The Present
Leadership Development for Women
and Work/Life Balance at UWA
Susan Barker
Leadership Development for Women (LDW) Programme: a key strategy employed by the University of Western Australia to achieve more equitable gender outcomes. Acknowledgements to Ms Jen de Vries and Ms Claire Webb, Centre for Staff Development UWA, and http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/ldw/.
The LDW Programme aims to build a strong learning community within the context of a male-dominated University environment where women can explore their work and life options. The aim for individuals who participate is that they will develop leadership skills and knowledge in order to increase their participation in positions of leadership and in the University’s decision-making processes. The aim for the institution is that the Programme will contribute to culture change in the University so that it is more encouraging and welcoming of women’s contributions. The Programme is based on a vision of a university environment where women have the opportunity to aspire to and engage in leadership roles at all levels, and in a multiplicity of ways, contributing to the achievement of international excellence. LDW is now in its tenth year and 330 women have so far participated in what has proven to be a highly successful initiative.
LDW is open to all female staff at UWA with appointments of 0.5 or more and a minimum of a year contract. Groups of 30 women are selected to participate in a year long staff development programme. The format is a combination of experiential-learning skills-based workshops, information sessions, networking opportunities and mentoring. Statistics on retention and promotion have been collected for each cohort of LDW participants. These demonstrate a significant and positive difference in both categories for LDW participants compared to non participant women and all men.
Four of the 2002 LDW cohort chose work / life balance as our theme for investigation. Two are general staff (Mrs Marianne Rogers, an administrative officer in the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Mrs Christine Bapty, senior project archivist) and two are academic staff (Dr Eve Blair, a senior research fellow in the Centre for Child Health/Population Studies and Dr Susan Barker, Senior Lecturer in Plant Molecular Genetics). We found a significant overlap in experience and consider that the issues raised are undoubtedly relevant to women in university careers of any type, and certainly to women in science.
The outcomes of our deliberations and research on this topic were presented to all 2002 LDW participants and senior members of the University administration at an “end-of-programme” session in February 2003. We first considered what might be construed as a reasonable work-life balance, given that this is a personal issue and we all have different goals, aspirations and capabilities. Most upper level positions require more than 9 to 5 attendance but this is not necessarily concern. However, when relationship or health problems occur it could mean that our work/life balance is out of kilter. We identified internal and external threats to achieving a satisfying work/life balance. Eve’s questions concerning the determinants of achieving a satisfying work-life balance led to her constructing, conducting and analysing a questionnaire on this topic (below).
We also considered whether there might be particular problems or constraints faced at UWA. There are the usual gender problems faced in the wider community. Few women have a non-working partner who is able to take care of children or other outside activities allowing them to work many hours of overtime in a week. In families where the male partner does stay home the woman has the mental issues of being wage earner on top of the physical issues of being child bearer. Some academic women perceive remaining childless necessary to maintaining their career.
I detailed the pressures on academic work/life at UWA caused by deciding to have children while being the primary wage earner (therefore unable to take leave without pay). Childcare for under year-olds currently is not assured at UWA (the waiting list is about 18 months for a spot). There are no ‘not-very-sick/convalescent child care’, ‘before school’ care and no paternal support networks at UWA. Local housing around UWA is often unaffordable for newly arriving staff members with young children so renting or commuting is necessary, both of which can create further stresses to a work/life balance.
However, there are very positive aspects for academics at UWA, which have enabled me to maintain my full-time employment, therefore continuing my scientific career (albeit on “slow”). Timetabling of teaching within school hours can be achieved. There are two childcare centres on campus and plans for additional childcare are now in progress following a survey of UWA community need. There also is after school care including a pick up service, and vacation care, though the latter is very expensive. Staff have top priority on the waiting lists. Also, as academics have no “working hour” expectations, time off with sick children or for school functions is possible provided the teaching schedule does not clash. Work from home is accepted as a norm so school holidays and ‘pupil-free days’ can be accommodated. Salary packaging for childcare payments reduces the strain of childcare costs.
Report of Survey of LDW participants to identify determinants of satisfaction with one’s balance between work and life outside work. from Eve Blair
One hundred and twelve (112) questionnaires were sent to valid email addresses with an option for anonymous response. LDW participants were chosen because they were thought more likely to be receptive to the request to complete a survey having also gone through the programme. However, only 29 valid completed questionnaires were received, giving a disappointing valid response rate of 25.9%. The distribution of outcome (satisfaction with work-life balance) cannot therefore be generalised to all LDW participants as it is likely that satisfaction with one’s work/life balance is a factor in determining whether or not to complete the questionnaire. Also, the low number of observations makes statistical significance unlikely even for important associations, precludes the possibility of multivariate analysis and together with the large numbers of independent factors being examined make it likely that some could achieve a statistically significant association by chance alone. Nonetheless, trends were observed and these are reported here.
Description
of the Population
Satisfaction with the work/life balance.
