Charles Sturt University Leadership
Development for Women
Evaluation
2006-2012
Report - Appendices
Written for the Leadership Development
for Women Steering Committee
APPENDICES
Page
31 January 2013
1
Penny Davidson
Appendices
Appendix 1: Online survey ................................................................................................................................. 3
Appendix 2: Participant Interview Questions................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3: Supervisor interview questions .................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 4: Invitation to participate in the online survey ............................................................................... 22
Appendix 5: Interview Information Statement for Participants ....................................................................... 24
Appendix 6: Interview Consent Form for Participants ..................................................................................... 26
Appendix 7: Interview Information statement for Supervisors ....................................................................... 27
Appendix 8: Interview Consent Form for Supervisors ...................................................................................... 29
Appendix 9: Summary of Online Survey open ended responses ..................................................................... 30
Page
2
Appendix 10: Detailed suggestions .................................................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES
Page
3
Appendix 1: Online survey
APPENDICES
4
Page
APPENDICES
5
Page
APPENDICES
6
Page
APPENDICES
7
Page
APPENDICES
8
Page
APPENDICES
9
Page
APPENDICES
10
Page
APPENDICES
11
Page
APPENDICES
12
Page
APPENDICES
13
Page
APPENDICES
14
Page
APPENDICES
15
Page
APPENDICES
16
Page
APPENDICES
17
Page
APPENDICES
18
Page
APPENDICES
19
Page
APPENDICES
Page
20
Appendix 2: Participant Interview Questions
APPENDICES
Page
21
Appendix 3: Supervisor interview questions
APPENDICES
Page
22
Appendix 4: Invitation to participate in the online survey
APPENDICES
23
Page
APPENDICES
Page
24
Appendix 5: Interview Information Statement for Participants
APPENDICES
25
Page
APPENDICES
Page
26
Appendix 6: Interview Consent Form for Participants
APPENDICES
Page
27
Appendix 7: Interview Information statement for Supervisors
APPENDICES
28
Page
APPENDICES
Page
29
Appendix 8: Interview Consent Form for Supervisors
APPENDICES
Appendix 9: Summary of Online Survey open ended responses
No.
4
8
11
4
1
10
34
17
3
21
3
1
8
1
5
1
5
5
1
6
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
NB More than one code may be given for a single response.
APPENDICES
Page
30
Question 1: Why did you participate in the LDW program?1
aid promotion
gain different perspective of CSU, learn more about
meet aspiring women
learn contemporary management practices
learn tools for change (in dysfunctional workplace)
nominated by manager
learn leadership skills, increase leadership capacity
develop career path, career advice
mentoring
networking
skill development
women only
support for leadership, confidence
indicator of interest in being a leader
good feedback
few other leadership development opportunities
professional development
personal development
cope with bullying
understand gender and leadership, and ethical leadership
confidence dealing with academics
heard mixed reviews
to be part of the conversation about women and leadership
curious about the program and impact on women leaders
new to university
understand what CSU values, wants in leaders
gain strategies to balance life
APPENDICES
1
11
6
1
1
38
1
11
17
2
5
5
23
2
7
1
1
9
7
13
2
12
7
4
2
2
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
Negative
poorly organised
mentor didn't work
suited to professional staff
course has potential but needs refreshing
don't expect anything to be different or the organisation to have changed
NOT skills on management and leadership
frustrating
waste of time
you need to have clear aims to gain from it
No.
Page
Question 3: How would you describe the LDW program to a female colleague?
Positive
looks good on your cv
support women, supportive environment
challenge self
learning opportunity
collaborative approach to leadership
networking
meeting interesting / intelligent women
interesting / enjoyable / exciting
worthwhile
different for academics and professional staff
career development - path
opportunity to discuss / explore leadership
space for self-reflection, understand you own strengths, career goals
transformational
confidence
Self-directed learning
value comes after the experience 'slow burner'
understand the university - roles, responsibility and issues
useful skills / tools
learn about management and leadership
learn / informative
understand gender issues and challenges
personal development
professional development
empowering
interactive
workshops
peer group
mentor opportunity
Maggie great
Question 4: Open ended response regarding learning benefits
Positive
specific leadership skills
how to implement / practical hands on
agrees with items in qu 4
CSU leadership culture has changed since doing the course (not question specific)
broader understanding of leadership and leadership culture
understanding of structure of university
understanding of what kind of leader CSU values - but doesn't see on-ground support for
this
empowerment
understand leadership as NOT positional or single style
open to HEW5
models of effective leadership
senior staff very helpful to PLG
focus on women and leadership at CSU was useful
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Page
32
Negative
uninspiring program leaders
suits lower level admin not academics
not significant links to CSU context
CSU expectations and actual leadership are not aligned with what is taught in course
wanted a broader academic leadership advice
no link to previous years
deficit model rather than empowerment approach
learnt from mentor not rest of program
want more on promotion
potential to learn above but didn't happen
it focused on self-awareness
No.
