Charles Sturt University Leadership
Development for Women
Evaluation
2006-2012
Written for the Leadership Development
for Women Steering Committee
Penny Davidson
31 January 2013
Project Steering Committee:
Dr Rosemary Black, School of Environmental Sciences
Dr Cathi McMullen, School of Management and Marketing
Amanda Davies, School of Policing Studies
January 2013
Contents
Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... vi
Project Steering Committee .................................................................................................................................. vi
CSU Leadership Development for Women Steering Committee ........................................................................... vi
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Aims and Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 3
Method ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Recruitment ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Online survey of participants ......................................................................................................................... 5
In-depth interview with 10 current and past LDW participants .................................................................... 5
In-depth interviews with 10 supervisors ....................................................................................................... 6
Existing employment statistics at Charles Sturt University............................................................................ 6
Analysis............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Online survey ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Participant interviews and Supervisor interviews ......................................................................................... 8
Employment statistics .................................................................................................................................... 8
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Overall response to the LDW program............................................................................................................. 10
Contributions of the program to personal and professional development ..................................................... 12
Different impact for different people .......................................................................................................... 12
Increased understanding of leadership at CSU ............................................................................................ 13
Understanding of the broader university .................................................................................................... 15
Confidence and affirmation ......................................................................................................................... 16
Improved skills ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Self-awareness ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Networking .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Links to other CSU Professional development programs ............................................................................ 25
Gender awareness ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Increased contribution and leadership ........................................................................................................ 26
Help build a new culture .............................................................................................................................. 29
In conclusion: an opportunity to grow capacity .......................................................................................... 31
How LDW achieves these benefits ................................................................................................................... 32
Mixed opinion .............................................................................................................................................. 44
iii
Overall position of women in CSU – have things changed over time? ............................................................ 46
Page
Weaknesses of the program ............................................................................................................................ 40
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 51
Comparative Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Achievement of LDW aims and objectives ................................................................................................... 51
Comparison to previous CSU evaluation...................................................................................................... 53
Comparison to UWA findings ....................................................................................................................... 53
Development of participant leadership skills and knowledge ......................................................................... 55
Formal and informal participation in University decision making processes ................................................... 56
Contribution to the University’s inclusive management styles ........................................................................ 57
Features and elements of the program ........................................................................................................... 57
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 59
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 60
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 61
List of tables
Table 1: Summary of participant interviewees ....................................................................................................... 6
Table 2 Summary of supervisor interviewees ........................................................................................................ 6
Table 3: Summary of survey respondent details with total participant numbers where known ........................... 8
Table 4: Survey Question 1 – Extent that the program was enjoyable and met participants needs ................... 10
Table 5: Survey Question 1: Mean value of responses across years .................................................................... 11
Table 6: Survey questions 4 to 5, Program objectives 1 to 2 ................................................................................ 14
Table 7: Survey Question 47: overall change in knowledge as a result of program participation,
Program objectives 1 and 2 .................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 8: Summary of survey questions 6 to 7, Program objectives 3 to 5 ........................................................... 18
Table 9: Summary of survey questions 9 to 10, Program objectives 6 to 7 ......................................................... 24
Table 10: Summary of survey questions 11-40: Degree that program influenced achievement of these
activities, Program objective 8 ............................................................................................................................. 27
Table 11: Question 49 – Have you been able to apply what you have learnt about leadership
in the workplace? ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 12: Question 50 – Have you exercised leadership at times when you weren’t formally
designated as a leader? ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 13: Question 51 – Did you face leadership challenges that were not addressed in the program? ............ 29
Table 14: Summary of survey question 41, Program objective 9 ........................................................................ 30
Table 15: Summary of survey question 42, Contribution of different program components to
leadership development ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 16: Summary of survey questions 43 to 46, Learning styles experienced in program components
(respondents could select more than one learning style) .................................................................................... 34
Table 17: CSU Planning and Audit data: Percentage of Academic Staff 2000 to 2012 ......................................... 48
Table 18: CSU Planning and audit data: Percentage of profesional staff employed 2000-2012
................. 49
Table 19: Summary of achievement of LDW program objectives ........................................................................ 52
Page
Figure 1: Percentage responses by year: I feel that participating in the LDW program was worth my time and
effort ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Count of response to ‘The Core component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools
(knowledge, opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’ ...................................................... 33
Figure 3: Count of response to ‘The Mentoring component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools
(knowledge, opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’ ...................................................... 33
Figure 4: Count of response to ‘The Peer Group component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools
(knowledge, opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’ ...................................................... 34
iv
List of Figures
Preface
I was invited to undertake this evaluation of CSU’s LDW program because I am both a past participant and
academic staff of CSU; as such I am aware of CSU as an organisation, the intent and content of the program.
When the women talked about the peer learning group I understood what experience they were referring to.
No doubt, in terms of evaluations, this closeness might be a benefit or dis-benefit: benefit because I am
already familiar with the culture, the process, and the program; a dis-benefit because I have my own lens and
perspective on the experience – this might influence how I interpret and present the data. I too completed the
survey and this gave me a sense that my voice had been heard, so at a conscious level I felt that I had already
given my feedback about the program.
And then all I can say is that I have done my best. The selection of questions was closely guided by the project
steering committee and advice from the QCU. In the analysis I have done my best to portray the dominant
stories (those with lots of voices) as well as those perspectives that were singular – I think each is important.
I re-read Harris and Leberman’s (2012) study of the NZ leadership development for women program and
wondered if somehow the women I interviewed and surveyed had simply copied and pasted the responses to
Harris and Leberman – so alike were they.
Page
v
I have enjoyed the project immensely and the reflection on past participants and supervisors words has
provided me with a mini-LDW: the opportunity to reflect on women and leadership and where I fit into that.
Undertaking this project has been a privilege – indeed having people share their experiences with one is
always an immense privilege. I hope this body of data and the summary that is given here provides CSU with
adequate information to continue their path to an inclusive and equitable organisation.
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks go to the past participants of the Leadership Development for Women program for taking the
time to complete the online survey; whilst online surveys are relatively non-intrusive they are now so
pervasive that most of us feel ‘over surveyed’. I appreciate then the willingness of past participants to provide
their feedback to this evaluation. Also great thanks go to the ten past participants who provided an interview
for this evaluation. Perhaps this was an easier process for them, but likely required more time which they had
to find in their busy schedule. Also, sincere thanks go to the supervisors who made time to be interviewed and
to provide feedback on the program from their perspective as it was a challenge sometimes to find a space in
their schedule.
Thanks also to the Project Steering Committee – Dr Rosemary Black, Dr Cathi McMullen and Amana Davies –
for their input into this project both as co-researcher and critical eye.
Thanks also to the administrative support provided by ILWS. Sometimes the paper work on projects can take a
disproportionate amount time compared to its importance, but with the aid of ILWS staff the administrative
processes went smoothly.
Lastly, many thanks to Sharon Nielsen in the CSU Quantitative Consulting Unit who provided critical comment
on the development of the online survey. The decision to liaise with the QCU was made to ensure that data
from the online survey would be suitable for quantitative analysis. Sharon provided more than this; she also
provided a very knowledgeable sounding board for the questionnaire development itself.
Project Steering Committee
Rosemary Black, School of Environmental Sciences
Cathi McMullen, School of Management and Marketing
Amanda Davies, School of Policing Studies
CSU Leadership Development for Women Steering Committee
Page
vi
Toni Downes (chair), Dean, Faculty of Education
Sarah McCormick, Manager, Diversity and Equity
Carol Burgess, Course Director, School of Teacher Education
Vicki Pitcher, Director, Student Service Centre
Sarah Ansell, Director, Division of Marketing
Rosemary Black, Senior Lecturer, School of Environmental Sciences
Cathi McMullen, Senior Lecturer, School of Management and Marketing
Amanda Davies, ADPP Course Director, School of Policing Studies
Executive summary
The Leadership Development Program for Women (LDW) has now been running for seven years: from 2006 to
2012 (omitting 2009). Based on the earlier evaluation and anecdotal evidence it was clear that the program
was successful in achieving its goals, but the anecdotes were also interspersed with some critical comment.
The LDW Steering Committee felt that before making any decisions about the program they needed to have a
clear sense of what the successes and failures were, and which aspects of the program contributed to these
results. This report provides the findings of an evaluation of the program undertaken from October to
December 2012.
The evaluation collected four sets of data: responses from a participant online survey delivered to all past
participants who had a known email address; interviews with ten past participants; interviews with eight
supervisors of past participants; and summary data of women and men’s employment at CSU from 2000 to
2012.
While often described or interpreted as a ‘personal development’ program, the results indicate that whilst
indeed personal development such as increased confidence and increased self-awareness occurred the end
result was ‘professional development’ in that the program encouraged a greater contribution to CSU decision
making and leadership. Indeed, the management literature’s current focus on ‘emotional intelligence’ in
organisations reinforces the link between personal and professional competence. Unfortunately the program
didn’t deliver satisfying outcomes for all participants. Women reported that they had built new networks and
had made some contribution to building a more inclusive culture at CSU. Women also reported the dominant
learning outcomes as being:
 Increased understanding of the organisation and leadership at CSU
 Increased confidence and affirmation
 Increased understanding of leadership concepts, particularly ‘inclusive’ leadership
 Improved skills relating to team work, managing and leading people
 Increased gender awareness, and
 Increased self-awareness.
Page
These components of the program are those that logically would be preserved. However, in response to noted
issues or weaknesses it would be timely for reflection on, or changes made to, the following:
 the training given to mentors and mentees as there was a request for additional guidance and
commitment from both parties
 the approach CSU takes to organising the program, have a Human Resources staff as key contact and
a Steering Committee member available as a contact
 the level of CSU specific information and context in the content
 the promotion of the program, and the possibility that the program be offered every second year
 a mechanism for participants to have continued links with the program be it an Alumni, or use of
graduates in future program or promotion
 feedback around dated content, reinforcement of academic-professional divide, support for the Peer
learning groups, and the mixed feedback on the final presentations, and
 CSU’s overall package of strategies to foster gender equity, of which this program should be just one
component.
vii
The reported strengths of the program were that it:
 used multiple teaching strategies which usually provided women a satisfying learning experience
 successfully provide a space for learning and reflection by being women-only and requiring dedicated
time away from the normal work place
 involved both academic and professional staff which greatly enhanced learning about the university
and the building of networks
 was seen as supported and valued by senior and executive staff, and
 was facilitated by non-CSU presenters, which gave participants confidence that the leadership
approach taught was not simply a replicate of CSU’s existing viewpoints on leadership and
organisational culture.
Page
viii
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Introduction
In 2006 CSU offered the LDW program for the first time as one of the strategies aimed at increasing
women’s representation in leadership and management roles at CSU. This concern paralleled
international alarm regarding poorer remuneration for women compared to men, and fewer women at
senior and executive levels. These issues are still current. In 2013 a report was released indicating that in
Australia the gap between the starting salaries of women and men graduates is increasing; women
receiving up to 17% less than men (Eastley 2013). The issue is one of fairness, and the potential to
improve an organisation’s performance by drawing on a greater proportion of the talent pool (Conway
2012). In 2005 CSU decided to implement a leadership development program for women in response to
issues raised and discussion arising from a Vice-Chancellors Forum and the Stepping Out Program for
women. The numbers of women in senior positions at CSU in 2005 were well below their male
counterparts, for example, 3 per cent of women were employed at academic level E compared to 8% of
men, and 2% of women were employed at HEW10+ compared to 8% of men. Another way of looking at
this is that in 2005 19% of Academic E positions were filled by women, and 27% of HEW10+ Professional
1
staff were filled by women. This is despite women being in the majority of both staff and students .
Gender equity in the workforce and in the academic sector had been an issue for many years, and in 2005
CSU took concerted steps to address this issue.
It is argued that the unique challenges women face in leadership require leadership development
programs that meet their specific needs (Hopkins et.al, 2008; Gibson 2008). The CSU LDW program is
modelled on a program developed for, and by, the University of Western Australia (UWA) in 1994 and
delivered on an ongoing basis not only at UWA but to a range of other universities (e.g. CSU, University of
Tasmania, Newcastle University) and government departments. The UWA program, an affirmative action
program, has its origins in a vision to redress longstanding disadvantage for women in universities (de
Vries 2005). The need for this kind of program has been identified in Australia and worldwide as a positive
way to address the underrepresentation of women in senior academic and professional staff positions
(Harris & Leberman 2012).
There are dual aims in the LDW program offered to CSU: to provide leadership development for individual
women and to contribute to changing the broader management and University culture (de Vries 2005).
Thus any evaluation of such a program needs to address outcomes at both of these levels. However, the
long term and complex nature of the outcomes may make many of them difficult to measure in concrete
terms.
The LDW program aims, as reported by McCormick (2008), are to:
1. support women staff at Charles Sturt University to develop the leadership skills and knowledge
required to increase their participation in the University's decision-making processes and to
facilitate their leadership at all levels; and
2. complement other CSU initiatives in fostering an organisational culture that recognises the value
of self-development and reflection, encourages inclusive management styles and actively
promotes women's involvement in leadership and decision-making matters.
19, 735 female students, 16,108 male students, 837 female staff, 722 male staff (CSU 2005 Pocket
Statistics)
INTRODUCTION
Page
1
1
The objectives of the LDW program are to:
1. broaden participants’ understanding of different concepts of leadership, leadership culture and
the roles and expectations of leaders at the University;
2. increase participants’ knowledge and understanding of the tertiary education sector and how
Charles Sturt University functions as an organisation within it;
3. enhance participants’ skills, increase their self-confidence and support the acquisition of
strategies for effective leadership;
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
assist participants to identify their personal leadership development goals and needs and to
develop plans to achieve them;
increase networking and opportunities for collaboration within the University that will assist in
achieving the program’s aims;
complement and develop links with other leadership and skill development programs within the
University;
enhance understanding of the University as a gendered organisation;
encourage participants to undertake leadership and decision-making roles, both formal and
informal, within the University and
assist in the identification and removal of barriers within the University to women participating
effectively in decision making and leadership roles.
The program aims to foster leadership development grounded in principles of equity and recognition that
leadership is multi-faceted. It legitimises leadership as inclusive and distributive and encourages women
to develop an approach to leadership in that vein. The program creates different learning spaces which
include interactive workshops, individual readings, mentoring, and peer support groups. McCormick
(2008) describes the program as: having “an action learning focus that develops over a 9 month period. It
encourages participants to reflect on their leadership style and aspirations, contextualise their goals
within the University strategy, experiment with new behaviours and share their experiences.
The following description of the program is also drawn from McCormick (2008). The key components of
the program, since its commencement in 2006, have been:
 a 4 day residential core workshop program commencing with a program launch
 a mentoring scheme
 peer group learning
 1 ½ -2 days of leadership skill development workshops, and
 a final presentation to the CSU community reflecting on the learning process, the goals
achieved and the shared experience of women in the University culture.
At the conclusion of the core workshop, participants join a peer learning group with a shared focus or
learning goal. The emphasis is on active learning where participants engage in a reflective and
experimental learning process, supporting and learning from each other. Peer learning groups are formed
around a particular topic of interest and, usually have cross campus participation. Peer learning groups
meet regularly by teleconference or videoconference, reporting the outcomes of their activities to other
groups at the skills development workshop and final workshop. Two progress meetings with the course
presenter are planned but do not always occur.
Each LDW participant is also provided with a mentor during the program. The mentoring component of
the program lasts for approximately six months from the time participants are paired. Brief instruction is
provided for both mentors and mentees, but as the results reveal both parties are frequently unsure of
what to do, and felt that there could have been better matches made.
Page
2
LDW participants were also given the opportunity to observe major University committees to increase
their understanding of the working of the University across different functional and policy areas”. The
author is unsure if this has continued as there was very little reference to this opportunity. It is most likely
to be taken up by women on the campus that hosts the function at the time.
INTRODUCTION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Project Aims and Research Questions
This project has been undertaken as both an evaluation of the LDW program and research into the
learning impacts of the LDW program. The primary aim of the project has been to evaluate CSU’s LDW
program with respect to benefits or outcomes that accrue to the participants and organisation. The
research questions focus on achieving this.
The research questions are:
1 What have been the personal and professional contributions of the program?
1.1 Did the program assist participants to develop their leadership skills and knowledge?
1.2 Has the program helped them to increase their participation (both formally and informally) in
the University’s decision–making processes?
1.3 Has the LDW program contributed to the University’s stated goal of encouraging inclusive
management styles and actively promoting women’s involvement in leadership and decision
making matters?
2 How have the features and elements of the program contributed to participants and supervisors’
experiences and/or perceptions of the program?
3 Which aspects of the program can be enhanced or improved?
The Project Steering Committee wanted to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics and learning that
occurs in the LDW program, in order to contribute to the literature on women’s leadership development
programs. The evaluation therefore was underpinned by the following theoretical frames:
1 An interpretation that there is the potential for various types of learning to take place in a program
such as LDW (including mentoring and peer learning) and that these may shift across the life of the
program and beyond (McCauley 2008).
2 The use of broader conceptions of leadership in the program, for example, a focus on the role of
influence as leadership rather than a narrower focus on leadership only being enacted from within
formal roles (Sinclair 1995).
3 An overall goal of transformation within the organization and how leadership development programs
can contribute to this (Devos et. al 2003; Leonard & Goff 2003).
Page
3
The evaluation project provides an assessment of the value and benefits of the program to the
participants and their supervisors and the University more broadly. It enables the University wide LDW
Steering Committee and Charles Sturt University to make informed decisions regarding the future
direction for achieving women’s leadership development and is of value to the University, middle
management staff and future program participants. At a broader scale the project adds to our knowledge
of university-based women’s development programs.
