20 mai 2012

By John Aubrey Douglass. CSHE 6.12 (April 2012). Download TALES OF UNIVERSITY DEVOLUTION: Organizational Behavior in the Age of Markets.
Abstract: In the wake of the Cold War era, America’s research universities became increasingly characterized by a tribal mentality among schools and departments, and disciplines. The surge in research funding, and the tremendous growth rate among the major public universities in particular, fostered the idea of the “multiversity” was becoming less communal, and less aware of the collective purpose. These patterns have accelerated considerably over the past two decades in the US that reflect three relatively new realities or influences: a) within the public university sector, decreasing public subsidies have influenced a movement toward internal management decisions and organizations that have eroded a previous model of revenue sharing (in tuition and fees, in overhead generated by extramural research, for example) to profit, loss, and prestige centers; b) this has been accompanied and reinforced by the concept that there are different market opportunities among different schools, departments, disciplines and their degrees, and hence opportunity costs (in the tuition price of an MBA versus and English PhD, for example) in which high income units should retain and spend those monies. These influences are common in various degrees globally but from different source. In much of the world, including Europe, the demands and edicts of ministries and evolving concepts of faculty as civil servants heavily influence organizational behavior. In the US, the decrease in public investment is driving internal behaviors shaped as well by the interests of faculty, the increasing global nature of knowledge production, and market opportunities that differ among the disciplines. This paper explores the development and impact of these various influences on research intensive universities, with the theme that the internal concept of the university is rapidly changing, influencing the behavior of academic leaders and faculty, the organization of the post-modern university, the flow of funds, and ultimately the perceived and real role of the research university in society. Past observers of the life and times on universities have described aspects of this shift as a movement from a larger sense of a university community among faculty to a tribal mentality. But the current shift extends well the weakening of disciplines and departments, beyond faculty as individual actors to the internal organization of the academy and a relatively new concept of profit and loss centers. This shift toward what I call “University Devolution” or fragmentation is influenced by the external political, social, and economic world. In Europe and elsewhere, neo-liberal ministries wield great power and have helped pushed universities toward this model. In the US, it remains largely a phenomenon influenced by reduced government investment yet ultimately driven by internal decision-making related to privatization – thus far. The paper ends with a brief discussion on whether the organizational behaviors in US research universities are reflective of global trends, or are in some aspects unique.
A GLOBAL TREND?
Boalt Hall, the Darden Business School, and the unraveling of faculty salary ladder or scales at the University of California are a sampling of various behaviors rooted in financial challenges and the changing market for degree programs and for faculty. While beyond the scope of this brief study, there are other behaviors that would be informative to explore. This includes a relatively new “re-charge” culture, or what is sometimes call Responsibility Centered Management, in which goods and services offered at one time by the university at no direct cost are now being itemized and charged supposedly at cost, but one might surmise sometimes inflated as units strive to create surpluses. Another is the effect of a growing regulatory regime linked to federal and state mandates, but also internal auditing and values. And yet another variable are the organizational behaviors shaped by America’s litigious society and by increased rights granted to employees of universities. Although difficult to measure, these are growing influences on the university environment – some good, some bad.
Is the process of Devolution a particularly American phenomenon? Perhaps the stronger sense of community once prevalent in campuses, and reinforced by budget allocations, by the sense of collective effort in expanding academic programs and growing enrollment, is a relatively unique American phenomenon. The sense of loss, or regression into a more fragmented academic milieu, is therefore more pronounced; perhaps it never really existed in many other nations where the primacy of the department or faculties in various fields has been more significant, reinforced to some degree by the lack of general education requirements which spread course workload, and funding, among the academic fields. In Japan, for instance, the supremacy of faculty and their departments and schools, has long ruled, seemingly impervious to campus wide coordination or even government policy initiatives.
