Download Women in Higher Education

Women in Higher Education
Running head: WOMEN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
A Study of Women Leaders in Higher Education Administration
Rebecca Coates-Nee, L. Sunnie Kim, and Sheila Saden Pisa
Pepperdine University
i
Women in Higher Education
1
A Study of Women Leaders in Higher Education Administration
During the past two decades, women have emerged as leaders in most major sectors of
American society at a more rapid rate than any other time in history. In just the past two years,
women have earned landmark titles that range from speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
to president of Harvard University and four-star general in the U.S. Army.
Despite these increases, the percentage of women leaders in public and private
institutions is disproportionate to the number of women living in the United States. According to
census figures, 50.7 percent, the majority, of all residents were female in 2006. Yet, just 17
percent of the 2009 Congress will be made up of women. Of the Fortune 500 companies, women
head only 12 of them (Catalyst, 2005).
When compared to those figures, women have made the most advances in higher
education administration. The number of women presidents at colleges and universities more
than doubled since the 1980s, reaching 23 percent in 2008 (American Council on Education).
The figure for community colleges is even higher with 29 percent of those institutions led by
women in 2006. While the trend is moving upward, the numbers have not been moving as
rapidly as some researchers had anticipated. In fact, the percentage growth of women community
college presidents slowed dramatically in 2006, increasing by only one percent (Weisman &
Vaughan, 2007).
Why is it important for more women to hold visible positions of leadership in institutions
of higher learning? First, the issue of role models for students and young female faculty leaders
must be considered. Since 1984, the number of women enrolled in college has exceeded the
number of men; 57 percent of college students were women in 2005. By the turn of the 21st
Women in Higher Education
2
century, women were earning nearly 60 percent of degrees awarded on all levels (associate,
undergraduate, graduate) and that trend has continued (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Aside from acting as role models, do women bring a distinct style of leadership to higher
education than men? If so, how might that style impact or transform the institution? Through
interviews with nine college and university women leaders from California, Michigan, and
Indiana, this study seeks to determine:

what career paths women took to achieve administrative positions

what traits, skills and styles they most often exhibit in their roles as leaders

which cultural perceptions and barriers, if any, may be keeping other women from
pursuing leadership positions in colleges and universities.
Literature Review
Women’s Leadership Traits
Emerging brain research in recent years indicates the existence of some innate trait
differences between genders that become evident by the time boys and girls reach the playground.
Instead of that distinction being negative toward women’s ability to lead, however, the feminine
characteristics most often cited (sociability, friendliness, empathy and agreeableness) are
positively associated with many of the traits linked to effective leadership.
Pediatrician Leonard Sax (2005) warns against a gender neutral approach to educating
boys and girls. He found that girls are less aggressive than boys, less inclined to take risks, and
better able to talk about their emotions. Brizendine (2007) found girls' brains are wired in such a
way that makes them more nurturing and less aggressive than boys. The female brain, according
to Brizendine, places primacy on communication, emotional sensitivity, and responsiveness.
Women in Higher Education
3
Female brains also have been found to be better at empathizing and communicating than men
(Baron-Cohen, 2004).
Hormones may be another factor unique to women that positively correlates with
leadership. A 2000 UCLA study on friendship among women (Taylor, et. al.) showed that
women react to stress differently than men based on biological changes that occur. The
researchers found that while men react with a fight-or-flight response, women manage stress
with a “tend-and-befriend” response by nurturing children or looking for social contact with
other women. The reason for the difference, the researchers found, is the way each gender
processes the hormone oxytocin, which is released as a calming response to stress and may lead
to maternal behavior and affiliation. Male hormones suppress the effects of oxytocin while
female hormones increase it.
Female hormones, however, have contributed to a cultural belief that women tend to be
more emotional in the workplace than men, and therefore less effective as leaders. A study by
Erickson and Ritter (2001) refutes that stereotypical notion. They found no gender difference
between men and women’s ability to manage their emotions on the job, even though women
were more likely than men to hold jobs that involve what they term “emotional labor.” Those
emotionally intense jobs require the employee to spend more time working with people and to
hide their feelings of agitation, which in turn may lead to burnout and inauthenticity. While
Erickson and Ritter found burnout and inauthenticity did not vary by gender, they also noted it
was too soon to draw any final conclusions about the role of gender on the emotion management
process because other factors – such as power and status – may influence the outcomes.
Women in Higher Education
4
Women’s Leadership Styles
Aside from their biological inclinations, women tend to develop certain skill sets
differently from men as they grow and become socialized into American culture. Northouse
(2007) places social judgment skills at the heart of the skills model along with problem-solving
and knowledge. The skill most closely associated with social judgment is the capacity to
understand people; good communication, social perceptiveness, and flexibility are also the skills
researchers found women learn through socialization.
The differences in communication styles between women and men have been the subject
of popular books that range from relationship primers to business manuals. In You Just Don’t
Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, linguist Deborah Tannen writes that while
women are enculturated to connect with other people in parallel relationships, men approach
conversation as more hierarchical – speaking up or down to one another. Women connect
emotionally while talking to each other, according to Tannen; whereas men prefer to impart
knowledge.
Further highlighting the different communication styles between the sexes is
psychotherapist John Gray’s bestseller, Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus. Gray
portrays men as wanting to step in and fix things, thereby not allowing the more verbal women
an opportunity to express themselves and feel heard. When dealing with conflict, men prefer to
sort their problems out alone by going into a cave while women seek out other women to talk.
Communication professor Julia T. Wood takes a more scholarly and systematic approach
to how culture shapes communication styles of women and men. She found that women
communicate as a way to establish and maintain relationships while talk for men is less personal,
Women in Higher Education
5
more dominant, and more directive. Women tend to be more supportive and facilitative in
conversation (Wood, 2007).
A reoccurring theme within the literature suggests women are scrutinized, judged and
evaluated more closely by their subordinates and colleagues because of their gender (Ball &
Reay, 2000; Brunner, 2000; Tedrow & Rhoads, 1999; Hall, 1996). As a result, women in the
studies felt the need to be highly knowledgeable and prepared, much more so than men, in case
they were questioned. Relating to communication styles, women in the studies were much more
aware of their verbal styles and adjusted them to match their audience. In male-dominated
situation, many women were required to speak softly, "dumb down" their speech, take out jargon,
and avoid patronizing tones in order to get others to listen (Adler et al., 1993; Brunner, 2000). If
they did not speak in this manner, they risked not being heard, especially by their male
subordinates and colleagues.
Psychologist Elizabeth Aries looks at how gender influences the way men and women
approach certain situations. In Men and Women in Interaction, Aries demonstrates that the
different styles of communication between men and women are variable based on the person’s
status, role, and context of the situation. Aries cautions against using gender stereotypes that
portray women as more emotional than men, saying these perceptions may further limit women’s
ability to rise to positions of power.
Task vs. Relational
An analysis of leadership using the style approach emphasizes the behavior of the leader
rather than the personality or capabilities of the leader (Northouse, 2007). Styles may be
portrayed by task behaviors that focus on goals, or relationship behaviors that take on a more
nurturing approach to subordinates.
