The context, and the rationale, for educational restructuring has been post modernism in the 1980s, and globalisation in the 1990s, themselves highly problematic terms (Waters 1995; Currie 1996 ; Smyth 1996). Globalisation has justified the radical restructuring of the tertiary sector towards privatisation, marketisation and commodification of academic work. The globalisation logic is that we must internationalise what universities do in order to maintain our competitive advantage, as individual universities and as a nation. Academic work has been radically reshaped in recent times by an unrelenting and converging logics of new managerialism and market liberalism, a logic increasingly informed by the wider discourse about globalisation (Yeatman 1994). The logic argues that universities need to be more relevant, client focused, flexible, productive and market oriented. Restructured universities, in their many forms, have shifted towards lean and mean modes of administration, teaching and learning at the very moment that there is increased emphasis on quality, outcomes and performance-- a contradiction in itself. In a rebellious reading of TQM in universities- Estela Hara Bensimon (1995, p. 594) comments - 'Quality is defined by customer satisfaction, Quality is the reduction of variation and Quality must be measurable'. As many women academics comment, higher education policy increasingly defines industry and business as the customer, not the student or even society; a shift which changes the very nature and purpose of knowledge production and what knowledge is valued.

The internal problem for university management in this time of turmoil is to maintain the creativity of academics, the source of the universities productivity, but directing it towards particular instrumental and short term organisational goals as defined increasingly by the performative state. AS Rosebeth Moss Kanter (1989) argues managers need to apply 'entrepreneurial principles to the traditional corporation, creating a marriage between entrepreneurial creativity and corporate discipline, co-operation and teamwork' (1989, pp. 9-10). The convergence of new technologies, the need for faster and more efficient transfer of information, the need for team work and flexible work practices are part of the learning or adaptive organisation. Organisations have therefore invested heavily in new technologies, but also rethought their management practices of recruitment,. communications, rewards and promotion. Kanter argues that this leads to a shift from position to performance, from status to contribution, where people are paid for what they do rathert than their ability to climb the organisational hierarchy ie. value adding. This paper argues that this has been more promise than reality.

The external problem for managers is to create and tap into the increasingly diverse education market--locally and globally. No longer is the autonomous university a self regulating, closed community. Whereas the new market of the 1970s had largely been women making claims for access to education, the postmodern university is now open to external political, economic and social influences. On the one hand the politicisation of the university threatens the masculinist reason upon which universities have been traditionally founded; on the other, as the university reinvents itself, there is some concern whether the university offers any better opportunities for women. As Yeatman (1994) points out, the university in the 1990s is caught in that it cannot appeal to tradition in seeking to defend a romanticised view of academic collegiality, because to do so is to lay itself open to charges of being exclusive and elite.

One response, as in management, is to view women as the new source of leadership for the greedy organisation, to position women as change agents (with the majority of new Vice Chancellors appointed in the past 2 years being female). This symbolically resolves the dilemma of representation of diversity. In so doing it can tap into now highly popularised feminist discourses about women's styles of leadership which suggest that women are more communicative, consensual, collaborative and caring. Buried in all this is some naturalising gender binary which locates women academics in highly contradictory and antithetical positions-- caught between the scientistic representation of rational inquiry of the old university and the politically correct moral position assumed within equity principles (Yeatman 1994, p. 46). As binaries, efficiency tends to win over equity. Equity is a luxury in new hard times, as one enterprise bargainer on university management side argued.

Another response has been to resort to managerialism. Many women academics referred to the new managerialism in universities informed by the postmodern seductive discourses of culture change, addressing diversity and increasing access yet which impose highly modernist practices through top down lean and mean administration, exuberating the divide between administration and academia. There was a high level of cynicism expressed about management's religious fervour for strategic planning, visionary leadership, mission statements and quality assurance to which academics are expected to adhere and indeed become advocates-- the strong corporate culture-- matched by what many saw as a lack of consultation, consensus. There was a sense that the accountability mechanisms of the performative public sector had produced quite contrary technologies of surveillance and hyper rationality which actively worked against their capacity to achieve quality, if only because the accountability mechanisms added to the intensification of labour and unrealistic expectations about research and teaching.

One academic commented

Many academics referred to how the research quantum was driving how they worked, of how the allocation of funding was premised on a simplistic input -output model which had both a strongly masculinist and scientistic bias. There was the constant drive to get another grant, present another conference paper, produce another article in a refereed journal ( international of course). The irony was that the gross aggregating exercises embedded in the disciplinary technologies of accountability (research Quantums) had universalising and normalising effects which valued quantity not quality, money over substance.

Performativity.

Many academics saw the convergence disciplinary technologies of managerialism and the market as shifting institutional efforts towards performance not substance. Devolution of responsibility for decisions to self managing units both within the unified system and within universities requires strong feedback mechanisms to the centre. Lyotard defines performativity as the efficiency principle upon which all decisions are justified. As Jameson comments in the introduction to Lyotard's Post Modern Condition,

I suggest that there is another associated performativity principle which also works in post modern organisations, which is both a consequence of Lyotard's notion of performativity premised upon efficiency, but which also undermines and contradicts it. Performativity is as much about being seen to perform-- like a simulacrum in that the actual substance or original is lost. Producing the image of being efficient and effective (and therefore good) requires close reporting and monitoring. As policy has become the steering mechanism in devolved systems of educational governance, there is a greater need for feedback. This is achieved through quality assurance exercises, the research quantum-- setting up a cycle of performativity.