INTRODUCTION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Method
Seven years after the commencement of the LDW Steering Committee has invested considerable effort in this
evaluation. The project has taken a mixed method social research approach and used the program objectives,
the previous CSU evaluation (McCormick 2008), and a ten year evaluation undertaken by the University of
Western Australia of the same program (De Vries 2005) as a guide. CSU undertook a comprehensive
evaluation in 2008 and comparison with this data enables an assessment of whether prior issues have been
consistent across the ongoing years, or whether there has been a ‘tiring’ of the program. Comparison with the
UWA evaluation allows confirmation that the CSU program is reaching the ‘benchmark’ (for want of a better
word) of UWA results, and whether any differences arise from the different contexts.
Data were collected from 4 sources:
1. Online survey of current and past LDW participants (Appendix 1)
2. In-depth interview with 10 current and past LDW participants (Appendix 2)
3. In-depth interviews with 8 participant supervisors (Appendix 3)
4. Existing statistics regarding employment levels at CSU obtained from HR
An attempt was made to collect feedback from the whole population of participants through an on-line survey
administered through Survey Monkey. The survey contained mostly closed questions, although each question
set included an open ended question allowing the respondent to provide additional explanation should they
wish. The survey incorporated questions from both the previous CSU evaluation and the UWA evaluation, as
well as specific questions to meet the research aims. The survey instrument was designed in close
consultation with the Project Steering Committee and Sharon Nielsen, an advisor from the CSU Quantitative
Consultative Unit. Consultation with QCU was made to ensure that should quantitative analysis be desired the
data set would be amenable to this form of analysis. Sharon Nielsen provided an excellent critical eye in the
survey development helping to ensure clarity and consistency with research objectives. After the survey was
finalised it was tested in three pilot surveys, resulting in further clarification of the questions and layout.
In recognition that this survey data set provides an overall picture but may miss nuances and details
participant interviews were undertaken across the spectrum of women participants. The interviews occurred
after the surveys and asked the same broad questions as per the research aims, including any issues arising
from the survey results, and probed for specific examples. The interviews were taped (where permission was
given) and transcribed to allow the possibility of an iterative analysis. The recordings were given an identifying
number and recorded on a database that only the Researcher and Chief Investigator has access to. The
researcher typed the transcripts.
The research approach prioritises women’s experiences and perspectives but also sought the additional
perspective of supervisors who have witnessed the (any) leadership development that has occurred for
women participants. Supervisors have often encouraged their female staff to participate in the program, and
have the specific role of facilitating staff development. As such we expected that they have been observing
possible positive or negative effects of the LDW program. The interview questions were drafted after
approximately 50% of survey responses were made.
Page
4
Initially it was thought that a complex set of data might be obtained from HR, including the proportion of
women across the various positions and levels, the proportion of women that have applied for promotion in
the years that the LDW program has run, the proportion of promotion applicants that have completed LDW
and the proportion of LDW applicants that were successful in their promotion application. However, this data
was not available as it was not simple for HR to collect, and it was more information than was really needed.
As a result the numbers of women and men employed at CSU and their level of employment were collected for
the years 2000 to 2012 from CSU Audit and Planning.
METHOD
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
This report to the LDW Steering Committee provides a summary and analysis of the evaluation data. The full
set of de-identified data will be given to the Project Steering Committee to enable further analysis for
additional publications.
Recruitment
Online survey of participants
Recruitment for the online survey occurred by emailing all existing and past LDW participants (emailed to 144
women, 18 email addresses couldn’t be identified) with known current email addresses an invitation to
complete the online survey, and a link to that survey (Appendix 4). The email constituted the invitation and
‘information sheet’. A consent form was not used for the on-line survey as completion of the survey was taken
to be voluntary and informed consent. Communication with participants occurred thus:




Invitation emailed to all past participants 8 October 2012
Reminder emailed to all past participants 22 October 2012 (a few respondents indicated that they had
completed the survey and so they weren’t sent the reminders)
Final Reminder emailed to all past participants 29 October 2012
Survey Closed at midnight on 7 November 2012
In-depth interview with 10 current and past LDW participants
Initially the potential participant group was sorted according to professional/academic, then by campus. The
result was a table that provided the spread of participants across these broad categories. The intention was to
interview equal numbers of professional and academic staff, and try to get as close to a representation from
each sector, cohort and campus. Campuses were grouped into: Wagga, Bathurst, Thurgoona and other. Each
participant in the sorted table had a unique number. So for example to select an academic from the Thurgoona
campus I entered the starting line number and finishing line number of this group in the randbetween formula
in excel. It gave me a random number which corresponded to a woman in that group – this woman was
therefore selected for interview. I then chose a professional Thurgoona women, and repeated the process for
other campuses. Two more interviewees were required and at this stage the selection was checked against the
year of participation. The remaining women were selected from a group consisting of the missing years. Ten
women were identified and emailed an invitation to be interviewed.
I had one participant volunteer to be interviewed and as they seemed to have given the program particular
thought and critique and not all my invitations had been taken up I took her up on the offer. One woman was
no longer with CSU, one woman on contact declined to be interviewed and another woman wasn’t able to be
contacted. When additional interviewees were needed the above process was repeated for the ‘missing’
representative in terms of sector, cohort, campus and classification.
Page
The interview was held over the telephone, undertaken by the Researcher and taped if the interviewee
agreed. The interview was then transcribed or written as notes if the interview wasn’t taped. Transcripts or
notes of the interviews were returned to each participant in order for them to verify the content, and to have
an opportunity to remove any content they were no longer willing to include in the research findings.
5
Recruitment for the participant interviews occurred initially through an email invitation which included an
Information Sheet and Consent form as attachments (Appendices 5 and 6). If the participant agreed to the
interview further emails or telephone calls were made organising a date and time for the telephone interview.
A formal information sheet and consent form was sent with the initial invitation, and resent with confirmation
emails where required. When there was no response to the email invitation an attempt or several attempts
were made to telephone the participant. Descriptive information of participant interviewees is given in Table
1.
METHOD
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 1: Summary of participant interviewees
Employment
type
n
Professional
staff
5
Academic
Campus
n
Wagga Wagga
3
Bathurst
2
Thurgoona
3
Other
2
Year Program
undertaken
n
2006
2007
2008
2010
3
1
3
Faculty /
Division
n
DLTS
Education
Arts
2
1
1
5
2011
2012
2
1
Science
Business
2
2
Student
admin
1
Library
services
1
In-depth interviews with 10 supervisors
Recruitment of supervisors to be interviewed occurred through a deliberative process as the Division of
Human Resources had no record of each participant’s supervisor. Initially a first interview was undertaken
with a supervisor who volunteered to the Project Steering Committee to be interviewed. The researcher
reviewed the information regarding departments and sections that participants originated from and identified
likely positions that would have supervised LDW participants. A list of potential supervisor interviewees from
across divisions and faculties was drawn up. An email invitation was sent with an Information Sheet and
Consent form (Appendices 7 and 8), followed a day later with a telephone call to explain the project in more
detail. The interview was held over the telephone and taped where permission was given. All interviewees
were given the option of reviewing the transcript/notes – an option which half the interviewees took up. The
researcher was particularly keen to include male supervisors and supervisors from across the University
sectors, the final interviewees are described in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of supervisor interviewees
Gender
n
Female
6
Male
2
Faculty /
Division
n
DLTS
DIT
Arts
Science
Business
HR
1
1
1
1
1
1
Library
services
1
Marketing
1
Existing employment statistics at Charles Sturt University
Page
6
The LDW committee requested access to CSU employment data from the Division of Human Resources. The
data sought was the generalised data regarding women and men’s employment at CSU. The number of men
and women employed at CSU, and their level of employment from 2000 to 2012. This information was
obtained from Human Resources who downloaded it from Planning and Audit (researcher did not have access
to this data).
METHOD
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Analysis
Online survey
The data was analysed to a simple descriptive statistical level using Excel and SPSS and the open ended
response analysis was assisted by use of the QSR Nvivo 9 program. A summary of the coding for the open
ended questions can be found in Appendix 9. Incomplete surveys were retained in the data set and so some
answers will have different response numbers. Cleaning of the data involved:
 Adding the responses from the three pilot surveys to the final data set
 As data was downloaded from SurveyMonkey as actual text responses to questions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
10, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 were converted to numbers. Responses to questions 11 to 40
retained the yes/no component but other responses were converted to numbers.
 A manual review was undertaken of response to how much do you feel you knew at the start and
end of the program (qu 47) with a new measure of ‘overall change’ and response of increased or
same.
 Responses to substantive position (qu 55-56) were cleaned to consistent nomenclature
 A manual review was undertaken of substantive position at commencement of program and
current substantive position (Qu 55 to 56) and a new measure ‘promoted’ with responses of yes
or no
 A single header row was made with comments inserted explaining what the numbers represent
 In the sheet used for the SPSS analysis the ‘unsure’ ratings were removed from Qu 9.
 Any ratings that might have given by people who had ticked No in the earlier part of the question
for questions 11 to 40 as technically they are not in a position to be able to answer the next part
of the question.
 Removed the N/A responses in Qu 42 as the respondent indicated that they couldn’t remember,
in which case a blank response was more appropriate for our data
The online survey of current and past LDW participants collected 83 responses from 144 invitations to
participate, equivalent to a 58% response rate. The respondents are described in Table 3.
Page
7
The participation rate in the survey across the cohorts ranged from 33% to 65%. The high rate from 2012
participants might be expected since the program was fresh in their minds. The lower rate for the 2010 cohort
might signal an issue with that particular offering. Otherwise it appears as if the sample is reasonably
representative of the whole group in terms of years of participation. There were more women from
professional staff responding than academic which is also true for the total number of participants.
Approximately half of the participants from each section responded to the survey except from the Faculty of
Business and DVC Research (but the latter had very small numbers) suggesting that again the sample is
reasonably representative of the full set of participants. The representation across level of employment is
indicative of the proportions involved in the program.
METHOD
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 3: Summary of survey respondent details with total participant numbers where known
Employment
type
n
Professional
staff (89)
42
Academic
(67)
34
Total
2
responses
76
Age group
n
25 to 34
4
35 to 44
20
45 to 54
28
55 to 64
24
Year Program
undertaken
(total number
program
participants)
n
Percentage of
participants
2006
(27)
2007
(25)
2008
(28)
2010
(30)
2011
(25)
2012
(23)
14
52%
14
56%
12
43%
10
33%
11
44%
15
65%
Level when commenced program
Professional
Exec 5
n
1
Academic
C
n
5
10
1
B
22
9
1
A
3
8
6
7
11
6
19
Section (total
number of
participants)
n
DVC Admin
(37)
17
n
Arts (18)
7
Business (11)
3
DVC
Research
(6)
2
Education
(19)
8
Misc (12)
DVC Academic
(24)
10
76
76
5
1
40
30
3
Science
(31)
14
32
32
Participant interviews and Supervisor interviews
Both sets of interview data were qualitatively analysed by the researcher using a process of coding based on
the questions asked and dominant themes. QSR Nvivo 9 was used to aid this process. The researcher and
interviewees went go to some lengths to de-identify the interviews.
Employment statistics
2
Note some respondents did not complete the self-description questions.
METHOD
Page
8
The employment statistics provided descriptive data of changes in patterns of employment over the last 12
years, no statistical analysis has been undertaken on this set of data.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Limitations
Page
9
Despite the hope they would be the perfect survey and interviews in hindsight the project has a number of
limitations:
 People self-selected to respond to the survey and so it is possible that those most in favour, or
those most disappointed by the program responded. One interviewee said that she didn’t
complete the survey because the experience had been negative for her. Whilst initially reluctant
she was happy to participate in the interviews. Her response, if others felt the same, suggests
that the survey might be biased toward favourable evaluations.
 The interviews are probably more representative of the full spectrum of participants as these had
been randomly selected and interviewees seemed to be giving honest responses: I did not get the
sense that they felt a need to say the ‘right thing’. Supervisors were possibly biased: it was
challenging to identify the supervisors, and also find supervisors who had the time. When I
actually got to talk to them they were very supportive of the endeavour although some turned
out to have not supervised anyone (and were not interviewed).
 In retrospect it would have been more useful to have worded question 41 – whether LDW assists
in the removal of barriers in a similar format to questions 11 -40, where the respondent has to
first indicate whether or not they have engaged in that activity, and then indicate whether they
thought LDW had an influence.
 The surveys and interviews were undertaken at the end of the year from the start of October to
early November, overlapping with the end of semester. This was undoubtedly a busy and
stressful time for all staff and perhaps a different time would have been better. But when is a
quiet time at CSU?!
METHOD
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Results
This section presents the findings from the online survey (respondent), the participant interviews (interviewee)
and supervisor interviews (supervisor). The section is ‘raw’ – there is little attempt to interpret or discuss this
data; discussion is provided in the following sections. The results from all 3 data sets are interwoven and
presented using the framework of the LDW research aims and program objectives. The challenge of this
evaluation was to assess the outcomes of the program, but often the outcomes or changes were subtle and/or
grew over time. As one supervisor put it:
And sometimes the benefits are not necessarily tangible, they are more peripheral, they bubble up in
different ways – female supervisor3
Despite that, the following data provides evidence for a considerable range of outcomes.
Overall response to the LDW program
An important finding from the 2012 evaluation is that the majority of participants enjoyed participating in the
program and thought it was worthwhile (Table 4). The program seems to have provided mostly beneficial
outcomes to participants however it did not meet everyone’s needs as the agreement to this question was
77%. This is a smaller proportion than thought it was worthwhile so whilst they could see the benefits of the
program, for some participants, their needs regarding leadership development were not fully met. Note
however, some participants did not have a strongly positive experience in the program as will be further
described in later data.
Enjoyable opportunity to meet some great women across campuses and understand more about other
areas of the University. Definitely worth enrolling. - respondent4
A positive learning experience that is worth the time and effort. An enjoyable and affirming experience.
- respondent
Table 4: Survey Question 1 – Extent that the program was enjoyable and met participants needs
Academic (2012)
Professional (2012)
All
(2012)
Question 1
n
n
I enjoyed participating in the LDW program
34
% Agree /
Strongly Agree
91%
% Agree /
Strongly Agree
94%
90%
I feel that participating in the LDW program was worth my
time and effort
I believe that the LDW program met my needs
34
I felt that the LDW program was supported by senior
management at all levels
42
% Agree /
Strongly Agree
100%
88%
42
95%
92%
34
65%
42
86%
77%
34
76%
42
81%
79%
CSU
2008
Eval.
90%
4
Quotes from supervisors will be identified as either ‘female supervisor’ or ‘male supervisor’.
Quotes taken from the online survey responses will be identified as originating from a ‘respondent’.
RESULTS
Page
3
10
The research visually examined the responses to the survey questions by cohort and academic/professional
employment type. Statistical analysis was not done. Where visual difference between groups looked as if it
‘told a story’ the segregated data is reported. One such story is found in Figure 1 which suggests a shift from
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
the early years of the program where ‘Strongly Agree’ dominates responses compared to later years where
‘Agree’ dominates responses (discussed later).
80%
70%
60%
50%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
40%
Neutral
30%
Agree
20%
Strongly Agree
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
Year
Unknown
Figure 1: Percentage responses by year: I feel that participating in the LDW program was worth my time and effort
Table 5: Survey Question 1: Mean value of responses across years
Year
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
I believe that the LDW
program met my needs
I enjoyed participating in
the LDW program
I feel that participating in
the LDW program was
worth my time and effort
4.29
14
4.14
14
4.08
12
4.20
10
4.27
11
3.60
15
4.71
14
4.43
14
4.50
12
4.50
10
4.64
11
4.33
15
4.64
14
4.36
14
4.00
12
4.50
10
4.55
11
4.13
15
The 2012 cohort had the lowest satisfaction in terms of meeting their needs (Table 5).
Page
11
A copy of the detailed suggestions and comments made in the surveys can be found in Appendix 10.
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Contributions of the program to personal and professional development5
It is hard to actually separate the personal benefits of the program from the benefits to the organisation as
happier, more confident, more self-aware staff also means a resilient workforce and people willing to make
more contributions and to step up into leadership roles. It was clear from the interviews, particularly
interviews with supervisors, that CSU as an organisation benefits from women participating in the LDW
program. Whilst supervisors frequently referred to ‘personal development’ they indicated this is a prerequisite of leadership development and saw clear organisational benefits arising from personal growth:
I saw it as a personal development opportunity so there would be expectations that you would see
individuals benefit in some way and at times I have actually specifically targeted people and
encouraged them to apply … you could see there was the potential there but they just didn’t seem to be
able to make the step up - that was one side of it and then there are all the flow on benefits. You know if
you have higher achieving people that is of benefit to the division and to the university - female
supervisor
Different impact for different people
there would be different outcomes from the levels but I don’t think there would be more for one level
than the other, they’re just different – female supervisor
Following on from the ‘overall’ comments one of the strengths of the program was that it used a variety of
learning approaches and clearly different participants got more benefit from some aspects of the programs
than others. At an overall level the benefits for individuals (and therefore CSU) ranged from zero to immense.
There was only one survey respondent who might have been in the category of zero as they seem to have
gained little from the program, but it can be assumed that some other participants gained little to nothing
from the program based on the comments made by supervisors and other participants. Evidence for
participants with this motive mostly comes from the interviews where people report on others who weren’t
interested in attending and felt they had been ‘told to’ by their supervisor. It is probable that these
participants did not complete the online survey and even though the interviewees were randomly selected no
interviewee fitted into this category.