Women in Higher Education
6
Stereotypically, women have been considered to be more personally or relationally
oriented, whereas men are more task-oriented. Women are generally viewed to place more
importance on people, whereas men place more importance on achievement and goal. However,
studies have shown that this scenario is not always the case.
Eagly, Karau, and Johnson's (1992) meta-analysis of the leadership styles of public
school principals found counter stereotypic results when it came to task-orientation. In fact,
female principals were found to be more task-oriented than their male counterparts. In the school
setting, this meant that they were more likely to encourage adherence to rules and procedures,
have high standards and expectations, and make the role of the principal teacher explicit. Kruger
(1996), in her study of school heads in the Netherlands, also did not find that women were less
task-oriented than men. In adult education, she found that women were more task-oriented or
oriented towards initiating structure than men. These findings are inconsistent with some other
studies that portray women as more of community builders and people persons in comparison to
men (Adler et al., 1993), but this again brings the importance of context into play.
When it came to involvement or relational orientation, Kruger found little difference
between men and women in their exhibition of this style. Relational-orientation includes
behaviors that place more focus on people including doing favors, explaining procedures, being
friendly, and looking out for the welfare of subordinates (Eagly et al., 1992). In the school setting,
this could look like open discussions, emphasis placed on training and development, asking input
from colleagues and subordinates, being open to talking about personal as well professional
things. Eagly et al. found negligible evidence for differences in the interpersonal orientation
between men and women principals when outliers were removed. Alternately, however, research
from feminist perspectives has found the contrary. These studies find that women have better
Women in Higher Education
7
interpersonal skills, focus more on relationship and community building, and have a higher
percentage of contact with people than men (Adler et al., 1993; Shakeshaft, 1989).
Much of the recent literature written about women and leadership style takes the socalled mommy factor into account, but with a more positive tone than in the past. While
motherhood historically was seen as a barrier that kept women from rising to positions of power,
some researchers now say that role could be beneficial. Crittenden (2004) makes a case for why
working mothers are better managers because of the parenting skills they’ve learned from raising
children. In interviews with 100 parents (mostly women), Crittenden uses examples to show how
moms take creative and often unconventional approaches to management. From challenging their
employees to foster growth to ignoring tantrums in the workplace, the mothers Crittenden
profiles credit their experience at home with helping them on the job.
Rosener (1990) also found women’s leadership styles in the workplace to be consistent
with their roles at home as mom and wife because they tend to be more interactive and inclusive
than men. Women did not attempt to adopt managerial styles like men, she notes. Instead, they
developed their approach from their shared experiences as women. Women are more likely than
men, Rosener found, to transform subordinates’ self-interest into concern for the whole
organization.
Likewise, Helgesen (1990) discovered that women do well when running organizations
that “foster creativity, cooperation, and intuitive decision-making.” Helgesen writes that
women’s styles of leadership take on a framework that resembles a web more than a hierarchical
pyramid that men typically create. Women leaders who create this web concentrate power at the
center by drawing others closer. They do this, she found, by relying on their experiences as
wives, mothers, friends, sisters and daughters.
Women in Higher Education
8
The term "maternal" shows up often in the literature when discussing the management
styles of women in educational leadership. Adler et al.’s (1993) research suggests that the way
women manage children and the traditional domain of the home is often brought into the
workplace. Female senior managers can easily fall into a maternal role and subordinates can
easily treat them as maternal figures (Ball & Reay, 2000). Underlying this finding again is the
paradoxical idea that although women in many circumstances are encouraged to display more
masculine styles of management, they are also expected to display the stereotypical nurturing
and maternal behaviors outlined in "feminine" leadership styles.
Transformational vs. Transactional
Aside from being associated with more relational leadership styles than men, women also
have been considered more transformational rather than transactional. Northouse defines
transactional leadership as focusing on the exchanges between leaders and their followers.
Transactional leaders bargain for what they want by making promises such as better grades,
promotions or lower taxes, depending on the situation. In contrast, transformational leaders use
charisma and personal attributes to engage with others and create a connection, therefore
motivating their followers to take on tasks. Authentic transformational leaders put their self
interest aside in favor of the collective good (Northouse, 2007).
Eagly and Johnson (1990) surveyed studies of leadership styles from 1961-1987 and
found women adopted more of a democratic or participative style while men were more
autocratic or directive. While the researchers found women to be more transformational in style
than men, they found no gender differences in their tendencies to use interpersonally-oriented or
task-oriented styles.
Women in Higher Education
9
Other researchers have had mixed findings on whether there is a positive relationship
between women and a transformational style of leadership. Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996)
asked employees to rate their male and female superiors using a Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Women were reported as displaying key aspects of transformational leadership,
such as charisma and consideration, more often than men. Conversely, van Engen, van der
Leeden and Willemsen’s “Gender, Context and Leadership Styles: A Field Study” British study
in 2001 found no significant differences in leadership between women and men.
In a 2003 study, however, Eagly, Mary Johannesen-Schmidt and Marloes van Engen,
looked more closely at gender differences in transformational and transactional styles. Their
widely-cited article, “Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A
Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men,” confirmed some small differences between the
sexes. Female leaders, they found, were more transformational than male leaders but they also
demonstrated some of the contingent reward behaviors associated with transactional leadership.
Men, on the other hand, were more likely to display transactional leadership characteristics and
more passive laissez faire styles. The authors note that this finding relates positively to female
leaders’ effectiveness while previous studies had found either no relation or a negative one.
In Bass and Avolio's follow up study (2006), they found women’s more transformational
leadership style is well-suited for contemporary trends in American institutions, which now place
a high value on consensus building and empowering employees.
Situational and Emergent
The flexibility and adaptability skills women develop as mothers may help them in using the
situational approach to leadership, a category which developed in the 1960s. That approach
Women in Higher Education
10
focuses on how leaders must adapt their style to the demands of certain situations (Northouse,
2007).
A number of studies (Farkas & Wetlaufer, 1996; Ahn et al., 2004) determined that this
ability to respond appropriately to the situation is more effective than employing just one
leadership style. Susan Madsen, who interviewed 10 female university presidents, found each of
her subjects believed situational leadership was not only helpful but necessary in their roles
(Madsen, 2008). Because they face challenges that range from dealing with faculty members to
government agencies and state administration, the presidents reported they “must be able to use a
variety of leadership techniques or styles dependent upon the need and appropriateness of the
context” (Madsen, 2008, p. 249).
Shortly after the turn of the 21st century, researchers began writing about a new emergent
leadership style shaped by women and more collectivist in nature which can be particularly
effective in higher education institutions. Nidiffer describes this emergent style as “collaborative,
empowering, connective, communicative, authentic, and team-oriented” (p. 111). This theory has
its roots in connective leadership, one that combines elements of transactional and
transformational leaders to become highly effective. According to Nidiffer, women are
socialized to be connective leaders and should not give up this predisposition to become more
autocratic like men.