APPENDICES
Qu 5 clearer understanding of the university and tertiary sector
learnt from my mentor not from the facilitators
through my own investigation
would have liked more of this
learnt more but that was from fellow participants
yes did learn
yes re University no re tertiary sector
opportunity for general and academic staff to get to know each other
produce a Dummies guide for how the university operates
4
1
6
1
2
2
2
1
Question 6: Open ended response to building of confidence and skills
Positive
it was powerful - revelatory
gets you to focus on your skills and weaknesses
developed career plans
am following chosen path - not of leadership
have stepped down for lifestyle reasons
moved from CSU
at time thought didn't provide what wanted but now see missed opportunity
provides transferable skills
best professional development program
know up to me to continue development
taken on more leadership
confidence increase of most benefit
realised wasn't alone
appreciated mentor
appreciated support from other participants
don't have leadership goals
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Page
33
Negative
couldn’t utilise what learnt - LDW token - limited opportunities, people appointed because
they comply not for competence
were left to own devices, unsupported
have looked for courses outside of CSU
difficult to maintain momentum after end
success not attributed to program
No.
APPENDICES
Question 7: Open ended response to networking and collaboration
opportunities
Positive
visibility was a focus of PLG
only with participants and mentor
particularly through PLG and mentor
particularly through mentor
network helps maintain confidence
network has been beneficial
network provided support
network has provided knowledge sharing
hard to know what influence LDW had
still see level 5 as having leadership qualities
think this has improved in program
maintaining network depends on individual and workload
alumni would be good
No.
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Negative
senior women closed shop - middle managers network more useful
Haven’t increased network - many PGL left
mentor not available
feel unsupported and isolated
don't think anyone's profile raised
discord between values of program and CSU culture led to disenchantment
with university
PLG not a success
2
No.
1
1
2
1
1
Page
34
Question 8 and 9: Open ended response to complements other programs
(27 out of 79 respondents had done other skill development programs)
didn't know
complementary - other programs met other needs
only aware of GCULM - too demanding
women's research skills was better for needs
aware import for some women to address gender
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDICES
No.
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
Page
35
Question 10: Open ended response to improved understanding of gender
issues
no gender issues where I work
more aware of div/ school / faculty / other EO issues
more aware of gender equity issues
didn't feel program was about issues but developing women to step up
disappointed at level of material - but understands program can't meet
everyone's needs
think CSU culture is greater issue eg expectation to sacrifice family
facilitators did a great job re this
APPENDICES
Questions 11 to 18: Open ended responses to actions influenced by the LDW
Applied for promotion
helped clarify CSU not going to support my career development
too early - constrained opportunities
yes
found the skills learnt useful in private area, senior leadership
had already got promoted - gave extra confidence
confidence to apply
too busy to apply
sensitised as to how to position self for promotion
recognised need to be assertive about knowledge and ability
network was influential
No.
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
Participate in national or state committees
too soon
already did
participation doesn't seem to 'count' toward profile at CSU
1
4
1
Higher duties
confident to do so
CSU senior exec support and resources to program helps build confidence to apply
yes
support to do so
been told will go up because took on higher duties
have a sense of aspiration
no opportunity yet
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Page
36
Achieved promotion
strong link between LDW and career progress
difficult to advance without supervisory experience
contract to permanent
confidence to keep trying, diff approaches to get where wanted to be
increased profile amongst senior staff
changed how approached staff
confidence
encouraged to think of self as leader but other factors prevented promotion
APPENDICES
Questions 19 to 30: Open ended responses to actions influenced by the LDW
Influence policy
confidence and promote change
confidence to speak out
Recognise that I do have the knowledge and that other staff value my opinion
confidence and knowledge of university
1
1
1
1
Contribute / lead meetings
Assisted with softening my approach/ be inclusive.
definitely have more confidence now
always been involved in leading meetings
My leadership role has increased over the past year while is due to increased confidence.