Language itself is the means of performance--the 'taking of trick's', the 'tripping of the communicational adversary' and language of games are associated with the 'performative'.

Let me explore the notion of performativity

First, the two aspects of performativity -- efficiency and image production--can actually work in direct contradiction with each other. There was a strong sense that too much time, effort and money was being expended on marketing the institution, quite often, some academics felt, falsely.

Second, the performativity principle has significantly different effects at different levels of the institution. While the shaping of the image is management work eg. mission statements, strategy plans; the maintenance of the image relies upon academics self management ie. recording, promoting and also managing themselves in ways which also promote the institution. The commodification of their labour is achieved through the self management techniques of CV production, promotion procedures, grants, quality assurance processes. Faculties and academics reconstitute ourselves in a continuous mode of image reproduction in a multiplicity of ways to meet the particular requirements of a range of niche markets.

A third point is that the performativity principle also taps into the emotional dimensions of organisational cultures and work identities-- it seeks to tap into what academics are passionate about- their research and their teaching, but does so in ways which actively work against its own mission. What we see is the industrialisation or technologisation of all elements of society-- that is the 'penetration of the commodity fetishism into those very realms of the imagination and the psyche which have always been taken as some last impregnable stronghold against the instrumental logic of capital' (Jameson in Lyotard 1984 p, xv). Academics are all expected to be advocates and working emissaries for their institutions-- they are expected to project a 'naive zealousness about their work'.

The performativity principle is premised upon rationality /emotionality dualism, itself a contradiction.

Any opposition to the instrumental logic of restructuring is thus readily typified as being irrational or emotional, and therefore illogical and to be ignored.

This produces another paradox. The principle of performativity, itself a product of the market, is exacerbated not only by the desire to be seen to be accountable but also to be desirable. While it is argued that the market is a rational mechanism to distribute and allocate goods and service, the market is highly dependent upon the emotions of desire, greed, envy and self interest (Blackmore 1996). The principle of performativity leads therefore to an overt concern with an outward display of both competence and desirability, as well as internalisation of organisational goals through the management of self, of identity, a_nd, of course, of emotions.

Let me talk about the different discourses operating in different locations when women talk about their work, their capacity for change and leadership, and how they cope. Fineman (1993 p 14-15) argues,

Let me work through some of these ideas by looking at three levels of the organisation-- the executive level, middle management ( Deans and Heads of School) and academics.

In interviewing many women in universities, both those at the top, the achievers and successes as well as those who continue to teach, three discourses became evident. Dominant at the top was the strong corporate culture discourse which spoke of collegiality and purpose, a clear sense of mission and focus, of working with teams and making significant cultural changes. There was an awareness that one had to keep the eye on the 'patterns of change' rather than one off issues or 'snapshots'(Senge 1990, p. 68), and that causes can become effects which in turn become causes. The emphasis was on the external, the relationships of the university with the wider community, with industry and with the wider international community. With regard to issues of gender equity, there was a strong sense that there had been a cultural change at the executive level. And as one VC commented:

They were also aware of having to regulate their own emotions and language-- as one said:

The senior executive women made clear distinctions between their work and personal life, drawing boundaries and developing friendships outside through networks with women and family.

There was a lower down the institution another dominant discourse -- one facing the contradictions of being positioned as line managers while dealing with the emotions of radical and rapid change. The discourse in the context of middle management was about balancing system wide demands eg. strategic plans, corporatisation, _promotion of image against the professional and social relationships of staff ie emotional management work. The latter was increasingly difficult with recurrent restructurings, reviews leading to repeated redundancy rounds ( eg. schools losing 30 % one year and another round).

There was a sense in many faculties of a supportive climate amongst Deans and middle management, particularly in universities which had a strongly consultative climate ie that actively sought to create an environment of debate about planning documents which would eventually lead to radical restructuring and compulsory redundancies.

The formal structures and regular meetings provided for Deans and Heads of Schools a moment in which issues could be aired, one which was generally supportive. In one university where redundancy letters had just been issue, the Dean was conscious that there would be considerable anger and resentment.

In one university with senior women managers, the capacity to gain support worked downward to female middle managers.

But at the level of the school, on the shop floor, there permeated a third discourse, one about lack of purpose, disorder, chaos, _fragmentation and discord, lack of direction, a sense of loss and fear. In most universities, two of which are currently undergoing quite radical restructuring and downsizing, there was a strong sense of low morale, disappointment and disillusionment with wider systemic changes. There was a strong sense that loyalty to the organisation was not being reciprocated --and was evident in how staff were treated by management, the decimation of particular courses, the incapacity to undertake good teaching and research practices because of reduced resources and lack of time, the intensification of labour. Many expressed concern that the nature of higher education was radically altering, largely to its detriment. One commented:

At the same time, there was a strong sense that certain things had not changed-- that women still had to work twice as hard, that many of them did the emotional management work of the faculty, and that they did not get recognised by their own organisation for the work they did. One woman, a Senior Lecturer, commented

Chee Wah applied for Senior Lectureship four times before being successful. Her history was of being to be appointed levels lower than the men she replaced, of being downgraded through a restructuring and then blocked because she had failed to serve her time. Yet she had three books in hand, had established an international centre in her area of expertise, bringing in significant funds into the institution, supervised 8 Ph D students, many full fee paying international students. Her research was cited in university public review and as important international work. She ultimately applied for Associate Professor, the level at which she was operating, and was given a Senior Lectureship. She pointed out that being located within this particular disciplinary area which modelled itself on an unrealistic and indeed anachronistic view of what constituted science. She believed that while there had been wider recognition of research, _that the past five years had seen a tightening up and narrowing of what constituted real research premised upon that scientific model.

