What Got You Here, Won’t Help You There: Changing Requirements in the Pre- Versus the Post-tenure Career Stage in Academia

Abstract

Despite efforts to foster gender equality in academia, women are vastly under-represented in tenured professorships, specifically in STEM disciplines. While previous research investigated structural and organizational barriers for women in academia, we explored professors’ subjective view on attributes required before and after reaching tenure. The perspective of professors is needed as they are gatekeepers when it comes to the career advancement of junior researchers. Hence, we interviewed 25 tenured STEM professors in Germany about which attributes they personally consider to be required pre- versus post-tenure and analyzed whether these attributes are associated with gender stereotypes. We found that different attributes are mentioned in the pre- versus the post-tenure career stage and that the required attributes can be associated with gender stereotypes: While agentic–stereotypically male–attributes were mentioned more frequently than communal attributes in the pre-tenure career stage, communal–stereotypically female–attributes were reported slightly more often than agentic attributes after reaching tenure. Based on these novel findings, we discuss important implications for gender research and practice to contribute to more diversity and transparency in academic career advancement.

When agency “fits” regardless of gender: Perceptions of applicant fit when job and organization signal male stereotypes

“…Requirements of high‐status jobs usually are diverse, including agentic and communal qualities (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Eagly & Carli, 2003; Rehbock et al., 2021). However, perceptions of requirements usually are highly agentic because high‐status jobs are associated with men and agency (Koenig et al., 2011).…”

Critical events at critical times? A gendered identity approach on the path to (sustainable) leadership

“…In doing so, these early career professionals may grow more aware of their valued identities in various domains, and thus, be better prepared to consciously adapt their self-views, if/when needed (see Roberts, 2005 ). For example, professionals can implement regular reflection sessions on a monthly or semi-annual basis by answering questions such as “Who am I as a professional?,” “What is important to me?,” “What (un-)expected events took place and what do they mean to me?,” and “How did/do critical events in the past month or year change what I want from my career and/or in my personal life?” (see also Rehbock et al, 2021 , for suggestions of active identity reflections for organizational leaders). Managers and leaders can support these reflections by introducing them in regular conversations with their employees, annual meetings, etc.…”

“…10.3389/fpsyg.2022.932998 Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org career and/or in my personal life?" (see also Rehbock et al, 2021, for suggestions of active identity reflections for organizational leaders). Managers and leaders can support these reflections by introducing them in regular conversations with their employees, annual meetings, etc.…”

Self and other reported workplace traits: A communal gap of men across occupations

“…Our work advances current management and organizational research by providing an updated account of how men and women in different organizational settings and occupational roles are described by themselves and others in relation to communal (e.g., warm, empathetic, aware of other's feelings) and agentic (e.g., independent, ambitious, assertive) traits. Because communion comprises a critical set of traits for organizational functioning (Gartzia & Baniandres, 2019; Gartzia & van Engen, 2012; Gartzia & van Knippenberg, 2016; Kark et al., 2012; Rehbock et al., 2021), the confirmation of a persistent communal scarcity of men compared to women in these traits for both self and other reports strongly suggests that a gender perspective should more seriously be incorporated as a critical mechanism that influences organizational traits and behavior across different work roles. These findings also call for a greater theoretical acknowledgment of gender effects on organizational behavior and leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Haslam et al., 2010; Yukl, 2006; Zaccaro, 2007) and self and social judgement literature (Abele et al, 2021; Abele & Wojciszke, 2007).…”