2
2
5
1
Initiated or part of project
yes with group outside my immediate section
I have completed project work for many years
I have more confidence all-round since doing the LDW, and a far greater understanding of my
strengths/weaknesses
Directed a project
had already been doing research projects prior to LDW
I am a lead in an area of professional focus now.
Informal leadership at university
Empowering other staff and team members has been a strong focus sif mine since
participating in the LDW program.
mentoring another staff member.
I did so prior to LDW as well
I have been much more confident in helping others
helped me to see that I could help others
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
Page
37
Formal leadership at university
Increased my sense of self-confidence
more actively seeking out roles
new position
3
1
1
APPENDICES
Questions 31 to 40: Open ended responses to actions influenced by the LDW
Informal outside university
nothing new
small business owner
Very active member of a community, non-profit organisation here in Ballarat
1
1
1
Formal outside university
(18 out of 76 have outside formal leadership. about half thought LDW had an influence)
I am an executive committee member for a non-profit community organisation
1
More strategic committee involvement
I have been placed on several committees since LDW and I have left one since doing LDW
LDW made me much more aware of the need for this
LDW was useful for exposing one to CSU politics
1
2
1
Enrolled in further study
already studying
already had plan
have plans
informal formal study :-)
2
1
1
1
Increased participation in CSU committees
but would like to
Here LDW was useful as it alerted my HOS that I was seeking such roles & led to a
recommendation
always had some involvement
part of job
no - trying to control stress and job demands
1
1
1
No.
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
Page
38
Question 41: Assist in removing barriers
support all staff, and support women doing LDW
support wasn't welcomed by supervisor at time
more active pushing for equity
helped work-life balance and perform job better
leadership in the university has work to do
hard to renegotiate workload at CSU
work-life balance is a significant problem at CSU
1
1
APPENDICES
Question 42: Open ended response to effectiveness of
different program components
timing and commitment difficult for mothers
each component was a vital part of the whole.
peer learning groups didn't work
I didn't pick a very good mentor for myself.
more guidance re role of mentor and mentee
mentor aspect not well managed
peer learning group good
different way of managing peer learning groups needed
mentoring good
workshops poorly run
some aspects on agenda not covered
expand mentoring
core program affirming
program unsupported by HR
would like formal link to past participants
Question 43 to 46: Open ended response to type of learning
preferred
not sure what learning from creative processes
various methods good
enjoyed learning from peers
still reflect on my chart of strengths
like all types of learning
learning that involves relationships and energy within the
group
insufficient formal learning
mentor wasn't good match
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page
39
Question 47: Open ended response to knowledge of
leadership
enhanced my knowledge
made me aware of what I knew
Mostly from the diversity of participants
some still a complete mystery to me
3
7
1
4
4
4
7
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
No.
1
4
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
4
5
1
6
2
40
10
1
1
1
1
8
1
10
1
3
1
1
12
3
2
3
1
1
2
Page
Question 48: Suggested changes to the program
dates clash with mothers commitments / school holidays
confusing information from HR
inadequate information
no one there to meet participant
longer second workshop
open to HEW5 or lower
facilitators late to some sessions
mentors need more training / structure
Maggie attendance to PLG good but suggestions better earlier
ongoing support after program / follow-up
specific projects
draw on wisdom of previous participants
more support during program - particularly PLG
travel is tiring / time consuming
felt of low importance
content dated
include more on power
facilitators that embody leadership traits being taught
some sessions that focus on just academic or general staff - run
separately
too self reflexive and internally focused
have male leaders also present / reflect
ditch creative components
have over a longer time
have over a shorter time
promote benefits to broader university to foster cultural change
selection of mentors - better match
hard for mothers to be away from home
extend mentoring
ensure mentors are committed
emphasised divide between ac and general staff
add extra day to presentation component
final dinner
make PLG geographically organised
sessions in Albury
have same for men
don't do presentation at end
organisation was poor
more information on CSU
have a steering committee member available to contact
a session on Albury
mixed gender ok
Question 48: Suggested changes to the program
timing of first workshop difficult for stud service staff
ensure conveys reality not utopia
promote presentations more effectively
allocate CSU hypotheticals
less men bashing
change culture of CSU
presenters 'tired'
alumni
negative comments from male workmates
opportunity for work placement or higher duties after
ensure appropriate accommodation and comfortable classrooms
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
No.
