Barriers and Enablers to Leadership Roles

The second Women Academics Change Agents (WACA) Network event took place on Wednesday 26^th March, attended by 30 women. This was part of a programme of events and activities at the University of Bath celebrating International Women's Day 2025 on the theme of 'Accelerate Action'. A super interesting discussion on “Barriers and Enablers to Leadership Roles” drew upon the invaluable experiences and insights from four female leaders within the University of Bath  (from left to right in the photo):

• • Prof Deborah Wilson - Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Prof Cassie Wilson - Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience)
  • Prof Juani Swart - School of Management
  • Prof Jane White - Vice-President Community & Inclusion
  • Dr Frances Laughton - Host, Deputy Head of the Department of Physics & WACA Network Co-chair.

We opened asking our panellists why they took up a leadership role given the perceived emphasis on research and teaching for promotion/ academic kudos. Their responses recognised that deciding whether, and when, to step into a leadership role within the scaffold of the elements of an academic career and at different career stages, could be tricky. However, each speaker said they undertook their leadership role because opportunities arose that resonated with their personal values and expertise – it had to be the ‘right’ role for them. Also, they did not see their ‘leadership’ role as ‘other’ to their academic roles, but aligned or complementary to their teaching and/or research interests.

For Cassie, her teaching experiences led her to develop a concern for student welfare and experience, so it seemed a natural step to apply for her current role. Similarly, Jane had a long-conceptualised view of higher education as something bigger than just teaching and research, rather thinking of academia as a community. For Deborah, it was the desire to support her colleagues in the best way possible and Juani’s history of leadership in the corporate world, prior to joining academia, gave her skills that she felt she could contribute which would otherwise be under-utilised. Additionally, a desire to give back to the community, and simply the challenge of having to think strategically and/or operationally were motivators.

Interestingly, the panellists expressed how undertaking leadership roles in this manner liberated them from imposter syndrome that they may have been experiencing in other parts of their academic lives. Depending on the specific role, some felt that the pressure of performance evaluation based on research activity either diminished or was removed entirely and enabled them to be closer to their “true selves”.  Jane went so far as to describe her current role as her ‘dream job’ which she used to maintain her focus during more difficult/frustrating times, whilst Juani found synchronicity between her  leadership role and her research agenda. Deborah recognised that taking on leadership could require a negotiation with the Deans to recognise the shift it would cause with respect to other demands and interests. For example, considering whether some funds could be made available for research assistance to enable people to maintain their research trajectory.

This resonance with personal values also helped address a question of saying ‘no’ when approached to undertake a leadership role. It’s OK to decline the offer if it is really something you do not want to undertake. However, there are ways to decline. Highlighting the mismatch between the requirements of a role and your current skills, values and time resource is legitimate. Informing others about which skills and values you would like to apply leaves open the possibility of being interested in future roles that align with you better. Alternatively, you might feel able to accept the role if you have the mandate to adapt it so that it matches your values and objectives better.

The panellists were then asked about transparency around leadership within the promotion criteria. The panellists had experience of assessing this in their roles as heads of department, members of academic staff committee etc. They resoundingly agreed that the promotion criteria under the leadership heading, was clear, however they did agree that transparency around the metrics used to assess performance in this area was trickier than for the research and teaching areas; more work needs to be undertaken to clarify this.

The discussion then turned towards the meaning of ‘leadership’ and how women express themselves regarding their leadership. There was a recognition that men and women tend to be offered different types of leadership roles. Roles positioned as “strategic” tend to be offered to/ undertaken by men, and “operational” roles to/by women. Indeed, female leaders tend to adopt a ‘facilitating’ style of leadership, enabling others, whilst male forms of leadership tend to be ‘heroic/ enacted’. This can be problematic in relation to promotion criteria, as it can be more difficult to show evidence of direct impact from a facilitating style of leadership, compared to an enacting style of leadership. Moreover, most ‘voluntary’ and citizen roles are undertaken by women rather than men.

Recognising these difficulties, the audience were urged to take agency over the types of roles they undertook, to compile a stock of evidence of, and find ways of expressing, their impact in their leadership roles. If there is a future leadership role you are aspiring towards, how can you position yourself now to be offered it in future? Think how undertaking smaller roles might build up an evidence base that allows you meet the criteria for that role. Such conversations should be brought up during SDPR meetings so that leadership roles could be seen as integrated into careers, rather than as an ‘add-on’.

Besides encouraging a more strategic approach to promotion and career development, the experience of the panel in reading promotion applications was that women (themselves included in the past), express their impact and experiences in ‘softer terms’ – using conditional, or subjective terms, under-emphasising their personal contribution in favour of acknowledging “the team”, being “too honest” about their weaknesses. All women need to become more comfortable taking ownership of their achievements and expressing these in positive terms.

Finally, the audience raised an interesting question of whether undertaking a leadership role in the university is valuable in the wider marketplace for jobs.  For the most part, the panellists experienced their leadership opportunities whilst at Bath and had not sought career mobility via the market, however they acknowledged that for academic positions leadership experience might play a secondary role relative to research metrics. However, there are specific adverts for leadership and executive roles in universities, where the leadership element of your experience would be valued much more highly. Additionally, it is expected, the ‘People, Culture and Environment’ element of the 2029 Research Excellence Framework will require clear leadership across a broader range of areas than just research income and outputs, so opportunities in such areas are likely to arise.

This lively 45-minute panel session was followed by breakout table discussions where participants were asked to identify what they saw or encountered as barriers to their take up of leadership positions, or career progression on this path. Common themes that emerged included:

• One barrier highlighted was the inadvertent invisibility of women in management and leadership positions held jointly with men. Despite having equal responsibility for the role, women are often inadvertently missed off email communications. Women lose information that may be vital to the role and undermine their ability to fulfil the role and worse, may make individual women feel less visible. Role specific emails for all leadership and management positions would be simple to implement and minimise this poor practice.
• There is inconsistent practice across departments about how leadership positions and committee roles were advertised. In some departments, but not all, there are open calls for expression of interest. Others reported the perception that some individuals were earmarked and approached for roles on a 1-2-1 basis.
• The issue of ‘small/ thankless /non-promotable tasks’ was raised as a barrier to women having time for taking on leadership roles. Research shows that women are more likely than men to be asked by their line managers to volunteer for, and accept requests for, such tasks. These tasks may be vital to the organization, for example sitting on interview panels, work to support admissions and open days, yet members of the network felt that this was not recognized in workload allocation (WAMS) nor in promotion/progression criteria.
• Another barrier raised was insufficient and/or inconsistent ongoing support or training for leadership and management roles. An enabler might be mentoring although experiences of the availability and the quality of mentoring received was variable.

As you can see, the two hours were rich in the issues they raised providing a chance for individuals to reflect upon personal attitudes to leadership and management within career progression, and much for WACAN to consider in terms of how we can advocate for change on behalf of women academics in the University.

Written by Felicia Fai on behalf of WACA Network Co-Chairs