Antecedentes sobre la Población de Graduados

This section examines the second sub-question of this study: How do professors reach a senior academic management position? In general, considerable differences are found in the way female and male professors advanced into senior academic management. Men were often internally appointed, whereas women moved into management positions via various routes.

The gathered interview data have shown that female professors were recruited via headhunter agencies. This route appears to be quite common nowadays. Universities often work together with headhunters to attract academics to senior academic management positions. This route is described by a female interviewee as:

“A headhunter agency searched for capable candidates, and I was one of the candidates they found. This was followed by a whole ‘circus’ of procedures. It is a process of series of conversations with the faculty council, fellow deans...etc.”

(female respondent 10).

She mentioned to be recruited because all her professor-colleagues resigned, so she was regarded as most ‘experienced’ within the faculty at that moment (female respondent 10). Another female interviewee was externally approached by a headhunter. She was a senior manager at a governmental organization and a part-time professor at another university. She

argued:

“Headhunters often first check within the faculty who is suitable for the position. Apparently, no suitable candidate was found or perhaps no one was willing to accept the position. I was already really interested in becoming a senior academic manager within a university” (female respondent 1).

Excessive experience in senior management in combination with an adequate publication list were mentioned as essential reasons for her appointment:

“I know that there was one other candidate, a real ‘figurehead’ within the university.

And I was the opponent, with sufficient academic status and, more important, an experienced manager. They apparently thought: ‘we need a strong manager here at this faculty.’ If you only come from your academic setting and become head of the department, vice-dean and perhaps dean – that is often the route – then you still have insufficient management experience” (female respondent 1).

Furthermore, selection to the position also appears to be application-based. Female respondents applied directly via a call for application to the position. One woman applied while she was working as a professor at a university abroad (female respondent 7). She mentioned how bizarre it is that she, as being a senior academic manager, now receives numerous invitations via headhunters to other (senior) academic management positions: “Headhunters currently have the mission to ‘find a woman,’ because that is what

everyone wants at the moment. Or at least, that is what they need to suggest they want. The problem is that they only approach women who have proven their academic management capabilities. They certainly do not approach women they do not know or are invisible” (female respondent 7).

In other words, if you perform well as a female senior academic manager, it is likely that recruiters will approach you for other (senior) academic management positions. The adverse consequence is that recruiters only search in a select visible group of women. In addition, the disbelief was expressed to the fact that when female professors have proven themselves as being successful academic managers, and headhunters approach them due to their

and committees. This resentment was, for example, expressed by:

“First you have a meeting with a headhunter. Then you have to talk to the selection committee, which is followed by a conversation with the advisory committee of the university. If you are lucky, you go back to the selection committee with three other candidates as the last step. But, if not, you also have to talk to some representation of ‘staff whatsoever,’ that is of course incredibly offensive to women in top positions who are being selected to go to other top positions. It definitely does not work! And, if you reply to the headhunter that you do not feel like going into all those procedures, guess what the headhunter tells you?!: ‘It is much work to find women for these positions. They all need to be convinced that they are capable and that they can do it. They are always so insecure.’ That is completely something different… right?!”

(female respondent 7).

This is described as one of the reasons why experienced women often do not accept the invitation to apply via ‘the recruitment route:’

“This is not surprising, considering you need to pass five different committees. As a woman you have to be extremely good to get through all those steps; not acting ‘too aggressive’, ‘bitchy’, or anything... to mention a few things... If you bother one person within such committee, it is done. So, this is not really a procedure to which women say: I would like to submit myself to such ‘circus’” (female respondent 7).

It also indicates that women in male-dominated organizations are likely to face ‘role

congruity’ during selection procedures (Eagly & Diekman, 2005). Demonstrating that women could be more harshly judged than men in their applications. Furthermore, it is pointed out that recruitment procedures regularly lead to “the safe choice” and “consensus” by appointing

equals: “they often believe that a man is most suited” (female respondent 7). In literature, this

is also explained by ‘stereotyping bias’ and the ‘think-manager-think-male’ framework. The answer to why respondent 7 believed she was selected for the position, despite such bias, was explained by the nature of the procedure: “It was an internal application, considering I was on a temporary basis seconded to work at an university overseas. So, that was relatively ‘easy.’” The question, however, remains if the appointment had something to do with the nature of the position; considering the existing resistance against the programme the female

professor had to lead (‘think-crisis-thinks-female).

Moreover, female professors were also recruited internally by the dean. It is mentioned that it used to be the typical procedure within faculties, but that it has changed nowadays, as it is more common to be recruited via a headhunter:

“Itwas the tradition that the successor got internally recruited by the sitting dean - based on scientific authority and support within the faculty - a year before being appointed. Once selected, you first started a year as a pro-dean”

(female respondent 8).

On the other hand, it is still a usual procedure that vice-deans are appointed internally by the dean. A female professor was recently appointed as a vice-dean research:

“He entered my room and said: ‘I have not been appointed to the position yet, but I

would like to talk to you,’ and then he asked me to become vice-dean” (female respondent 4).

She mentioned various explanations to why she believed he had asked her. Notably, she had lobbied firmly for the position:

“I had spoken with my predecessor for two hours during a drink. I saw him and thought: this is the moment to start a conversation. Yes, I had a plan in advance. I figured that this would be the perfect moment to introduce myself. And it worked....” (female respondent 4).

She was stunned that the dean approached her for both positions of vice-dean education as well as vice-dean research, while she clearly stood out in her research skills, had been

lobbying for the position of research, and explicitly indicated that she liked to have some time left for writing a book:

“I still don’t know what that was about; I would never want to be vice-dean education.

Considering the many education visitations this year, it really meant a full-time job…it just did not suit me” (female respondent 4).

Other professors had left the position of vice-dean education before the required time of period, which indicated the high burden of the vice-dean education position.

The interviews with male professors indicated that they were approached internally for the senior academic management position. Some were asked to apply for the position and had to compete with other potential candidates for the position. Others were directly appointed to the position. It is explained that it used to be common to be appointed by the previous dean, but that it nowadays has changed into recruitment selections by a headhunter. This is comparable to the answers of female interviewees. The answers to why they thought they were selected for the position were quite similar: it had something to do with visible previous management experiences, such as being a department head or other administrative

responsibilities within the faculty. And/or it had something to do with their skills in change management due to their involvement in reorganizations or implementation of certain

programmes together with the previous dean. In both cases, they had been noticed by the dean or the head of the university. Further, male interviewees mentioned that they unconsciously came ‘on the path of’ academic management. And, as a result, developed into a senior academic management position. This is often explained by comparable statements, such as:

“As a scientist you do not choose for an academic management future, that is something that happens to you” (male respondent 3).

5.2.1 Conclusion

This section concludes that male professors were regularly internally approached for senior academic management, while female professors were appointed via various routes. Male interviewees were asked to apply for the position or directly appointed to the position, due to previous (management) experiences within the faculty. They were often asked by the dean or rector to solve faculty issues. This way, they entered management positions by coincidence, as it was never based on a rational career plan. Female interviewees more often needed to express their interests to be noticed for appointment, or even directly apply to senior academic management positions. Diverse reasons were provided for being appointed. Consequently, a relevant question on the ‘demand-side’ emerges: did the appointment of female professors had something to do with the nature (precariousness) of the position? This study did not examine the glass cliff on a marco-level (demand-side). Therefore, it will be included as a suggestion in chapter six for future research into the glass cliff in Dutch academia.