23
13
2
3
1
14
5
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
5
1
Page
41
Question 48: Keep the same
mix of staff
women only
facilitators knowledgeable
content good
presentation - ended up being beneficial
all good
style of delivery
length of program
HEW6 +
peer learning group
more time with PLG and mentors
external consultants
mentoring as part of the program
enjoyed travel to campuses
dates, venue, campuses fine
Maggie
element of fun
No.
APPENDICES
No.
1
7
4
2
6
3
1
5
1
3
1
2
2
3
5
7
1
2
4
1
1
3
5
4
3
1
1
1
Page
42
Question 49: Open ended response to whether have been able to apply
what you have learnt
tried but organisation put initiative on hold
have used more inclusive style with staff
more mindfulness and thoughtfulness re leadership
higher role
better work with team members - improve way I interact
better work life balance
more confidence join committees
recognise and value my leadership skills, strengths
I asked to change work area - happy with decision
clear meeting/group outcomes
colleagues come to me for advice
successfully mentoring
chairing meetings
being more aware of responses of other
more confidence as a leader
more confidence to speak up
able to lead upwards
able to bring together teams of people to work cohesively, collaboratively.
have stepped up to challenges
have confidence to ask executive staff for tips/ help
l have tried to support own supervisor - more empathetic, willing to support
his leadership
confidence to take on informal leadership
feel more in control of self, more reflection
am more strategic
more aware of different leadership styles and working with others
promoting training for team members
more confidence in team
successful at promotion
APPENDICES
Question 50: Open ended response practiced leadership when not
formally designated leader
62 of 74 said yes they did exercise leadership when not formally designated
lead through developing processes to improve practice, promoting practices
taking a positive proactive role in a team to analyse issue and develop
strategies
thoughtful structured responses / contributions in meetings
more proactive in moving on ideas - seeking the right person to liaise with
conscious of what I'm doing and effect on others
empowering others to think of themselves as leaders
being prepared to question the taken for granted
being proactive when leader absent / run out of time
contributing to union log of claims
lead by example
being more prepared to take on tasks
have become source of advice for colleagues, and mentor
being more confident to offer ideas
training staff unofficially
more proactive in meetings
taking on leadership of informal staff groups
speaking up for others
I learnt the importance of taking a lead by sharing ideas and then having the
confidence to step back and allow others to introduce their ideas.
stood ground
liaised and got commitment from more senior staff
2
3
1
1
1
7
1
3
4
7
6
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page
43
Qu 51 leadership challenges you now face
how to break the boys club
does not aid individual identification of strengths and weakness or provide
strategies or learning paths
Looking for leadership in a culture that is compliance focused.
LDW wasn't very helpful for leadership realities at CSU
balancing research with push to take on management
how to deal with bossy people
how to deal with attacks when you question
managing up
1
6
APPENDICES
22
16
12
8
6
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
44
1
1
1
Page
Qu 58 Other comment
worthwhile / very good
should get continued support
more support from HR
good idea - great way to support women
meeting other women useful / networking
engaging and professional presenters
enjoyed the program
mentoring useful
would recommend
benefits may not be immediate
more promotion and support from the university
more support from supervisors/ high level support
needs to remain current - tired material
rethink / revitalise
significant impact on life
achievable time commitment
creative activities
don't conduct survey on one week-old graduates - too early
feels the program's worth needs to be evaluated to determine if should
continue
felt the survey wasn't anonymous (last questions)
include both genders
include level 5s might mean people continue their career at CSU instead of
leaving
Maggie as a role model
men still are offered leadership positions in preference to women
more buy in from supervisors
more care in selecting participants
more focus on CSU strategy
offer every two years
outside facilitators good
participants should be prepared to take opportunities
peer learning groups useful
plenty of opportunities to contribute
provided skills at important stage of career
provides stimulating and safe environment for reflection
social activities useful
time away from work useful
useful in personal life too
was a complaint session
worthwhile and left CSU as CSU not supportive
APPENDICES
Appendix 10: Detailed suggestions
APPENDICES
Page
better skilled experts which embody the leadership traits one is trying to teach/convey; general &
academic staff-focused sessions separately; women only participants is still useful to me, but
having male leaders share their experiences worthwhile; ditch much of the creative work - too much
superfluous warm-n-fuzzy distraction to me! really need to improve the quality of content - too selfreflexive & internally focused.