Under a plan to expand the authority the presidents of the elite national universities, Japan’s ministry of education changed the status of these institutions as corporate entities under a familiar formula: give the university and its academic leader more autonomy but with the burden of a greater accountability regime. But all evidence is that there has been no major shift in authority or power internally – thus far. One sees similar ministerial efforts to empower the academic heads of French and German universities. As Georg Kruecken has observed, “The university as an organization is transforming into an organizational actor, i.e. an integrated, goal-oriented, and competitive entity in which management and leadership play an ever more important role.” This seems to point to greater centralization of authority and perhaps the promise of greater cohesion within university communities, even if one result is the infiltration of private sector acumen about budgets and operations that some may not find completely admirable (Kruecken 2011).
There is a significant and growing literature beyond the initial studies by Kerr, Jencks and Riesman, and Tony Becher that focused on the American scene and now includes international comparative perspectives (Kruecken and Meier, 2006; Musselin, 2009; Oslen, 2010, Scott, 2010). There is a distinct difference in the experience and viewpoint that focuses on the power and influence of central governments in shaping organizational behavior and with a different starting point in places like Europe in which universities have not historically been engaged as agents of economic development and socioeconomic mobility as their American counterparts. In the viewpoint of European critiques, for example, an “academic oligarchy” of faculty narrowly concerned about their research ruled the day and only recently has succumbed to a numbing series of edicts from government to drag it closer to the “market” (Clark, 1998; Ritzen, 2010). This is a story line that simply does not apply to America’s public universities that have always had in their DNA the idea of promoting socio-economic mobility and economic development as part of their public mission and portfolio.
At the same time, however, some of the elements of Devolution story are common, found throughout the world. There is convergence. US research universities are perhaps a bit ahead of the curve in some aspects – like differential fees, different salaries for different faculty, entrepreneurial funding schemes for capital outlays etc. – but it does seem to be a curve and one sees their relevancy or emergence in most parts of the world.
There is, I suspect, much more commonality and convergence than growing differences in organizational behavior. But one might speculate that the causes are somewhat different. One cause globally is the quest of ministries to create so-called “world class university” focused largely ranking systems that rely on citation index, patents and licenses, and reputational surveys. The push for improved rankings by ministries, along with their desire for greater differentiation within national networks of universities – where often the rush toward creating mass higher education systems resulting in statements and national allocations of funds under the ruse that all universities were equal in status, in quality, in productivity – are changing behaviors of faculty and of academic leaders and their staff. The establishment of quality assurance offices and staff, and matrixes to judge the performance of faculty and departments, within universities throughout the globe alone attest to changing behaviors.
Finally, if we view the process of privatization and increased fragmentation of resources as the result of a rational response of the academy, and specifically of research universities, to a more market oriented environment, then arguably what I describe as Devolution is in fact some sort of evolutionary process. Either way, one must assume it is not a process yet completed. It might mean, for example, that despite the tricky problems posed by tenure, some sub-set of academic programs may appear increasingly as expendable; that faculty salaries will become increasingly differentiated; that the profit and loss centers, and prestige faculty and departments, will become more pronounced. It means that the idea of the comprehensive university, with a broad array of disciplines, and with quality across the board, will be an increasingly rare or at least difficult to achieve commodity. But that is only speculation.
Universities have been extremely robust institutions over time, adapting to societal pressures and funding changes. Devolution may be simply another phase that alters but does not fundamentally change core practices and missions. That is speculation as well. Download TALES OF UNIVERSITY DEVOLUTION: Organizational Behavior in the Age of Markets.

