Original Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Is managing academics 1–16
ª The Author(s) 2015

‘‘women’s work’’? Exploring the Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143214563897
glass cliff in higher education emal.sagepub.com

management

Helen Peterson

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 femi-
nization, 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.

Keywords
Higher education, gender, glass cliff, leadership, administration, management, women

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 uni-
versities, 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

Corresponding author:
Helen Peterson, Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Email: helen.peterson@gu.se

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

but still ‘‘as bleak today as they were 20 years ago’’ (Danell and Hjerm, 2013: 1005). None-
theless, one area in which women have been successful in Swedish academia is senior manage-
ment. 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 Chan-
cellor (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 demo-
graphic feminization process, that is, the numerical turn when the gender composition of an occu-
pation 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 manage-
ment 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 rep-
resentation 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 femin-
ization 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 man-
agement positions in Sweden, as reported by the women managers themselves? In order to proble-
matize 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 methodo-
logical 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 restruc-
turing and denotes a situation in which work discursively becomes marked as ‘‘women’s work’’ at

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 3

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 presti-
gious areas of management that are being feminized (Broadbridge and Hearn, 2008). Women dom-
inate 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 sec-
tor 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 manage-
ment 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

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

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 associ-
ated 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). Explor-
ing whether women in Swedish higher education management confront a glass cliff involves inves-
tigating 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 inter-
viewees 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 inter-
views 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

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 5

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 under-
stand 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 prin-
ciples 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 infor-
mation 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 pat-
terns 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 experi-
ences (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 cate-
gories and ensure consistency and trustworthiness of the analysis.
In contrast to previous research on the glass cliff, the interviewees were not presented with the-
ories 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 ques-
tions 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 intervie-
wees had achieved management positions in the Swedish higher education, that is, trying to under-
stand 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).

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

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: ‘‘Ear-
lier the best researcher was supposed to be the manager due to the logic ‘if you are good at some-
thing 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 lon-
ger 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 involv-
ing 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 wit-
nessed: ‘‘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 monitor-
ing 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 sit-
uation 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

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 7

Deans explained that for her predecessor being a Dean was a ‘‘routine job’’ (Dean 2). She com-
pared it with the situation today: ‘‘The workload for both Dean and Pro Dean has increased tremen-
dously’’ (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 ‘‘pro-
ducing an enormous amount of paper’’ (Dean 3).
The stresses and strains experienced by academics in these positions were described as consid-
erable (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, ‘‘work-
load’’ really connotes burden or weight (cf. Wolf, 2010). The long hours qualifies academic man-
agement 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 manage-
ment 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 teach-
ing and research responsibilities. Their individual contracts prescribed teaching and research func-
tions 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 pro-
blematic 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).

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

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 some-
thing 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 envi-
ronment it was necessary to continuously produce new research and not rely on old accomplish-
ments. 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 respon-
sibility’’ (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 aca-
demics 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 drud-
gery 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 posi-
tion 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 con-
sidered 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 char-
acterized by difficult and problematic organizational circumstances. Previous research has
described the challenges facing academic managers in terms of ‘‘extraordinarily complex issues

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 9

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 con-
text. 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 posi-
tions 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 explana-
tions 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 man-
agement 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 prefer-
ence for male leaders was reversed in these cases. The women interviewed seemed to imply that

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

pressure from public opinion and political forces had induced the election of women to manage-
ment 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 them-
selves (cf. Bagilhole and White, 2008). They interpreted the transformation of academic manage-
ment 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 man-
agerial 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 commu-
nicate 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 enthu-
siasm’’ 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 unattrac-
tive ones are given to women. Some of the managers interviewed in this study argued in a similar

10

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 11

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 attractive-
ness 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 don-
keys, 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 manage-
ment 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)

11

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

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 man-
agement techniques in order to disclose, confront and transform the masculine organizational cul-
ture 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 aca-
demic collegiality (Hotho, 2013; Tomàs et al., 2010). In this study, the women accepted the man-
agement 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 discour-
aged 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 educa-
tion 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

12

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 13

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 com-
plexity 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 manage-
ment roles in higher education, as stated by the women in this study.
The findings have implications for future research, pointing out the importance of conceptua-
lizing 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 edu-
cation 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.