Her response was that she just continued to work longer and harder.

Chee Wah, fortunately, had strong familial support. Her two teenage children shared the housework, and her husband, also an academic, understood what she was going through. She had little institutional support, and worked in a field in which there were few women with whom she could relate. The female professor, in biology, did not see it a problem. She envied those women in faculties where there were strong collegial groups and networks.

The myth of the gender neutrality of merit is being reinforced not challenged. An EO officer in a sandstone university referred the dominant discourse that

The assumed gender neutrality of the notion of merit was seen to be critical in university cultures-- and indeed, it was seen to be a major source of resistance to women' achievement. The unwillingness to examine what merit means is a form of resistance because to reconstruct merit opens up a range of opportunities which is dangerous to many who have benefited in the past. There is this idea that merit is neutral, objective and can be measured and yet we need to look more closely about who defines to, how you define it, and who benefits from it.

I want to concentrate on the ways in which performativity as outlined above positions women academics in universities. I focus upon the notion of emotional labour as derived from Arlene Hochschild's work The Managed Heart. One form of emotional labour

Postmodern organisations are greedy organisations in that they tap into the very psyche of their employees (Cozer 1974) This commodification of emotions derives out of how work identity. Hopfl and Linstead (1993) talk about passions, performance and suffering as three aspects of people's emotional involvement with organisations. This is achieved through simultaneously claiming to work on the basis of rationality while actively exploiting the emotional psyche of the individual and the group. In the good times, organisations gained productivity gains through work satisfaction, in the bad times, corporate culture and productivity is also closely linked to fear-- loss of job. As Weber recognised, the connection between fear and loyalty is close.

Second, there is a high level of regulation about what types of emotional display are acceptable, and this is highly gendered. While there is significant pressure upon men in leadership positions to perform, how their performance is perceived, and how it is judged, is highly gendered. The popular discourse about women's styles of leadership expects women to only display positive emotions of caring and sharing, nurturing and supportive, not negative emotions, to rage and swear-- there is a high level of self management of emotions. Furthermore, to succeed Val Walsh (1995 p. 88) points out, how competence and good behaviour ie conforming to organisational norms and adhering to the right rules, the organisational scripts for success, are restricted choices. Such norm governed behaviour leads to emotional dissonance-- a common response is one of distancing oneself from the difficult decisions in many committees while seen to be complicity by others in the gender regime.

There is third form of emotional labour occurring in times of radical and rapid change-- the emotional management work of maintaining important social relationships, particularly those associated with leadership(James 1989). This maintenance work is like housework -- it is necessary to keep all other forms of labour commodification going. For many women in leadership, emotional management work is an extension of the emotion work they undertake in their more 'traditional' familial roles as they mend the social fabric ( ). As Hopfl and Linstead (1993, p. 77) argue, we are all social actors--- but when there is a strong sense of alienation of the actor from the performance, there is need for 'repair work'. Women are being positioned as the emotional managers, often at considerable cost to themselves, and many speak of that sense of alienation from their work.

Finally, women, particularly feminist women, have additional workloads. ...the emotional labour m which accrue to women in the academy. That is working in support of other women in an often hostile climate-- to do the representational work in committees, the support work of colleagues, and the 'networking with the powerful'.

This is a point which is significant for feminists, who have a shared political commitment to equity. What was evident in talking to women academics was that they saw the fundamental changes occurring in universities as a shift in value systems which they actively resisted, disagreed with and some were not prepared to make. There was a clear sense amongst many of the women academics that the _changes being implemented...the corporatisation, privatisation and marketisation of universities-- while being ordained as necessary and inevitable-- were not being for the better for the students, and in particular women students and academics. That is , there was not the same sense of desirability for the direction of the change, and in many instances there was no trust relationship between those advocating change. While there was a strong sense that universities could do things better, what was being suggested was seen to make things worse.

The ever expanding field of change theory informs us that radical change is about conflict, unpredictability. Yet policy makers still assume the view that change will occur if it is explained, justified, is accompanied by training and information sessions and or mandates (Evans 199 p.). Michael Fullan suggest that 'the fallacy of rationalism is he assumptions that the social work can be altered by logical argument' or 'brute sanity'.

Robert Evans makes an important comment about change-- and resistance to it. Evans speaks about the two primary components of meaning-- understanding ( I see what you mean) and attachment to people and ideas (you or this means so much to me)-- which have cognitive and emotional dimensions to them (Evans 1996 p. 28). He suggests that change is loss-- that it is exacerbated by desire for continuity; that change has emotional investment which cannot be altered by rational explanation alone in some ' impersonal utilitarian calculation of the common good'; that change is part of the context of specific relationships with friends, colleagues, family and how this impacts on these; change can also produce ' the defeat of their hopes'. Evans argues that fundamental or second level change produces loss, incompetence, confusion and conflict-- the meanings of change produce a

Change theorists talk about first and second order change-- the former being the more superficial implementation of program, second order change as fundamentally change the behaviours, values and beliefs-- that is the 'psychic economy' of organisations(Roper 199 ). Increasingly, change theorists recognise that resistance to change is part of the process-- in fact has a modifying influence-- and that the ambivalence people have towards change can be understood as how individuals respond to change and why they change. I would disagree with many change theorists that it is merely about some humanistic deep loyalty to the familiar and the need for predicability-- but would suggest it is also about issues of commitment to certain values and certain types of social relationships. That is, _change theorists still fail to deal with the politics of change.