Madsen found that her subjects exhibited the emergent style of leadership associated with
women: collective, participatory, flexible, and team oriented. Depending on the situation, the
presidents also demonstrated an androgynous leadership style, combining strengths of both male
and female traits. Overall, Madsen found evidence that these women reflect styles positively
Women in Higher Education
11
associated with their gender, styles that are consensus-oriented, committed, collaborative, and
empowering.
Democratic vs. Autocratic
Democratic styles of leadership focus on consensus building while autocratic
management is based on a top-down hierarchy. Nidiffer also sees a strong correlation between
democratic styles of leadership and women administrators in higher education: “Participatory
leadership is the style most preferred by faculty members and seen as most compatible with
academic culture” (p. 110). Women presidents are more likely to meet with each other to share
strategies and solutions, she observes.
Research shows that women leaders manage those under them through influence rather
than direct control. They value cooperation and collaboration rather than competition and caring
ways of dealing with subordinates (Adler et al., 1993). However, in order to be successful and
climb the ladder, Ball and Reay suggest that women "at, or near the top of, institutional
hierarchies have had to modify some, if not all, of the qualities traditionally associated with
femininity" (p. 148). Women especially in senior management were found to draw upon more
masculine subjectivities in their management of people even to obtain their position of leadership.
Women's Leadership in Higher Education
While not every leadership style can be analyzed according to gender, Nidiffer (2001)
cites transformational and transactional leadership theories as having ramifications for women
presidents of college and universities. Nidiffer defines the feminine traits associated with
transformational leaders as caring communication, sharing information, and being reflective
about one’s practice. She sees universities as benefiting from leaders who are skillful team
builders, not coercive power seekers.
Women in Higher Education
12
Women in Community College Leadership
Community colleges should be ideal locations for women to redefine and provide new
models of leadership. The mission of community colleges has traditionally been focused on
teaching and access to all types of students. In fact, the mission statement of the California
community colleges states: “The California Community Colleges shall, as a primary mission,
offer academic and vocational instruction at the lower division level for both younger and older
students, including those persons returning to school.” (University of California, Office of the
President). Aside from their mission to be inclusive and diverse, there is an anticipated
administrative shortage in coming years. Eighty-four percent of community college presidents
are planning to retire by 2016, which would make it reasonable to project that there will be an
increase in female presidents (Weisman & Vaughan, 2007). Along with this, the fact that women
are rising through middle management ranks at community colleges at a faster pace than men
suggests there will be an increase in women in top leadership positions (Tedrow & Rhoads,
1999)
Organizational Structure of the Community College
Tedrow and Rhoades (1999) claimed that community colleges are often structured
according to instrumental leadership concepts, where people and ideas are situated to increase
the efficiency of the organization. This is somewhat in conflict with the relational theory of
organization, which emphasizes relationships, sharing power, and being inclusive.
Eddy and Cox (2008) found that the view of the community college as a “man’s world”
has held, despite the increase of women presidents. One of the presidents, in describing her
frustration with the duality of roles in the presidency had this to say:
Women in Higher Education
13
The fact that the women were judged by the actions of the women before them set up a
dilemma: not only were they judged by the male norms of organizations, they were
measured against what other women prior to them did in the position, which made it
difficult to be authentic in their leadership (Eddy & Cox, 2008, p. 75) .
The point is made that the typical community college organizational structure is still hierarchical
and power resides in position.
Women in Community Colleges
How do women leaders function in the community college structure? In order to be
effective, women presidents sometimes find it necessary to adopt typically masculine behavior
and often suffer because of it. Strategies like using tough language and showing a strong persona
during public events are typical and criticism is usually leveled against them as a result of this
behavior. These women often use traditionally feminine behavior, though, but usually when they
were in small groups, such as their president’s cabinet. There they can use more democratic
processes, like brainstorming, in an effort to get input from others in developing plans. However,
when the plans are presented to a large, public audience, the women presidents change the
language from “our plan” to “my plan”, showing the emphasis on positional power (Eddy & Cox,
2008).
The presumed path to community college presidency has been that of faculty, dean, chief
academic officer, and then president. In a study of midlevel leadership and career trajectories in a
midsize rural community college, most came to their management positions unintentionally.
These middle managers have strong ties to the classroom and are largely satisfied with their jobs.
They usually become managers because they want some amount of control over their work
environment. More than 50 percent of the college faculty at most institutions are women, but
Women in Higher Education
14
many feel that “it’s run by more masculine rules” (Garza, Mitchell & Eddy, 2008, p. 803) and
that women in leadership need to act differently and are treated differently because of their sex.
So, even though many feel their leadership experiences are rewarding, their participation is not
changing the existing gender structure and is not leading them to the upper management
positions. Many are choosing not to go into administrative ranks so that they can control their
time and there is an opinion that to attract new upper level administrators there needs to be
thought about how to restructure the environment to be more attractive (Garza, Mitchell & Eddy,
2008).
Cultural Perceptions
Cultural perceptions of women as leaders often have shaped the debate about whether
women make better (or worse) managers because of their perceived feminine traits and
socialization. For example, not all press is positive when it comes to the idea that women use
their more nurturing side as leaders. Atwater, et al. (2001) studied perceptions of workplace
discipline and found females delivering discipline were perceived to be less effective and less
fair than males. Part of the reason for this discrepancy, they found, is the personal gender bias of
both male and female recipients. They suggest that women undergo special training in the most
effective methods to deliver discipline to employees.
The same may be true with the perceptions of women as more transformational leaders
than men. Aldoory (2007) notes that male and female employees expect women to behave in a
more nurturing, participative and supportive way. So, female leaders who meet those
expectations are perceived as more effective. Aldoory maintains that the research on leadership
and gender shows how leadership is socially constructed and relational, but gender is just one
factor mediating the relationships between members and their leaders. She advocates training in
Women in Higher Education
15
leadership literacy which is the ability to read social cues about female leaders in order to further
understand the role gender plays in men and women’s perception of leadership.
Do Dominant Women Lead?
Ritter and Yoder (2004) sought to update studies on gender role congruity theory begun
by Megargee. The original study examined leadership in terms of dominance by gender and type
of task (masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral). The authors noted that in the last 40 years,
general attitudes toward women in leadership have appeared to change. In studies that were done
showing images of leaders as feminine or masculine, however, it appeared that while overt
prejudice has declined, subtle stereotyping has continued.
What the authors determined from their study was that dominant women could be seen to
show their dominance in non-feminine tasks not as leaders themselves, but as the selectors of
leaders. What was also shown was that women were more dominant in choosing leaders when
the task was gender-neutral than when the task was considered masculine. This study did,
however, reinforce Megargee's original role congruity theory study that men are more likely to
emerge as leaders, even when women have a dominant personality.
Dealing with Masculine Norms: adaptation, reconciliation, resistance
In the male-dominated workplace of educational administration and management,
reaction to masculine institutional norms varies among women leaders. Tedrow (1999)
categorizes women’s strategies for dealing with masculine norms or the "male dominated
organizational context" (p. 14) into 1) adaptation, 2) reconciliation, and 2) resistance.