The other mentee was on the opposite end of the scale. She really didn’t want to be in the program she
thought it was a waste of time and a load of rubbish … and it was all I could do to get her to come to a
meeting, … and she said to me ‘look I’ve only gone on this program because I’ve been told that I’ve got
to, I think it’s a load of rubbish’ - female supervisor
Different participants came with different attitudes and learning approaches to the program:
 Some saw it as a privilege and opportunity and put as much into it as they could
 Some were possibly more used to, or expected, a more structured program and clear directions
and pathways and so were less likely to use the program to best advantage
 Some were clear what they wanted out of it and drove or initiated or took up as many
opportunities as they could
 Some people had been told or felt that they were obliged to participate but didn’t see the
personal relevance, as a consequence they put very little effort into the program and probably
got very little out of it.
RESULTS
Page
Research Aim 1: What have been the personal and professional contributions
of the program?
5
12
It is a very individual thing and for some I think it is been a partial success, for some I think it might
have been a temporary achievement that may have regressed a bit. That might be because you need
that constant reminder or refreshing (of the skills/qualities gained in the program). - Female
supervisor
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
The level of personal development depends on where they (the participant) are at, their commitment,
whether they are ready to do it or are only doing it because the supervisor has recommended it.
Participants need to be clear about what they’re hoping to get from the program. – female supervisor
Staff readiness is important: they need to be prepared to commit, their position determines if they can
contextualise the learning and apply it, and whether they are in a position to influence others – female
supervisor
I have seen some positive outcomes and I have seen some participants where change would be
negligible in their abilities or their desire – male supervisor
I have been involved as a mentor and have gotten better at it; I have seen a lot of difference in why
people did the program, for some there wasn’t a personal commitment and I could see the difference in
outcome – female supervisor
The survey and interviews indicated that participants fell into 2 broad groups in terms of motive to participate:
those that self-nominated and those that were nominated by their supervisor. Women self-nominated
because:
 Feedback from past participants reported that it was a worthwhile program (range of levels)
 They wanted to increase promotion chances, or
 They wanted to develop or improve leadership skills
Those that were nominated by their supervisor were either:
 Happy to accept and made the most of the opportunity
 Resistant to participating but once there found it worthwhile, or
6
 Felt obliged to participate and minimised their effort
The motive for participation as well as individual ‘readiness’ and individual approaches to learning all seem to
influence the level of benefit that participants derive from the program.
Increased understanding of leadership at CSU7
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 1 and 2: increase participants understanding of
leadership and of the tertiary education sector.
7
13
Whilst participant interviewees found it hard to specifically identify ‘what’ they had learnt the online survey
respondents indicated that they felt that their understanding of the concept of leadership (84%), and the roles
of leaders at CSU (74%) and leadership culture (70%) had improved (Table 6). This means nearly 20 to 30% did
not agree that their understanding of these aspects had improved and significantly nearly 40% did not gain a
clearer understanding of the expectations of leaders at CSU. The majority, however, did increase their
understanding of leadership per se and leadership at CSU.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 6: Survey questions 4 to 5, Program objectives 1 to 2
Program objectives
Academic 2012
Professional
2012
2012 Eval. All
2012 Eval. All
UWA 2005
CSU 2008
No.
% Agree or
strongly agree
N=34
76%
% Agree or
strongly agree
N=42
95%
% Agree or
strongly agree
% Agree or
strongly agree
% Agree or
strongly agree
84%
% Disagree or
strongly
disagree
7%
74%
79%
74%
10%
88%
71%
79%
70%
7%
85%
50%
74%
61%
10%
78%
74%
76%
73%
15%
90%
45%
52%
46%
21%
1
1
1
1
2
A better understanding of the concept of
leadership
A better understanding of the roles of leaders
at CSU
A broader understanding of leadership
culture at CSU
A better understanding of the expectations of
leaders at CSU
Increased knowledge / understanding about
how the University functions
Increased knowledge / understanding of the
tertiary sector
91%
70+%
70+%
68
68
Page
14
2
Survey question
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
When asked to reflect on how much they knew at the start of the program and at the end of the program
regarding leadership and CSU organisational culture 82% of participants indicated their knowledge had
increased (Table 7). Some respondents felt that they entered the program with a relatively high understanding
of the topics covered and so hadn’t gained much new knowledge.
Table 7: Survey Question 47: overall change in knowledge as a result of program participation, Program objectives 1 and
2
academic
professional
32
42
76
Increased
75%
86%
82%
Same
25%
14%
18%
n
All
Interviewees reported that they were relieved that different approaches to leadership were possible and that
leadership doesn’t have to be ‘authoritarian’. It became clear to them that their preferred ways of interacting
with people could be incorporated into a ‘different’ kind of leadership (perhaps theoretically called
transformational or inclusive leadership – the participants didn’t label their preferred style).
As well as learning about specific leadership skills I think LDW also showed participants how to
implement these skills into our workplaces (which is not always an easy task). LDW has a very
practical, hands on approach which I found very beneficial (not just all about the theory). - respondent
I have a broader understanding of leadership and the culture surrounding it generally, in particular
across the sector, not particularly at CSU. - respondent
I have held leadership positions prior to coming to CSU but I now feel more confident that I understand
the structure within the university. - respondent
Supervisors also felt that a better understanding of leadership in a CSU context emerged.
she is now one of the better managers within our whole division her professionalism, her ability to
coordinate events, to manage staff, her report writing skills, her assertiveness, her confidence, her
leadership has really, really come on in the last two to three years and I’d attribute a lot of that to the
LDW program, to give her the tools, the capability to do that, so some very pleasing results – male
supervisor
Understanding of the broader university8
The majority of survey respondents had increased their understanding about how the university functions but
only half as many indicated an increased understanding of the tertiary sector overall (Table 6).
As a result of mixing with other staff from across academic and professional, across Divisions and Faculties,
women improved their understanding of the organisation as a whole: how the different sectors worked
together and were more able to see the big picture. Supervisors referred to this as being less siloed, and had
an expectation that this broader understanding would mean individuals would make or support decisions on
behalf of the larger organisation rather than their own individual department.
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 2: increase participants understanding of the tertiary
education sector.
8
15
I think more their understanding had improved: their sense of understanding, sense of purpose, sense of
place, understanding of the bigger picture was probably more obvious - male supervisor
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
What kind of changes or benefits do you think the women achieved?
I think their ability to look at the bigger picture, look outside the role that they’re doing. To have a
greater understanding of the university strategy, how the different areas link together, the role that
different organisational units play. – male supervisor
It is an opportunity to learn about management and leadership in a supportive environment. It is a
good opportunity to network with other women across the University. It provides more insight and
knowledge into the way that the university works and operates. - respondent
Enjoyable opportunity to meet some great women across campuses and understand more about other
areas of the University. Definitely worth enrolling. - respondent
Some participants did not report an increased understanding of leadership in a CSU context and understanding
the broader tertiary context:
I feel that there were not significant links to the CSU context. It was slightly generic and not tailored to
meet the needs of a specific workplace context. I think that that causes the usefulness of the program to
be called into question. Leadership and CSU needed to be the focus with elements that are transferable
to other contexts. - respondent
And a reminder that the program is a package of several components – each of which offers particular but
varied learning opportunities, and different participants connect to each differently:
The workshop concentrated more on self-awareness rather than CSU leadership. I gained insight
through my mentor, the neutral response is because it was not the workshops that gave me this
learning rather the relationship with my mentor - respondent
The interactions between the diversity of participants, and the links with the mentors, provides the increased
understanding about how the university functions.
the increased knowledge about the university largely came from my mentor - respondent
Confidence and affirmation9
The participant interviews, supervisor interviews and survey results (Table 8) all indicate that participants’
confidence grew as a consequence of the program. Only 5% of respondents disagreed that the program
increased their confidence and 12% were neutral. The increase in confidence was generally around believing
that they were capable and had valuable contributions to make, and then more specifically were more able to
recognise themselves as leaders. Women reported that the program assisted them to:





Name and value the tasks that they did as leadership eg horizontal leadership, value
contributions to groups that they were in, or name the informal leadership that they were doing
See themselves as leaders, believe that they have a contribution to make and that they will be
listened to
Increase their confidence and belief that they were capable and that they could step up
Increased confidence to pursue issues to get them resolved
Greater confidence to approach senior staff for assistance and tips.
10
Quotes taken from participant interviews will be identified as originating from ‘interviewee’.
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 3: enhance participants’ skills, increased their selfconfidence and support the acquisition of strategies for effective leadership
9
16
(the program helped build) confidence that I could do it and I was capable. - interviewee10
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
I certainly felt after it that I had more confidence to take on leadership roles. Although there hasn’t
been any movement from me in terms of promotion, I did have a stint as acting head of school for 5
weeks and I do chair a school based committee, which is complex and has lots of responsibility. I have
taken up those leadership roles and I would say that I’m drawing on the confidence that the program
gave me – interviewee
Having the confidence to exercise what I consider leadership to be, without being constrained by
traditional models of leadership - respondent
Frequently in the interviews respondents talked about the experience as being ‘affirming’; the support,
positive feedback, being able to learn in a supportive, although also challenging, environment helped
participants to value themselves and the contributions they were making.
initially it was great to have that affirmation from people who selected me to participate; that ‘we think
you’re leadership material, yes, ok we will put you in the program’ and I think right from the start that
was a real plus, just that level of support and investment in me. - interviewee
Really the more I think about it the big thing of LDW was … that (what I was doing) really was
leadership and I was entitled to call it that and see it as that - interviewee
I think each of them gained an individual level of confidence and affirmation about ‘yes I can be a
leader and I probably am already a leader’. – female supervisor
Interestingly (sadly) four of the ten interviewees indicated that they were in a ‘bad state’ when they
commenced the LDW program. Their confidence was bruised and they felt ‘fragile’, but at the end of the
program they thought ‘wow that was fantastic’ and that ‘was what I needed at the time’.
Only 5% of survey respondents disagreed that the program increased their confidence. This was definitely not
the dominant experience but it is important to try to understand why the program might have failed them.
One respondent felt that any learning and achievements she had made were outside the program and her
concluding comment was
I hope it has improved since I did it; it is a good idea, and desperately needed, but in its original guise
left much to be desired. It digressed into a complaint session among participants and achieved little;
many individuals who participated then have since left CSU - respondent
Another respondent wrote:
I had confidence in my leadership skills but what I have come to realise is that the LDW program is
tokenism by the university to attain EEO for women rather than a real commitment to empowerment
and development of staff. There is no point in developing plans; what I have to do is survive. I am
hopeful that the new work load policies attained by the NTEU will make a difference to stress levels.
Page
17
The women who felt that their confidence didn’t grow came from a range of cohorts: 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2010. These were perhaps women who had relatively high levels of confidence and awareness of the issues;
perhaps they were looking for affirmation. Their comments suggest that the facilitation is either not able to
control whole group comments, or when in sub groups the facilitation is unable to control group comments, or
as the above two quotes indicate the participant had expectations that support for women as leaders would
be more evident outside the LDW program.
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 8: Summary of survey questions 6 to 7, Program objectives 3 to 5
Program objectives
No.
Profession
al 2012
42
2012 Eval.
UWA 2005
CSU 2008
% Disagree or
strongly disagree
5%
% Agree or
strongly agree
81%
% Agree or
strongly agree
68%
3
My confidence in my leadership abilities has increased
76%
93%
3
I have acquired skills and strategies which enable me to
contribute to CSU as a leader
I have identified personal leadership goals and areas
that I personally need to develop
I have developed plans to achieve my leadership goals
76%
90%
82%
105
81%
68%
79%
93%
84%
45
87%
70+%
74%
74%
73%
11%
77%
70+%
11
4
34
2012 Eval.
% Agree or
strongly agree
83%
4
Survey question
Academic
2012
5
Increased my participation in CSU networks / groups
76%
76%
73%
10%
5
Increased my participation in women’s networks /
groups
Been given valuable access to a professional network of
colleagues
Increased my profile and visibility at CSU
59%
57%
45%
18%
79%
88%
80%
2%
74%
60%
65%
7%
5
91%
70+%
64%
11
UWA had slightly different wording and respondents indicated whether influence was med or high
RESULTS
Page
18
5
68%
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Improved skills12
Increased understanding and knowledge is of most use if it builds skills and strategies which enable women to
contribute to CSU in a leadership capacity. The program includes reading and discussion of issues raised in the
literature and skill development workshops. Eighty two per cent of respondents agreed they had acquired
leadership skills and strategies (Table 8). For most participants though the specific learning was hard to
identify, and their learning seemed to be dominated by a stronger gain in confidence and sense of self in the
workplace. Supervisors also were more able to identify the personal growth outcomes rather than increased
skills or strategies. Most interviewees noted that time had blurred their memory and so found it particularly
hard to identify specific new skills but that whilst hard to identify specific learning they ‘felt’ that they had
learned a lot. Others noted that the learning was incremental and subtle. A significant part of the learning was
identifying the skills and capacity required to take on leadership positions, and the personal awareness of
which ones they might need to foster.
The improved leadership skills that were identified were:
 Able to chair committees
 Increased strategic thinking
 Assertiveness
 Able to coordinate events / projects
 Able to manage staff
 Sensitised as to how to position self for promotion
 Changed how approached staff
For Jenny13 I was looking for some assertiveness training, it was about Jenny being able to develop her
leadership skills, to take charge and ensure that she got results rather than (be like) some people (who)
are just so nice that they keep asking for things and people don’t give it to them because they don’t
make enough noise and it was really about her being able to say ‘ok this needs to occur by this date and
I really require it from you and I require it in this time frame’ and just to get that buy-in and that
commitment. – female supervisor
she is now one of the better managers within our whole division her professionalism, her ability to
coordinate events, to manage staff, her report writing skills, her assertiveness, her confidence, her
leadership has really really come on in the last two to three years and I’d attribute a lot of that to the
LDW program, to give her the tools the capability to do that, so some very pleasing results – male
supervisor
While I was doing the workshops I certainly felt like I was learning and I was developing skills that were
useful for leadership - interviewee
Participants found it hard to pinpoint exactly what they had learnt and how they might have applied it. They
could often remember some aspect of their learning though or remember some part of the program that
remained memorable.
Learning from a mentor
as a result of the work with my mentor I managed to find a way to work with a particular staff member.
- interviewee
Academic learning which they could relate back to their workplace
More a knowledge of the political nature of universities, and they are extremely political to my mind.
Because I am not a political person and so it was a real eye opener as to the level to which politics plays.
- interviewee
LDW Program objective 3: enhance participants’ skills, increased their selfconfidence and support the acquisition of strategies for effective leadership
Pseudonym
RESULTS
Page
13
19
12
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
We were asked to read different literature certainly her writing had the most influence on me and I
could recognise what she was saying in my workplace and at least relate to that while working in my
own way. interviewee
Peer learning group
as I say the peer group was very powerful, part of the course is to interview a leader, well we took that
as a focus and we actually interviewed a lot of people as a group: we interviewed the VC, two DVCs, the
local member of parliament, the Executive Director of Learning and Teaching, at least one head of
school and other people, anyone we thought we could learn from … and generally we recorded that
interview and took it back and re-listened to the interview. So we were listening to what approaches
they had taken, we were talking about how they felt about for example work life balance, what was
their attitude to women in power, it was very interesting including the then VC, they were all
interesting to listen to, and the fact that they were all willing to spend the time talking to us was also
affirming terms of support from the university. - interviewee
Learning in the workshops
Interviewer: you have a sense that you were learning in those workshops?
Oh absolutely, I bought some books as a result of it and every so often when I am tidying up I find my
folder and have a flick through it and say oh yeah that’s right. It is more like I have absorbed it rather
than being able to articulate it. interviewee
Self-directed learning
Even after the workshop was finished we decided we would do some more readings so we shared
readings that we came across that we thought were useful or worthy of discussion so for the year after
LDW not only did I kind of do some reading and learn a bit whilst I was in the program but our group
continued to find resources and find journal articles of interest and the four of us would get together
and discuss them. - interviewee
One supervisor suggested that the program was in a sense teaching people how to continuously learn:
developing those skills, that self-awareness, just the ability to learn from experience and the experience
of others as well, and bring all those things together – female supervisor
Self-awareness14
A very common outcome of the program was an increased level of self-awareness. Participants became more
aware of their own skills and qualities, their current leadership actions, and clarified or developed leadership
goals and plans to achieve those goals. The majority of survey respondents (84%) indicated a greater
awareness of personal areas that they needed to develop to fulfil leadership goals, and 73% had developed
plans to achieve leadership goals (Table 8). The self-reflective nature of the program is very successful at
encouraging women to more consciously consider what skills and qualities they bring to leadership, and what
additional skills would be useful.
It gave me a the ability to clearly look at my own skills and capabilities and … gave me the confidence to
know that I do have very marketable skills - interviewee
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 4: assist participants to identify their personal
leadership development goals and needs and to develop plans to achieved
them
14
20
and not only that but actually recognising yourself as a leader ‘what am I doing in this program?’ it’s
because I’m a leader, of course I’m a leader, look where I started look what I’m doing look at the
positive things, the influences I’ve had, they might not be that many but they exist … and I think the
LDW program gives you, when you come out of it you’ve recognised yourself as a leader, you’ve looked
at your faults, you’ve looked at your weaknesses, you’ve looked at your strengths and identified how to
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
work on those weaknesses, you have actually consciously spent time looking at yourself as a leader,
being a leader, thinking of yourself as a leader and the university looks at you and sees you as a
potential leader because you’ve come through the LDW program. –interviewee
… confidence to speak up in a meeting and have your opinion not only voiced but be conscious that your
opinion will be respected because when you get to those sort of different levels you have to have a level
of respect for people to actually listen to you and the participants have got that level of respect and
confidence to offer their opinions and know they are going to be taken seriously - male supervisor
I think certainly there was probably more self-awareness and awareness of their own actions in the
work place, and I think confidence to take on things that they might not have felt all that comfortable in
doing in the first place. It did mean that they were at least comfortable in some (new) things. – female
supervisor
Increased awareness was not always followed by the development of specific plans or strategies to achieve
leadership goals. Some women initially, or after having done the program, did not have leadership goals but
used the program to consolidate their current position.