In particular, many academics felt that the type of work that women generally did was less not more valued in the new corporate cultures. This was particularly evident in the newer universities which had amalgamated with or professional focus and teacher colleges and less developed research cultures. There was also a sense that morse attention was being paid to image than substance. Yet when one speaks with women in leadership, whether administrative or academic, the thing that led them to enter the academy and which has sustained them has been their passion for teaching and research, their desire to change things. As Kippax et al( ) argue 'emotions involve the contribution of the social world by way of linguistic practices and moral judgements. It is in terms of these that feelings are interpreted as emotions'. As Acker comments, women's work is about tiring work, incorporating caring and service, with responsibilities that are often not regarded as demanding high skill or rewarded. ...thus many women in the faculties, even in positions of leadership are 'doing good and feeling bad'. ( 1996, p. 404).

One senior lecturer, recalled how she has been asked in her second year of tenure track to convene the first year program, which was huge with three strands and teaching teams.

_Indeed, the seeming reasonableness of it made them angry. The managerial logic was difficult to penetrate without attacking its very assumptions...but the reasonableness of te approach all made any display of anger, anxiety or frustration difficult and aberrant. These connected emotions of embarrassment, shame and guilt are central to maintaining organisational order-- they are what Fineman calls the 'emotional springs to self control' ( p. 17).

There was a strong sense emanating from the group that 'those at the top had lost the plot'. That is, that there was an increasingly dissonance or disjuncture between what was envisioned in the discourses of management about what universities did (or should do) and what academics actually did and valued in their daily work. It was a dissonance exacerbated by the every increasing gap between management and academia, one which privileged management discourses over academic discourses. Notions of academic leadership has largely been subsumed under management. On the ground, academics spend considerable time trying to second guess what these abstract plans mean for them, to position themselves favourably in terms of group or individual recognition ( necessary for funding and promotion) and also in wider milieu of their respective client groups or 'industry'.

This dissonance between the organisational rhetoric and reality of academic work produced a strong sense of alienation, displayed as frustration, disbelief, anger and anxiety. They questioned not only the logic but the substance of the changes being invoked. One Senior Lecturer suggested that

Performativity therefore produces many paradoxes-- on the one hand it is about emotion and desire, and on the other hyper rationality. It is about creating desirable images through market, about tapping into passion, purpose and desire of teachers and researchers to do what they do best and focusing it towards institutional goals. The other side is the emphasis on quantifiable measures, productivity and externalities as measurable signs of that success and efficiency.

_Universities as other workplaces have become more than the greedy organisations described by Cozer-- they have become voracious organisations. One academic commented: 'We think about our work now as how the commitment to work has become an all consuming passion'. Universities have undergone a considerable shift in their psychic economy. Many academics no longer gain any sense of being valued for their capacity for intellectual work in the sense of critical reflection due to the focus upon productivism(Giddens,1995) -- where work , as paid employment, has been separated out in a clear cut way from other domains of life. 'Work becomes a standard bearer of moral meaning-it defines whether or not individuals feel worthwhile or socially valued; and the motivation to work is autonomous. Why one wishes, or feels compelled, to work is defined in terms of what work itself is-the need to work has its own inner dynamic'( p. 175). Giddens argues that the 'chief enemy of happiness is compulsiveness'

Whereas in traditional societies, one learnt and had a sense of surety from one day to the next. 'Tradition provides a moral and interpretative framework gearing the emotions into a set of life practices. Addiction, by contrast, marks the influence of a past whose impelling power has no rationale other than itself'. In the post traditional society, he suggests that obsession with accumulation and productivism continues for its own inner logic and drive but without its original Puritan ethic.

Productivism fails to address the wider dimensions about the pleasures as well as pains of work, about wider commitments to social improvement, about engagement in social relationships. Thus work as the means by which other forms of commitment can be fulfilled eg. to support family, political and moral reasons eg. commitment to education or to gender equity are not considered, least of all valued. The only values which are legitimate are those derived from the organisation, and not personal values. That which is personal is treated as subjective and irrelevant or optional.

As one EEO Manager commented:

So what does this mean for leadership.

The shift towards the performative university has meant a shift in what is valued. When one talks to women _in universities, schools and TAFE, it is clear that many women have changed, but not in the direction that organisations would prefer. That change has been to resist changes which impact detrimentally on their work and their students. In seeking to maintain those modes of pedagogy and leadership that they value, and in which they have much emotional and professional investment, many women in leadership positions often do the different types of emotional management work of greedy organisations.

To argue this point is not to take the position that women are 'naturally' more attuned to, but that the discourses amongst women in educational work upon notions of care and relationships. Now I don't hold to the view that women are naturally more caring or nurturing, as indeed caring, nurturance and responsibility is something which can be learnt and indeed many men exercise their capabilities in these areas when they choose to do so. But there is a strong feminist discourse arising out cultural feminism about women's moral position leading to a greater concern for relationships-- for mending the social fabric in various contexts. Indeed, the now popular if not hegemonic discourses about women's leadership style positions women leaders in universities, as elsewhere, in particular ways (Blackmore 1998).