Adaptation. Women practicing the strategy of adaptation developed their identity as
leaders through imitating masculine behaviors they perceived as instrumental to obtaining
success. These behaviors include the emphasis on hierarchy, efficiency, and productivity, strong
Women in Higher Education
16
authoritative style, de-personalized communication style, and strong delineation of roles (Ball &
Reay, 2000; Tedrow & Rhoads, 1999). Ball argues that women in high positions of power were
able to obtain that role through the process of adapting to the orthodox or masculine way of
managing. Unlike in feminist texts, women in leadership rarely questioned the status quo (Ball &
Reay, 2000; Hall, 1996). This strategy is aligned with the viewpoint in the literature mentioned
earlier that emphasizes the need for women to take on a masculine style in order to succeed.
Reconciliation. The strategy of reconciliation is the ability to read and react to a context
appropriately by drawing on various relational styles. Most aligned with the situational
viewpoint, women using this strategy are able to assess a situation and use the style, masculine or
feminine, that is the best fit for it (Tedrow & Rhoads, 1999). This leadership style reflects what
some call a dual or androgynous approach to management (Madsen, 2008).
Resistance. The strategy of resisting the norm or status quo is aligned with a feminist
viewpoint in which the feminine style of management is embraced. Resistant leaders are not
satisfied with the status quo and are change agents, transformative educators, and consciousnessraisers. There is no dichotomy of the personal and professional as often exists among women
who try to imitate masculine behavior (Tedrow & Rhoads, 1999).
Gender stereotypes have been shown to impact the perceptions and evaluations of women
leaders and reinforce the glass ceiling keeping women from reaching leadership positions (Hoyt,
2007). Hoyt maintains that women face cross-pressures from society in their leadership roles:
having to be tough but not too manly. Citing figures that show women are still underrepresented
in all areas of public and private leadership, Hoyt offers some evidence that the glass ceiling is
beginning to crack because of organizational, individual, and societal changes that encourage
women to aspire to leadership positions.
Women in Higher Education
17
Another study (Stout-Stewart, 2005) explored relationships between behaviors of women
presidents and issues of race/ethnicity, education, experience, and institutional enrollment. The
study was conducted to test behaviors associated with transformational leadership. Five practices
of exemplary leadership; modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process,
enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart, were tested.
When the women’s race/ethnicity were considered, those listed as “other” were judged to
be more inspiring and encouraging than their African American or Caucasian counterparts, and
African American women scored higher in this category than Caucasian women. When the
demographic setting of the college was considered, no significant differences in behaviors of the
college presidents were found. Examined through the lens of education, presidents with
doctorates averaged higher in all categories, but they were significantly higher for inspiring and
encouraging. Those presidents with more experience were rated higher than other groups in
enabling others to act.
When the size of the school was considered it was found to make little difference.
However, the percentage of full-time student enrollment significantly affected inspiring, enabling,
and encouraging. So it was not the size of the school that mattered, but the percentage of fulltime students that reflected leadership practices (Stout-Stewart, 2005). This information may be
of help to women when considering leadership positions at a specific college. Women
investigating leadership positions should know their particular strengths and know that the
college demographics and structure will impact their effectiveness. In knowing how these
aspects interrelate, they can more confidently choose a college that will be a good fit.
Creating Opportunities and Removing Barriers
Women in Higher Education
18
Chliwniak wrote in 1997, when just 16 percent of colleges and universities were run by
women, that a lack of role models and diversity existing in these institutions discouraged women
from advancing to the top. She maintained that closing the gender gap would benefit colleges
and universities by helping them become more focused on feminine concerns, such as process
and persons, than masculine concerns like tasks and outcomes. She advocated change through
transformational leadership, unity among women to resist exclusionary norms, and addressing
equity issues in tenure practices and wages.
Family issues and a lack of role models have been cited by researchers as reasons top
companies are not able to retain women as senior executives (Ruderman & Ohlott, 2004).
Hewlett and Luce (2005) surveyed women who opted out of professional careers and found 44
percent left for family reasons. In contrast, men left jobs most often to change careers (29
percent). The researchers found very little incentive for women to return to their former
companies after taking time off. They suggest that U.S. companies need to find ways to create an
on-ramp to retain and reattach highly qualified women back into the workforce.
In a study done by Eddy and Cox (2008), six women who became community college
presidents were interviewed. All took the more traditional route to the presidency: most had been
faculty (either at the community college or in K-12), and then taken on some mid-level
administrative job (department chair, dean), sometimes ascending to a vice presidential position
before becoming president. None of them started out with the intention of becoming a
community college president, their advancement usually happened as a result of being noticed
for work well done in their other administrative positions. Two of the six mentioned that a
chancellor, in recognition of their job performance, had specifically recruited them. Others spoke
Women in Higher Education
19
of how they came to a realization that they themselves could function well in the presidential role
after working closely with another president (Eddy & Cox, 2008).
In her dissertation research, Rodriguez (2006) showed that women presidents are more
likely to alter their career path for child-rearing reasons. This could mean that women presidents,
more often than men, are likely to stay at an institution and work up the administrative ladder,
sometimes limiting their advancement.
Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) concluded that colleges need to concentrate not on
gender styles of leadership but on providing ways to support expanded definitions of leadership.
They recommend leadership development and training as ways to “nurture expanded conceptions
of what it means to be a leader” and remove institutional barriers that may prevent women from
rising to leadership positions.
Cooper and Pagotto (2003) note the coming crisis in community college leadership and
that the entrance into administrative positions is not always an intentional choice. They suggest
that there are three ways to provide training for leadership to address these issues: through
university doctoral programs that emphasize community college leadership, through regional
training programs such as the Wo Learning Champions in Hawaii and Asilomar in California, or
by college presidents looking at "growing their own" leadership on the campuses. Of the three
strategies, perhaps the third could lead to a friendlier environment for women leaders at
community colleges.
The authors observe that obstacles to moving faculty up to the administrative ranks
include feelings of inability on the part of faculty, especially in the area of leadership. They have
noticed that there is often the perception that faculty are “selling out” to the “dark side” when
they take on leadership roles. Using the homegrown approach, leadership training can be
Women in Higher Education
20
accomplished over time while faculty maintain their identities in the non-administrative ranks.
This stresses the separation of leadership from position and the incorporation of leadership as
behavior, a change from the typical organizational structure. This behavior of influence, rather
than positional power, can be accomplished in roles that are faculty-based, e.g. serving on
important committees and union leadership. Faculty can also "try on" leadership by accepting
interim administrative positions. There are both benefits and drawbacks to having a facultybased approach to leadership. Benefits include changes in experiences for faculty who may feel
the need for something different than their usual teaching load. Negatives to assuming leadership
roles are balancing teaching load with the quasi-administrative work of leading campus
committees, lack of training (in many areas such as leadership, budget) and, again, perception of
faculty "selling out.”
What kind of topics would be of interest in these college-based training programs?
Cooper and Pagotto (2003) found that faculty wanted training in mechanics: e.g., Roberts' Rules
of Order, budget, and institutional terminology. Administrators, however, saw the need for
training in conflict management, negotiation skills, team building, and increasing self-confidence
so that they can nurture risk-taking planning and activities, especially in times of financial
hardship. This is encouraging, because they mostly reflect transformational leadership principles
and are styles that are more in line with feminine roles.