Women only element - I strongly believe the program provides a great development opportunity for
women and this shouldn't be lost. To gain maximum benefit though I believe there should be a
program to educate men re 'how to work with professional women' - especially in those areas of the
organisation where women are the minority or men are supervising a majority women team. This
way you have the LDW women participants returning to a work environment that has also learnt and
self reflected on gender related work areas.
The aspect that needs to improve is the culture within some parts of the university. It is not
appropriate to espouse potential values and then the culture that fosters and appreciates those
values not exist. It cannot be the women who graduate from the program to be solely responsible
for changing culture. It must be a reciprocity between graduates and the existing culture within the
university to develop and value leadership at all levels by both genders.
the length is good. The dates could perhaps be made outside of school holidays, once again not
being aware of women's life/work balance. It would be good to have main one at Wagga and the
other two at Bathurst and Thurgoona...share the travel Mix of staff was good The level could
perhaps be flexible to include some level5s important to have the women only program. the
presenters were good. Delivery excellent, perhaps more support during the year, with a blog/forum.
readings. discussion Mentoring needs to be supported with PD for both mentors and mentees, as
this is a complicate process. Peer learning group was excellent, though I hear some of the others
were not so. The content could be updated as the initial readings were out of date. I'm sure the
focus could be the same, but more
One of the positive aspects of the programme was having both academic and administration staff
involved. I found some of the frontloading at the beginning of the workshops was not particularly
valuable for the following activities. Whilst I appreciate the peer learning groups must be self
managed and self motivated, it would be useful to have mentors/monitors with responsibility for
each of the groups, in my year, our group was fantastic, however there were some very
dysfunctional groups and this seemed such a waste of opportunity.
The length of the program was good. Long enough to bond as a group, share experiences and
have that break from work enabling you to think and reflect. Dates were terrible. Missed my
children's first day of school, and then the 3rd session was during school holidays. Venue's were
adequate. Would prefer it shared across all campuses and not just WW and BX every time.
Level of staff were ok. We didn't have anyone at Director level or above which was disappointing.
Women only was good during the program, however there is a lot of resentment from the males in
the workplace. Presenter Maggie was excellent! The style of delivery during the workshops with
Maggie were excellent. The organisation and communication by HR was non-existent and
participants strongly felt that this program was not a HR priority or supported. Mentoring was a
real positive out of this program! Past experience of mentoring was not great, but this time around I
got a fabulous mentor who has generously given her time and knowledge and I hope our monthly
cuppa's will continue as I always come away with a lot to think about. Peer learning groups were
great. Lovely bunch of ladies and we all developed a great friendship and felt safe sharing our
issues and helping one another. We all shared frustration at the lack of information regarding the
final presentation during the course. We are all extremely busy and did not receive any formal
information about what we had to present until a couple of weeks beforehand. Program content
was good. Excellent readings provided and I especially loved the personality discussions. Overall
the program was beneficial and I am glad I participated. The two negatives would be 1. the
comments from male workmates who feel they are not offered any leadership program, and 2.
the total lack of organisation and communication from HR. Aside from allocating a mentor (very
late!), I have had no communication from anyone within HR during the entire process. Very
disappointing as previous participants spoke highly of Deb Bell and her passion and involvement in
the program. Us 2012 participants had no advocate.
