Art of Management & Organization Conference 2018 University of Brighton

‘What does it look like?’ The authentic/inauthentic early career academic

Suzanne Nolan [e-mail]
What does it mean to ‘look like’ an academic? This is one of the many questions that academics consider as they enter and progress through academe, and one that early career academics (ECAs) often worry about (Archer 2008). As a result, there is a significant focus on what we look like and how we dress in order to demonstrate something about our professional identity. (King 2005)

For women, in particular, this can be a greater challenge. Stereotypical views are of ‘women and bodies’ rather than assigning them professional identities such as ‘leader’ or, in this case, ‘academic’ (Sinclair 2008). In considering changing their appearance to seem ‘older, smarter, or more formal’, younger academics face a crisis in authenticity – their performance is based on an untrue version of themselves (Archer 2008). In other areas of research, it is clear that authenticity is vital to successful and ethical practice, improving the business outcomes of an organisation (Liedtka 2008) – in this case, a University.

Increasingly, there is a move towards the notion of ‘entrepreneurs of learning’ (Hatcher et al 1999); the concept that higher education is becoming more corporate, resulting in the need to focus on securing a competitive advantage, both internally and externally. Constructing an appropriate professional, academic and personal identity is, therefore, increasingly challenging, and requires the juggling of multiple personas: academic, teacher, and leader, among others. But what might that look like?

Performativity in academia is not just about publication and rankings, but creating an authentic persona which can function and develop within an increasingly corporate environment. This paper will explore what is means to ECAs to ‘look like’ an academic, and what challenges they face in developing an authentic version of themselves through their appearance, and how this may impact (perceptions of) success. From interviews with ECAs in one new university (post-1992), it will investigate concepts of authenticity, legitimacy, and the ‘self’. This paper will contribute to a wider body of work exploring the nature of identity with the academic sphere. It will demonstrate what it means to individuals to be seen as an ECA in higher education in the UK.

Bibliography

Archer, L. (2008) ‘Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and professional identity’ Studies in Higher Education 33(4) pp. 385-403

King, I. (2015) ‘‘What to wear?’ Clothing as an example of expression and intentionality’ Argument 5(1) pp. 59-78

Liedtka, J. (2008) ‘Strategy making and the search of authenticity’ Journal of Business Ethics 80(2) pp. 237-248

Sinclair, A. (2008) ‘Bodies and identities in constructing leadership capital’ in Hart & Uhr (eds) Public Leadership: Perspectives and Practices ANU Press, pp. 83-92

Performing “kind work”: Paradoxical effects of valuing and evaluating academic work

Alpa Dhanani, Carla Edgley and Nina Sharma (corresponding author)

[e-mail]

This paper considers the way in which valuation and evaluation practices in academic career progression place emphasis on defined, visible aspects of work whilst de-emphasising intangible but nevertheless essential elements of work. Within this category of intangible work, we focus on “kind work”, which we define as acts of goodwill, beyond contractual/workload allocation commitments. Essentially kind acts are performed as a consequence of the ethical/moral capital of individuals and are valuable to them as a form of intrinsically motivated, personal satisfaction rather than a financial or promotional gain.

Examples of kind work in academia might include participating in a working group on programme improvements, going the extra mile for the student in providing careers advice, extra tuition, or writing multiple references. From an organisational perspective, the lack of capture of such kind work within regimes of formal models of work allocation or evaluation, render it as a background, invisible or even non-existent activity. Organisations essentially absorb this work since much of the activities involved are interpersonal rather than contractual. Such activities serve as the “glue” of organisations, for example, collegiality amongst faculty members. Organisations may harness the ethical and goodwill capital of individuals and turn it into a form of an unpaid resource for organisational benefit.

Paradoxically, efforts to recognise kind work as a formal task result in it ceasing to be a form of kind act. This is because the process of giving visibility to ‘valued’ tasks by organisations (i.e. where there are measurable outputs of institutional benefit) cannot exist without an implied “other” of excluded, non-valuable kind work. Thus, kind work activities would become vulnerable to the gaming practices which proliferate in existing performance metrics and individuals would need to ensure they perform the ‘right’ kind of “citizenship” activities. Further, in accordance with social role theory (Eagly, 1987) we argue that kind work may be gendered. Without recourse to essentialism, women may gravitate towards collaborative working and citizenship roles in making sense of their place in the academy (McDowell and Pringle, 1992; Marshall, 1995; Bird, 2013). Women may be involved in knowledge production, and profess excellence, in ways that are more challenging to measure or carry less weight (Probert, 2005).

Indeed, women who manifest communal behaviour and emotional, expressive tendencies (centred around nurturing, supporting and sensitivity) may be more engaged in kind work precisely because others, particularly white males, assume this is women’s work. Performing this type of work is often regarded as a potential distraction from the ‘real things that matter’. Men are more likely to exhibit more agentic behaviours and instrumental practices (task oriented, goal oriented) thus leaving a “performance gap”. These problematics are produced by and reproduced by social norms but the continuing lack of recognition of kind work may perpetuate imbalances in academic career progression and act as a tacit element of the gender pay gap.

This study will use interviews with academics to examine the issues in undertaking kind work and its impact for performance appraisals and careers. Our interview analysis will be coupled with an autoethnographic account of an ongoing extensive timesheet which documents time spent on all academic activities over an 18-month period (to date) including kind work and how this contrasts with time allotted in the formal workload allocation model.

Whilst critics have highlighted the problems caused by emerging performance metrics, such as the workload allocation model and evaluation systems in academia, we problematize this as a consequence of the narrow framing of performance metrics and biased selectivity in these measures. In making sense of kind work and the implications for those engaged in it, we examine how ‘values’ come to be constructed in academia, reflecting on how some values are privileged over others. We argue that activities undertaken by business schools in pursuit of addressing gender imbalances are to some extent, peripheral, since what is ‘valued’ in measurable terms continues to marginalise kind work.