Vroom and Jago (2007) tested to see if there were certain training methods that would be
beneficial depending on personality. Behavior (decision rules) in certain situations was
determined and then participants received training. The training was designed to help people,
based on their personality, learn leadership lessons that would make them more effective in
given situations. This study showed that with training participative behaviors increased,
Women in Higher Education
21
especially in situations where participation was more likely to produce results (Vroom & Jago,
2007).
The information obtained in McFarlin, Crittenden, and Ebber’s (1999) study of
characteristics of outstanding community college presidents could be useful in establishing
training for those in mid-level management positions at community colleges. According to their
study, specific training in higher education leadership and the establishment of peer networks
and protégé-mentor relationships should be emphasized to help train more outstanding presidents.
McCarthy (2003) notes that many of the problems facing community college
administrators are legal in nature and training opportunities in this area are rare. He also notes
the solitary nature of administrative work, acknowledging the masculine organizational structure
of community colleges, and states that training in decision-making would be helpful. He
observes that many advertised positions must be re-advertised because of lack of applicants.
Training for administrative-level work could address this.
Following the traditional path, administrators can feel a culture shock when making the
transition from faculty to administration. In a hierarchical structure administrators often have a
feeling of isolation, almost as if being in a fishbowl. McCarthy (2003) discussed the feeling of
constantly being watched and the need to be guarded in communications. The solitary nature of
the job and the need for guidance in making decisions without having others to rely on could be
made less stressful when one works within a network of peer mentors.
Methods
Nine women in higher education administration were interviewed for this paper. They
were selected based on their position of leadership as well as their availability and accessibility
for an interview. Interviews were obtained through email or personal or phone communication
Women in Higher Education
22
and were held either in a face-to-face setting or by phone. The positions these women held as
well as the types of institution they worked for covered a wide range within the realm of higher
education. Their ages ranged from their 40s to their 60s.
Three of the women interviewed work in a community college setting. One of the women,
a chancellor, works for the California Community Colleges System which consists of 110
community colleges and serves 2.5 million students. Another woman is the interim president of
Riverside City College which has a student body of 35,000. The third is a vice president at
another community college with a total headcount of 9000 students.
The other six interviewees come from a university setting. A provost, dean, and director
work for San Diego State University, which is part of the California State University system and
has a student population of 34,000. The other three interviewees are from the Midwest. One
woman is a director at the University of Notre Dame, a private Catholic university in Indiana, as
well as the executive director of the OpenCourseWare Consortium, an organization of over 200
universities worldwide. The last two interviewees, an assistant provost and a director, work for
Michigan State University, a Big 10 university with a student body of 46,000.
Each interviewee was asked the same set of seven questions:
1. Tell me a little about your career
2. What were some of the obstacles you have faced in your career?
3. How would you describe your leadership style?
4. What leadership characteristics do you value in your employees?
5. What challenges do you face in your day-to-day dealings with your employees?
6. Describe to us your decision-making process. For example, when your staff brings to
your attention a problem, how do you go about selecting a solution?
Women in Higher Education
23
7. What role do you see women playing in higher education leadership and what
advantage or disadvantages do women face in leadership positions?
After all of the interviews were completed, the answers were compiled in a matrix so that
similarities and points of interest from the nine responses could be gathered and analyzed.
Analysis
Career Paths
Accidental Leaders
Garza Mitchell and Eddy (2008) use the term accidental leaders to describe those who
eventually become upper level administrators without intentionally seeking these positions.
Others usually tap them for advancement because of their expertise. This was the case with the
majority of the women interviewed. They were noticed because of work they had done and were
encouraged to apply for administrative positions in higher education or fellowships that trained
them for their eventual role.
The women expressed the sense that all of their varied work experiences provided them
with life-lessons that were later put to use in their leadership roles. In some cases the experiences
were closely related to the leadership position later occupied: the newspaper editor became a
director for a school of journalism, the woman who worked in developing state social policies for
child development became the chancellor for the state’s community college system. But in other
cases, the experiences were totally unrelated. For example, one woman put her college
experience of analyzing people’s behavior as a blackjack dealer to use. One Wall Street analyst
later became a director for Michigan State University’s global learning department. Lessons
learned while in foreign countries about how culture affects behavior were important to another
woman.
Women in Higher Education
24
Three of the women served in fellowships at the university level before reaching their
administrative positions. All agreed with the value of being able to see the workings of the
university from a bigger picture than they would have as a faculty member. "It was one of these
projects that gave me the opportunity to be in everybody's face because I had to gather
information from every unit of the university," said one California dean. "Normally I wouldn't
have the opportunity to do that."
The provost, an experimental psychologist who did not intentionally seek an
administrative position, said her faculty fellowship with a university vice president helped
expand her horizons as well. "When you're a faculty member, you know your department and
something about your college, but beyond that it gets very blurry," she said. For her, the
experience was revelatory because she found out "how incredibly challenging and interesting
administration was." As a faculty member, she said she had no idea what administrators did all
day.
Links to Classroom
The usual pathway to leadership in higher educational institutions begins in the classroom.
This was confirmed through the interviews: eight out of the nine women interviewed had a
background in teaching before going into administration. The women who are university
administrators had university-level teaching experience and the community college
administrators had varied teaching experience: one was a high school teacher and the other had a
mixture of teaching gifted high school students, community college students, and university
students. Only one of the women had a more administrative-type background, being employed as
the Executive Director of Head Start and working in educational policy before coming to
community college administration. Although her early experience was not strictly in-classroom,
Women in Higher Education
25
it was closely related to instruction and she later came to the classroom as a community college
faculty member. In addition, her doctoral degrees were in educational administration and
curriculum and instruction.
Move-Up or Move-On?
Slightly more than half of the administrators interviewed advanced to their highest-level
leadership positions within the same institution. This is not reflected in the literature on highereducation leaders generally (Boggs, as cited in Garza Mitchell & Eddy,2008), so it may be that it
held true for this particular group because women are more rooted to a location because of
familial situations. It is noteworthy that most of the women interviewed could conceivably attain
higher-level leadership positions, and at least three interviewees commented that it was or would
be difficult for her to obtain a higher position at her current institution.
The California provost, who moved from a similar position in Iowa to take her current
job 10 years ago, said she receives daily calls from headhunters wanting her to serve as a
president of a university at a different institution. "I don't want to be president," she said, adding
that she doesn't want to have to be involved in fundraising or other affairs that are outside the
research and teaching part of the institution. "I'm an academic at heart."
Obstacles Faced
Seven out of nine women interviewed reported being the first woman to hold their
position at their institution. This indicates a lack of female role models and could represent a
significant obstacle. The chancellor for the state community college system remarked that
attending the first-ever Leadership Skills Seminar at Asilomar, California was monumental in
establishing her “women’s network.” She had never met another woman who occupied a position
above the dean’s level in 1984 and, when introduced to several women leaders, made contacts
Women in Higher Education
26
that were useful later on in her career. One told her "I'm in your network now, call me if I can
ever support you."
