Microsoft Word doctoral thesis final[1]. doc

particularly on women academics and women leaders. 
 

---

 
18
Watson (2000:7), quoting Rosemary Deem’s definition of new managerialism, says, “it is 
a complex ideology which informs ways of managing public institutions by advocating 
many of the practices and values of the private for-profit sector in pursuit of efficiency, 
excellence and continuous improvement.” Watson observes however, that Deem seems to 
advocate a different kind of managerialism characterised by “a more sensitive approach” 
which stresses “collaborative and facilitative management, concern for people rather than 
just focusing on tasks, a lack of interest in personal status and competing with others, 
flexibility in approach and…ability to work as a member of a team” (Watson 2000:7-8).  
 
It seems clear from this perspective that Deem expresses concern for the possible erosion 
of female styles of management in the advent of the ‘new managerialism’ which seems to 
favour competition over team work and collaboration. One common perspective shared 
by researchers (Blackmore 2000, 2002; Hall 2002;  Kenway & Langmead 2002; 
Reynolds 2002; Saunderson 2002 ) in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and Australia 
regarding the ‘new managerialism’ is that it brings with it ambiguities for women 
academics and  leaders as well as managers. Consequent to a recognition of the need for 
the leadership talent of women and of the need for a “more sensitive approach to people 
management, an approach that will capture both the hearts and minds of workers” 
(Blackmore 2000:50), it would seem that opportunities should open up for women 
academics aspiring to be leaders and managers. However, no sooner do women enter 
executive positions than they leave as a result of what is referred to as “a rapidly 
revolving door” which ensures that women enter and exit executive positions rapidly 
(Blackmore 2002:51).The ambiguity lies in the fact that while on the one hand, there are 
discourses concerning inclusion and arguments for more “feminine qualities” of 
leadership, on the other hand the “hegemonic culture of competitive success remains 
unchanged” (Kanter 1990 in Blackmore 2002:51). 
 
Using data from a large qualitative study of women school leaders in Victoria, Australia, 
Blackmore sought to outline ways in which currently available leadership scripts limit 
possibilities and /or provide opportunities for women who lead in education. Her 
conclusion is that the current paradigm is “a threat not only to feminism and feminist 
teachers in universities, but to the overall position of women in the society”.  This 

---

 
19
sentiment is echoed by Kenway and Langmead (2002: 127-8). They observe how this 
new paradigm (in contemporary Australian universities) could impact women’s 
leadership possibilities and affect any gains made in “policy initiatives and improvements 
in fostering anti-sexist practices…”. Kenway and Langmead are clearly concerned about 
the future of feminism in contemporary universities. 
 
Johnson (2002) reports on a project to examine the extent to which the ‘new 
managerialism’ has permeated the management of UK universities. This project was 
undertaken in the UK on a sample of  ‘manager-academics’ which included vice-  
chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors and HoDs. Although the study was not limited to 
female manager-academics, its findings have important implications for women HoDs 
working within the new context of higher education management. The increased volume 
of work and new demands and responsibilities placed upon HoDs necessitates constant 
learning, re-skilling and re-tooling. This may demand time away from home, which, 
although not in itself a bad thing, may add pressure and stress on women who are already 
overloaded. 
 
An interesting observation was made by Hall when studying women principals in Britain 
during the ‘new managerialism’ era. She observed “contrasting interpretations of 
entrepreneurial activity in education, which on the one hand condemn it and on the other 
hand applaud it” (Hall 2002:13). This observation is echoed by Saunderson (2002), who 
writes about the current position and problems of academic women working “within the 
context and constraints of the ‘new managerialism’ in the UK higher education system”. 
She raises concerns about the impact of the ‘new managerialism’ in UK higher education 
upon women’s academic identity and experience of academia, which she says is often 
compounded by the changing “ethos, praxis and pedagogy of UK higher education 
institutions in the twenty-first century (Saunderson 2002:379). She observes that a 
fundamental incongruence/anomaly is suggested between the values of academic women 
and the values of ‘academic managerialism’. Values of academic women include “social 
justice, equity, collegialism and co-operation” and these appear to be incongruent with 
the values of “efficiency, individualism and competition of academic managerialism”. In 
an analysis of  the personal accounts of academic women in UK universities by Brown 

---

 
20
(2000), it was found that “issues of equal opportunities…were central to the issues found 
to disadvantage academic women [who] reported marginalisation and isolation from 
disciplinary, departmental and organisational networks – deemed very important for 
‘success’ in the current ‘corporatist’ academic culture”(Saunderson 2002:384).  
 
In a preliminary survey of academics conducted in six South African higher education 
institutions, Webster and Mosoetsa (2001) report several changes in the academic 
workplace brought about by what they refer to as ‘academic managerialism’. Their 
findings do not focus on women academics but on all academics. They report that 
academics have difficulty adjusting to being called line managers and to relating to 
management in an employer/employee capacity rather than as colleagues. Personal 
relationships with HoDs which existed before have now changed to distant relationships. 
There were feelings that academics’ professional autonomy was being undermined and 
their status reduced. This was accompanied by a loss of the sense of community and 
feelings of powerlessness. Webster and Mosoetsa concluded by pointing out that 
‘academic managerialism’ in South African higher education “has not adequately 
recognised the distinctive occupational culture of academics or the specificities of public 
sector institutions” (Webster & Mosoetsa 2001:79). From this preliminary survey, it is 
clear that in South Africa a great deal of research still needs to be conducted into the 
likely impact of the ‘new managerialism’ particularly on women academics and women 
leaders and managers in higher education.  
 
In conclusion, the ‘new managerialism’ / ‘academic managerialism’ appears to be a 
serious threat to the gains made in equity efforts in the academe. The evident erosion of 
collegial forms of governance (believed to be amenable to women) and their replacement 
with corporate principles of efficiency and effectiveness may be inimical to women and 
may also, in effect, block their path to advancement to managerial positions. Instead the 
‘new managerialism’ seems more likely to perpetuate male dominance (to be precise, 
white male dominance), and in the words of Blackmore (2002:426) “impart more power 
to the powerful…”. 

---

 
21