I think that increase in confidence and self-awareness of what counts as leadership not just selfawareness, also an ability to critique other people’s leadership and at times call people on things that I
didn’t think were appropriate because I felt that I could articulate myself better. And I think too that
confidence extended to being happy with my lot in life and deciding not to be going for promotion, not
to be pushing where I knew I wasn’t going to win - interviewee
Self-awareness shouldn’t be underestimated as a professional learning outcome as according to the
supervisors it is a critical skill for competent leaders.
but I don’t know how you train anyone to be a leader. I think it is really developing those skills, that selfawareness, just the ability to learn from experience and the experience of others as well, and bring all
those things together, so I’d find it quite hard from my perspective to single out a particular learning
outcome – female supervisor
any program like this that allows people to explore their potential (and) determine what it is they want
to be and where they want to be has to be beneficial for the organisation even if it means they leave.
You need people who are thinking about where they are going and how they are going to get there and
how they can make improvements and how they can lead, if you don’t have that at every level as an
organisation you’re going to come up lacking. I mean, ‘A’ you’ve got no one coming up but you know
you don’t need all your leaders at the top you need them throughout the organisation. - Female
supervisor
Networking15
Probably the most commonly cited and seemingly dominant benefit of the LDW program is the networking
that it facilitates. Eighty per cent of the participant survey responses (Table 8) agreed that the program gave
them access to a professional network of colleagues, the interviewees that didn’t specifically refer to the
benefits of networking instead referred to the benefits of meeting people from across the university more
broadly, and all the supervisor interviewees also described this as a benefit.
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 5: increase networking and opportunities for
collaboration within the University that will assist in achieving the program’s
aims
15
21
The benefit of networking was perhaps more strongly articulated by the supervisors. As one supervisor put it –
‘developing your own network within an organisation is very important’.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Being part of a work network:
 Provides inspiring, challenging and supportive relationships
 Provides contacts – people who can open doors
 Promotes one’s own work section
 Facilitates more efficient and less stressful work – you know who to go to, talk to etc (makes the
work easier)
o Clearer understanding of how the university functions
o Know who to contact for what information or help
o Have established relationships for future work
 Provides ideas, alternative approaches
 Breaks down sector silos
 Removes the sense that they are ‘alone’
Provides inspiring, challenging and supportive relationships
Situations where women are encouraging each other, network with each other give each other advice –
I think those things are really beneficial. Interviewee
The ability to see that actually you do have quite a bit of flexibility is good but also the ability to see
where other people might be making the most of opportunities to increase their flexibility or ability to
enable change- female supervisor
And then just to be engaged in such a dynamic and professional group of women was really good for me
as well … it was inspiring - it made me think about my career and where I wanted it to go and where I
was at, benchmarking yourself against the others in the program. interviewee
On the whole the overall effect was the development of instrumental and supportive networks: support from
the program presenters, the participating group or network, from the mentor, and/or from the peer group.
Women also sought or received advice, encouragement, feedback and affirmation from these sources.
Participants referred to the relief that they felt after meeting other women who have experienced similar
frustrations and challenging environments. As a result women have a sense that they are ‘not alone’, and it
‘isn’t just me’. This sense of shared challenge helps affirm their own perceptions and skills; and that what they
are experiencing is not a result of their inability or poor performance.
Provides contacts – people who can open doors
There was one reference to increased opportunities as a result from new contacts made in the program:
I got a scholarship or fellowship I am sure it came because of the program, my involvement with the
program and the people that I came in contact with - interviewee
Promotes one’s own work section
One supervisor pointed out the increased awareness of each sector, or the promotional benefits of networks:
every organisational unit has its own reputation within an institution and having staff circulate in
these sorts of forums is very good for the school both from a reputation perspective but also from an
operational perspective. – male supervisor
RESULTS
Page
Being part of a network aids completion of work tasks because:
 The women knew who to approach in different sections
 The existing relationships facilitated occasions in the future when participants worked together
 It built links which fostered the development of joint projects
 The women knew and felt comfortable with the people they dealt with
22
Facilitates more efficient and less stressful work – you know who to go to
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
And I had a situation last week where I need to get help for a student and because I knew the person
because of LDW – it was a connection and a network there that I knew immediately that I could go to
her and get something done. That was tremendously good about LDW. interviewee
It got people from very diverse areas of the university, background and skill sets talking to one another,
interacting, and working together on a level that wasn’t necessarily formal but it enabled more
informal contact which again could lead to working together in shared work experiences. Female
supervisor
Provides ideas, alternative approaches
An increased network made available new ideas and new perspectives on working in CSU.
The ability to see where other people might be making the most of opportunities to increase their
flexibility or ability to enable change … - female supervisor
Breaks down sector silos
Importantly, the networking and relationship building that occurred in the program resulted in a breakdown of
sector silos.
I felt my perspective on work had become quite narrow just being in the same school seeing the same
people, so to be with people from all across the university, professionals and academics in a more
relaxed way atmosphere, so got a broader perspective of the university. I think the first thing I noticed
we get so into routines at work but also routines of thinking the constant ‘them them them’ you know
‘damn admin’, you get in a group like this and you realise they are not ’them’ they’re just people trying
to do their best just like I am. So suddenly the organisation becomes people rather than blocks –
interviewee
I think some people got a much better perspective of how their colleagues in the university worked and
that’s a real benefit because CSU is fairly siloed. – female supervisor
Page
23
After completion of the program many women (73%) indicated they had increased their participation in CSU
networks, and 45% had increased their participation in women’s networks or groups.
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 9: Summary of survey questions 9 to 10, Program objectives 6 to 7
Program objectives
No.
Survey question
6
Repeats learning offered by other CSU leadership and skill
development programs
6
Provides learning which forms a good basis to undertake
other leadership and skill development programs offered
by CSU
Has no relevance to other CSU leadership and skill
development programs
6
Complements other leadership and skill development
programs
7
A better understanding of gender equity issues at CSU
Professional 2012
n=11
n=22
45%
Disagree or
strongly disagree
55%
Agree or strongly
agree
55%
Disagree or
strongly disagree
55%
Agree or strongly
agree
65%
Agree or strongly
agree
(n=34)
36%
Disagree or
strongly disagree
95%
Agree or strongly
agree
95%
Disagree or
strongly disagree
86%
Agree or strongly
agree
74%
Agree or strongly
agree
(n=42)
2012 Eval.
2012 Eval.
UWA 2005
% Agree or
strongly agree
% Agree or
strongly agree
27%
% Disagree or
strongly disagree
48%
85%
0%
0%
90%
93%
4%
69%
11%
85%
Page
24
6
Academic 2012
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Links to other CSU Professional development programs16
Objective 6 of the program is to complement and develop links with other leadership and skill development
programs within the University. Even if the program is 100% successful it would be a waste of resources if it
duplicated other programs or contradicted other programs, whether they have a leadership focus or more
general skill development. Whilst there seems to be some repetition from other programs (Table 9)
respondents clearly felt that the program offered complementary learning, and professional development that
provides a good foundation for other professional development programs.
Gender awareness17
Many women entering the program felt they were already aware of gender issues and so the experience
wasn’t one of ‘opening their eyes’ (Table 9). However, they still appreciated the new information and
resources that they gained through the program. These women also understood what the program was trying
to achieve and appreciated this endeavour.
I was pretty well aware of it (gender issues) anyway … one of the things I do remember from the
workshops is the concept that when men apply for jobs they look at the criteria and say ‘I can do that,
that and that and I can’t do that but too bad, I can do that and that, I can’t do that but too bad, I can do
that and that’, whereas women look at the criteria and say ‘I can do that and that and I can’t do that so
I won’t apply’ so that has stuck in my memory and I have applied that, - interviewee
perhaps I had more information about them (gender issues) and perhaps more context in a broader
international context or broader across multiple universities, - interviewee
For other women it did raise their awareness as to the systematic gendered issues that women face:
I don’t think I was as aware of it as explicitly as raised in the readings because I think life has to be fair
... it made me realise that we still don’t have women in a lot of the top spots and it made me think about
why –interviewee
Absolutely, yes, (increased gender awareness) what I hadn’t named before but what seemed to be an
inherent old fashioned male ‘women as helpers’ feeling about CSU – interviewee
One woman was relieved that gender awareness wasn’t presented in a way that denigrated men:
I must admit when I first signed up for it … I do remember being a little bit worried that it was going to
be heavily gendered. And I always feel uncomfortable about that side of things because I think you can
attach the label to things that are not necessarily gendered based … and I found that it was a really
balanced approach to leadership. There was certainly discussion of some of the gender issues but it
wasn’t overly heavy handed which was something I was a little bit hesitant about, both because it’s not
my style and also an outside perception that you would do this and be this kind of group of rampant
women who are all fired up to take over the world with their empowered gendered view of leadership
(laughs). I found it was a very balanced and a very good presentation of the issues but also the more
generic context of leadership in the institution and leadership generally - interviewee
LDW Program objective 6: complement and develop links with other
leadership and skill development programs within the University
17
LDW Program objective 7: enhance understanding of the University as a
gendered organisation
RESULTS
Page
25
16
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
One woman also thought that some discussions were denigrating to men:
Some bits didn’t fit in with me very well … we always tried to veer away from ‘we hate men, all men are
bad’ but sometimes you couldn’t help it, and I don’t like that, and it’s something that the program tries
to avoid … but some of our conversations around that were a little bit … women’s lib in the worst
possible sense as opposed to women’s lib enabling
Interviewer: not respectful?
not respectful that’s it, and a bit sort of whiney - interviewee
The program overtly acknowledges and attempts to address issues associated with gender that women face
and consequently it is constructed as a women only program. Many participants support and gain from this
approach however for others the centrality of ‘gender’ is problematic – this point is discussed later in ‘How
LDW achieves these benefits’. It is interesting to note that women at CSU appear to have less ‘increased’
awareness of gender issues than their UWA counterparts.
Increased contribution and leadership18
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 8: encourage participants to undertake leadership
and decision making roles, both formal and informal, within the University
18
26
Ultimately, the key goal is that women increase their participation in decision making and their formal
leadership and informal leadership within the University. The surveys and interviews provided evidence that
for many women the program supported an increase in their contributions across formal and informal
leadership. Increased leadership is taken to be measured by more than promotions, although 48% of survey
respondents have been promoted since undertaking the LDW program (Table 10). Seventy three per cent of
those that were successful at promotion thought that the program was influential in achieving the promotion.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 10: Summary of survey questions 11-40: Degree that program influenced achievement of these activities, Program objective 8
Academic 2012
Professional 2012
2012 Eval. All
UWA 2005
Program objective
% of those engaged in n
activity who rated
influence as med high
Taken on more leadership and decision making roles within CSU
% of those engaged
in activity who
rated influence as
med - high
n
% of those engaged in
activity who rated
influence as med high
% of those engaged in
activity who rated
influence as med-high
CSU 2008
% respondents that
felt LDW contributed
to their participation
in activity
55%
19
8
Applied for a promotion
48%
21
61%
23
77%
64% – A ; 62% - P
8
Achieved a promotion
43%
21
59%
17
73%
59% – A; 57% - P
8
Increased participation in
national or state committees
Undertaken higher duties
20%
15
40%
5
48%
43% – A; 43% - P
41%
27
58%
24
74%
50% – A; 38% - P
Influenced the direction of
decisions or policy
Contributed to and/or led
meetings
Initiated and/or become
involved in a project
Directed a project
43%
28
49%
35
68%
55%
35%
31
65%
40
71%
58%
29%
31
36%
25
53%
22%
27
31%
16
42%
Undertaken informal leadership
within the university
Undertaken formal leadership
within the university
Undertaken informal leadership
in personal life
Undertaken formal leadership
in personal life
Become more strategic in
committee involvement
Enrolled in formal study
44%
25
60%
35
82%
73% (S. Agree/ agree)
38%
24
72%
18
74%
61% (S. Agree/ agree)
32%
19
45%
22
54%
30%
10
45%
11
52%
45%
29
41%
32
73%
30%
10
27%
15
48%
Increased participation in
University committees
37%
19
55%
20
75%
8
8
8
8
8
8
16%
48% – A; 83% - P
43% – A; 70% - P
37%
19
A = Academic staff response; P = Professional staff response
RESULTS
Page
27
8
39%
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Some women undertook the program with a clear intention of it being a useful step toward promotion; the
program facilitated promotion in a number of ways:
 Grew confidence to apply – affirmed their abilities
 Provided a support network to use to get feedback and encouragement
 Was used as an measure of interest in leadership positions, and effort to develop leadership skills
A considerable number of women undertook the program in order to take on more senior positions, ie get a
promotion. Many women found the program useful in this regard.
It helped sensitise me to how I would position myself for promotion - respondent
Other women were disappointed as there were a couple of requests in the survey responses for more
information on how to apply for promotion or job reclassification.
Evidence for increased contribution included:
 Speaking up more – offering their opinion
 Confidence to be higher achieving
 Taking on responsibilities eg chairing committees, running conferences,
 Making choices about ‘how‘ they want to work rather than ‘conforming’ – fuller commitment to
responsibilities
 Increased ability to work with range of staff (eg less obstacles between professional and
academic)
 Confidence to keep trying, try different strategies
 Thinking strategically
 Assisted with taking a more inclusive approach, softening their approach with staff
 Now being able to see how they could help others
 Becoming involved with projects outside their immediate section
 More actively seeking leadership roles
I think they have grown in their ability to influence and I think that is a good term to use because not all
of them have had the opportunity to move into a more senior leader role. But within their own
workplace environment I think they have grown their influence, grown their ability and some of their
people skills, and their ability to see a bigger picture – female supervisor
With one particular woman just her confidence with being able to chair a meeting. Now to chair a
meeting is sometimes quite a daunting thought for some people, she now has the ability to organise the
meeting, to chair the meeting but also to run the meeting with a level of competence and efficiency that
was never seen before. So I think the LDW may have given her a push to break outside that comfort
zone and to explore other avenues, and now that she has explored those she is finding that it is sitting
quite well. With another participant, I just see her as much more of a professional and leader now
whereas previously she was a follower and someone who was allocated work but now she is someone
who leads and thinks strategically - male supervisor
I’ve noticed that has been of benefit to our staff, because their confidence has increased they feel
comfortable in expressing their opinion, making contributions whereas before they would have sat back
and thought ‘oh there are people here who are higher up than me – female supervisor
Page
28
There appears to be some difference between professional and academic staff response as to whether or not
they felt they were able to apply what they had learnt in the workplace (Table 11). Professional staff all felt
that they could apply their learning but approximately one quarter of the academic staff did not. Professional
staff also felt they had performed more informal leadership compared to their academic colleagues (Table 12),
and felt that they had fewer remaining leadership challenges (Table 13).
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 11: Question 49 – Have you been able to apply what you have learnt about leadership in the workplace?
No
Yes
Total
Academic
n
Academic
percentage
Professional
n
Professional
percentage
7
23
30
23%
77%
0
42
42
0
100%
Table 12: Question 50 – Have you exercised leadership at times when you weren’t formally designated as a leader?
No
Yes
Total
Academic
n
Academic
percentage
Professional
n
Professional
percentage
7
24
31
23%
77%
5
37
42
12%
88%
Table 13: Question 51 – Did you face leadership challenges that were not addressed in the program?
No
Yes
Total
Academic
n
Academic
percentage
Professional
n
Professional
percentage
9
20
29
31%
69%
21
19
40
52%
48%
There are examples of increased leadership both within and outside the university. Most times participants
and supervisors could not say that LDW was the primary cause of movement to higher positions but they did
express that LDW was either instrumental or part of the learning that led to leadership actions and career
changes.
I have taken up those leadership roles and I would say that I’m drawing on the confidence that the
program gave me - interviewee
she is actually leading a team of staff across different school groups and working in the projects base so
the level of complexity of work that she doing is far more complex than it was previously, … just the
difference in her confidence is very pleasing to see so I think that is one outcome and maybe it’s all to do
with the LDW course, maybe the LDW course is part of it, - male supervisor
One of the people I supervised directly had moved into project management and I think it (LDW) gave
her a great deal of confidence to take a lead role across university projects. – female supervisor
Help build a new culture20
RESULTS
Page
LDW Program objective 9: assist in the identification and removal of barriers
within the University to women participating effectively in decision making and
leadership roles
20
29
The commitment to offer the LDW program to CSU female staff arose from a desire to have greater gender
equity at senior levels and to help build a more equitable culture within the institution. It was hoped that
strengthening women’s involvement in decision making within the university would help build a more ‘gender
friendly’ culture. The graduates from the LDW program were seen as a key component in the ‘cultural change’
that was being fostered. The program was very successful at encouraging women to provide mentoring
support to others (85%) (Table 14) but less successful at encouraging participants to foster representative
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
decision making in the workplace or become proactive in supporting women’s opportunities. Note however,
participants may have already been proactive but the question specifically asked whether the program had
21
influenced these behaviours . One strategy of changing culture that participants indicated they used was
strongly promoting the LDW program to other CSU staff.