Familial issues were also obstacles for some. Since women usually bear the responsibility
for caring for children or aging parents, caretaking can discourage or prevent women from
seeking higher-level administrative jobs. Five of the women interviewed cited some type of
family-related change as affecting their careers. In three cases, women cited child rearing as
either a reason for not pursuing higher-level jobs or as an obstacle in their current positions. In
two cases, moving because of a spouse’s job or schooling caused significant career changes. One
woman faced hardship in moving her aging mother from another state to care for her following
her father’s death.
One third of the women indicated that gender discrimination was a problem for them.
Just being heard, being recognized, and helping people understand how not to demean and
marginalize women was, for one woman, a significant obstacle. At least three women indicated
that they faced issues of self-doubt in seeking leadership positions and one overcame these
feelings through the use of positive affirmations. Having to be “just a little bit better” and
“working harder than a lot of men, that's for sure” were two ways of assuring themselves and
others that they could handle their jobs. The community college state chancellor said "One of the
secrets of my success [in reaching this position] is that I work harder than anyone else."
An obstacle that one woman faced was one of her first leadership tasks: as a director for a
school in a state university, she was charged with splitting the school into two separate entities.
Working to get buy-in from the faculty in both schools was challenging and she needed to call
upon all of her skills, both transactional and transformational, to help her through this difficult
first step. She said her previous fellowship with the university's president also prepared her for
Women in Higher Education
27
the challenge. "I got a sense of what the university looked like, how things got done, what
committees did what," she said." Most faculty members don't have a sense of that ... I knew who
to call."
Leadership Style
The majority of the women interviewed used the word “collaborative” in some way to
describe their leadership style. They expressed the desire to share the decision-making process
with others and to take advantage of a diverse pool of opinions. One said that much better
decisions are made when she hears what others think. Metaphors like teams, orchestras, and
blooming flowers were used in describing the various constituencies with which these leaders
work.
"It's all about relationships," said one California director. She views her organizational
chart as an egg with concentric circles of administrators, surrounded by staff and faculty, rather
than a hierarchical top-down diagram. The community college vice president said "leadership is
inculcating values in your group of employees... you have the solo artists, but allow others to
have their moments, too". She also noted that creativity is a good tool to use to motivate people.
Employing the theme of a rock concert for one faculty retreat, and equipped with butane lighters,
she and her staff serenaded the faculty with the Rolling Stones tune "You Can't Always Get
What You Want" stressing the playfulness that often makes work more fun.
Even though the communal aspect of leadership was expressed most often, there was
some situational talk as well, consistent with the literature on emerging leadership styles of
women in higher education (Madsen, 2008; Nidiffer, 2001). One leader, in describing a tough
situation she was tasked in leading, talked of using a combination of transformational and
translational styles. Another said “it can’t be all about power, but if you turn around and no one’s
Women in Higher Education
28
following, then you’re not a leader.” There is a sense of wanting people to share in leadership,
but being able to provide direction, guidance, and support when necessary.
Others resented the idea that just one style could describe their approach or that women
have a particular style. "I don't describe my leadership style and I hate that question," the provost
said. "Women are tired of being asked about their leadership style." She added that the way she
approaches problems depends on a variety of factors; there is no one style. The provost then
went on to say that whiles she tends to be analytical, she is "very participatory" and talks to a lot
of people before making decisions.
One dean said she tries not to micromanage, but she gives her employees a "toolbox" of
solutions to help guide them. "I always see myself as a catalyst and facilitator in that problem
solving innovation takes place in the collective wisdom of a group," she said. "I create a
blueprint of the future and then try to help people find a roadmap to get to that."
Employee Characteristics
Many of the interviewees talked of compiling good teams. It is no wonder, then, that the
most agreed-upon characteristics that were sought in employees involved good interpersonal
skills. Phrases like “consideration for others,” “ability to work with people,” “willingness to
share ideas,” and “ability to be flexible” were used to describe the ideal staff. Next in importance
came the ability to take the initiative. These leaders want staff that can take a task and work it out
with minimal interference. The ability to recognize and correct mistakes, set priorities, and feel
empowered are also involved in being self-starters and not having to be micro-managed.
Problem-solving skills and loyalty were also mentioned as desirable traits.
Some acknowledged that faculty members in a university setting do not always have to
like each other, but they do need to work together for the good of the institution. The provost
Women in Higher Education
29
said conflicts are "rarely resolved," so she sees her role as managing conflicts, not ending them:
"Bottom line, people don't have to be best friends but they do have to get along for the purpose
of advancing the university."
The director who oversaw the split of her school into two disciplines sees her employees
functioning in a healthier way since separating from the other faculty, whom she termed as
"hostile." Now, she said, "there's a sense of solidarity. Everybody does what it takes to get the
job done."
Challenges
The ongoing challenges cited by the administrators ranged from budgetary uncertainties
to juggling their own busy schedules and managing unmotivated employees. Four of the women
employed by California institutions wrestle with the budget crisis facing the state. "There is a lot
of ambiguity and a lot of unknowns," the provost said. "I try to get the best information
possible." The California dean said her experience makes her aware that the budgetary issues are
cyclical. Her goal is to keep her staff functioning as highly as possible in the meantime and not
letting the "low morale of doom and gloom of the budget" get them down. "We cycle in and we
cycle out," she said. "Now is not the time to man the bunkers."
The chancellor of California's community college system struggles with making
decisions about which positions to fill or not. She avoided laying off staff because, as she said, "I
was very smart about what I did,” i.e., keeping vacant positions unfilled until the state budget
was sorted out. She did note, however, that having to ask existing staff to take on greater
responsibilities can burn people out.
The director of the Open Course Ware consortium has a virtual office that presents a set
of different challenges. For her, bringing her staff together and working as a cohesive whole is
Women in Higher Education
30
the biggest obstacle. She works with very creative people who are used to being independent
operators, so having to rein them in and lead them in the same direction can be difficult. The
director for global online learning at Michigan State University faces similar problems in
managing very different employees - from professionals to administrative staff, some of whom
are in unions and others are not. She finds herself having to manage by union and non-union
rules, depending on the employee, and still respecting their equality.
The demands of the job and time commitment were also mentioned by some of the
women as a challenge. Academic freedom, noted the provost, isn't just about freedom of speech.
She said faculty are much freer to set their own schedules than administrators who are "totally
dictated by the calendar."
The California director also lamented that "the faculty life is much more free than the
administrative life. You don't have the freedom to play golf on a Thursday morning and spend
Friday afternoon doing your research," she said. "You're pretty much committed to the desk."
Decision-making Process
All the women interviewed said they consult their staff and others before making a
decision. Eight out of nine directly described their decision-making style as participatory. Each
of the responses was consistent with research showing women as more affiliative and democratic
leaders than their male counterparts (Adler, 1993; Rosnener, 1990; Helgeson, 1990). The
California chancellor said she asks people what options they see and what their recommendation
should be before deciding on an issue. Others observed that they try to collect opinions from as
many sources possible before reaching a conclusion. The California provost said she was about
to make a decision the day of the interview. After talking with people on all sides of the issue,
she was going to consult with an "official representative" before deciding which course to take.
