inadequate number of qualified women (Education Counts, 2020).

Beyond numerical representation, there are issues with gender disparity in pay, research funding, citation rates, and rates of advancement which are well documented in international and New Zealand literature (Arnsperger et al., 2019; Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Brower & James, 2020; Jonsen et al., 2010; Kloot, 2004; Walker et al., 2020). Brower and James’ (2020) study documented a $400,000 gender pay gap in New Zealand over an academic's lifetime and found men's odds of being ranked as professor or associate professor are double women's. Additionally, women were found to be promoted at slower rates than men even when their research scores were higher (Brower and James, 2020). Walker et al. (2020) corroborate these findings showing that women in New Zealand universities are more likely to be employed part-time, at lower levels of seniority and advance more slowly. An international study on citation rates found an underrepresentation of female authorship with fewer articles published by women and male authors cited more frequently in journals (Bendels et al., 2018).

Several reasons are presented to explain gender disparity in leadership positions. One argument is that gender stereotyping based on role congruity theory limits women's access to and success in leadership roles. Role congruity assigns communal attributes to women of being a mother and caregiver; being sensitive, helpful and nurturing while men are credited with agentic attributes; being confident, assertive, competitive, rational and task oriented (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Consequently, women are channelled into particular fields and roles based on their natural suitability and are seen to be less competent and unsuited to leadership (Jonsen et al., 2010). Although the trait model of leadership has been widely debunked, perceptions of societal gender roles remain which influence the masculine characterisation of leadership (Blackmore, 1989; Jonsen et al., 2010).

Another explanation is institutional discrimination in hiring and selection practices. Literature shows that when recruiting, positions are framed for a specific profile, gender bias is evident in the interviewing process and evaluation of attributes, and there is a tendency to hire those who most fit the dominant culture (Blackmore, 2010a; Benschop and Brouns, 2003; Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2013). Universities commonly utilise informal hiring procedures where candidates are identified and encouraged to apply through professional contacts disadvantaging those who lack an organisational network (Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Jauhar & Lau, 2018). However, the complexity of this issue is also shown in one US study that identified the strongest candidate was selected 95% of the time regardless of gender (Ceci & Williams, 2015). It concluded that in this university's science faculty gender did not influence hiring practices; women were hired when they were viewed as being equally or more accomplished than male candidates (Ceci & Williams, 2015). Recruitment practices are complex, and more research is needed to understand how gender influences organisational hiring practices for leadership positions.

A third argument commonly presented is women's personal choices and family responsibilities that limit their advancement to leadership roles. The early years of a woman's academic career when the highest research output is expected coincides with childbearing years and time taken for maternity leave (Currie & Thiele, 2001). Reduced research output and promotional opportunities are then compounded by family and domestic responsibilities throughout a women's career with a higher number of women employed part-time (Walker et al., 2020). A UK study found evidence of the widespread belief that women still assume the majority of family and household responsibilities which had a detrimental effect on their academic progression (Forster, 2001). Another study showed women's domestic work crosses over into the professional sphere as “academic housework” with women assuming chores in the workplace attributed to their natural ability (Heijstra et al., 2017). Universities’ organisational culture of competition exacerbates these issues by seemingly valuing the childless profile and incentivising time spent on academic work and research despite the development of more work/life balance policies (Dubois-Shaik & Fusulier, 2017).

When women do advance to leadership positions, research has shown some factors have aided their progression with the most commonly referenced initiatives of mentoring and leadership programmes. The New Zealand Universities Women in Leadership (NZUWiL) programme has a specific focus on women's professional development to increase leadership numbers (Universities New Zealand, 2020). One study evaluated the course's success by surveying participants three years post completion finding that it helped to increase participants’ self-confidence and networking opportunities (Harris & Leberman, 2012). Similarly, mentoring has been shown to give awareness to opportunities, develop career pathways, help with learning how to navigate the system that presents challenges to women and increase self-efficacy which supports leadership aspirations (Airini et al., 2011; Arnsperger et al., 2019).