This video features a presentation by dr. Kerstin Sahlin, titled “A rising interest in management and governance of universities: Rankings and organization models on the move”. 
In this presentation, Sahlin examines two influential global themes: the expansion of rankings and assessments, and how universities have become organisational actors. The two themes are interrelated and they are also connected to a number of other global developments, and multilevel analysis will be employed to explain why universities have lately become subject to such intense reforms of governance and organization.
Kerstin Sahlin is currently a professor of business administration at Uppsala University, and has extensive first hand knowledge about higher education governance in Nordic countries. She has earlier held the position of prorector at Uppsala University and her main research interests are linked to the organizational change in the public sector and the transnationalisation of management ideas.
The lecture was recorded in April 2012 as a part of the academic seminar series of the research group HEIK (Higher Education: Institutional Dynamics and Knowledge Cultures) at the university of Oslo.
See also New HEIK working paper on institutional transformation of a new university.

Just over a third of young people graduate from universities in the OECD area and about a tenth finish shorter, more work-oriented courses. But the rapid expansion of higher education  and its growing cost are focusing attention in many countries on issues of quality, relevance and efficiency.
How should higher education respond to the growing and widening demand for effective services? And what can policy makers do to improve access, quality and value for money in higher education? OECD countries also face major challenges in ensuring adults don’t end their education on graduation day, but go on actively learning throughout their lives.
What does OECD do?
A special review is examining the organisation, management and delivery of tertiary education in 23 countries, while OECD has also worked on guidelines for cross-border education. There has been a review of adult learning and of how it can be promoted through the use of national qualifications systems. OECD has also examined the potential for e-learning in post-secondary education.
IMHE is the OECD’s Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education - a unique international forum for higher education institutions that addresses issues such as their contribution to regional development, the roles of public and private funding in higher education, and trends like the rising popularity of overseas and remote study.
More

Don't miss

• Education Indicators in Focus
• OECD Indicators of Education Systems (INES) - Brochure
• A-Z index of Directorate for Education Work
• Thematic Review of Tertiary Education
• Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)
• Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE)
• Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO)
• OECD Policy Reviews of Vocational Education and Training (VET).

Call for participation: The Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) Higher Education Policy Unit, in partnership with IAU, will conduct a study on how the current economic crisis is affecting higher education institutions and what leadership and management challenges it is bringing in various parts of the world. The researchers undertaking the study are calling for expressions of interest from institutional participant in all regions of the world. If your university is interested to take part, please read and respond positively to the Call for Institutional Participants.
First International Study on the Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on Higher Education: Leadership and Management Challenges
The on-going Global Economic Crisis (GEC) is having an enduring and profound impact on higher education. At the same time, the continuing shift to the knowledge-based economy, the rising demand for and costs of higher education, and the influence of global rankings are placing issues of quality and performance under intense scrutiny. Faculty are also under pressure; calls for greater productivity and accountability question traditional work-practices and values. Many of these challenges were manifest years ago; but the extent of change now being experienced suggests higher education is undergoing significant structural adjustment. We are all familiar with general commentary about increasing global competition and the need to demonstrate relevance. However, we lack deep-level knowledge of what is happening in higher education: the extent of change taking place, and the impact on individual institutions. In particular, we lack specific understanding of how the new global economic environment is affecting the role and responsibilities of HEIs, and what structural or organisational changes are being made. To what extent is the new global environment a driver of these changes or would they have happened anyway? How are these developments affecting students at your institution? Have changes been made to academic work practices? What effects are these changes having on educational quality, research, and institutional reputation? What are the higher education management and leadership challenges? The study is being conducted in partnership between the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU), Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland. At this stage, we are seeking Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) that would like to participate in this first international study of how the ongoing global economic crisis is impacting on higher education and, especially, on individual institutions. We aim for approximately 50 participant institutions in order to provide a balanced representation in terms of geographic/regional location and institutional mission.
Participants will be asked to complete a comprehensive on-line self-study questionnaire, covering a series of issues under the following five (5) headings. HEI Mission HEI Strategy HEI Finance HEI Quality HEI Work Practices
In addition, we will ask for some basic information about your institution, in order to correlate experiences with specific types of institutions and world regions. All data collected will adhere to research ethics protocols; the anonymity of each institution will be protected in all resulting publications. We anticipate it should take approx. 1 hour to complete. It is intended to hold a Roundtable Meeting with participating institutions in early 2013, in order to provide an opportunity for higher education leaders to share their experiences of responding to the new situation. Results of the research will be presented at forthcoming IAU and other conferences; publication of the full results will follow in summer 2013. Each participating institutions will receive a copy of the report. We welcome the participation of your institution in this study:
1) Confirm your participation no later than 31 July 2012. Send the name of your institutional contact person, title and email to: Martin Ryan at martin.ryan@dit.ie. The questionnaire will be sent to you upon receipt of the confirmation.
2) Complete the on-line Self-Study questionnaire no later than 30 September 2012.