The popularised reading of this compelling caring and sharing script has inherent dilemmas for women. It reduces the substantive philosophical and feminist position derived from the ethics of care (Noddings 1988, 1992, Beck 1994) which focuses upon values and social relationships to care as just a matter of technique which can be readily acquired without any substantive shift in values or attitudes (Weiner 1995, Blackmore 1998). Furthermore, women are expected to be exemplary in controlling their negative emotions-- their anger and frustration- in their desire to be better teachers, researchers and leaders, and only display the positive emotions associated with caring and sharing. But the most problematic and reductionist reading of this women's ways of leading discourse is that men and women are irreconcilably different, premised upon a complementary between bipolar opposites. This reading tends to maintain rather than make fluid the category of gender, thus reducing the possibilities for changing the relations of gender.

for men there are the scripts associated with the naturalness of their position in formal authority because they are perceived to exhibit the characteristics of knowledge, judgement and capacity for ruling-- the conjunction between authority and benchmark masculinity has been such the codes signifying authority mask anxiety about the identity, power and desirability of women in authority'( p. 109). The more authoritative this position becomes, particularly in domains outside the traditionally feminine (eg Family Court, or science). For women to become authoritative like men means they are depicted as men in drag-- for them to be compassionate, as expected in the feminine script, 'their compassionate tones may be inaudible to listeners attuned to harsher commands. Hence in the dominant discourse, much of compassion is taken as non authoritative, marginal pleadings for mercy-- the supplicant gestures of the subordinate'(Jones 1993p. 118)

The cultural scripts of women and leadership, while products of feminist research, have taken on particular truth claims and their own internal logic; that is, the 'discursive formation of action around notions of gender equity theory, policy and practice inscribe "women's ways" and other similarly preservationist liberal pluralisms _as new "regimes of truth" in educational policy' (Bryson and Castells 1993: 341-2). While feminism and feminist research has provided women in leadership with powerful discourses to understand their positioning as women and to inform gender equity reform, there has been, in the process of its popularisation, a conflation between 'being female' and 'being feminist'. Chantal Mohanty calls this the 'feminist osmosis thesis'

The conflation of women's experience into feminism produces limited versions of what the different feminism(s) might bring to leadership because it collapses the distinction between leadership as practiced by women and feminists. While the upside of women's ways of leading discourse produces a sense of belonging, the downside is that it can be read conservatively to mean that women are 'naturally' more caring and sharing. It offers little potential for women or men to change, because they do not, as Eva Cox (1996: 91) argues, fundamentally challenge the 'macho decisionmaking structure' or work values. 'While challenging the dominance of masculine norms, they have left untouched the abstract oppositions of masculinity and femininity upon which these norms rely'(Johnson 1990: 23). To do so, I argue we need to transform the scripts and cultures of femininity and masculinity associated with leadership.

Sandra Acker refers to how in universities, the discourse of caring is not the dominant one, although, as some academics would argue, it is dominant in particular faculties (eg. women's studies, education, nursing). Women are excellent community citizens in universities-- they usually undertake more teaching and service work, in particular service work that is not highly valued eg. counselling students rather than chairing committees, the type of service which is seen to be a' chore and optional'. It competes with other discourses about high status work of teaching ( as transmission of knowledge) and also discourses about research.

In terms of our daily work, the changed work conditions and performativity principles driving academics has led for many women academics significant dilemmas-- moral as well as personal-- which took on an emotional dimension. Carmen Luke speaks about the sense of guilt that many feminist academics confront in that they are unable, when confronted with a packed lecture hall, to teach a feminist pedagogy which speaks about interaction, sharing, listening and the collective, a feminist pedagogy that they advocate in their writing. And yet when I undertake research on women and leadership in schools, universities and TAFE, the guilt I feel for failing to meet with my own ( and I assume) others expectations in terms of feminist practice as a senior academic and feminist researcher _are shared. And, as Carmen mentions, 'increased access to and exercise of institutional power generates increased pressure and desire to perform well, to produce. and to be recognised and valued...'( p. 4 ) Women who move up the system therefore' have a double pressure as women to be seen to perform exceptionally well-- and in the terms of the organisation and wider community, not necessarily on their own terms. The issue is how to bring their own terms onto the agenda.

There is also a sense of having to make choices between what they enjoyed and were passionate about and what they needed to do to get ahead. For many women that choice was easy--

For others, many of them active researchers and teachers, the shift brought guilt. One Head of School, who was asked to stand for that position by her colleagues after an amalgamation, spoke of how each shift meant

Despite these differences of location within the organisation, all the women talked about the lack of pleasure in their work, the long hours and overall sense of weariness that they felt on a daily basis and the lack of time, energy and resources to do what they were most passionate about. A Head of School commented:

Others spoke of how impossible it was to get a good nights sleep anyway--

One senior manager continuously rubbed the centre of her forehead while being interviewed.

When asked, the word balance was used frequently, balance meaning getting back a sense of quality of life choices.

One executive manager spoke of how she never took work home with her-- she would separate her private life distinctly from her work life as a form of self protection. It meant she got up very early to get to the office and came home very late.