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.

References
Airini CS, Conner L, McPherson K, et al. (2011) Learning to be leaders in higher education: What helps or
hinder women’s advancement as leaders in universities. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership 39(1): 44–62.
Bagilhole B and White K (2008) Towards a gendered skills analysis of senior management positions in UK
and Australian universities. Tertiary Education and Management 14(1): 1–12.

13

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Barry J, Berg E and Chandler J (2006) Academic shape shifting: gender, management and identities in
Sweden and England. Organization 13(2): 275–298.
Berdrow I (2010) King among kings: Understanding the role and responsibilities of the department chair in
higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 38(4): 499–514.
Blickenstaff JC (2005) Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education
17(4): 369–386.
Bolton S and Muzio D (2008) The paradoxical processes of feminization in the professions: The case of estab-
lished, aspiring and semi-professions. Work, Employment and Society 22(2): 281–299.
Bosetti L and Walker K (2010) Perspectives of UK Vice-Chancellors on leading universities in a knowledge-
based economy. Higher Education Quarterly 64(1): 4–21.
Broadbridge A and Hearn J (2008) Gender and management: New directions in research and continuing
patterns in practice. British Journal of Management 19(s.1): 38–49.
Brown ER, Diekman AB and Schneider MC (2011) A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical
preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7): 930–941.
Bruckmüller S and Branscombe NR (2010) The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in
crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology 49(3): 433–451.
Bryans P and Mavin S (2003) Women learning to become managers: Learning to fit in or to play a different
game? Management Learning 34(1): 111–134.
Burke RJ and Fiksenbaum L (2009) Are managerial women in ‘extreme jobs’ disadvantaged? Gender in
Management: An International Journal 24(1): 5–13.
Czarniawska B and Genell K (2002) Gone shopping? Universities on their way to the market. Scandinavian
Journal of Management 18(4): 455–474.
Danell R and Hjerm M (2013) Career prospects for female university researchers have not improved. Scien-
tometrics 94(3): 999–1006.
Dearlove J (2002) A continuing role for academics: The governance of UK universities in the Post-Dearing
era. Higher Education Quarterly 56(3): 257–275.
Deem R (2006) Changing research perspectives on the higher education: Can research permeate the activities
of manager-academics. Higher Education Quarterly 60(3): 203–228.
Deem R, Ozga JT and Prichard C (2000) Managing further education: Is it still men’s work too? Journal of
Further and Higher Education 24(2): 231–250.
Eagly AH and Carli LL (2003) The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Lead-
ership Quarterly 14(6): 807–834.
Ek A-C, Ideland M, Jönsson S, et al. (2011) The tension between marketisation and academisation in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.619656, published online 24 Octo-
ber 2011, 1–14.
England K and Boyer K (2009) Women’s Work: The feminization and shifting meanings of clerical work.
Journal of Social History 43(2): 307–340.
European Commission (2012) She Figures 2012. Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in Science.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Floyd A (2012) ‘Turning points’: The personal and professional circumstances that lead academics to become
middle managers. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40(2): 272–284.
Grummell B, Devine D and Lynch K (2009) Appointing senior managers in education: Homosociability, local
logics and authenticity in the selection process. Educational Management Administration and Leadership
37(7): 329–349.
Gunluk-Senesen G (2009) Glass ceiling in academic administration in Turkey: 1990s versus 2000s. Tertiary
Education and Management 15(4): 305–322.