Women in Higher Education
31
Five of the nine made a point of stating that they will make the final decision when
needed. The dean said she never leaves an issue wide open but "there's something magic in the
collaborative spirit." She added that sometimes her staff wants her to make the tough decisions,
however, and she has no problem doing that. The community college vice president said she
strives for collaborative decisions when possible but always has an exit door and back-up plans.
Sometimes reaching a consensus is difficult; the community college president noted that
you "can't always make decisions by committee." The chancellor observed that involving more
people in the process can be challenging and even disruptive to the process. When she is not able
to use a democratic process, she attempts to bring people together and let them make their best
case. Then, she decides based upon their input and her own understanding of the situation.
Another interviewee described how she tries to identify the background, context, and implication
of the issue; she then asks staff members to brainstorm about what they see as the model for
solutions before she makes the final decision.
Still, in a university setting, the power of persuasion is often the only power an
administrator has, particularly when dealing with tenured faculty (Nidiffer, 2001). One
administrator said she tries to "be persuasive and get buy in" to the degree possible.
Interviewees’ Cultural Perspectives
Responses varied to the question regarding women's role in higher education leadership
and the advantages or disadvantages they face because of their gender. The older women, in their
60s, spoke passionately about challenges they faced having to be the first woman in their roles.
"I've been the first woman everything in every position I've held," said the California provost. "It
won't be true for other women now who have these positions." She added that the mere presence
Women in Higher Education
32
of a woman in a powerful role tends to bring a "shock" to the institution and surrounding
community.
The California dean, who was also the first woman in her position and the first woman
associate vice president at her university, agreed that it will be easier for younger women to
assume these positions now: "It's a great place to be because you pave the way for other people
and you hope it becomes seamless for somebody else who never even thinks about it."
For the women leaders in their 40s, gender issues were less of a factor, perhaps because
they did not have to deal with the same barriers their elders had faced. The assistant provost at
Michigan State replied that she hated the question regarding woman's advantages and did not
think that ‘being a woman' was a type or characteristic.
The majority of the respondents, however (five of nine) identified a women's style as
being more collaborative, sensitive, and community building - and they saw that as beneficial to
the higher education setting. Their observations are in line with research showing that women
tend to be better skilled at communicating and building relationships (Brizendin, 2007; BaronCohen, 2004 )
"I am so amazed at how women bring a perspective to leadership that I find engaging,
sensitive, and fun," the California dean said. She is now one of three women deans on the dean's
council at San Diego State University and notices how the women "respond generally differently
to situations." She said they have a "sensitivity to wholeness" and are able to see the big picture
more often than men.
The Notre Dame director observed that women have been socialized to develop listening
and community-building skills, which are important as higher education becomes more active in
globalization and bridging international divides. She also said women leaders have an ethos that
Women in Higher Education
33
encourages community engagement and service learning. The director at San Diego State said
women bring a "different kind of management style that seems to fit with the kind of institutions
universities are - all about committees and making decisions together. Women do that better than
some men do."
Three women also noted the importance of women serving as role models and mentors
for female students and younger women faculty members. The chancellor stated that she was
very attached emotionally to the female student senate representatives with which she worked.
One of the leaders, however, noted that women can be jealous of other women’s success and
may try undercut each other, particularly early in their administrative career.
Disadvantages - Does a Glass Ceiling Exist?
Most of the women agree that higher education offers women more opportunities than in
the past. The Michigan director said she doesn't truly believe there is a glass ceiling any more,
although she knows progress for women in some companies and roles is limited. She said the
lack of women leaders is a cultural issue more than a discriminatory one. But the San Diego
director (who is older) said she stills sees evidence of sexism in universities. "There's still a glass
ceiling, no doubt about it," she said, "especially at the presidential level." Two of the respondents
said women still need to work harder than men to prove themselves.
The San Diego State provost said while "enormous progress" has been made, "we're not
to the level of equality yet." She said cultural perceptions still exist that force women into certain
categories and cause them to be judged more harshly than men. Two of the women specifically
pointed to the treatment of Senator Hillary Clinton in her presidential bid as evidence that sexism
still exists. "There is an underlying sexism that women are scrutinized in ways men aren't," the
provost said.
Women in Higher Education
34
The California dean also said she still observes women being demeaned and marginalized
in the workplace and finds it difficult for some women to be heard and recognized. "It happens to
this day - you're still in groups and you still can sense that. And I think someone younger than I
am may not know what to do with that," she said, adding that she's learned to call people out on
sexist behavior because she had to overcome similar treatment early in her career.
More than just cultural perceptions may be keeping women from achieving leadership
roles, however. The California community college president suggested that self-doubt is a
disadvantage women often create for themselves - particularly because of the lack of role models
in leadership positions.
The "Long and Tortuous Pipeline"
Researchers have found more women will tend to leave careers for family reasons than
men (Ruderman & Ohlott, 2004; Hewlett & Luce, 2005). Five of the nine women cited family
issues as one of the biggest obstacles keeping women away from leadership positions in higher
education. The California provost pointed to what she termed the "long and tortuous pipeline"
leading to an administrative job. "Women exceed men in graduate school degrees, but then what
happens to them?" she asked. For a university position, candidates must first earn tenure as a
faculty member, which takes time to fulfill the teaching and research requirements. Then, since
most universities do not look kindly on promoting leaders from within, they often are required to
move to a different institution before they can take a job as a provost or president.
Marriage and raising children tend to prevent women from following that path, more than
men. The California chancellor noted it was hard to take care of young children and pursue an
administrative position simultaneously. The Michigan dean said more women still choose to
balance work and family and to do that, most give up on achieving career goals. Some
Women in Higher Education
35
institutions even have regulations against hiring spouses, which can hinder a woman's ability to
make a career move if they are married to another educator. The director at Notre Dame thought
that institutions need to address issues that prevent women from entering leadership in higher
education such as the question of time commitments and what happens when a woman stops to
have children and where that puts the woman on a promotion ladder. Institutions should
proactively think about how they can enable women to take leadership roles. She believes that
when issues that prevent access to one group of people are addressed, oftentimes, benefits for
everyone can be found.
Conclusions
This study, while limited in scope, supports research that shows that women tend to bring
a more collaborative, relational, and participatory style to their leadership roles (Adler, 1993;
Crittenden, 2004; Rosener, 1990; Helgeson, 1990). Even the respondents who said no
generalities can be construed along gender lines indicated that they employ a participative and
affiliative style in the decision-making process. Some evidence also exists that women leaders in
higher education adapt their style according to the situation. This emergent style has been found
by researchers to be effective in higher education settings (Nidiffer, 2001; Madsen, 2008).
While the women leaders make every attempt to manage their employees in a relational
manner, they do not shy away from making tough decisions - in fact most indicated that they
expect to have the final say, but like to gather as much information as they can from all sides
before implementing their choice.