45
Suggested changes:
APPENDICES
46
Page
I found the length of the program to be good not too much and not too little. The only suggestion
might be to add an extra day on the final presentation, I felt it was a bit rushed after presentations
where I think we had about an hour to reflect on things with Maggie. I would have liked a final dinner
or something to give each participant opportunity to reflect with each other. Dates were fine,
venues and campus locations was ok, - it was good to have it at Bathurst and then at Wagga and
then at Bathurst again. It meant the travel was shared around and we could visit our peers
workplaces. I enjoyed the mix of general and academic staff as well as levels, it enable many
perspectives to be brought to the table and quite a lot was learned from that. At first I wasn't sure
why it was only women - I didn't want to attend a men bashing session, but I soon realised that is
not what it was. The important reason for it to be only women was that there are specific challenges
that women face and it was easier to discuss these in a women only environment. The presenters
(Maggie) in particular were fantastic and she oozes with expertise. She had my attention from the
start with her delivery methods and knowledge. She seemed to know when it was important for her
to talk and when others should. She encouraged everyone and I felt she had a special knack of
bringing the best out of people. The mentoring I found extremely useful, I would encourage a mix of
mentors not just women, I had very supportive male mentors where the relationship still continues
long after LDW is finished. The peer learning groups were useful in that it teamed you up with
colleagues that were facing similar challenges as you. Again peer group support continues long
after LDW finishes. The program content seemed very relevant and there is nothing that comes to
mind that I would take out.
* The dates for the entire program did not work and did not take the participant group to heart. The
first workshop clashed with the first day of school which meant several mothers withdrew from the
program. This workshop also clashed with the introduction sessions from Andy Vann which meant
any women looking at becoming leaders through this program did not actually have the opportunity
to meet our new university leader. The second workshop was the week of Mother's Day which
meant mothers with pre-school & primary school children were missing the mother's day activities at
school and the final workshop was in the last week of school holidays and backed onto a long
weekend which is when most mothers take leave for holiday's with their families. Given this is a
women's program it didn't consider the role of women at all. * the dates/times for the F2F
workshops were inconsistent between the acceptance letter, the email sent from HR and the HR
website. This was confusing and frustrating. No diary invites were sent to cover all days you were
required to be in attendance, no outline of the days (which was a big issue at the final workshop
when no one was there to greet or give instructions. We didn't know if we had more time in the
morning or if this was it and we needed to be ready to go by end of first day). Overall HR
organisation was pretty poor. *The second workshop could have been a full week to make the
learning points more in-depth *mix of staff was good though quite a few of the academic staff
dropped out. * I think this course should be open to at least HEW 5 but potentially lower. The
program is not just about positional leadership and if some of our lower level general staff felt more
empowered about their role in the university then they would likely help in turning this culture
around *women only program is fantastic, I think we bonded more strongly because of it though I
would happily go through the program with men as well * the presenters were very knowledgeable
about their topic though they were late to the 1st and 3rd sessions which reflected poorly on them.
Sufficient travel time should be provided even if this means they arrive a day early (like the
participants have to!) *Mentoring needs more training/any training for mentors but was still hugely
beneficial for me * Maggie attended some of the peer group meetings in July and had some great
suggestions for how we could get more out of the meetings. These suggestions would have been
better received at the beginning given we had been meeting for nearly 6 months by that stage *
content was brilliant. I didn't see the point of the final presentation especially the need to be creative
as this was out of my comfort zone but it was hugely beneficial and taught me that leaders step up
even in uncomfortable situations.
commence in April, instead of January and make the program more condensed; greater follow up
with peer learning groups; more mentor training; feedback to broader university community about
the benefits and learnings of the program in order to bring about cultural change
There needs to be an internal facilitator who co-facilitates with Maggie to ensure that the CSU
leadership culture and aspirations are embedded in the program. Opportunities for work placement
and or higher duties should be offered to women who are either on the program or who complete
the program. Ongoing alumni support so that LDW woman get to share practice either F2F or
online community. Provide more opportunities for alumni to provide mentoring and support to
program participants. I argue that it needs to stay woman only, HEW5 and above & continue to mix
academic & general staff.
Page
47
All of the above It would be good to have some ongoing support, specific projects perhaps to
address, be able to draw on the wisdom of previous participants in a more formal way instead of
really being left in the dark to muddle through. the time and effort is a big investment. Facilitation of
the f2f days was great, but no nearly enough ongoing support between times- maybe we should be
more self directed, but it felt like we were abandoned. Mentors deserve support, training, advice,
mutual support group, even just some simple clarification about what their role is, and how they
might get something out of it too. Dates were shocking- school holiday times don't work. Wagga is
best campus for these vents as Bathurst is too much travel....or consider Albury, Port Macquarie.