14

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

Peterson: Is managing academics ‘‘women’s work’’? 15

Haslam AS and Ryan MK (2008) The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men
and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly
19: 530–546.
Hotho S (2013) Higher education change and its managers: Alternative constructions. Educational Manage-
ment Administration and Leadership 41(3): 352–371.
Husu L (2001) Sexism, Support and Survival in Academia. Academic Women and Hidden Discrimination in
Finland. Helsinki: Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki.
Inman M (2011) The journey to leadership for academics in higher education. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership 39(2): 228–241.
Leathwood C (2005) ‘Treat me as a human being – don’t look at me as a woman’: Femininities and profes-
sional identities in further education. Gender and Education 17(4): 387–409.
Loughlin C, Arnold K and Crawford JB (2012) Lost opportunity. Is transformational leadership accurately
recognized and rewarded in all managers? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 31(1): 43–64.
Mavin S and Bryans P (2002) Academic Women in the UK: Mainstreaming our experiences and networking
for action. Gender and Education 14(3): 235–250.
McRoy I and Gibbs P (2009) Leading change in higher education. Educational Management Administration
and Leadership 37(5): 687–704.
McTavish D and Miller K (2009) Management, leadership and gender representation in UK higher and further
education. Gender in Management.24(3): 178–194.
Neale J and Özkanli Ö (2010) Organisational barriers for women in senior management: A comparison of
Turkish and New Zeeland universities. Gender and Education 22(5): 547–563.
Özkanli Ö , Machado de Lourdes M, White K, et al. (2009) Gender and management in HEIs: Changing orga-
nisational and management structures. Tertiary Education and Management 15(3): 241–257.
Peterson H (2011) The gender mix policy – Addressing gender inequality in higher education management.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(6): 619–628.
Priola V and Brannan MJ (2009) Between a rock and a hard place: Exploring women’s experience of partic-
ipation and progress in managerial careers. Equal Opportunities International 28(5): 378–397.
Rindfleish J and Sheridan A (2003) No change from within: senior women managers’ response to gendered
organizational structures. Women in Management Review 18(6): 299–310.
Ryan GW and Bernard RH (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15(1): 85–109.
Ryan M and Haslam A (2006) What lies beyond the glass ceiling? The glass cliff and the potential precar-
iousness of women’s leadership positions. Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3): 3–5.
Ryan MK and Haslam SA (2005) The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious
leadership positions. British Journal of Management 16: 81–90.
Ryan MK and Haslam SA (2007) The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamic surrounding the appointment of
women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 549–572.
Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Hersby MD, et al. (2011) Think crisis - think female: the glass cliff and contextual
variation in the think manager-think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 470–484.
Ryan MK, Haslam SA and Kulich C (2010) Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferen-
tially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly 34(1): 56–64.
Ryan MK, Haslam SA and Postmes T (2007) Reactions to the glass cliff. Gender differences in the explana-
tions for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment 20(2): 182–197.
Shain F (2000) Managing to lead: Women managers in the further education sector. Journal of Further and
Higher Education 24(2): 217–230.
Statistics Sweden (2012) Women and Men in Sweden – Facts and Figures 2012. Stockholm: SCB.

15

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015

16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Swedish Delegation for Gender Equality in Higher Education (2011) Svart pa˚ vitt. Om jämställdhet i akade-
min [Black on white: On gender equality in academia]. Swedish Government Official Report (SOU) 2011:
1. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Teelken C (2012) Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher educa-
tion? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education 37(3): 271–290.
Tomàs M, Lavie JM, del Mar Duran M, et al. (2010) Women in academic administration at the university.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership 38(4): 487–498.
Winter R (2009) Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(2): 121–131.
Wilson-Kovacs DM, Ryan M and Haslam A (2006) The glass-cliff: Women’s career paths in the UK private
IT sector. Equal Opportunities International 25(8): 674–687.
Wolf A (2010) Orientations to academic workloads at department level. Educational Management Adminis-
tration and Leadership 38(2): 246–262.
Wolverton M, Wolverton ML and Gmelch WH (1999) The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic
deans. The Journal of Higher Education 70(1): 80–106.
Wyn J, Acker S and Richards E (2000) Making a difference: Women in management in Australian and
Canadian faculties of education. Gender and Education 12(4): 435–447.

Author biography
Helen Peterson is an Associate Professor in Sociology at Uppsala University and a researcher at
the Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research
focuses on academic management from a gendered perspective. She is currently conducting a
study on the recruitment process of Vice Chancellors to Swedish universities.

16

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV FRESNO on July 8, 2015