The majority of the literature on gender in academia is from the dominant perspective of highlighting obstacles and women's negative experiences. Emphasising negative experiences ignores the success stories and initiatives that could potentially have a greater impact on women's advancement. Additionally, focusing on the numerical representation of women simplifies the issue and trivialises the challenges that women face to merely increasing numbers. A recent shift towards research that is positively framed is reflected in the approach of one New Zealand based study by Airini et al. (2011) which explored factors that both helped and hindered women's advancement. Their qualitative study found that women in New Zealand tertiary institutes reported three times more incidents that helped their careers (74%) rather than hindered them (26%) (Airini et al., 2011). This shift in discourse has been missing in most of the literature on the topic to date. The following small-scale study adds to the limited literature that investigates positive and negative gender experiences to provide a more balanced view and hear the voices of those that are within the system that are challenging it to overcome gender disparity in academia.

This study utilised semi-structured interviews to answer the research question: What are the experiences of academic women who advance to leadership roles in tertiary education in New Zealand? The participants were six women currently in academic leadership positions in tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Candidates were identified by an online search of public websites of New Zealand tertiary institutes. Twelve candidates were randomly selected to be invited; eight responded to participate; six were selected. The participants were from different faculties across three of New Zealand's eight universities, were in roles including being dean, head of school and/or head of department, and were ranged in age. To maintain the participants’ confidentiality, the specific job title and name of the university have not been provided and participants are identified in the findings as Participant 1 to Participant 6.

Interviews were selected as the data collection method to provide rich and detailed qualitative data to understand participants’ personal experiences and thoughts, and the meaning they make of their experiences (Castillo-Montoya, 2016; Schensul & LeCompte, 2013). Interviews were semi-structured using open-ended questions, were conducted face-to-face where possible or otherwise online, and were sound recorded and transcribed. The data were coded for thematic analysis following the work of Braun and Clarke (2006), using both inductive and deductive approaches. The inductive approach was used first to ensure the codes were data-driven and then re-coded using a deductive approach to link the data to the research question. The inductive approach was prioritised to ensure that the data collected were not biased by the research question and that the data reflected participants’ responses accurately. Codes were categorised into themes where main themes and sub themes were identified based on frequency they appeared in the dataset, relevance to the research question and the importance of the theme based on the researcher's judgement. Themes had to be generic enough to recognise the differences in the dataset so that the full range of responses was presented. This analysis took a semantic level approach where themes were identified based on surface level meaning of the data and were then interpreted to find patterns across the dataset.

This study was evaluated using a peer-review process where the possibility of harm to participants, privacy and confidentiality, and possible conflicts of interests were considered prior to conducting the study. Ethical processes followed guidelines according to the Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants and the study was deemed to be low risk (Massey University, 2017).

The interview data showed a range of gendered experiences for these women in academia in New Zealand. The participants experienced incidents of gender bias and for some, more explicit sexism which varied depending on the faculty and the individuals in leadership. While these experiences were mixed, two main factors were seen to be obstacles to advancing: discriminatory employment practices and unequal work/life balance. On the positive side, mentoring and leadership programmes for women were aids to advancing. Once in leadership roles, the participants expressed a variety of ways they are helping more women to advance within their departments. Finally, all participants acknowledged the complexity of gender issues in their institutions by identifying ways that gender experiences intersect with other social and cultural phenomena. These results are discussed in more depth.

Participants in this study recognised that more needs to be done for women academics and are using their leadership role to propose positive changes to encourage and support other women within their field of influence.

I think you can’t just become one of the blokes when you’re in a leadership position as a woman. You can’t just settle down into that and think “the system has worked for me, now we’ll just ride it while it lasts” because that's regressive. But it's finding the ways that you can be effective rather than just being the mouthy one around the table, there are ways that you can be really effective and advocate for change and I’m figuring that out.