This conference will disseminate the results of the E-TRAIN project, which has developed a "train the trainers workshop" for agencies and a knowledge base for experts and QA staff. It is aimed at quality assurance experts, agencies and policy makers, to share procedures and good practice in trainings. For more information, visit the ECA website.
The number of experts participating in QA procedures in other countries than their own is increasing. ECA contributes to this positive development by organising trainings for these experts and setting up a pool of European experts. The E-TRAIN project has started these initiatives. In addition, a train the trainers workshop for agencies and a knowledge base for experts and QA staff have been developed. It is now time to disseminate these results to a wider audience.
Are you an expert or do you want to become an expert in QA procedures in other countries? Are you from an agency interested in good practices in trainings or in training and sharing European experts? Or are you a QA policy maker from an institution, association or government organisation? In all these cases this conference will probably be useful for you and you are cordially invited to participate. You can find the draft programme, logistical information and the registration facility in the menu at the left of this page.
See also The Website of the European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA).

The 2012 International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) Symposium – The Power of Partnerships, will take place from 19 to 21 June at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, USA.
The 2012 Symposium will focus on expanding sustainability initiatives beyond traditional campus boundaries to incorporate local and regional efforts. The organisers note that “colleges and universities are forging powerful partnerships with local government, the corporate sector, and non-profits to tackle common challenges, accelerate technology transfer, and promote knowledge exchange”. 
This 6th annual event will present examples and methods of how to successfully foster partnerships, and will include in-depth working sessions, networking opportunities, and the ISCN Sustainable Campus Excellence Award ceremony.
To learn more, please visit the ISCN website.
The 2012 Symposium will focus on the importance of expanding sustainability initiatives beyond traditional campus boundaries to incorporate local and regional efforts.  Colleges and universities are forging powerful partnerships with local government, the corporate sector, and non-profits to tackle common challenges, accelerate technology transfer, and promote knowledge exchange.  This year's ISCN Symposium will present concrete examples and methods of how to successfully foster partnerships, and will feature our familiar format of in-depth working sessions, networking opportunities, and the ISCN Sustainable Campus Excellence Award ceremony.
Conferences & Symposia
    Eugene 2012.
    Gothenburg 2011.
    Shanghai, July 2010.
    Lausanne, June 2009.
    Zurich, April 2008.
    Zurich, April 2007.

The Heads of University Management & Administration Network in Europe (HUMANE) Annual Conference “Successful Universities”, hosted by University of Konstanz, will take place in Konstanz, Germany, from 22 to 23 June.
The conference will examine the question as to why some universities perform better than other universities under comparable circumstances and what the role of the administration and the management is in this. It will focus on best practice and provide an opportunity to learn and to share experiences. For more information about this event, click here and to register, click here.
Universities are complex organisations in a complex environment. Managing universities requires a sensitivity about what universities are about. But it is also necessary to develop an active awareness of the economic, societal and political context in which universities operate. The question of this seminar is why some universities perform better than other universities under comparable circumstances and what the role of the administration and the management is in this.
Many people say that recruiting and retaining the best academic staff is the most important job of the university leadership. Other people say that it is all a question of money. True as both sentences might seem, there are of course other aspects. How do we cope with the balance between autonomy and accountability, between competition and co-operation, between government and market, between the increasing demand for excellence and the traditional culture of equality between peers?
The seminar will of course try to focus on the question what the role of the administration is in all this? Good governance, stimulating human resource policies, smooth procedures with as little bureacratic burden for academics as possible, excellent facilities, smart financial policies, visibility for fund raising, all these things contribute to the succes of a university. How can universities create these circumstances in the administration and in what way can the administration make use of external challenges? These challenging issues will be at the core of this seminar. We will get the chance to look at these issues from different angles:
How does the German Excellence iniative create new opportunities for universities and what challenges does it pose for the adminisatration and for the university as an organzation? What choices does a technical university make to excell? How can a young university position itself amongst well established universities within a few decades? The seminar will focus on best practices. It is an excellent opportunity to learn and to share experiences. Speakers who have confirmed their contributions so far are:
Ruud Bleijerveld - member of the Exzellenz Initiative Auditing Committee.
Manfred Nettekoven - Chancellor of RWTH Aachen University.
Joop Kessels - Secretary General University of Utrecht.
John Westensee - Director of Research Support Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University (AU Research and Talent).
José Fernando Mendes (vicerector research and doctoral school) of Aveiro university.
See also Next HUMANE Seminar: Edinburgh 22-23 September 2011, Quality and Renewal - administrative support for excellence in teaching and research.

La Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience (VAE) permet à toute personne qui travaille depuis trois ans de faire reconnaître ses compétences professionnelles officiellement grâce à l’obtention d’un titre, d’un diplôme à finalité professionnelle ou d’un certificat de qualification. Toutes les personnes qui justifient d’une expérience professionnelle, salariée ou bénévole, de trois ans sont concernés. Cependant cette expérience doit être en rapport avec le contenu du titre ou diplôme visé.
Articles

• Témoignage : « J'ai décroché le bac à 50 ans par la VAE grâce au soutien de mon employeur »
• La VAE dans la fonction publique
• Le coût de la VAE pour les entreprises
• La certification VAE: les diplômes et titres concernés
• Le congé pour acquis de l'expérience (CVAE)
• Permettre à un salarié de devenir cadre grâce à la VAE
• La procédure de la VAE

Dossiers

• La certification VAE les diplômes et titres concernés
• Le congé pour acquis de l'expérience CVAE
• La procédure de la VAE
• Permettre a un salarie de devenir cadre grâce a la VAE
• Le cout de la VAE pour les entreprises
• La VAE dans la fonction publique
• Témoignage J'ai décroché le bac a 50 ans par la VAE grâce au soutien de mon employeur

 

Les entreprises se sont-elles réellement approprié la loi pour agir en faveur de l’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes? Quels sont les freins et les leviers? Pour le savoir, l’Apec a mené une vaste enquête en février 2012. Télécharger l'étude Attitudes et comportements des entreprises en matière d’égalité professionnelle.
Dossier de Presse - Attitudes et comportements des entreprises en matière d’égalité professionnelle.
Les entreprises se sont-elles réellement approprié la loi pour agir en faveur de l’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes? Quels sont les freins et les leviers? Pour le savoir, l’Apec a mené une vaste enquête en février 2012.
Marie-Françoise Leflon, Présidente de l’Apec, affirme que: « Même si les pratiques RH en faveur de l’égalité femmes-hommes progressent, de nombreux stéréotypes persistent et les actions menées ne s’inscrivent pas assez dans la durée. Aujourd’hui, les entreprises devraient pourtant prendre pleinement conscience que cette question est non seulement une obligation légale, mais aussi une priorité dans des domaines aussi variés que le recrutement, l’évolution professionnelle ou la rémunération, parce qu’elle est source de richesse et de créativité pour l’entreprise ».
L’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes est un enjeu sociétal et RH…
L’égalité professionnelle est reconnue comme un enjeu RH d’importance par les trois quart des entreprises, et en première approche, la loi est accueillie avec beaucoup de bienveillance, voire d’enthousiasme. Mais cette adhésion massive masque des disparités: les entreprises de plus de 1 000 salariés sont celles dans lesquelles les femmes sont majoritaires, et celles du secteur des services semblent les plus avancées par rapport à l’égalité professionnelle.
Logiquement, l’adhésion à la loi est quasi inconditionnelle pour les plus grandes entreprises (99%) et celles à majorité féminine (92% contre 89% pour l’ensemble). Aussi, 69% des entreprises sont d’accord avec le fait que la mixité des emplois est toujours possible et qu’il s’agit d’une question de volonté.
… mais, pas en tête des priorités RH des entreprises
Si l’importance du sujet est admise, elle reste souvent conditionnelle au regard de ce qui préoccupe les entreprises. Elles ont d’autres priorités pour 36%, voire le sujet apparaît secondaire au regard de ce qui jalonne le quotidien des entreprises (20%). Lorsque l’on établit une hiérarchisation des enjeux RH pour les entreprises, l’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes arrive loin derrière les priorités de développement des compétences (recrutement externe, gestion de la mobilité interne, fidélisation…), celle des parcours professionnels et la gestion des séniors.
Point de départ de toute action, le rapport de situation comparée hommes - femmes est d’ailleurs réalisé par moins de deux entreprises sur trois (64%). Aussi, 28% des entreprises ont formalisé un diagnostic et signé un accord, et 26% des entreprises sont couvertes par un accord de branche et un accord d’entreprise. Aussi, un net écart entre les déclarations d’intention et les pratiques apparaît, avec en filigrane, une volonté assez marquée de faire « bonne figure » et de rester dans le « politiquement correct ».