Table 14: Summary of survey question 41, Program objective 9
Program objective
No.
9
9
9
Survey question
Became a proactive leader
concerned with supporting
women’s opportunities
Encouraged representative
decision making in my workplace
Provided mentoring support to
others
Improved my work-life balance
2012
academic
22
2012
professional
2012 Eval.
2012 Eval.
UWA 2005
% Agree or
strongly
agree,
n= 34
47%
% Agree or
strongly
agree
n=42
48%
% Agree
or
strongly
agree
47%
% Disagree or
strongly
disagree
% Agree or
strongly
agree
59%
76%
74%
14%
70%
68%
8%
74%
93%
85%
15%
70%
41%
57%
41%
16%
73%
Renegotiated my workload
36%
24%
29%
25%
38%
An increased sense of belonging
to the University
68%
74%
70%
6%
83%
Well I do recommend other women to do the LDW program when it is offered because I think it is a
wonderful opportunity to network with women in other areas ... I would encourage women to nominate
themselves for it and I would hope that schools or divisions or faculties are continuing to support
women to do it, and also to provide avenues for women to exercise leadership once they have started to
learn a bit more about how they might be a leader in their workplace. - interviewee
if other staff say to me ‘I’m thinking of LDW’ or if I see the announcement about it I do promote it to
other staff, so to me that says that somewhere in my head I have learnt something valuable out of it. interviewee
I am more active in my participation and pushing for equity within our school especially concerning
workloads. We have a high female representation in our school already. - respondent
the course gave me the capability to say ‘no I don’t think this is the right thing and to stand up for it’ –
interviewee
Supporting other staff, being inclusive in my decision making processes and work-life balance were key
principles I have applied on a regular basis since LDW. - respondent
In retrospect it would have been more useful to have worded using the same approach as questions 11 to
40.
22
No 2008 CSU data available for comparison
RESULTS
Page
21
30
Changing the culture is also about women changing their approach from ‘trying to fit in’ to the masculine
approach to constructing their own approach to work. The survey asked whether women had improved their
work-life balance (41% had) or renegotiated their workload (29% had) (Table 14) as indicators of this change.
For example, as a result of the self-reflection, learning, support and challenges women made the following
changes to the way that they worked:
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
I must qualify the last two points by saying that LDW helped me know myself better, as well as perform
my job better. The long-term outcome has been that I have decided that high-level management is not
for me - hence the move and step-down mentioned earlier. These things are huge positives for my life
and for my contribution to my current job. LDW helped me to succeed at the higher level but recognise
it was NOT what I wanted and to make careful decisions around what I DID want. - respondent
Not very successful in renegotiating workload as university has had a very entrenched position on not
responding to academic workload issue - respondent
In conclusion: an opportunity to grow capacity
Whilst the participants referred to the confidence they gained, their increased self-awareness, and an
increased understanding of the system, the supervisors were more likely to describe the program benefits in
terms of personal development or opportunity to grow their capacity. This seems to be an appropriate
summary statement of the LDW program.
I think I still do see it as that personal development I guess to me it does come down to a lot of the time
you can see that the person has the potential to extend themselves – female supervisor
I saw it as a personal development opportunity so there would be expectations that you would see
individuals benefit in some way and at times I have actually specifically targeted people and
encouraged them to apply because I thought they needed that, usually it was a lack of confidence I
suppose more than anything else, you could see there was the potential there but they just didn’t seem
to be able to make the step up or something like that, that was one side of it and then there are all the
flow on benefits. - female supervisor
Page
31
I would still expect that if someone was going to participate in 2013 that some of the positive outcomes
would be increased confidence, perhaps a change of mindset that they would positively contribute not
only to their division but to the whole university. They’d be breaking out of their comfort zone to
explore different avenues within their own division and even external to the divisions. - male supervisor
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
How LDW achieves these benefits23
The components or features of LDW that generate these benefits were remarked upon across the surveys and
interviews. Participant responses were quite diverse demonstrating that the program was able to provide
different learning opportunities for different people.
The CSU program has three broad learning components:
1 The core workshop program which consists of an initial 4 day workshop; a two-day leadership skill
development workshop mid year, and a one-day workshop / final presentation at the end of the year.
Participants are directed to a set of readings which are referred to in the workshops.
2 Self-learning peer groups which select their own learning goal and strategy
3 Mentor relationship where participants are able to identify their preferred mentor, and every effort is
made to match to the participant’s preference.
Over and above these structured learning opportunities comments from the surveys and interviews indicated
that there are a number of other features of the LDW program that facilitated learning. These additional
features are:
 Women only
 Supported by senior staff
 Mix of staff
 Outside facilitators
 Space for reflection
The core program, that is the series of workshops with the whole cohort were the most appreciated learning
opportunities, closely followed by the peer learning groups (Table 15). The mentoring relationships appear not
to have been so successful but still a significant proportion (69%) found great value in them.
Table 15: Summary of survey question 42, Contribution of different program components to leadership development
Program
component
Core program
Mentoring
Peer learning
group
2012 Eval.
2012 Eval.
2012 Eval.
UWA 2005
N
% Agree or
strongly agree
77
78
77
91%
69%
81%
% Disagree or
strongly
disagree
4%
18%
12%
% Agree or
strongly
agree
90%
68%
64%
23
Research aim 2: How the elements of the program contributed?
RESULTS
Page
32
As can be seen from the next three figures there is a varied response to the different components (untested
statistically) (Figure 2, Figure 3 & Figure 4). It appears that academic staff are less likely to have satisfactory
learning experiences from the core component, the mentoring component is slightly less satisfactory for
professional staff, and the peer group component is more satisfactory for professional staff.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
45
40
35
30
Strongly Agree
25
Agree
20
Neutral
15
Disagree
10
5
0
academic
professional
Figure 2: Count of response to ‘The Core component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools (knowledge,
opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’
45
40
35
30
Strongly Agree
25
Agree
20
Neutral
15
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10
5
0
academic
professional
Page
33
Figure 3: Count of response to ‘The Mentoring component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools (knowledge,
opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
45
40
35
30
Strongly Agree
25
Agree
20
Neutral
15
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10
5
0
academic
professional
Figure 4: Count of response to ‘The Peer Group component of the LDW Program provided me with the tools (knowledge,
opportunities, confidence etc) to develop leadership abilities’
In order to obtain a clearer understanding of the learning experience for participants we asked what type of
learning they experience in each of these program components. In all 3 program components (Table 16) selfreflection, learning from role models, and experiential learning were the dominant learning experiences; they
were also the equally preferred approach to learning for the participants.
Table 16: Summary of survey questions 43 to 46, Learning styles experienced in program components (respondents
could select more than one learning style)
Learning style
Core
Mentoring
Peer group
Preferred
learning
Experiential
n
49
22
42
56
Formal
n
42
3
13
29
Reflecting
n
68
56
63
56
Role models
n
58
56
45
54
Creative24
n
42
2
35
27
Comments on each of the three learning components are as follows.
Workshops
Whilst the creative components of the workshops might also have been called experiential or reflective the
creative nature of these activities was clearly distinct to other experiential or reflective activities.
RESULTS
Page
24
34
Only 4% of participants disagreed that the workshops (core component) provided effective learning with
respect to the development of leadership abilities. The program design incorporates two progress meetings
with the course presenter. The only reference to these was that they had not occurred. The majority of
comments relating to the workshops were positive with participants valuing the:
 activities
 readings
 discussions, and
 Opportunity to meet and work with other women.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Other than that all the workshops were excellent, the activities were excellent - interviewee
Where ever we had the opportunity to have mini workshops they were always really really good and the
interactive workshops were really really good, what I did find was that a lot of other people didn’t do
the readings so sometimes there was a bit of a lag because people hadn’t done the pre-reading, so that
held things up a little bit - interviewee
I really liked the workshops because I like learning something new - interviewee
Those respondents who didn’t see the workshops as useful commented that the material and presenters were
‘tired’, and that it digressed into a complaint session. Another respondent felt that taking on leadership
positions required that there should be opportunities in the workplace to take on leadership and that learning
programs could make little difference to a workplace without room to move up:
Whatever goals and or wishes to become a leader depends heavily on effort, opportunities and timing.
Simply attending and or participating in a program is not going to create opportunities. (any learning
that this respondent achieved was through self reflection although her preference was to learn through
role models, she felt her overall knowledge about leadership did not increase)- respondent
Mentor
The mentor relationships provided opportunities that were describe as useful and worthwhile, or the ‘best bit’.
More specifically women found that their mentor was:







Able to open doors to meet senior staff
A useful sounding board
A source of information on how the university operates
Able to help them problem solve
An effective role model
A source of new skills and knowledge
Someone they could debrief with
I think every staff member where possible should have a mentor, someone they can go and talk to and
chat, who is not necessarily in the same organisational unit as them; just to have that sounding board
and I think the program provides a real opportunity to identify potential mentors as well. – male
supervisor
Peer group
The peer learning groups had mixed success: for some women the peer learning group was the pivotal learning
experience of the program and for others the peer learning groups offered little support and little in the way
of learning. The peer learning groups provided the following:
a ‘safe’ place to discuss problems or issues and receive support or advice
encouragement to ‘step up’
awareness that others are or have experienced similar situations
relationship building across the University
opportunity to focus on learning tasks of own choice
Page
I would say that one of the major advantages to me from the LDW program was the peer group, and the
peer group were instrumental in nagging me to go for the management position and have been and we
continue to meet even now, and so they are a significant group of people. We may not meet very
regularly but I feel confident that if I need help from any of the other three people in my peer group I’d
ring them up and sort of bend their ears or talk to them, so the peer group was a really strong outcome
of the LDW program. - interviewee
35





RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
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. –respondent
the peer group we had some contact but not a lot. I struggle to remember who was in my group. We had
a couple of teleconferences but not much happened, we got together up in Bathurst where we had to
prepare that presentation but there wasn’t a lot of connection, we got along well but not much came
out of that. I think just tyranny of distance and workloads and stuff made it a bit difficult.- interviewee
Over and above the structured learning experiences other features or characteristics of the program emerged
as being important to the successful learning. These features were:
 Being women only
 Facilitating self-directed learning
 Supported by senior staff
 Took place in a mixed staff forum
 Outside facilitators
 Space for reflection
Women only
Whilst there were critical comments about the women only nature of the program the majority of comments
noted the positive benefits of being women-only. Men’s absence provided a number of benefits:
 a safe space for sharing and reflecting without fear of the issue being interpreted as women being
weak or irrelevant,
 a space for sharing which focused solely on women’s issues or the issues they raised (many may well
have been common with men)
 a space that did not have men dominating the conversation and discussion
 a different atmosphere than would exist were it a mixed gender group.
And I think she thrived the most in doing that sort of skills development in a nurturing environment, a
women only, non-threatening environment like the LDW. – female supervisor
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 - respondent
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. respondent
Women only - I may not have gone on the program if it had been mixed and I definitely would have had
a very different experience. I prefer to have it all women it is much more comfortable and supportive
atmosphere. - respondent
Page
I do think they need to target giving leadership skills to other management within the university
particularly some heads of schools who can be in great need of improving some of their management
skills on occasion -gender awareness … and how to be decent leaders would be another thing, how to
lead a team as a team, - interviewee
36
In addition to being appreciated the women only nature of the program was critiqued. The issues of a women
only program were:
 men also need self-development / learning opportunities
 fear of being seen as part of a men-aversive group
 men don’t learn about gender issues and so the problem continues to exist
 resentment from men in the workplace
 interpretation that it positioned women as the weaker sex
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
I don’t know if there is an equivalent thing for men you have to wonder whether men should be allowed
to join this one, - interviewee
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. - respondent
I guess there is still an element of mistrust and there is certainly the comment ‘well if it’s good enough
for women why can’t men do it’. I know there have been a lot of men who have said ‘we want something
like this’ so I suppose it does set up a bit of a gender divide in a way. But I think its strength is its focus
on women who just haven’t got the confidence that a lot of their male colleagues have. You often see
that in workshops and seminars because it is often the men that dominate the conversation. – female
supervisor
Supported by senior staff
Whilst the majority of survey respondents agreed that the program was supported by senior CSU staff 21% did
not. Support from immediate senior staff and support from all levels of senior management provides very
significant messages of encouragement and worth to women participants. This support is a clear statement of
worth and was clearly one of the components that helped build women’s confidence and affirm or build their
image of self as leader. The support also demonstrates a commitment to gender equity and gives women
confidence that it is ok to push in that direction.
the head of school was very supportive because he/she wanted to build up the leadership potential of
women in the school. I felt that from the school point of view and therefore the university I was quite
well supported and I felt quite privileged to be in a course where the people facilitating it were coming
from WA - interviewee
Indicators that senior staff did not support the program ranged from disappointment that there were few
senior staff at final presentation to cynicism that the program is in place so that CSU can tick the box indicating
they have a gender equity strategy in place.
One participant felt that the support for the program could be greatly extended:
the course itself does not seem to be well supported by the university- for example each course seems to
be an entity of its own- there is no building on the power of a strong existing network of alumni and this
seems most peculiar - interviewee
During the interviews several supervisors stated that they felt that they could have provided more support to
their staff during and after the program. They ensured that travel costs were covered and in some cases
organised someone to cover the staff’s absence; and overall they felt that the cost was a good investment. A
few supervisors thought they perhaps could have been more involved in a supervisory capacity by being more
interested in the women’s progress or by facilitating leadership opportunities after the program was
completed. Supervisors took different approaches to nominating staff to attend the program from
encouraging all their eligible female staff to participate to carefully selecting female staff who they considered
were ready for the next promotion.
RESULTS
Page
The program was open to all women at HEW 6 or Academic A or above – across professional and academic
staff, across divisions and faculties and across campuses. Being able to meet people that they had previously
only emailed, or seen their name or never heard of, was suggested to be an important feature of the program.
Discussing common issues, learning together, solving workshop tasks together, coming together in support
37
Mix of staff
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
groups helped build relationships across the different sections of the university. This was highly valued by the
supervisors and participants. All supervisors noted this benefit to their section and the university.
The cross pollination between professional and academic staff is a benefit and can break down the silos
around organisational units. Female supervisor
a lot of professional staff you find a bit intimidate by being with a group of academics so they don’t tend
to speak up or say much and … because their confidence has increased they feel comfortable in
expressing their opinion, making contributions whereas before they would have sat back and thought
‘oh there are people here who are higher up than me or they’re academics so they’ll know more than I
do so they won’t say anything’ so that has been a really obvious benefit I would say - supervisor
Because there was a mixture of academic and general staff, there were a lot of different points of view
that were put forward, but there was never a feeling that ‘that person is a lot more qualified than I am’
so there was a freedom to express your views and have discussions and support from everyone.
Interviewee
Mix of academic and general staff very good. That should be continued - respondent
I enjoyed the mix of general and academic staff as well as levels, it enabled many perspectives to be
brought to the table and quite a lot was learned from that. - respondent
However, sometimes these benefits were more theoretical than actual. It was reported by participants that
there is a professional/academic divide within the University that needs to be addressed and that the program
needs to take more care not to unwittingly contribute to this divide, and to work towards its elimination.
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. –respondent
Mix of staff is good- although could do with more discussion as this is one of the biggest divides. respondent
Outside facilitators
Those that commented on this aspect felt that the fact that the course was NOT run by CSU staff added
credibility and strength to the program. It signalled a high level commitment from the university and it meant
that the course was not a reinforcement of CSU current culture and knowledge.
… didn’t come with the CSU baggage, with the CSU head space … it is very easy to get blocked into our
own institutional head space and not realise that there are good and bad and indifferent things
happening across the sector and that we need to keep abreast of that as well – interviewee.
I thought the fact that our two facilitators were from outside CSU – to me that was important. The
program wasn’t just replicating existing viewpoints and relationships, and we were actually challenged a bit, if that has changed I would like to go back to the externals - interviewee
RESULTS
Page
A separate note should be made about references to the presenters themselves. The majority of comments
were full of praise for the presenters, Maggie in particular. Jennifer was part of the original inception of the
program at UWA in 1994 and Maggie joined the team the late 1990’s; together they have run the program for
CSU from 2006 to 2012. Maggie brings charisma and empathy to the workshops and seems to have a more
active role in the CSU program than Jennifer. The centrality of the presenters to the effectiveness of the
workshops raises a question about what happens when these presenters are no longer available or ‘burn out’,
a question raised by one of the supervisors. Indeed, CSU may need to deal with the issue of ‘burn out’ as a
38
Presenters
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
current issue as there were also unfavourable comments regarding the presenters around ‘being tired’,
presenting out of date material (from 2011-12 cohorts), and not embodying the leadership traits that they
were teaching (from first 2006-7 cohort). In addition, one interviewee reported that she felt the presenters
were unsupportive and unprofessional and alluded to having heard similar reports from others.
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. - respondent
Maggie’s information and thought provoking sessions allowed me to look at my workplace and my role
as a leader within it with fresh eyes and a renewed sense of purpose. If you can get past the horrible
lack of communication and terrible organisation of the program by HR, it is well worth the time.
Maggie was fantastic and was extremely knowledgeable and ran all sessions beautifully. – respondent
I think an element of the success is associated with the presenters. They are very experienced qualified,
so I don’t know if that changes it would change the dynamics of the program you would hope not, and
that maybe an issue and I don’t know if that is on the cards, but sometimes you don’t want to keep
doing these things over and over. That maybe a risk that is flagged but it shouldn’t be insurmountable.