Mix of staff is good- although could do with more Discussion as this is one of the biggest divides.
Have all the very senior people done the course? It felt a bit low grade. low importance. Style of
delivery was excellent. My peer learning group didn't work- too much effort for the return, we were
too small, and would have been good to have some more support in this area. Program content
seems fine- possibly a bit dated? Also would like to see more explicit addressing topic of 'power'.
Possibly not long enough- the year was really only 6 months by the time we got mentors etc. Would
be good to have some formal ongoing opportunities to continue (I know we can do this ourselves,
but it is always about doing it ourselves, why not actually provide some assistance with supporting
ongoing leadership development for those that want it).
mix of general and academics staff very necessary could benefit from male key speakers dinners
together would allow more reflection & conversation some discussions needed to continue at times
not shut down
Dates to be changed to when it is not school holidays as this did affect attendance.
It is important to retain a mix of academic and general staff as participants, as this contributes to the
university-wide network value of the course. I also think that there should be some facilitation by
senior university staff - the facilitators are good - but don't 'get' the CSU culture. The peer learning
groups are too ad hoc - there is a lot of lost opportunity for rich learning that is not capitalised on
because they are not facilitated in any organised or meaningful way.
Venue and campuses are an important factor and appropriate accommodation for both sessions
and participants is important. ensuring comfort for participants is key as hot classrooms and
uncomfortable seats is not a positive experience. the mentoring program could do with more
support and clearer parameters and guidelines for both mentors and mentees. I felt that I didn't
always have easy access to my mentor nor knew how much I could expect from him. It is good to
have a mix of general and academic staff to provide a good mix of knowledge, skills and
experience.
I felt as though it emphasised the "great divide" between Academics and General Staff to some
extent. Academics in my peer group expected the 2 General Staff members to organise meetings
and contribute more as they were too busy. Other General Staff found this to be the case too.
Perhaps there could be a day for both as separate entities. There should be some more men
involved. Mentoring process wasn't very clear. If you've never had a mentor and you have low
confidence this area is very difficult to maintain. I feel Level 5's should be involved as it may give
them confidence to apply for Level 6 positions.
APPENDICES
Page
48
Other comments:
It may need revitalisation or rethinking but what is crucial is that women specific leadership
programs be provided at CSU so that women get the boost and confidence they need to apply for
and understand the strategies and 'hidden' messages behind promotion etc. The clear message of
CSU support for LDW is that women MATTER at all levels - and particularly at senior level. We
need to have this reiterated in practice and resourcing, as well as in policy. LDW does this well.
The networks I formed with other women across academics and general staff and with senior
leaders were invaluable.
I think this was a great program and I probably appreciate it more now than I did straight after doing
it. I really enjoyed doing the program and found it very achievable with time commitment whilst
working full time in a busy role. It complemented and enhanced my role with the ability to integrate
the learning into my everyday working life. One aspect that may be considered for inclusion at a
more detailed level is focussing more on the University strategy. I think it would be valuable to
consider opening the program to both genders and possibly also to select level fives. Perhaps those
who have indicated finding it a challenge to make the next step in their career development, those
that have been in their position for a while and who can demonstrate that they have taken on
informal leadership roles and whose supervisors can provide a genuine case that the Level five
would benefit. I have seen a few very good contributors with loads of potential leave the
organisation because there has not been any opportunity for career progression in their area.
Doing this program could open up opportunities outside their current work unit and CSU could
benefit by keeping some really proactive people who have gotten bored and sought career
advancement elsewhere.
This years experience and the 'professionalism' of this course was severely let down by the lack of
the element of a 'host' for participants who arrived at the venue and in the absence of the presenter.
It would be nice to have a HR rep at all the sessions and there to also provide support to the
presenter. This was present in the first workshop, but was seriously lacking in the second and third.
It was quite embarrassing for our presenter and the other participants all shared this view. This is
not aimed at any single person, but could have been better supported by HR.
The LDW is an important component of the leadership programs at CSU. I suggest that selection of
participants is more comprehensively planned. What I mean is - at the moment if you want to do this
program & your supervisor approves then you nearly always get in. There needs to be more buy in
from supervisors and senior management so that selection needs to be more thoughtful with the
future leadership of CSU in mind. It's an expensive program that needs to be a better investment in
our future.
APPENDICES