Certaines inégalités professionnelles sont massivement admises…
Les entreprises françaises admettent très largement que la situation professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes est inégalitaire, a fortiori parmi les cadres, sans distinction majeure selon la taille ou le secteur: 76% jugent la situation d’une femme cadre moins facile que celle d’un homme du même statut, soit vingt points de plus que pour les non cadres. Cet écart s’explique par l’exigence accrue exprimée à l’égard des cadres en termes d’engagement et  de disponibilité.
La promotion apparaît comme le sujet qui cristallise le plus les inégalités entre femmes et hommes. Ainsi, 64% des entreprises interrogées reconnaissent que les postes les plus élevés sont davantage occupés par des hommes que par des femmes.
autant, un chantier très secondaire. Des freins persistent en effet dans certaines entreprises à l’égard des femmes,
mères ou potentiellement mères. De façon diffuse, leur engagement et leur investissement vis-à-vis de l’entreprise
peuvent encore être jugés moindres que ceux des hommes.
…d’autres le sont moins, plus contrastées
S’agissant de l’embauche, 13% des entreprises interrogées admettent privilégier le recrutement d’un jeune homme plutôt que d’une jeune femme à compétences égales. Les entreprises du secteur de la construction, celles ayant moins de 20% de femmes dans leurs effectifs ou encore celles ne disposant pas de classification, affirment davantage ce point de vue.
Lorsque l’on évalue l’attitude des entreprises face à dix situations potentiellement discriminatoires, il ressort que rares sont les entreprises totalement exemplaires. Seulement une entreprise sur dix se trouve dans aucune situation de discrimination, alors qu’une sur deux l’est dans une à trois situations de discrimination et près d’une sur trois le sont dans quatre à six situations de discrimination.
Les écarts de rémunération constituent aussi un point crucial de l’inégalité professionnelle. Ils sont souvent la conséquence de différences dans l'évolution de carrière entre les femmes et les hommes. Pour autant, seulement 30% des entreprises affirment que la progression salariale des femmes est plus lente que celle des hommes.
Lorsque l'on compte plus de 80% de femmes dans les effectifs, mais aussi autant ou plus de femmes que d'hommes au comité de direction, les entreprises sont moins nombreuses à constater des inégalités dans la progression salariale des femmes. Par ailleurs, la progression salariale apparait plus inégale dans l’industrie ou la construction que dans les
services."
Pour autant, les entreprises minimisent les inégalités, voire ont une posture de déni
Rares sont les entreprises qui déclarent la situation des hommes et des femmes égalitaire dans les entreprises de manière générale: un tiers d’entre elles la trouve égalitaire pour les non cadres et seulement 17% pour les cadres. Paradoxalement, lorsqu’il s’agit de leur propre entreprise, les entreprises déclarent très majoritairement que c’est une situation égalitaire qui domine, pour les non cadres comme pour les cadres. Ces écarts de perception - entre la situation dans les entreprises en général et celle dans sa propre entreprise - peuvent être attribués à des postures de déni.
Dans les faits et au regard de la loi, certaines entreprises sont sur la bonne voie…
Les trois quart des entreprises déclarent avoir agi dans au moins un des sept domaines concernés par la loi, lesquels dépassent souvent le strict cadre de l’égalité professionnelle (89% des plus grandes entreprises).
Parmi les domaines d’actions proposés par la loi, les conditions de travail constituent le domaine arrivant en premier des domaines déjà mis en oeuvre ou prévus d’ici douze mois, pour 63% des entreprises.
Plus en détail, on note que ce sont les mesures « simples » et/ou utiles et/ou dont le bénéfice est assez global qui sont jugées les plus pertinentes et dans une certaine mesure les plus mises en place. A titre d’exemple, c’est à propos de la communication RH que les entreprises sont les plus avancées (mesure la plus largement mise en place: 54%). Cet avancement peut s’expliquer à la fois par l’ancienneté de ce débat, la relative facilité de mise en oeuvre et les enjeux d’image afférant. Suit ensuite l’accessibilité de la formation (utile pour 77%/mise en place par 46%) et par l’analyse individuelle des parcours professionnels (utiles pour 83%, mises en place par 45%).