– female supervisor
one of those women (program facilitators) had me in tears on the first day … I had a negative view of
those program leaders all the way through - participant
better skilled experts which embody the leadership traits one is trying to teach/convey - respondent
Space for reflection
As stated earlier, the program was referred to by participants and supervisors as a ‘space for reflection and
learning’. The effectiveness of this ‘learning space’ could be attributed to the multiple learning approaches
structured into the program but also the features just discussed: the women only environment, clear support
from senior staff, a mix across divisions and faculties, professional and academic staff, outside facilitators and
the skill and expertise of the presenters. The program, for the most part, very effectively sets up a space to
undertake discussion and self-reflection around leadership and at times it was this ‘space’ that was credited
with the learning, growth in self-awareness and confidence.
I think it is a space for people to explore themselves as much as anything else. – female supervisor
it gave her the space to sit back and think ‘you know what I could probably do better for myself and it’s
no good me sitting her complaining – female supervisor
it was the luxury of being enrolled in this program and allowed to spend time thinking about leadership
and discussing it and observing it and not in a rushed way – interviewee
it did make me a bit more goal focused and made me think about what did I want to achieve and how I
might do that … There was reflection, opportunity for reflection and re-evaluation of those things. …
and often it’s good to take stock and have the opportunity to have that level of reflection and review interviewee
see the bigger picture about where the school and where their actual activities sit, and also I think
potentially identify different career paths they could take as well. – male supervisor
RESULTS
Page
The program aimed to provide a safe space where women could gather and learn and share without the
presence of men who would change the dynamics and stifle the learning for some women; however gender is
just one type of power relationship and the program may not have been able to provide ‘safe spaces’ at all
39
It provides a head space to work through issues. – female supervisor
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
levels. As noted above, where there is a perceived status or power difference between participants the ‘safe
space’ may be jeopardised:
some of the feedback that I’ve had and it varies over different years sometimes I think people feel more
… not sure what the right word is, there is an emphasis given to the concerns of the academic staff who
probably are you know just be their nature more able to express where they’re at and voice their
concerns anyway and they’re addressed so there could be a slight seeming imbalance in the way things
are carried out through the program in that the academics speak up and then everything they say the
program is structured around them. Female Supervisor
Clearly the academic-professional staff relationship sometimes is infused with status differences. Herein lies
one of the challenges for the facilitators: to ensure that all voices are equally heard.
Weaknesses of the program
A review of the survey data shows that over 50% of respondents did not agree that the following occurred as a
consequence of the program:








they gained an increased knowledge or understanding of the tertiary sector; this was reinforced by
comments
they increased their participation in women’s networks or groups; a measure of cultural changes
which is probably a questionable indicator anyway
that the program influenced their increased participation in national or state committees; many
already on committees
that the program influenced their decision to take on direction of projects; limited number of projects
to direct
that the program influenced their decision to enrol in formal study; relevance is limited
that as a result of participating in the program they had become proactive leader concerned with
supporting women’s opportunities; comments suggest that they were already doing this
improved their work-life balance; structural impediments to this but the research didn’t ask how
many wanted to do this
renegotiated their workload; structural impediments but the research didn’t ask how many wanted to
do this
RESULTS
Page
The following aspects of the program were identified as requiring improvement. Several people specifically
suggested improvements were required to the following aspects and no one made comments that
contradicted these suggestions:
1. selection of participants – ensure the program is relevant to participant
2. organisation of the overall program by CSU
3. clarity around expectations of what the program can deliver for participant, and supervisor
4. an independent and confidential evaluation
5. guidelines for mentor and mentee
6. learning contract between participant and supervisor
7. increased promotion and awareness of the program
8. concern that the program might have reached market saturation
40
Acknowledging that 50% is a rather arbitrary number, items that had less than 50% agreement from
participants will be taken as potential weaknesses of the program. Other program weaknesses emerged from
the interviews and open ended questions in the survey. These ‘weaknesses’ are very often contradicted by
responses from other participants. The variability in responses may be a result of individual needs not being
met, individual personalities not feeling comfortable in the program, or individual circumstances ‘closing’ their
receptivity to the program; that is, the program is able to meet many people’s needs but not all. It should be
remembered that women who had a relatively negative experience of the program may have chosen not to
complete the survey. Of the 10 randomly selected participants who were interviewed two reported significant
issues with the program.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
There were a number of recommendations for change but these specific suggestions also had voices
specifically indicating the item should stay the same:
1. Open to HEW5
2. Overall content
3. Follow up activities after completion of the program
4. Women only
5. Final Presentations by participants
Selection of participants
As noted earlier: Some people had been told or felt that they were obliged to attend the program but didn’t
see the personal relevance, as a consequence they put very little effort into the program and probably got very
little out of it. Care could be taken to ensure that only women who are really interested in the program
participate.
Organisation
Whilst there were very few suggestions regarding changes to the overall content of the program there were
numerous comments regarding the organisation of the program. It wasn’t clear as to why the organisation
was lacking – perhaps because of shortage of staff, perhaps because whoever was organising it was new to the
task, perhaps because a number of people were given the responsibility with no one really checking the quality
of the organisation. The consequence was situations such as these:
There was no one there, we were there for 45 minutes with people dribbling with being told different
times and different venues and then someone turned up who was one of the organisers, but I didn’t
know she was, and she just walked in and put a box on the table and walked out again. And no one was
introduced, and there were five people, they had driven up from Albury they had driven 8 hours and
there wasn’t a jug of water on the table. And I just felt it was very off putting even from a gender
perspective because … is what we are saying as women ‘let’s just be womanly and friendly and sloppy?’,
… So I don’t know I just think for a leadership thing there needed to be better role modelling and
organisation … There were quite a few people who were surprised and not that impressed at how
sloppy it was at that level. Like the mentoring was a bit of a mess and that was down to them to
organise all that so if you want make people feel like leaders you make them feel like leaders … We
don’t really take you seriously as leaders that’s really what they were saying. Interviewee
The LDW program gains increased credibility by being run by outside facilitators but this poses challenges in
terms of its internal organisation. Organisation of the LDW program shifted from the Equal Opportunity for
Women program and transferred to the Division of Human Resources (Organisational and People Capability).
The initial approach which had a dedicated staff (part-time) to this program did not provoke dissatisfaction
with the program’s overall organisation from the participants. The current approach to organisation appears to
be inadequate from the perspective of the participants. How the program is organised needs to be reviewed
with attention to adequate and timely information to participants, adequate organisation in terms of
accommodation and sustenance, a dedicated contact person and visual presence at least at the
commencement of the intensive workshops, more care regarding the timing of the workshops, and more care
in the matching of mentees with mentors.
Clear and accurate expectations
RESULTS
Page
I think it needs to be really clear about what it is trying to achieve. I’m not intimately involved in the
curriculum and its changed a lot, so they have been doing a very good job of taking note of feedback so I
can’t say that I am any expert in the curriculum but I think certainly from talking to the participants
41
Both a participant and a supervisor suggested that one or more participants undertook the program with
expectations that it would be a useful pathway to promotion; both sources indicated this turned out to be an
unfulfilled expectation. One supervisor suggested that the program needs to identify its content more clearly
and perhaps relabel itself as a self-development program rather than leadership program.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
that we send and the people who I mentored, they were a little bit unsure about what it was trying to
achieve. I think it was about self-development, it would be more useful to people if there was a clear
scope about who we were trying to select, why we were trying to select them and what we were hoping
to achieve from it – female supervisor
Based on comments made by other supervisors the author’s interpretation is that other supervisors would
disagree with this view – that the program IS a leadership development program and not simply ‘selfdevelopment’. This tension is between leadership as management and having skills and knowledge about
management processes, versus leadership as influence and ‘soft skill’ competence. Acknowledging that there
are indeed different ways of seeing leadership suggests that there is a need for clarification around what the
program is, and is trying to achieve, and that this clarification will include alternative perspectives, alternative
needs and how to fulfil those needs (eg if staff need to become competent in meeting management they
should undertake Course X rather than LDW).
Process of evaluation
A few comments were made about the evaluation process. At the end of each day of the workshops an
evaluation sheet was handed out and then collected by the presenters, and they would reflect on the
comments overnight. A whole of program evaluation was also distributed at the end of the program by CSU.
Women felt that they weren’t really in a position to provide negative comment either in the daily evaluations
distributed by the presenters, or in the final evaluation which CSU would use. This was because they felt that
their relationship with the presenters might be put at risk if they gave honest but negative comment, or that if
they gave negative comment in the final evaluation then CSU might use that as justification to discontinue the
program – which they didn’t want.
See we weren’t game to be honest in our evaluations because they were going back to these women! So
I don’t know maybe an outside evaluation or something? - interviewee
Mentoring
There seem to be four key issues with the mentor-mentee relationships:
 The participant was dis-interested in the program overall
 there was a lack of clarity around the mentoring relationship for both the mentor and mentee and
neither quite knew how to proceed, or get the most from the relationship
 there was a poor match between participant interests and what the mentor could provide; and
 that even with all good intentions the mentor wasn’t available to be of much use.
some effort needs to be made in setting up the mentoring relationships and recognises that this is
resource costly. – female supervisor
I know for some people the mentoring was extremely useful because they ended up with mentors that
took their role very seriously, mine was too busy. interviewee
I still have support and contacts mainly my mentor… we meet, (and) I’m thinking I just need to sit down
and talk to her about a few issues and I know I can do that - interviewee
I only went to my mentor a couple of times I could email him if I wanted to but I always felt he was
incredibly busy and I don’t like imposing. And a continuing mentoring role would have been good where
it was acknowledged that that was ok to go and ask for help – interviewee
Page
42
participant was looking for things that I (mentor) couldn’t provide so easily –I felt I probably wasn’t the
best choice. So some effort needs to be made in setting up the mentoring relationships (I) recognise that
this is resource costly. – female supervisor
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Learning contract
Both a participant and supervisor suggested that a more formal ‘contract’ would be useful between supervisor
and program participant. This was suggested to both encourage greater commitment from participants and
involvement from supervisors. Supervisors themselves reflected that they could be more active and involved,
but it also seemed clear that participants could be more proactive in keeping the supervisor informed of the
impact the program might be having, and requesting new opportunities. The program (from previous
evaluation) has always asked that supervisors look for ways for women to take on leadership in their
workplace – sometimes this hasn’t occurred though and supervisors find it difficult to find these opportunities.
I also think it might be useful for participants to have to contract to learn or do something (this
happened to a certain extent, but could be greatly encouraged). I am also concerned that this
evaluation not be misinterpreted along simplistic mechanical lines. The course is potentially life and
organisationally transforming and should not be regarded as a simple input-output effect- another
reason why it would be good to have a longer term more wholistic view of the course. - interviewee
I would hope that one of the expectations is that they really do bring their supervisors into it all at least
give them a debriefing – female supervisor
could have more of a contract with the supervisor regarding the objectives – I think this would be
helpful, another development program around culture requires that the supervisors have to be active
and buy-in to the program – female supervisor
Increased promotion of the program
A suggestion was made to promote the program both in terms of its existence but more so in terms of its
benefits. This would be a way of clarifying expectations around the program but also celebrating and
acknowledging its successes.
I don’t know if, we’ve been talking over the last the couple of days how CSU has done some great things
but we’re not very good at promoting them even within let alone externally, that might be something to
consider to promote the benefits. I can see them in my staff but I don’t actively promote it, maybe we
can promote it more across the university, maybe use some of the graduands to do that, I think they do
it themselves informally but I think they would be quite happy to be involved in some other more formal
promotion of it. female supervisor
Market saturation
Two interviewees raised the issue of market saturation. Their suggested strategies differed: one approach was
to offer a new course catering to new needs and the other approach was to offer the course every 2 years
instead of every year.
I also wonder whether we will get to the point where we have saturated the market in a sense and
whether there will be a point where the program will need to change to cater for a different group?
Most people who go through these sorts of things are looking for some sort of advancement, whether it
is formal or informal leadership positions, but there are a limited number of those positions and so you
can’t have everybody who goes through these programs being fulfilled in a sense of getting those things.
… maybe we do reach a point where we’ve got saturation and something slightly different is needed to
cater for the pool of people wanting leadership development … every second year?- interviewee
Page
43
(the) program should be offered every 2 years because it has market saturation and if level 5 or 6’s do
it, it is in danger of losing its benefits. So it would be better to offer the program less frequently.- female
supervisor
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Mixed opinion
Open to HEW5
There was mixed opinion regarding whether General HEW5 staff are suited to participating in the program.
One view was that their participation resulted in a changed focus for the program and therefore a ‘watering’ of
the program for women who were operating or about to participate in higher levels of leadership.
But another view was that most women above HEW6 had been through the program and that women at
HEW5 had much to gain in terms of personal development and building leadership skills, especially as future
leaders will also be drawn from this group. A middle road is that the level of appointment sometimes was a
poor indicator of the responsibility and leadership that a woman was engaged in and that HEW5’s should be
able to nominate and be assessed based on their situation and case.
The level of personal development depends on where they (the participant) are at, their commitment,
whether they are ready to do it or are only doing it because the supervisor has recommended it.
Participants need to be clear about what they’re hoping to get from the program … I felt that opening
the program up to more junior staff has detracted from the program – they don’t have the
responsibility or work issues that are relevant to the program, for lower level staff it gives a particular
take on leadership but they don’t have same opportunity to put it into practice … ‘I’ve gone to the
presentations and the tone has changed, perhaps because there are more junior staff involved’, even the
topics are different. It is significant who does the program. Staff readiness is important: they need to
be prepared to commit, their position determines if they can contextualise the learning and apply it,
and whether they are in a position to influence others– female supervisor
I think there is potentially some level five staff that are, struggling to find a way to take the next step in
there career and this would really help them to gain the understanding and credentials to go further. respondent
Overall content
The majority of interview comments suggested that participants and supervisors were happy with the balance
of the program content and clearly from the information collected some components of the program suited
some people more than others. And so there were many comments to keep the content the same. There
were a few suggestions and comments though for change to the program, these involved:







content requires invigorating and updating
extend the last session where participants need to finalise their presentation, and give their
presentation as this feels rushed
provide information on ‘how’ to network
provide information on managing staff
provide information on how organisations work
offer real, on-ground projects for women to learn experientially
use past participants to tell how they have utilised or benefited from the program
I have quite a good understanding of these(gender issues). I was disappointed at the level of material on
this- I think, it was quite illuminating for some, and I think the level was generally good- the gendered
patterns of employment conditions is of considerable interest to me, and it would have suited me for the
program to have more demanding and radical material in it. I think the program can't meet everyone's
needs simultaneously. - respondent
RESULTS
Page
There was some discussion around follow-up strategies for the program. Some past participants had no
interest in continued involvement partly because they hadn’t continued on a ‘leadership track’, or partly
because work continued to be so busy that they couldn’t envisage that they would have the time. Others felt
that some peer groups and mentor relationships do continue and it is best to leave it to individuals, that care
44
Follow up
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
needs to be taken not to establish an ‘exclusive group’ and the learning needs to be taken and shared with the
whole workforce, or that at some stage ‘you need to stand on your own two feet’.
Others felt that some kind of follow-up might be useful for the university and participants. This might take the
form of:
 hold a reunion – purpose not clear but around re-stimulating the desire for leadership, reestablishing and broadening the network, continued learning
 draw on past participants more as a resource in the program to talk about their experience and
be available to support other women
 establish an Alumni or ongoing network that can provide support for women
 help build the influence that leading women have on other women in the university
 continue mentoring relationships
It is a very individual thing and for some I think it is been a partial success, for some I think it might
have been a temporary achievement that may have regressed a bit. That might be because you need
that constant reminder or refreshing (of the skills/qualities gained in the program). – female supervisor
Women only
There was also a comment from an interviewee who thought the discussion did sometimes turn to ‘men
bashing’ and she felt very uncomfortable with this; another interviewee indicated that the discussions avoided
this and so it is possible that depending on the cohort the conversation may be critical of men as individuals
rather than critical of the social structure.
There was also concern that men are missing out on learning these skills and not gaining the same level of
awareness about gender issues, and that women would be derided for participating.
There should be some more men involved. – survey respondent
My only observation I think for this program to be truly successful we need to target men as well as
women, we need to find a way to integrate it so there is shared learning. It is all very well having one set
of your staff understanding the issues and the differences and the benefits if the other half doesn’t, … but
I think that we have to find a way of integrating this program or developing a leadership program that
can intersect for men and women, so you can get that mix … It is important that we continue to pursue
it. We don’t have gender equity in our organisation in CSU in any way shape or form, we’re not even
close. – female supervisor
I would like to see a leadership development for men program as well because there is a hell of a lot of
development required for male leaders in the university and that is my biggest sort of negative point
about the LDW there is no LDM. And there needs to be an LDM. – male supervisor
Final Presentations
The conclusion of the program is a public presentation to which all senior and executive CSU staff and past
LDW participants are invited. The presentation is a joint production which describes the learning and
development that has occurred during the program. In all likelihood the presentations were universally
dreaded by participants. Many participants felt hugely proud of overcoming their fear of presenting what is
essentially a personal journey to the institution’s senior staff. Other staff, and some supervisors, felt that the
presentations didn’t provide a professional conclusion to the program.