But what impact do these leadership performances have on aspirant women. In general, the woman at the top were seen to be exceptional women...thus leading to a rebound effect opposite to the one that role modelling assumes. For many women aspiring to leadership, it meant, as in schools, giving up what they enjoyed and valued most-- teaching and research. To move into administration to sell out, to work with values and in ways which many rejected. Referring to a DVC

Fourth, in educational institutions the growing divide between administration and academics, intensified by the faxing of the crisis down the line to heads of school and also enterprise bargaining, makes decisions about moving into management even more difficult for women. Margaret Thornton suggest that while women will become law deans, most have little desire to move beyond that-- to be a femocrat in the university does not have the same attraction as being a femocrat in government because the constraints and pressures are too great. Many saw that power was a greater issue in universities than schools, because they were largely more powerful organisations-- and that closer women got to the top the more resistance and difficult it got. Giddens argues that

So what are the pleasures and pains of leadership-- whether in gender equity work or academic or administrative work. For many it was the pleasure of getting something done, of successfully implementing a program, or resolving a dispute, the pleasure gained from doing their teaching and research well, in watching others grow in their jobs, of writing a policy or developing a program that made a difference. The pain was largely related to not being able to do what they wanted, how they wanted and to the degree of perfection they desired. This is what Arlene Hochschild calls the difference between surface and deep emotion. The former is about the superficial roles we play as teachers, researchers and institutional actors...where we call _upon different language games to run and argument or win a point. The latter is about deep emotional commitment to what we value, which is tied up with our personal and professional identity. Increasingly, voracious institutions with their emphasis on externality (rewards, imperatives ) and self governing mechanisms of accountability internalised through performance management, RQ and quality assurance are negating the capacity for educators to actually undertake educational work. The effect is one of a sense of alienation, loss of loyalty and lack of trust of the institutions with which they are associated. It is displayed in the attempts by educators to maintain what they value despite the changing parameters, summed up by one EEO manager

The shift in the psychic economy of universities has produced a sense of alienation and anomie premised upon competitive social relations, performativity and self regulation, a psyche which actually works against loyalty, trust and cooperation, and, arguably, productivity in the long run. This has implications for women and leadership, how they cope and the human costs of educational change. One EEO practitioner commented about a PVC:

For the educational worker-- the teacher-- other emotions are brought into play which become internalised into our work identities- emotions related to insecurity, uncertainty and risk-- the emotions of fear and anxiety (Fineman 1993). These emotions are simultaneously binding and fragmenting-- there is a sense of solidarity between workers who all undergo the stress of the intensification of post modern work life, the guilt they have at being employed (and thus relatively more secure), but also the isolation produced be fear of being the next to be named.

The decline in the 'quality of the self' is seen to be the result of the "tyranny of inner compulsions and anxieties; that are socially produced. Libidinal desire is displaced in a narcissistic pursuit of consumer comforts and possessions and community life gives way to its mass-mediated television substitute. ....for Lasch, the narcissistic self of contemporary capitalist society is produced by the 'Technological forces of the marketplace'(Casey 1995 p. 24 )

Since work is defined mainly in terms of a male role, a concern with emotions, care and responsibility tends to become devolved on women. Women become the keepers, so to speak, of much of the moral fabric of social life once woven so more closely into wider traditional forms. ...Women became the 'specialist of love' as men lost touch with the emotional origins of society in which work was the icon. Seemingly of little importance, because relegated to the private sphere, women's 'labour or love' becomes as important to productivism as the autonomy of work itself' ( p. 176-7).

_

Before I make these comments, first, many EO officers and women in leadership do agree that there has been a significant shift in attitude within management about issues of gender equity. This is more obvious in some universities than other, particularly those which have placed gender equity for women high in their priorities and therefore their strategies and appointments. Others have seen equity issues swamped in efficiency and entrepreneurial drives. Equity is now seen to be part of the organisational structures, and whenever committees are formed, gender composition is an issue. There are a range of successful equity practices which are now in place in many universities-- these include women and leadership programs which emphasis collegial networks, shadowing programs, advice to women in research, career planning, mentoring (James 1996 ; Boucher 1997). But in essence, the emphasis has been on changing women to fit managerialism, and not to question the imperatives of new managerialism or the market.

While all these are effective in changing women, making them more assertive, skilled and career oriented, this still keeps them in the context of being ' the good girl' as the context works against significant change in institutional practices and values which would produce more inclusivity in universities. That is, the overall intensification of work, the push for performativity in particular ways that the post modern university demands, are undermining these achievements as they require women to put work first, family second and self last.

One of Acker's academic women was called by her children, something which I have heard from my son 'the hurry mom and the work mom'. We are getting up earlier, working harder and enjoying it less. performativity at work and the self governing mechanisms associated with it are exacerbating what Walkerdine (1990, p. 144) calls the 'unbearable splitting of identity' which is intense for many academic women-- who are both powerful ( as an academic or administrator) and powerless ( as a woman).

One executive manager referred to how I am certainly quite different when not ono the job...my children laugh as I wander around the house and bump into things

As Melanie Walker (1997, p. 3) comments, women are expected to nurture students (and indeed other male academics), but

A VC commented about the psychology of leadership--

Acker points to the doing good as working hard, caring for others, being good citizens, and feeling bad which involved excessive scrutiny, being undervalued, working harder than men, doing different work. As we found in our study, many of the women were enthusiastic in their teaching and research , and had a deep commitment to involvement in their academic community. Many women argued that their problem ( not the universities) was that they were perfectionists and chose to do more work 'because they were like that'. Our study would agree with Ackers that it cannot be explained way that women who are perfectionists self select into academia-- there are wider environmental factors involved here. There is an exhaustion associated with power and with seeking perfection. One EEO officer argued:

What is evident is that these women have a sense of having to 'outlaw emotions'(Jaggar 1989) as they face the contradictions between being 'caring women' and 'productive academics' (or administrators).