En revanche, les mesures, qui impliquent le plus les entreprises, recueillent moins d’enthousiasme et sont d’ailleurs moins développées, par exemple les horaires flexibles, le télétravail jugés utiles par 66% des entreprises interrogées mais mis en place par 29% d’entre elles. En queue de peloton, arrivent les mesures plus coercitives ou trop rigides (par exemple, les quotas).
… mais d’autres accusent un net retard, pour peu qu’elles envisagent d’agir
On les retrouve surtout parmi les plus petites entreprises (50 à 149 salariés): 27% n’ont encore engagé aucun chantier (contre 25% pour l’ensemble) et 48% n’envisagent rien de plus pour les douze mois à venir (contre 43% pour l’ensemble).
Les entreprises semblent donc au final très désemparées face à cet enjeu de société. Certes la loi va dans le bon sens, mais elle est jugée trop contraignante par 42% des entreprises interrogées (contre 40% qui la voit bien équilibrée). En vertu des priorités autres qui font le quotidien des entreprises, le manque de temps est le facteur le plus invoqué quand il est question des freins à la mise en place d’actions (cité par 35%).
Encore faudrait-il avoir véritablement conscience des inégalités pour agir. Le déni est assurément le principal frein à
lever pour inciter les entreprises à agir. Une mission qui s’annonce d’autant plus complexe dans un contexte où les
bénéfices de l’égalité professionnelle au sein des entreprises ne sont pas très tangibles.
Les entreprises admettent - à défaut d’être massivement convaincues - que l’égalité professionnelle peut rejaillir favorablement sur le climat social (44%) et l’implication des salariés (38%). La performance économique arrive plus loin (citée par 25%). Les grandes entreprises se distinguent là encore: plus enclines à reconnaître l’impact sur l’implication et le business (50% et 36%), elles sont en revanche plus réservées sur l’amélioration du climat social (27%).
Les entreprises expriment des attentes, principalement en matière d’accompagnement
Même si elles sont peu nombreuses à considérer comme un frein à l’action le fait de ne pas savoir s’y prendre (7%) ou le manque d’information (11%), les entreprises expriment fréquemment des attentes, essentiellement en termes d’accompagnement, par exemple:
- Un guide opérationnel sur la façon de s’y prendre (pour 37% des entreprises interrogées),
- L’organisation d’échanges et de rencontres avec d’autres entreprises (30%),
- Un accompagnement par un intervenant extérieur (28%),
- Une meilleure sensibilisation des différents publics de l’entreprise sur ce sujet (26%),
- Des idées de mesures clé en main (21%),
- Des aides financières (19%),
- Une aide pour interpréter le rapport de situation comparée (13%).
Aussi, le fait d’associer systématiquement la problématique de l’égalité professionnelle aux sujets RH les plus prioritaires (recrutement externe, mobilité interne…) permettrait aux entreprises d’agir plus qu’aujourd’hui.
L’ETUDE COMPLETE EST DISPONIBLESUR DEMANDE 01 40 52 20 29 et sur www.apec.fr/espace presse
Méthodologie de l’étude
L’étude a consisté en une enquête qualitative préalable, pour circonscrire les sujets clés pour les entreprises, cerner leurs attentes en termes d’accompagnement et examiner les risques potentiels de discrimination, et en une enquête quantitative pour mesurer les perceptions et les pratiques des responsables en entreprise à l’égard de l’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes.
Lors de l’enquête qualitative, 15 interviews de professionnels en charge de l’égalité professionnelle au sein de leur entreprise ont été menées entre le 5 et le 17 janvier 2012, dans des entreprises de taille et de secteurs variés avec des niveaux de maturité variables quant aux questions d’égalité professionnelle.
Dans l’enquête quantitative, dont le terrain s’est déroulé du 2 au 16 février 2012, 1 001 interviews de personnes en charge de l’égalité professionnelle (directeur général, directeur ou responsable des ressources humaines, chargé(e) de mission…) ont été conduites au sein d’entreprises de 50 salariés et plus.
Télécharger l'étude Attitudes et comportements des entreprises en matière d’égalité professionnelle.