RESULTS
Page
You know let’s face it we still have to present ourselves in a professional way, I wouldn’t want a male
professor or supervisor coming in watching the presentation and thinking what a waste of time, which
is what my previous supervisor probably did, he probably thought it was silly, so I think there needs to
45
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. –respondent
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
be close attention to how other people could read it. It’s ok for us to get a lot out of doing the
presentation but we have to be very careful not to let women look silly in front of their bosses interviewee
It means a lot to staff because they’re performing and that’s a big thing to stand up in front of an
audience and speak about your experience but I just wonder if it’s something … and the vice chancellor
joined us by video conference and he was up on the screen and he could see them all, and they were all
gathered together in their funny costumes and things and then at the end they sang ‘we are one we are
many, from all the walks … we are leaders at CSU’ and stuff like that. I just thought and I don’t know if
that is the right thing anymore I think we should review that because that hasn’t changed over the
years, because I did it, seven years ago, we have always ended up, they are very …I don’t know –
interviewee
I thought the presentations on the last day were absolutely brilliant. On that last day you felt euphoric
because you’d really felt that you’d come through a long tunnel and out the other end, well I did
anyhow, and there was a lot of value – and that was a combination of doing the sessions each time. –
interviewee
Overall position of women in CSU – have things changed over time?
In this section data from the interviews and surveys will be presented first, and then employment statistics will
be provided and examined.
Interviewees and supervisors reported that CSU offers a relatively family friendly and flexible work place but
that at times these support mechanisms are not always observed in the workplace. They were also clear to
point out that challenges still remain with respect to women finding equal leadership opportunities at CSU.
The challenges continue to be:



that it is sometimes hard for women have their voices heard in mixed gender forums
attending breakfast, late meetings, or travel beyond normal hours
that women tend to wait until they are ‘120% sure’ they have the skills before they will put their
hand up
there is very much a culture of a boys club at CSU and I think women’s voices do find it hard to get
heard in that environment. There are some strong exceptions but in the main you have struggle a lot
harder to get heard in the CSU environment – female supervisor
There is a tendency for women to wait until they are 120% qualified to do something so wants them to
come out ready to try something different regardless of where they are – female supervisor
Has there been a cultural shift at CSU? There seems to be differing opinions regarding this question. People
who have worked at CSU for many years (one person over 20) reported changes; they have seen an
improvement from what was once a very male culture. There was recognition of a range of supportive and
family friendly programs which definitely benefit women.
Page
Yes I think it has improved I think there is much more awareness of the impact that decisions can have
on the culture of the institution, particularly at the moment there is a lot of discussion about maybe
changing the culture or redefining what is our organisational culture. A lot of the change has been very
incremental, - interviewee
46
I think the university has improved as far as the university’s culture is concerned, it has shifted away to
a lot more inclusive culture and that’s not just gender, I see a lot of international, different cultures
amongst our academics I’d like to see more among our general staff, and some sections have a greater
mix than we had before, the university is healthier in that respect - interviewee
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
However, in pockets of CSU a more masculine culture continues, and some concern that leadership might be
reverting to being dominated by men. Whilst there was some agreement that there had been an
improvement the general response was that a dominant masculine culture remains; and in some sections or
schools the culture can be unsupportive for women. One program participant wondered if women needed to
be a bit ‘blokey’ to be achieve leadership at CSU and added:
Yes I have seen women take on a masculine approach, I don’t want to say that women are always
ethical, but I have seen women leaders who have a real lack of empathy and don’t support other
women, and I have seen men tick all the boxes in terms of feminine leadership qualities - interviewee
Other women noted:
LDW has helped identify barriers but hasn't necessarily removed them. I believe that leadership in the
university still has areas to work on in removing barriers to women in leadership. - respondent
To speak against an idea or to suggest an alternative leads to being cut off mid-sentence (and being
dismissed behind your back as inadequate to the task). I know this because I have seen other staff
treated or talked about in this way. I have learned no strategies as to how to deal with someone who is
rude and disrespectful of staff who disagree..., especially as no-one else will openly disagree with those
with vested power either. - respondent
Page
47
If positions aren’t gendered then you would expect that proportions of women across different levels are the
same as the proportions of men, that is if 100 women are employed at CSU and 100 men are employed you
would expect the same number of men and women at Academic levels A, B, C, D and so on. However,
academic staff gender ratios have changed very little. Women have increased their proportion in the Level D
and E from the period 2000 to 2012, from 4% to 7% and from 1 % to 4% respectively (Table 17). However,
whilst men have stayed the same in level D at 8%, men have also increased their proportion at Level E from 7%
to 13%. In 2000 there were proportionally more women employed at Level A and B than men, and more men
employed at Levels C, D and E. In 2012 the situation was the same except the proportions of men and women
at Level D was almost the same.
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 17: CSU Planning and Audit data: Percentage of Academic Staff 2000 to 2012
Women
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
N=197
N=210
N=219
N=227
N=244
N=250
N=258
N=286
N=299
N=327
N=330
N=347
N=354
A
17
17
11
14
18
17
16
19
18
17
15
14
13
B
63
61
61
62
61
62
62
59
59
57
59
61
62
C
15
19
23
19
16
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
14
D
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
6
6
6
7
E
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
N=365
N=378
N=370
N=341
N=337
N=359
N=368
N=408
N=407
N=395
N=398
N=401
N=409
A
6
7
8
7
6
8
10
10
9
8
8
6
6
B
51
52
52
49
51
50
46
46
46
48
45
47
48
C
27
26
26
28
27
26
28
25
23
24
26
26
26
D
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
10
9
8
8
8
E
7
7
8
7
8
8
8
11
12
11
13
13
13
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page
48
Men
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
women
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
N=617
N=627
N=644
N=674
N=702
N=702
N=722
N=741
N=810
N=795
N=820
N=859
N=892
1
4%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2
10%
8%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3
23%
24%
24%
23%
22%
22%
20%
19%
15%
15%
14%
13%
8%
4
25%
24%
28%
28%
30%
30%
30%
30%
28%
28%
27%
29%
29%
5
19%
18%
18%
19%
18%
20%
20%
21%
25%
25%
23%
22%
23%
6
11%
11%
11%
12%
12%
12%
13%
13%
13%
13%
16%
16%
18%
7
4%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
6%
6%
7%
7%
9%
8
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
9
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
10+
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N=363
N=372
N=374
N=377
N=372
N=375
N=367
N=396
N=408
N=420
N=447
N=452
N=468
1
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2
11%
9%
8%
8%
8%
9%
9%
4%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3
14%
14%
14%
13%
12%
12%
13%
16%
15%
15%
12%
12%
11%
4
14%
15%
16%
16%
16%
15%
15%
14%
14%
14%
16%
14%
13%
5
21%
18%
16%
17%
16%
16%
16%
16%
15%
15%
15%
15%
12%
6
16%
19%
18%
19%
20%
20%
20%
21%
17%
17%
18%
19%
21%
7
10%
11%
12%
11%
10%
11%
11%
11%
14%
14%
14%
14%
17%
8
4%
5%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
7%
7%
8%
9%
8%
9
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
10+
6%
8%
7%
7%
7%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
8%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Page
men
2000
49
Table 18: CSU Planning and audit data: Percentage of professional staff employed 2000-2012
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Professional staff percentages
The only levels that have the same proportions of women to men are level 6 and level 1 – otherwise there are
more women in the lower levels than men, and more men in the higher levels than women. There has been a
reduction in the proportion of women at levels 1 to 3, particularly level 3 going from 23% (2000) to 8% (2012)
(Table 18). There are more men in levels 6 to 10+ than there were in 2000. That is, as with Academic staff,
whilst there are slightly more women at higher levels in 2012 there are also increases in the number of men at
higher levels. In 2000 62% of women were employed at HEW levels 1 to 4 compared to 41% of men. In 2012
41% women were employed HEW1-4 compared to 30% men. So whilst more women might be achieving
higher positions in the organisation – so too are men.
Page
50
For both professional and academic staff increased proportions of staff at higher levels seems to occur post2006, that is after the commencement of the LDW program, but again this increase occurs for both women
and men.
RESULTS
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Discussion
Interestingly Harris and Leberman (2012, 36-37) review of leadership development for women found that the
key learning outcomes from the NZ LDW were:
 unlocking participant’s potential and strengthening their commitment to being leaders
 being sought for leadership roles both within and beyond current roles across the university, not
necessarily as part of an appointment or promotion process
 being more confident in their own ability and contribution
 being clearer and more focused on their own career aspirations and the steps to achieve this, and
 the existence of NZWIL alumni within each university and across the eight universities provides a
network of support and encouragement that is valued.
The NZ outcomes were very similar to those found in the evaluation of CSU’s LDW program except that CSU
hasn’t established a formal LDW alumni.
The LDW is based on two ‘frames’ or assumptions. The first is that due to the gendered nature of society
women haven’t learnt the appropriate skills to become leaders and progress to senior positions. The second is
that ‘gender’ is a social construct and that what needs to occur is a deconstruction and reconstruction of our
workplace culture to re-position women. The program attempts to respond to both assumptions by providing
leadership skills and strategies and fostering a different cultural interpretation of organisations and leadership.
A few women objected to the first positioning, finding it demeaning and disempowering. And quite possibly
those women that weren’t captured in this evaluation, those that found the program irrelevant, also found the
first assumption irrelevant as they didn’t see themselves as lacking in skills compared to men. In terms of the
second assumption some women did return to the workforce with determination to operate from an inclusive
frame but it seems some were frustrated by their efforts, and others either objected to, or didn’t ‘read’, that
they had a role to play in changing CSU’s organisational culture. In addition the focus on gender is problematic
in that it is clear that women do not have homogenous experiences and that hindrances to leadership for
women may be less about gender and more about ethnicity, or physical health (De Vries 2005).
Comparative Analysis
Achievement of LDW aims and objectives
Page
51
Does the LDW achieve its aims and objectives? First, does the program achieve its objectives?
The results from this evaluation indicate that the CSU LDW program is achieving its objectives although some
only partially (Table 19).
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Table 18: Summary of achievement of LDW program objectives
Does the LDW program…
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
broaden participants’ understanding of
different concepts of leadership, leadership
culture and the roles and expectations of
leaders at the University?
increase participants’ knowledge and
understanding of the tertiary education
sector and how Charles Sturt University
functions as an organisation within it?
enhance participants’ skills, increase their
self-confidence and support the acquisition
of strategies for effective leadership?
assist participants to identify their personal
leadership development goals and needs
and to develop plans to achieve them?
increase networking and opportunities for
collaboration within the University that will
assist in achieving the program’s aims?
complement and develop links with other
leadership and skill development programs
within the University?
enhance understanding of the University as
a gendered organisation?
encourage participants to undertake
leadership and decision-making roles, both
formal and informal, within the University?
and
assist in the identification and removal of
barriers within the University to women
participating effectively in decision making
and leadership roles.
Yes
Yes it increases their understanding of how
CSU functions as an organisation for some but
provides an increased understanding of the
tertiary education sector for fewer
participants
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, although not many participants were able
to address this objective
Yes, although many women already
understood the gendered nature of the
organisation
Yes
Yes in the sense that women do become more
active in CSU leadership, but no in the sense
that the overall culture of CSU probably has
not changed significantly.
Page
52
On the whole LDW is achieving its objectives and it is the last objective – removing the barriers – that is the
most challenging to address. Participants are ‘stepping up’ speaking out and adopting inclusive leadership but
they are doing so in an organisation that retains its overall maleness.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Comparison to previous CSU evaluation
The results from the 2012 evaluation have been compared to the same questions in the 2008 evaluation, and
presented in one of three categories according to whether the results were the same, weaker or stronger (See
also table 4 to 15). The 2008 evaluation covered the 2006-2007 cohorts and sought to establish whether the
LDW program was meeting its stated aims, the impact the program was having for participants and the
university, and what aspects might be improved (McCormick 2008). The evaluation collected a range of data:
individual feedback during the program workshops, focus groups conducted mid-way through each program,
staff movements as at 23 June 2008, participant survey 6 months after completion, mentor survey and
manager survey. Thirty eight participants (73% response rate) completed their survey, 31 mentors (60%
response rate) completed their survey, and fourteen managers completed their survey.
Responses with the same result – within 5 percentage points
I enjoyed participating in the LDW program
I feel that participating in the LDW program was worth my time and effort
A broader understanding of leadership culture at CSU
Increased knowledge / understanding about how the University functions
I have developed plans to achieve my leadership goals
Responses with a stronger result – greater than 5% points agreement
A better understanding of the concept of leadership
My confidence in my leadership abilities has increased
I have acquired skills and strategies which enable me to contribute to CSU as a leader
I have identified personal leadership goals and areas that I personally need to develop
Been given valuable access to a professional network of colleagues
Achieved a promotion
Influenced the direction of decisions or policy
Contributed to and/or led meetings
Directed a project
Responses with a weaker result – less than 5% agreement
Increased knowledge / understanding of the tertiary sector
The above comparisons suggests that the program has been performing at the same high level across the early
offerings (2006-2007) and later offerings (2008, 2010-2012). A hint that the program may be becoming tired is
found in the comparison of ‘value to participants’ across each year of participation (Figure 1) which indicates
that strong agreement that the program was worthwhile has decreased to agreement over the years. This
may also be an artefact of memory: those that have done the program several years ago have forgotten the
disappointing aspects, or have had the benefit of having their learning affirmed across the years. Certainly the
comments suggesting this made by interviewees or in the open ended responses in the survey need to be
considered.
DISCUSSION
Page
A summary comparison between the results from UWA’s evaluation and this current CSU evaluation is
presented below. The UWA evaluation drew on a range of data: a survey of previous participants, Human
Resources data, interviews with mentors, interviews and focus groups with participants identified as belonging
to minority groups, interviews with women who did not complete the program, and interviews with LDW
participants.
53
Comparison to UWA findings
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
The results from the 2012 evaluation have been compared to the same questions in the UWA 2005 evaluation,
and presented in one of three categories according to whether the results were the same, weaker or stronger
(See also Tables 4 to 15).
Responses with the same result – within 5 percentage points
My confidence in my leadership abilities has increased
I have acquired skills and strategies which enable me to contribute to CSU as a leader
I have identified personal leadership goals and areas that I personally need to develop
I have developed plans to achieve my leadership goals
Increased my participation in CSU networks / groups
Increased my profile and visibility at CSU
Increased participation in national or state committees
Responses with a stronger result – greater than 5% points agreement
Applied for a promotion
Achieved a promotion
Undertaken higher duties
Undertaken informal leadership within the university
Undertaken formal leadership within the university
Become more strategic in committee involvement
Increased participation in University committees
Provided mentoring support to others
Responses with a weaker result – less than 5% points agreement
A better understanding of the concept of leadership
A better understanding of the roles of leaders at CSU
A broader understanding of leadership culture at CSU
A better understanding of the expectations of leaders at CSU
Increased knowledge / understanding about how the University functions
Increased my participation in women’s networks / groups
A better understanding of gender equity issues at CSU
Became a proactive leader concerned with supporting women’s opportunities
Encouraged representative decision making in my workplace
Improved my work-life balance
Renegotiated my workload
An increased sense of belonging to the University
Page
54
On the whole the CSU LDW appears to be as effective as the UWA offering. The stronger responses suggest
that CSU women have been ‘doing’ more leaderships than their counterparts in UWA. The weaker responses
may indicate that one of the disadvantages of the program being run by outside facilitators is that information
specific to CSU is less likely to be given. The program may be ‘disconnected’ from how CSU operates. This is
not an argument for internal facilitators but perhaps greater involvement or input from CSU management to
provide a CSU context.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Development of participant leadership skills and knowledge25
Does the LDW achieve its aim of developing the leadership skills and knowledge required to increase women’s
participation in the University's decision-making processes and facilitating their leadership at all levels? The
answer would have to be yes. Women develop self-awareness, greater knowledge of the institution, learn
new skills and knowledge and develop networks which will be used to various extents to assist in their future
work. The evidence for this is the self-reported increases in contribution, increase in formal and informal
leadership, self-reported learning and observations from the supervisors. The women reported that the LDW
influenced all increased leadership capacity to varying degrees. The program accepts a wide diversity of
women and is able, in 77% of cases, to meet the needs of its participants. The scale and type of impact varies
for each individual. Slightly more academics than professional staff disagreed that the program met their
needs and so it seems that academic women may be more frequently looking for different learning. The
comments indicate a greater focus on promotion or research is desired by the female academic staff.
Three outcomes were particularly dominant in terms of development of leadership skills and knowledge
(nearly 100% of participants and supervisors identifying these as outcomes). Participants benefitted from:
 increased self-awareness and
 increased confidence or affirmation, and
 networking development
Each of these is a common theme in leadership literature and women’s leadership literature. Self-awareness is
now argued to be essential for effective individual, team and organisational performance (Taylor, Wang, &
Zhan, 2012), and a component of the emotionally intelligent leader (Goleman et al. 2002). It seems there is no
argument against the benefits of self-awareness for either effective leader or team member. Women reported
they have applied their learning by being more aware of others responses and how they interact in groups,
and being aware of their own leadership skills and strengths. They also talked about now ‘seeing’ themselves
as leaders or becoming aware that they are recognised as a leader by others. The latter point introduces Taylor
el al.’s (2012) reflection on the two components of self-awareness: an understanding of oneself and the ability
to anticipate how one is perceived by others. Taylor et al. comment on the current focus on measuring the
first component and generally disregarding the second component, and yet it is not a lesser component of selfawareness. The program explores ‘how one is perceived by others’ to some extent as there were a few
comments from participants regarding their awareness of how others see them. Growth in leadership capacity
comes not just from understanding ourselves and choosing how to direct behaviours and emotions but also
from understanding how we are influencing others and choosing how to change that.