A female VC commented:

A DVC suggests that women at the top are task driven women...

Many of them spoke about how they enjoyed change, enjoyed the challenge--and often moved on. 'I love a challenge and get bored easily'. What was clearly evident was a strong sense of positive approaches to what was occurring-- the pleasure that was gained from their work was in achieving a good outcome, seeing someone being promoted who deserved it, getting a successful program in place. For executive women , it is being able to be good emotion managers-- to handle the rituals and symbols in ways which impart meaning rather than mere 'cultural add ons'.

_But there was also significant pain.

Performativity was also about the body, about appearance and about display. Dress was critical, and the many Head of Schools and above that were interviewed had, on the main, a carefully nurtured elegance. While this elegance combined both the carefully feminine but not feminine dress, each made conscious decisions about what they wore and why. One spoke about how she wanted to position herself as different, as a newly appointed senior executive of a university who represented the university and therefore dressed in light, bright clothes to stand out from the crowd of men. But this carefully nurtured and sometimes pleasurable aspect of their lives had less predictable effects. As role models, they were extraordinary in every way-- their performance, their appearance and their tenacity. One senior lecturer spoke of how the women they were expected to see as role models were indeed ' so glamorous ...people don't see her, can't see her as a they are not like that and can't be like her'. Performativity is about dress, style and manner....talking to women in high positions it is clear that they play the part. One senior lecturer in spoke of attending a course to improve her dress and posture in order to be seen in her level of confidence and her dress to be promotable. For those at the top, particularly those seen to be feminist, there was a fine line between feeling comfortable and being seen as desirable. One DVC commented:

I want to make three points here. First, was also clear that some universities closely identified with EEO and therefore had a public commitment to maintain that position. EEO was central to their market and image. This mean top down commitment- whether in form of EEO police, recruitment of senior executive staff or making EEO high status . In other universities, EEO underwent radically regression during periods of restructuring-- what I have called a structural backlash. Restructuring has offered opportunities to either promote or resist EEO... This was largely dependent upon individual personalities of executive-- the CEO in particular and close advisers. I have argued that there is a type of structural back lash....this is in a book just come out edited by Linda Eyre and Lesley Roman called Dangerous Territories- looks as backlash in universities.

Second, EEO had to tap into 'hot' topics rather than make claims on ground of justice, entitlement or values. Indeed, in many universities, often the traditional older ones. They judge themselves to be a _research institution. They do not care whether they have good AA as there's no money in it, and now equity for women is being devalued by recent government policies and fund cutting -- a conservative backlash which legitimates a cultural and structural back lash in some universities.

Where EEO officers can, they tap into hot popular discourses whether it be performativity, productivity , racism or sexual harassment. Certainly, Luke has argued that quality assurance in a younger newer university has, in demanding greater accountability and transparency, improved the situation for women. The issue us what EO can do for universities, and not an issue of rights.

Third, the emphasis on performativity and accountability has meant EEO strategies have been caught on their own strategic stick! In seeking to bed down EEO into everyday practice, the mainstreaming of gender equity principles has been to infiltrate equity through profiles, employment contracts, committee systems and promotion procedures ie to make university procedures transparent. In so doing, it has fed into the voraciousness for data collection and accountability which in turn has a rebound effect on EEO units which are increasingly spanning time on reporting, monitoring and collecting data and not more strategic change work-- what one EO officer described as the housekeeping work, with fewer resources.

_But it is not, as many EEO practitioners commented, EEO is not about getting any woman into leadership, because it is about adherence to a particular set of values and commitment to promote and become advocates for women within the institution. As one EEO practitioner commented:

Third, time ahead will be difficulty for gender equity and those working for gender equity in universities as the federal government and the state withdraws funding from this area. The lack of commitment from federal level to gender equity, whether it be in reduction of funding to AA Agency or Women's or to the reporting to the United Nations has significant symbolic effects-- it gives the message that equity for women is no longer something that managers have to worry about. One EO manager saw the AA agency as toothless-- and that it would be gutted of resources and infrastructure but retained for its symbolic value alone.

Finally, performativity provided both opportunities and difficulties with regard to EEO strategies -- opportunities in the sense that one could build EO objectives into performance management criteria, and call upon discourses of managing diversity to gain credibility. But this often stayed at the level of discourse and did not infiltrate practice. As Maggie Humm argues in the English context, but one which also has relevance for Australia, where academic work is being restructured, that the issue of academic career paths is using equity arguments to increase flexibility and get rid of old career paths. ie. the emphasis has shift from removing barriers to women in existing career paths by a series of proposal which are about conservative personnel policies resulting in reduction of professional autonomy (Humm 1995 eg. Promoting People). The argument in Australia has been to increase number of contract staff at each level to give women academics of merit opportunities to move up the institution. Such arguments ignore the fact that the undermining of academic work conditions more generally debilitates the capacity for women to take up such opportunities. Indeed, increased competition, incentive schemes, open culture, action and calculated risk taking are all notions associated with male behaviours in the market place ( although not of male academics in the old academy). There is little to no protection of issues of title, professional development, study leave as core aspects of academic's work. Equal opportunities are replaced by equal value-- a basic knowledge of exchange value which is equated to money and not other forms of social exchange ( team work, emotional management, pedagogy) which cannot be given monetary value.