A collaborative style and good social judgment skills have been positively associated
with effective leadership (Northouse, 2007). Despite their potential to benefit post secondary
Women in Higher Education
36
institutions as leaders, however, women must undergo a road that is often long and unfavorably
skewed toward men.
The women interviewed for this study took various routes to achieve their positions, with
teaching being the most common professional background. Many were the first women to hold
their jobs at their institutions. Three in the university settings found value in taking a temporary
fellowship in administration and indicated that higher education should provide more
opportunities for women to train for these roles.
While the glass ceiling and cultural stereotypes were noted by several of the women
respondents as barriers, those factors tended to weigh heavier among the older women. No
evidence was found that community colleges offered friendlier avenues for women to enter
administrative jobs. In fact, the respondents tended to differ more based along generational lines
rather than university versus community college. The younger women did not cite sexism as a
barrier, which could indicate a more inclusive direction in cultural perceptions.
The interviews also showed that higher education institutions are actively recruiting
women for leadership positions. But, some women noted that a more subtle form of sexism
exists after the women assume these roles in the way they are judged and perceived. Instead of a
glass ceiling, however, the majority of the women surveyed (five out of nine) considered family
issues as one of the biggest obstacles preventing women from entering more administrative
positions. Women who want to raise children tend to give up their careers more often than men
do (Rodriguez, 2006; Ruderman & Ohlott, 2004) and academia has not provided an avenue for
women to merge back into an administrative track after taking time off to have a family.
Ritter and Yoder (2004) found that while there is less overt discrimination against women
leaders, subtle stereotyping still continues. In their study, it was fascinating to find that women
Women in Higher Education
37
will usually pick men to be leaders, even when the female has the dominant personality. While
institutions of higher education are more actively searching for women administrators, there is
still room for improvement. Because of cultural biases, when women become leaders they are
sometimes judged harshly because they have to act in ways that go against these biases. They
also tend to have a lot of self-doubt about their capabilities. So, there may still be a glass ceiling,
just not one put in place by others – women may put it there themselves.
Further research is needed to determine what institutional changes might result in
encouraging women to pursue administrative tracks in higher education. Also, studies could be
done on how the cultural perceptions and judgments of women as leaders impact their
effectiveness and abilities to carry out their roles. If women perceive their environment to be
unfriendly toward them, they are less likely to stay in the job once they get it.
The need for more women to lead post-secondary institutions and benefits they generally
lend to those offices has been established. How to encourage them to get to those positions and
stay is a many-sided dilemma that warrants more investigation.
Women in Higher Education
38
References
Adler, S., Laney, J., & Packer, M. (1993). Managing women: Feminism and power in
educational management, Gender and education series. Buckingham [England];
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Ahn, M. J., Adamson, J. S., & Dornbusch, D. (2004). From leaders to leadership: Managing
change. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 112-123.
Aldoory, L. (2007). The social construction of leadership and its implications for women in mass
communications. In P. Creedon & J. Cramer (Eds.), Women in mass communication (pp.
247-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
American Council on Education. (2008, February 7). New survey suggests more work needed to
broaden the pool of women and minorities in line for college presidencies.
Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Atwater, C., Waldman, S. (2001) Gender and discipline in the workplace: Wait until your father
gets home. Journal of Management, 27(5), 537-561.
Ball, S. J., & Reay, D. (2000). Essentials of female management: Women's ways of working in
the education market place? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 28(2),
145-159.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). The essential difference: Male and female brains and the truth about
autism. London: Penguin Books.
Bass, B., Avolio, A. (2006). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers.
Human Resource Management, 33, 549-560.
Women in Higher Education
39
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 5-34.
Brizendine, L. (2007). The female brain. New York: Morgan Road Books.
Brunner, C. C. (2000). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Women superintendents'
experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 76-116.
Catalyst (2005, October 19) Catalyst study exposes how gender-based stereotyping sabotages
women in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/pressrelease/119/catalyst-study-exposes-how-gender-based-stereotyping-sabotages-women-inthe-workplace
Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap. Higher Education
Report, 25(4), 235-237.
Cooper, J. E., & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2003(123), 27.
Crittenden, A. (2004). If you've raised kids, you can manage anything. New York: Gotham
Books.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school
principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 76-102.
Women in Higher Education
40
Eddy, P. L., & Cox, E. M. (2008). Gendered leadership: An organizational perspective. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2008(142), 69-79.
Eddy, P. L., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher
education: New visions of leadership or same old "hero" leader? Community College
Review, 34(1), 5-26.
Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender
matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 146-163.
Farkas, C. M., & Wetlaufer, S. (1996). The ways chief executive officers lead. Harvard Business
Review, 74(3), 110-122.
Garza Mitchell, R. L., & Eddy, P. L. (2008). In the middle: Career pathways of midlevel
community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
32(10), 793-811.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: How to get what you want in your
relationships. London: HarperCollins.
Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education. London: P.
Chapman Pub.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.
Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps. Harvard Business Review, 83(3),
43-54.
Hoyt, C. (2007). Women and leadership. In P. Northouse, Leadership theory and practice (4th
ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kruger, M. L. (1996). Gender issues in school headship: Quality versus power? European
Journal of Education, 31(4), 447-61.
Women in Higher Education
41
Madsen, S. R. (2008). On becoming a woman leader: Learning from the experiences of
university presidents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCarthy, C. M. (2003). Learning on the job: Moving from faculty to administration. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2003(123), 39.
McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Background factors common among
outstanding community college presidents. Community College Review, 27(3), 19-32.
Nidiffer, J., & Bashaw, C. T. (2001). Women administrators in higher education. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ritter, B. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for
dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 28(3), 187-193.
Rodriguez, S. J. (2006). Career paths of female presidents in the California Community Colleges.
Pepperdine University. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
https://lib.pepperdine.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1268594751&
Fmt=7&clientId=1686&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Rosener, J. B. (1990, November). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review. 68(6), 119-125.
Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (2004). What women leaders want. Leader to Leader, 2004(31),
41-47.
Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the
emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Women in Higher Education
42
Stout-Stewart, S. (2005). Female community college presidents: Effective leadership patterns
and behaviors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(4), 303.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
Morrow.
Taylor, S., Klein, L., Lewis, B., Gruenewald, T., Gurung, R., & Updegraff, J. (2000).
Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.
Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.
Tedrow, B., & Rhoads, R. A. (1999). A qualitative study of women's experiences in community
college leadership positions. Community College Review, 27(3), 1-18.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Postsecondary
Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred:
2002-03 (NCES 2005-154).
University of California, Office of the President. (2008) California Community Colleges.
Retrieved November 22, 2008 from
http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/cccmission.htm.
van Engen M. L.; van der Leeden R.; Willemsen T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership
styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 581598.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
Weisman, I., & Vaughan, G. (2007). The community college presidency: 2006. American
Association of Community Colleges Research Brief No. AACC-RB-07-1. Retrieved
February, 20, 2008.
Women in Higher Education
Wood, J. T. (2007). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA:
Thompson/Wadsworth Publishing.
43