In a review of a New Zealand leadership development program for women Harris and Leberman (2012)
specifically focused on increased self-confidence and the building of networks as key components of womens
leadership development. Self-confidence is another component of Emotional Intelligence (Goleman 2001). It
underpins an individual’s willingness to engage in activities and relationships. Self-confidence is dynamic, it is
able to be diminished or expanded. Maintaining a state of relatively high self-confidence, not having ones
sense of self crushed by failures or criticism, contributes to an overall state of ‘emotionally intelligence’. The
program very successfully helped women’s self-confidence grow; sometimes facilitating a repair to women’s
badly damaged self-esteem.
DISCUSSION
Page
Research Aim 1.1: Did the program assist participants to develop their
leadership skills and knowledge?
25
55
Network facilitation is argued as important for women because women have limited access to ‘developmental
relationships’ within an organisation – partly due to small number of suitable potential mentors, and partly
due to exclusion from informal male dominated networks (Gibson 2008). There are two broad types of
networks that exist in an organisation: the instrumental network that promotes business contacts and benefits
work practices, and the support network involving friendship and trust (Harris and Leberman 2012). There is
evidence that the LDW program provides both, although the participant’s ‘broad network’ has been expanded
only with female staff. Elliot and Stead (2008) in their case study analysis of six women leaders found that
networks and alliances were instrumental in the women’s leadership and leadership development. These
networks, not necessarily all female, provided role models, mentors, advisors, gatekeepers and supporters. In
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
contrast Perriton (2006) provides an interesting reflection on ‘networks’. When a network is of benefit for
career progression it is essentially a ‘directory of professional contacts’ for instrumental use and the literature
suggests that most benefit can be made from a heterogenous or diverse network, including a mix of gender.
The literature also indicates that engaging in social practices such as building social capital through networking
is interpreted differently depending on who is an ‘insider’ and who is an ‘outsider’. That is, engagement in
building social capital can be viewed negatively when practiced by women and Perriton (2006) therefore
cautions against viewing women’s networks or networks per se as useful aids for women’s career progression.
Perhaps the most useful networks are mixed gender and status and include a sponsor – someone who is
considered ‘legitimate or relatively high status in the organisation who would signal legitimacy for the women.
The evidence provided in the evaluation does not suggest that the program ‘causes’ increased leadership
capacity and contribution, and participants and supervisors were careful to say that more experience in the
job, time and self-development as a consequence of age, could all have contributed to the increased
leadership capacity and contribution from LDW participants, however in both the participant and supervisors’
minds the LDW program made a significant and definite contribution.
Formal and informal participation in University decision making processes26
There are numerous ways to understand ‘leadership’ from the simplistic autocratic/democratic/permissive to
more empowering concepts such as Transformative leadership; the discourse has changed from a focus on
hierarchical and heroic leadership to transformative and inclusive leadership.
The LDW program has always advocated the inclusive model of leadership but its original emphasis of the LDW
was on formal leadership (De Vries 2005) where the number of promotions could be used as a measurement
of success. The program has shifted emphasis and so too must the evaluation; leadership is more than what
occurs between a supervisor and subordinate. Leadership is found in the informal influence, inspiration or
guidance that one staff might give to another irrespective of position as well as the formal leadership that is
given title and responsibility for direction. This evaluation project wanted to ensure that leadership as both
formal role and leadership as influence were evaluated.
Forty seven survey respondents applied for promotion (57% of survey respondents) since undertaking the
LDW program and 41 attained a promotion – these are the women who are more likely to be considered to
have achieved ‘formal’ leadership. But what of the women who returned to their workplace and more
confidently voiced opinions and contributed to decision making; whose confidence grew so that they felt able
to provide advice and support to other staff; whose confidence and determination grew enabling them to take
on or put their hand up for a project (which didn’t go with a formal leadership title); or the women who made
conscious decisions about ‘how’ they wanted to work and stopped trying to ‘fit the mould’? These are
examples of women making contributions, influencing work practices and decisions and influencing others;
their increased contribution came often without position title, power or authority over those they influenced.
This evaluation has examples of all these.
Importantly women’s leadership activity increased at both formal and informal level. The program focused on
‘inclusive’ or a distributed nature of leadership expanding the definition of leadership for women and enabling
women to either practice leadership or label their existing activities as leadership even when they didn’t have
a leadership title. These informal activities were being performed by 76% of respondents and of these 82% felt
that the LDW influenced their behaviour.
DISCUSSION
Page
Research Aim 1.2: Has the program helped them to increase their
participation (both formally and informally) in the University decision-making
processes?
26
56
Slightly more professional staff increased their formal and informal leadership activity citing the program as
influential; this might be because professional staff might be more likely to work in a team and have leadership
opportunities whereas the academic position can sometimes be solitary.
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Contribution to the University’s inclusive management styles27
This evaluation makes a case that the ‘personal is professional’: the opportunity for personal development is
an opportunity for development in capacity to contribute at a professional level; arguably without growth in
personal capacity there can be no sustained professional growth. This is the point that many supervisors made
in their reflection of the program, and underpins their sustained support for the program.
A tension did emerge between leadership training as a more structured process, for example developing skills
in chairing a meeting, and leadership training as the development of personal capacity. The tension is perhaps
minor as it was reflected in the comments of a minority of participants and supervisors. The tension, however,
demands further attention if it is indicative of alternate views of leadership held by supervisors and resulting in
women returning to the workplace from the program and feeling unsupported there. In these situations
women felt that the LDW program was a token effort to achieve gender equity on the part of CSU. The tension
also signals that CSU has as yet been unable to foster an organisational culture that recognises the value of
self-development and reflection, or encourage inclusive management styles, as these approaches to leadership
are not recognised by some leaders.
Does LDW complement other CSU initiatives in fostering an organisational culture that recognises the value of
self-development and reflection, encourages inclusive management styles and actively promotes women's
involvement in leadership and decision-making matters? LDW complements other CSU training programs
(Objective 6) and yes the program does successfully encourage women’s self-development and reflection,
advocates an inclusive management style and promotes women’s involvement in leadership and decision
making. There are also clear examples where the program has made a contribution to changed culture but,
discussed above, this is not a significant outcome of the program.
Women are more aware of gender issues, and possibly more active as mentors and more active in speaking up
on issues that they feel strongly about. Participants are being promoted to more senior positions. However,
the statistics regarding women’s employment in CSU suggest that the imbalance in the proportion of women
in senior positions has not been addressed. Women go back into same workplace carrying a different
perspective. Some of these workplaces are supportive of women and foster inclusive leadership and some
don’t. The challenge for CSU is to foster a whole of organisation cultural change because without more
substantive evidence of whole of organisation support and change there is a danger of undermining the
momentum that is developed in the LDW program.
Features and elements of the program28
Another tension that arose was around the women only nature of the program. The program offers an
alternative view to leadership and the development of personal skills that are recognised as important
leadership skills in the literature. Most evidence for single sex learning focuses on school or college education,
and is highly contested. Anecdotal evidence suggests that single sex schools or classes facilitate learning for
each gender (Patterson 2012). There is also evidence that single sex education fosters no difference: Hoffnung
(2011) found that there was no difference for career paths between women who had gone to single sex
colleges or co-ed colleges. However, women only professional development programs are blossoming across
Research Aim 1.3: has the LDW program contributed to the University’s
stated goal of encouraging inclusive management styles and actively
promoting women’s involvement in leadership and decision making matters?
28
Research Aim 2: how have the features and elements of the program
contributed to participants and supervisors’ experiences / perceptions of the
program?
DISCUSSION
Page
57
27
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
organisations and meeting with considerable success (de Vries 2005). There are women at CSU who want to
develop these skills but don’t necessarily want to do so in a women-only group and for a couple of
respondents being in a women-only group signalled that women are the weaker sex and need special help.
Women perceive that some men view the program as a special and unfair opportunity for women, sometimes
eroding the relationship between female and male colleagues. Male supervisors, whilst supporting and
understanding the rationale for the program, felt that men at CSU also needed to have access to a personal
skill development program. Both women and men raised the suggestion of a LDM – leadership development
for men. Given that CSU is having trouble changing the gendered culture and that women report unsupportive
workplaces and supervisors that are bullies perhaps a LDM is needed – a LDM that offers self-development
and gender awareness. The outcome may be greater awareness of the existing gendered issues across the
university and greater awareness of the benefits of LDW.
There is some danger of participants undertaking the program only because of their supervisor’s
recommendation, and then becoming a reluctant participant. In light of other comments from both
participant and supervisor around ‘market saturation’ perhaps the privilege of being able to attend the
program needs to be highlighted by offering it once every two years and encourage nominees to think
carefully as to whether they feel ‘ready’ and motivated. Requiring an additional commitment of developing a
learning contract with their immediate supervisor might also either ‘weed out’ unmotivated participants or
provide them with a mechanism to see the usefulness of the program.
In a sense this is a discussion about the ‘status’ of the program and relates to the comments regarding the
organisation of the program. Participants who experienced poor coordination and inadequate information
regarding the program are left with a sense that CSU doesn’t value the program or participants enough to
adequately resource it. One participant commented that ‘participants weren’t treated as CSU’s future
leaders’. Why this occurred isn’t clear, but it is clear that it undermines the credibility of the program and
CSU’s commitment to gender equity.
The facilitators received immense praise from the participants but as one interviewee put it: sometimes they
‘dropped the ball’. There were examples of women who felt unsupported by the facilitator’s treatment, who
were witness to group interaction and discussion that perpetuated the academic-professional divide, and
discussion that was disrespectful to men. How frequently these have occurred is difficult to tell – just the rare
off day? It is important not to expect that women, in trying to break out of the traditional and masculine
leadership mould, are themselves expected to be ‘perfect’ leaders. Women will make mistakes, have bad
days, and feel frustrated. The author is confident that the UWA facilitators would fully intend to avoid
discussion that was disrespectful to men, or group interaction that repeated a professional/academic divide,
and would be aware of the dangers of ‘burn out’. Given the comment regarding evaluation, CSU perhaps
needs to discuss these issues with the facilitators as it is possible that they are not aware of them.
Page
58
A leadership program which acknowledges the structural inequities of gender must by its nature acknowledge
other inequities such as race, ethnicity, ability, and sexuality. Indeed as the comments indicate a power
relationship exists at times between academics and professional staff. Whilst the focus is on gender issues the
program must not deepen other inequities or divides such as that between academic and professional staff.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Recommendations29
Whilst it wasn’t the intention to explore or make a recommendation as to whether the program should
continue it is hard not to make some comment on the matter. Should the program continue? If CSU wishes to
continue to develop leadership capacity in female staff – yes. Can the program be improved? Yes.
First the program successfully creates a space for reflection and learning through the following components:
 Experiential and multiple learning/teaching approaches – workshops, peer learning groups, mentor
program, requirement to engage in the literature
 Mix of academic and professional staff
 Women only
 Support from supervisors and senior management
 Use of outside facilitators
DISCUSSION
Page
Research Aim 3: Which aspects of the program can be enhanced or
improved?
29
59
The aspects of the program that might be amended or tweaked are as follows:
 Organisation - Have one person / position organise the program; ensure that they understand that
they are working with CSU’s current and future leaders; ensure this person is adequately resourced
 Encourage CSU to broaden the whole of CSU’s understanding of leadership and gender to lessen the
chance of women returning to unsupportive workplaces, and build competent ‘inclusive’ leadership
across the whole of the institution
 Offer the program every two years
 Promote the program’s successes and intention more clearly
 Encourage women to step up to the LDW Steering Committee as an opportunity for leadership
 Increase contact between participants and organisers of the program by having the Steering
committee and/or Human Resources organiser holds informal chats with participants throughout or
at the end of the program to assess whether the evaluation is collecting honest feedback. A steering
committee member may deliver the evaluation survey with a request for honest feedback.
 Consider ways to continue the momentum of the program for past participants – utilise them in
future programs, or other follow up programs.
 Encourage a more structured relationship between supervisor and participant, perhaps a learning
contract? Re-emphasise the expectation that the supervisor, in discussion with the participant, will
look for opportunities for the participant to take on leadership roles
 Continue to provide instructions and guidance to mentors and mentees – pay careful attention to the
needs of the mentee in matching
 Extend the skill development session by adding in a CSU run session (run by CSU senior staff)
specifically on the CSU context, and where CSU fits into the tertiary sector – this will fill a knowledge
gap (assuming this is retained as an objective) and will provide participants with closer contact with
CSU senior staff
 Reflect on the impact of the final presentations on the participants and the audience – perhaps the
presentation is retained but is supplemented with a concluding statement that is presented more
conventionally – eg one to two page summary of changes that participants had already made in their
work practices or that they felt had occurred in their lives
 Provide feedback to the program presenters and seek to clarify a number of issues raised in this
evaluation, including feasibility of holding two progress meetings between course presenter and each
peer learning group
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
Conclusions
For many participants, the LDW program achieves its aims and objectives in terms of learning and increased
contribution to CSU leadership, both formal and informal; supervisors described it as the ‘growing of potential
leaders’. Women indicated that over the past 20 years CSU had made a significant shift towards a more
inclusive culture however, since the offering of the LDW it is hard to identify any significant change and any
change that might have been made was feared by the participants in this evaluation to be fragile.
The program received considerable accolades from many appreciative participants but there have also been
participants who have found the program irrelevant, disillusioning, ‘tired’, uninspiring and poorly run. Whilst
the program uses a variety of learning approaches there are still are few participants for whom the approaches
and perhaps learning goals are not relevant. In response to this weakness the LDW needs to ensure that is
promoted accurately and that participants and supervisors have realistic expectations of the program, and
somehow avoiding the inclusion of staff who are not motivated to attend (note however, some women
attended hesitantly but found it extremely valuable).
The program is described predominantly in terms of increased confidence and self-awareness, and sometimes
as a personal development program. The reflections of the both participants and supervisors however remind
us that the personal is professional; it is only with increased personal competence that individuals can make
greater contributions to the organisation.
I think I was due to apply for promotion anyway - but I referenced my attendance at LDW in my
application statement. It is now some years since I attended LDW and I am now watching colleagues
seek promotion ahead of me. Mostly because I did LDW and became involved in CSU business and
"visibility" while they put their heads down and got their PhDs. I delayed gaining my PhD while my only
child was young. I am still very fearful how getting stuck into the PhD will affect my relationships - And
i must say that I have great regrets about how much my job, it's demands, the constant pressure to
produce, the difficulty of this job given the new systems, learning measurements, expectations which
have to be met on a constant session by session basis have impacted on my relationship with my only
child . For the first eight years of his life I barely knew he was there whilst I worried about getting my
work done. From the age of two he developed a system of waving a hand in front of my face to indicate
that he knew I was somewhere else... usually processing in my mind how I was going to get everything
done. I am a smart person used to meeting tight deadlines in my pre-academic work life but I have
actually developed a mild anxiety disorder since joining CSU - and I regret my lost child and my lost
self..... because so much is asked of us.. so much admin.. so many changes to be absorbed constantly.. I
think it's a form of staff abuse.. So there's my rant... - respondent
The majority of participants enjoyed the program and found it worthwhile which suggests that a positive
learning environment was established by the program. A quote from one interviewee demonstrates this when
she said that she ‘got lots of positives’ from participating in the program: encouragement, supportive
relationships, affirmation, confidence, greater understanding of own strengths and weaknesses, greater
understanding of the organisation, and seeing themselves as a leader to name a few.
Page
60
Concluding note: 82% of survey respondents would like to receive the findings / summary findings from this
evaluation.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of CSU Leadership Development for Women 2012
References
Conway, H (2012) Gender in the workplace - The journey to equality. The Twentieth Annual Kingsley Laffer
Memorial Lecture, University of Sydney, 19 March 2012.
Devos, A., Mclean, J. & OHara, P. (2003) The potential of women’s programs to generate institutional change,
Refereed Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia, Christchurch, New Zealand, July.
De Vries, J. (2005) More than the sum of its parts: 10 years of the Leadership Development for Women
Program at UWA. University of Western Australia, Perth.
Eastley, T. (Presenter) (2013, January 4) Graduate gender pay gap blows out, AM (Radio Broadcast). Sydney,
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Viewed on 30 January 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3664067.htm
Gibson, S. (2008) The developmental relationships of women in career transition: Implications for leader
development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, p. 651-670.
Goleman, D. (2001) An EI based theory of performance. In Cary Cherniss, Daniel Goleman, editors, The
emotionally intelligent workplace: how to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in
individuals, groups, and organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 27-44.
Harris, C & Leberman, S. (2012) Leadership Development for Women in New Zealand Universities: Learning
from the New Zealand Women in Leadership Program. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14 (1), p.2844.
Hoffnung, M (2011) Career and Family Outcomes for Women Graduates of Single-Sex Versus Coed Colleges,
Sex Roles. 65, 9-10, 680-692.
Hopkins, M., O Neill, D. Parssarelli, A & Bilimoria, D. (2008) Women’s leadership development: Strategies for
women and organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, p.348-365.
Leonard. H. & Goff, M. (2003) Leadership development as an intervention for organizational transformation: A
case study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, p.58-67.
McCauley, C. (2008) Leader development: A review of research. Center for Creative Leadership. Available from
http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/LeaderDevelopmentReviewOfResearch.pdf.
McCormick, S. (2008) CSU Leadership Development for Women: Program Evaluation. Division of Human
Resources, CSU, Wagga Wagga.Paper provided by Sarah.
Patterson, C. (2012) Separating the boys from the girls: can separate ever be equal? Single-sex schools draw
fire from rights groups who say separate is never equal; proponents say closing the achievement gap requires
innovation, Phi Delta Kappan, 93,5: p37.
Page
Sinclair, A. (1998) Doing leadership differently: Gender, power and sexuality in a changing business culture.
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
61
Perriton, L. (2006). Does woman + a network = career progression? Leadership, 2, 101.
REFERENCES