Universities are patriarchal institutions. More males reach upper levels of the academic hierarchy than females. The authors were concerned that their university had a marginally lower percentage of female professors than others in their country and used a survey and interviews to explore the facts behind the figures.
The Solution.
Statistics showed that though fewer females applied for promotion, proportionately more female applicants were successful. The authors researched what helped female professors and associate professors gain promotion and explored views on the spillover between work and family/community roles. Promotion enhancement factors included encouragement from department heads and senior colleagues. Family/community roles were seen to spillover positively to work, though work could negatively affect time for family and community involvement.
The Stakeholders.
These findings could encourage proactive mentoring of female academic staff by managers, and increase HR and HRD support for family-friendly policies and training programs.
AiriniCollings S.ConnerL.McPhersonK.MidsonB.WilsonC. (2011). Learning to be leaders in higher education: What helps or hinders women’s advancement as leaders in universities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(1), 44-62.
2.
BoydS.WylieC. (1994). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
3.
ChalmersA. (1998). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities: A follow-up to the 1994 study. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
4.
DoyleS.WylieC.HodgenE.ElseA. (2004). Gender and academic promotion: A case study of Massey University. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
5.
FletcherJ. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
GradyG.McCarthyA. M. (2008). Work-life integration: Experiences of mid-career professional working mothers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 599-622.
7.
GreenhausJ.PowellG. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92.
8.
GrzywaczJ. G.CarlsonD. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455-471.
9.
GrzywaczJ. G.MarksN. F. (2000). Reconceptualising the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111-126.
10.
KellyE. L.MoenP. (2007). Rethinking the clockwork of work: Why schedule control may pay off at work and at home. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 487-506.
11.
KirchmeyerC. (1992). Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775-794.
12.
KnightsD.RichardsW. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, work, and organization, 10, 213-238.
13.
MarksS. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936.
Massey University. (2011). Pathways to professor. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Author.
16.
Massey University Human Resources. (2009a). Summary of a/prof promotions 2000-2009. [Excel file]. Copy in possession of author.
17.
Massey University Human Resources. (2009b). Summary of professorial promotions 2003-2009. [Excel file]. Copy in possession of author.
18.
McGregorJ. (2008). New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2008. Wellington, New Zealand: Human Rights Commission.
19.
McGregorJ.FountaineS. (2006). New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2006. Wellington, New Zealand: Human Rights Commission.
20.
McGregorJ.TweedD. (2000). Women managers and business owners in New Zealand. In DavidsonM.BurkeR. (Eds.), Women in management: Current research issues Volume II (pp. 40-52). London, UK: SAGE.
21.
MorrisM. L.MadsenS. R. (2007). Advancing work-life integration in individuals, organizations, and communities. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 439-454.
22.
PernaL. W. (2005). Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46, 277-307.
23.
Pryce-JonesJ. (2010). Happiness at work: Maximizing your psychological capital for success. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
24.
RothbardN. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.
25.
SieberS. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578.
26.
ThompsonE. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227-242.
27.
van AndersS. M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51, 511-521.
28.
WarnerM.A.HausdorfP.A. (2009). The positive interaction of work and family roles: Using need theory to further understand the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 372-385.
29.
YounT. I. K.PriceT. M. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80, 204-237.
