EQUALITY GUIdE - KU Leuven

Chapter 3 ! Career management 147
technique that takes a lot of time. Furthermore, a gender expert is needed to interpret the
results. Therefore, cohort analyses are rarely used. For the ABAP, a brief cohort analysis
on the career opportunities was published by the VRWB (see 1.1.1. Academic Personnel).
Within the K.U.Leuven, a cohort analysis was already performed in 2003 by the HRdepartment
for the ATP. Unfortunately no difference in sex was made. This project made
it possible to repeat this research. As the data were already generated in the past by the
HR-department little additional work was created. A dataset of 1,419 co-workers, of
which 641 men and 778 women, that were continuously part of the ATP from 1994 till
2003, was analysed. When the chance on promotion for the whole period was calculated
(grade in 1994 compared to end grade in 2003) the results showed that everyone did
promote at least once. The overall picture showed that the male ATP in that period had a
higher chance to promote two or three times.
The same method was used to analyse the career opportunities of the ZAP that were
continuously part of the ZAP between 1999 and 2007 (945 ZAP of which 821 men and
124 women). However, a cohort analysis was not possible as some ZAP might have been
longer at the university as a former junior researcher or post-doctoral researcher. The
cohort analysis would never cover an entire career but only a part of it. A part of the
methodology used in cohort analyses could be used to map the career paths of the sample
above. A very different pattern was found in the career paths of the male and female
ZAP: especially the lower, part-time grades were dominantly female.
Another more accessible way to map the differences in promotion opportunities is to
calculate the Glass Ceiling Index (GPI) 170 . The GPI is calculated by comparing the proportion
of women at a certain job level (x) with the number of women at the job level below
(x-1). Dividing (x-1) by (x) gives the GPI-score. A high GPI-score means that generally the
promotion of women remains behind the potential that is present in the organization.
One should be careful when calculating and interpreting the scores: not all people in a
certain statute are interested in promoting to a higher one. For instance, at the university
not all post-doctoral researchers are interested in becoming an Assistant Professor. Furthermore,
some ZAP view the grade of Professor as an end grade as a Full Professor is
expected to take on more managerial tasks. However, when women systematically seem
to stay behind, one should investigate the possible causes. As Gender Mainstreaming
aims to guarantee more equal opportunities for women but also men, the GPI should be
calculated for both, as done in the following example.
Example: GPI for ZAP at the K.U.Leuven
Table 23 shows the Glass Ceiling Index for the year 2006 in comparison to 1997 for the male and
female ZAP at the university. Fortunately, it appears that the glass ceiling is diminishing throughout
the years, although in comparison with the male ZAP much work remains to be done concerning
equal opportunities (in promotion).
170 Van Haegendoren, M. & Steegmans, N. (2003), op. cit.