Three women discussed the ways that they are creating flexible work schedules and helping staff take time out for maternity leave. Three others discussed supporting female staff by having conversations about their career directions and providing information on courses, seminars and professional development programmes. Participants acknowledged that these factors of parental leave, flexible hours and professional development were universal for both male and female staff; however, some participants admitted they do extra for women based on their own experiences:

I feel like I click more with the women, just because of the journey I’ve been through and because I still feel there are not sufficient women who advance. Obviously, I have male doctorate students as well, maybe I feel like I’m putting in the extra mile for females.

Interestingly, this finding goes against literature on role congruity theory, which argues that women in positions of power conform to stereotypical norms of behaviour which obstruct other women from advancing (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Jonsen et al., 2010). The participants in this study are finding ways to work within the system to use their power to subvert behavioural norms and to advance diversity in their faculties. This behaviour is supported by a study that shows underrepresented faculty staff play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity by engaging more in inclusion activities largely based on their moral obligation and their desire for role models (Jimenez et al., 2019). Hearing how women find ways to negotiate challenges presented by the academic system is useful to raise awareness so institutions can consider ways to support their women leaders. They are correctly positioned to be change agents, not only by being role models, but also by understanding gender issues from both sides and showing how leadership can be done differently.

The women in this study suggested that to move forward and effect meaningful change the conversation of gender diversity in academia needs to be expanded to understand how gender perceptions in society affect women more generally. Walker et al. (2020) have added to this by stressing that universities must consider diversity more broadly to gain a greater understanding of the experiences of those that intersect with multiple identities. There is a need to think more holistically about diversity to include gender, as well as recognising and including multiple identities across ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.

Some participants identified that men are needed to be involved in addressing the range of issues that women face in their careers. This idea that men can be allies in making meaningful change for women is also discussed by Veer et al. (2021) looking at the role of men in the post #MeToo era. It can be seen as a double-edged sword with it potentially being inappropriate if men engage in pro-feminist debate while male allies are also needed to advance women's causes (Veer et al., 2021). As suggested in the findings of this study, individuals are key to creating a supportive environment and male allies can create awareness of and de-normalise cultural norms that negatively affect women.

Feminist discourse argues for a refocusing away from numerical representation of women to restructuring the patterns of inequality socially, politically and culturally that limit women in the educational system (Blackmore, 2013). Although the solution to gender disparity is outside the scope of these findings, they suggest that to address the negative gendered experiences in academia a cultural change is needed that includes targeted programmes and mentoring but widens the scope to address the culture of tertiary education in New Zealand to challenge attitudes and the beliefs that create bias (Blackmore, 2010b; Roberts, 2017).

This study highlighted that gender affects women's experiences in advancing to leadership roles in tertiary education in New Zealand. While there were some positive experiences of a supportive academic environment and evidence of programmes like mentoring that have helped these women, all participants experienced negative incidents that they related to being a woman. Although numbers both internationally and in New Zealand indicate gains towards more gender balance, this is not across all levels of employment and ignores the gendered environment that women experience as told in these stories. This research can support other studies in raising awareness and help to shape the current understanding of the role of gender in tertiary education.

It is crucial that a different lens is used in research on gender to highlight women's positive experiences and the factors that have aided advancement. Repeating studies on the obstacles for women produces similar results and change has been slow to address these issues. Therefore, shifting the focus to women's positive experiences changes the perspective on the way women's issues are viewed. Since women already attempt to use their power in subtle ways to challenge the system, women should be given more of a voice to establish policies around equity, employment practices and professional development.

Hearing these experiences of academic women who have advanced to leadership roles is vital to understand what can be done to advocate for change to address gender disparity. Only by understanding what creates supportive workplace environments and positive experiences for women can more work be done to provide equal opportunities and pathways for more women to gain leadership roles in New Zealand. The way forward requires challenging the academic system that creates the conditions for gender disparity as well as including mechanisms to embrace inclusion and diversity. While targeted programmes are useful, they need to be combined with more cultural and structural change to address perceptions of gender roles. Only then can the path be clear for more diverse leaders in tertiary education in New Zealand.