Extremely dissatisfied was assigned a score of 0% and extremely satisfied of 100%. Satisfaction with work/life balance was taken as the proportion of the line. Scores ranged from 1.6% to 93%. The mean value was 54.5% (se 4.46%) with a standard deviation of 24%.
Age
Half the sample were between 41 and 50 years of age, with approximately one quarter each 31-40 and 51-60 years. Satisfaction tended to decrease with age, though the range within each age group was very large and no differences were statistically significant. Mean score decreased from 64.4% to 56.9% to 42.5% with increasing decade (p for linear trend=0.08).
Marital
status
Married/partnered respondents tended to be slightly more satisfied. Among the 23 married/partnered respondents, those who shared the bread-winning status equally with their spouse tended to be less satisfied than those with differentiated roles; those with no dependent children or 2 dependent children tended to be more satisfied than those with 1 child, those with 3 children being intermediate; there was no discernible pattern with the dependent children’s ages. The satisfaction of unmarried/unpartnered respondents was not affected by whether or not they had dependent children (N=3 & 3).
Income
Twenty five (25) of the 29 worked full time, but income was very
varied. Modal income was in the $55-65,000 bracket, with 20 of the 29 earning
between 45,000 and 80,000 annually. However there was little relationship
between income and satisfaction with work/life balance, except that the 2
highest earners had the lowest satisfaction scores.
Travel
Time spent travelling and mode of travel was not associated with
satisfaction.
Boss
The 13 workers for female bosses were statistically significantly
(p<0.05) more satisfied with a mean score of 65% than the 16 with male bosses
with a mean score of 46%: difference =19.3% (95% CI=2.5-35.9). However since
there were no male respondents, it does not tell us whether satisfaction
increases with a boss of the same gender, or having a female boss. The 6
respondents whose bosses had primary school aged children tended to be more
satisfied than those with bosses with either no children or with older
children. This was not entirely explained by the bosses with primary school
aged children tending to be female.
Environment
Workers surrounded either by those primarily of the same gender (N=17, mean
59.4%) or opposite gender (N=5, mean 63%) were more satisfied than those
surrounded by a balanced mix of gender (N=6, mean =42%).
The 9 workers surrounded by older workers were significantly more satisfied (71.3%) than those surrounded by persons of the same age (N=11, 49.5%) or younger (N=8, 43.6%). This observation is compatible with older persons tending to be less satisfied, but represents a stronger association.
Decision
making
All but 2 respondents were entirely responsible for minor decision
making. Satisfaction increased with increasing assistance with major decision
making. Those who regularly had people to advise them (N=9) having a mean
score of 61.9% compared with those who had to make some or all major decisions
by themselves (N=18) 49.2%, whether or not they had access to advice.
Working
hours
Satisfaction decreased with increased working hours, with a
statistically significant estimate of a decrease of 1.25% points per weekly
working hour p=0.0077) on linear regression analysis, see plot.
There was a tendency for satisfaction to increase with increasing duration of break time during the working day, (p=.113), particularly when the duration of the working day was taken in to account p=.029), but this may be confounded by the inverse association with the length of the working day.
The associations between age, working hours and the bosses’ gender seem reasonably independent: eg it was not the case that younger women worked shorter hours and tended to have female bosses.
Other
factors
Twenty respondents identified other factors that they considered to
affect their satisfaction with their work/life balance. As might be
anticipated, since most factors had a negative impact, satisfaction tended to
decrease with increasing number of identified factors, but not all identified
factors were cited negatively.
4 respondents identified the importance of a supportive partner or family (3 positively and 1 negatively).
4 respondents identified the importance of the support of work colleagues (1 positively and 3 negatively).
3 respondents identified job flexibility positively, either in terms of hours and location of performing the work, or in ability to choose which projects to initiate.
However 2 further respondents identified that a significant and self imposed contributor to their dissatisfaction was their desire to accomplish too much and an inability to prioritise effectively, which is only possible if one has the ability to choose which projects to initiate.
In contrast to this internal factor, all other factors were identified as having external origins and a negative impact on satisfaction with the work/life balance. In order of frequency of citation:
Work intrudes into home life, expectation that work will be completed after hours or on weekends (N=5)
Too much work (and that this is increasing) (N=5)
Feeling unappreciated and unsupported by employer or by administration (N=4)
Which might be the same thing as:
Unsuitable working environment: eg inadequate resources (money, equipment or support staff) (N=3).
Further personal circumstances were identified in individual respondents.
Conclusion
Although this survey was disappointingly small and not able to be generalised to all LDW participants, it suggests that there may be systematic associations between increased satisfaction with the work/life balance and having a female boss, working with older colleagues, being younger, shorter working hours, having no dependent children and not taking major decisions without advice. For those wanting offspring, satisfaction with the work/life balance may be easier to achieve by having more than one child.
However, many other factors were acknowledged to affect satisfaction with the work/life balance, and these may originate within oneself, in one’s family environment or in the workplace environment.