But on the other hand, performativity also meant that universities, preoccupied in the competitive relationships of the market, are reluctant to learn from other institutions in terms of best practice in _EEO. While new management theorists talk about learning organisations, market segmentation actively blocks learning. This was particularly evident in sandstone Famous eight-- on the one hand jockeying between them for being constricted as the best meant they could not adopt any other sandstone university's policy; and second, that adopting programs from the newer institutions is like comparing apples and oranges-- that they are so different that programs successful in new institutions. The irony is that the sandstone organisations claim to be operating on the basis of best business and educational practice, yet such responses indicate quiet the opposite. Any bench marking therefore is only within the eight, which actually ignores significant initiatives and best practice which is well recognised in other universities. The difference between old and new universities is being purposefully discursively constructed on a daily basis. There are therefore significantly different cultural contexts for gender equity between new/old universities, cultures which are being constantly constructed to emphasise difference. Third, the concentration of power more overtly in the hands of the VC and managers in lean and mean institutions means that the fate on EEO is dependent upon personal ( irrational) attitude of VC.s .

I mean it is all about whose interests it is in to push gender equity. And certainly it is not in the interest of powerful men to do it and for others to earn brownie points. it depends upon whether they see it is political or not to do so... (EEO officer).

Agnes Heller sought to develop a Marxist social anthropology of feeling which argues that the 'false contrast of feeling versus reason should be abolished and that there is a unity between thinking, feeling and morality. Norms regulating feelings have a high moral content, and feelings are aroused when particular normative dimensions are lost, infringed or rejected. I would suggest that the types of organisational purposing assumed in corporate management loses out because it lacks a normative dimension other than of performativity rather than substantive issues of performance for some clear purpose.

A recent book on True Professionalism makes the point that people are not purely motivated out of a desire for money-- and that incentive based systems only go so far-- Feminists argue that people are both altruistic and self interested, are both independent and also highly interdependent, and that they cold certain values dear-- whether it be a strong sense of professionalism and service to others, whether it be feminism, or even passion and pleasure in the extensions of knowledge. There was a sense amongst many women academics that there was no normative underpinning for current restructuring other than performativity.

The ever expanding field of change theory informs us that radical change is about conflict, unpredictability. Yet policy makers still assume the view that change will occur if it is explained, justified, is accompanied by training and information sessions and or mandates (Evans 199 p. xii). Michael Fullan suggest that 'the fallacy of rationalism is he assumptions that the social work can be altered by logical argument' or 'brute sanity'.

_Change theorists talk about first and second order change-- the former being the more superficial implementation of program, second order change as fundamentally change the behaviours, values and beliefs-- that is the 'psychic economy' of organisations(Roper 199 ). While change theorists now recognise 'culture' as important with regard to organisational change-- and women in leadership often talk about the chilly climate-- there is often a simplistic reading by management of culture as some homogenous thing can be created and manipulated, and a view of culture that is still premised upon the intellectual and cognitive aspects and which ignores the emotional. It talks about change as being set in a turbulent environment, a fluid organisation, the psychic economies of organisations, about meaning making and commitment building. Increasingly, change theorists recognise that resistance to change is part of the process-- in fact has a modifying influence-- and that the ambivalence people have towards change can be understood as how individuals respond to change and why they change. I would disagree with many change theorists that it is merely about some humanistic deep loyalty to the familiar and the need for predicability-- but would suggest it is also about issues of commitment to certain values and certain types of social relationships. That is, change theorists still fail to deal with the politics of change. This is a point which is significant for feminists, who have a shared political commitment to equity.

What change theorists ignore is that many women and men are committed to notions of equity and access. That it is about the politics of change. As one EEO officer stated:

The thing about equity is that people somehow feel that its about personal values, and if it is so defined people can go with it or not as a personal preference. If I don't believe in it. then I don't have to subscribe to it and don't have to do anything. There is no notion that it is an intrinsic part of organisational structure. I Dean can;t say I don;t believe in research and therefore won't do anything...they do get away with saying they don't believe in gender equity.

Maria Markus comments that 'success' for women is not necessarily synonymous with success for men.. quality time is time which is spent with immediate others, with children, with community activities, often invisible, and not directly associated with public status. Women are, in fleeing the chilly climate of large corporate institutions, whether of big business, government or universities, making highly rational decisions in terms of what they value. Many are 'pulling the plug' in terms of the relentless exploitation of their emotional engagement with their educational work in institutional contexts context, most maintain their engagement with education and research in other more independent and less stressful ways.

To finish, let me comment that any women who wishes to succeed like a man lacks ambition.

There are particular safe havens out of which we must venture-- the culture of care is perhaps one. Or as another DVC commented:

This does not mean to reject the notion of care, but to recognise that it is one of the many emotional aspects of our academic and leadership work which also includes purpose and desire-- and that we must pay equal attention to those for our self protection, satisfaction, and recognise this in others. As one female Dean argued, her advice to women is:

This is not to deny the feminist position that one can only gain a true sense of the civil society when understood as acquiring and nurturing the social capital. Financial, material and human capital only can interact and work together if the social capital is valued and nourished. My point is that in ignoring social capital, the new academic work is draining and exploiting women's emotional labour - first, in that they are unable to commit themselves passionately to what they value, and second, they are still largely responsible for the emotional management and feelings of others. Ultimately this will lead to a significant loss to the system, a problem in its own managerialist and economistic terms of productivity. Hopefully, productivism has buried within itself a self destruct mechanism ( Giddens 1994).

Waters, M. (1995) Globalisation Routledge