AHRD Webinar—October 16, 2012
LEADERSHIP
PROGRAMS FOR
WOMEN IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Susan R. Madsen
Orin R. Woodbury Professor of
Leadership and Ethics
Utah Valley University
Moderator
Moderator
• Susan R. Madsen, Ed.D is the Orin R. Woodbury Professor of
Leadership and Ethics in the Woodbury School of Business at Utah
Valley University. She is also an independent leadership and change
consultant.
• She has been heavily involved this past decade in researching the
lifetime development of prominent women leaders in the U.S.,
Middle East, and China and has published 2 books and many articles
on her results.
• Susan has published nearly 60 articles in scholarly journals and
presents often in local, national, and international settings. She has
received a host of awards for her teaching, research, and service
and has found her “calling” in doing work that can change lives. She
was the guest editor of two ADHR Issues earlier this year on women
and leadership in higher education.
Description
• The purpose of this webinar is to discuss findings
presented in a recently published issue of Advances,
which examined this topic.
• Issue authors will discuss the current state of leadership
development programs for women in higher
educational contexts and also offer suggestions for
future leadership development programs, strategies,
and research.
• It will provide listeners with frameworks to be used for
developing, evaluating, and researching leadership
programs for women in higher education.
Introduction
• Bennis and Goldsmith (2003) argued that “immediate
demands for leadership confront us daily. Our cities are
in crisis, our communities face turmoil, our political,
religious, and business leaders are repeatedly charged
with ethical violations, and the world’s multiple
demands require our immediate attention” (pp. xi-xii).
• “Leadership development is arguably one of the most
important activities undertaken by HRD professionals”
(Callahan, Whitener, and Sandlin, 2007, p. 146).
HE Context
“Extraordinary challenges face higher
education nationally, and leaders with
exceptional capabilities are needed to help
institutions meet these challenges” (Brent
D. Rubin, Pursuing Excellence in Higher
Education: Eight Fundamental Challenges,
2004).
HE Context
• Postsecondary institutions face the daunting
task of finding qualified, effective leaders not
only to take the helms of their colleges and
universities, but also to move into other
important leadership positions.
• One reason for the lack of well-qualified
female leaders is “leaks in the pipeline” that
result in having fewer women prepared to
take on senior leadership roles.
HE Context
• The White House Project (2009) report highlighted
the following four key findings:
• Nationally, women are 57 percent of all college students
but only 26 percent of full professors, 23 percent of
university presidents, and 14 percent of presidencies at the
doctoral degree-granting institutions.
• The number of female presidents has not changed in the
last 10 years.
• Women account for less than 30 percent of the trustees
on college and university boards.
• Female faculty have not made any progress in closing the
salary gap with their male counterparts. In 1972, they
made 83 percent of what male faculty made: today they
make 82 percent of what male faculty make. (p. 10)
ADHR Special Issue
• The purpose of this Issue has been to
• examine the topic of women and leadership development in higher
educational contexts
• link theory, research, and practice together to assess the current
state of leadership development programs for women in higher
education, and
• offer suggestions for future leadership development programs,
strategies, and research.
• This Issue is also distinctive in that it is written
by many scholar-practitioners, not solely
researchers.
Panelists
1. Leadership Development for Senior Women in
New Zealand Universities: Participant
Perspectives and Experiences (Sarah
Leberman)
2. Preparing Women for Leadership in FaithBased Higher Education (Karen Longman)
3. Developing Women Leaders at the University
of Minnesota (Denise Bonebright)
Panellist 1:
Leadership Development for Senior
Women in New Zealand Universities:
Participant Perspectives and
Experiences
Sarah Leberman
Massey University
Sarah Leberman, PhD
•
•
•
Sarah is the Professor of Leadership and Acting Head of School,
School of Management, Massey University in New Zealand.
Her current research interests are in the areas of women and
leadership in sport and academia, as well as the transfer of
learning, and in particular the processes and factors which
facilitate this. Her most recent research publications have
focused on women in academia, mothers in sport leadership
roles, and as elite athletes.
Sarah was an inaugural member of the New Zealand Women in
Leadership programme and is currently the Deputy Chair. She is
a member of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, Women in
Sport Group and the Manager of the Women’s Junior Black
Sticks and Black Sticks teams. She was a Fulbright Senior Scholar
in 2008, which she tenured at the Tucker Centre for Research on
Girls and Women in Sport, at the University of Minnesota.
Focus
• How can women be prepared for
leadership roles in New Zealand
universities?
• Demonstrate value of women only
leadership development programs.
Methods
• Develop NZWiL
• Longitudinal research
• Evaluation post course (last day;
one year; three years)
• Independent evaluation
• Tracking people who have
moved on
Increased confidence
Networking
Findings
Satisfaction with course objectives
5.0
4.5
3.5
3.0
Academic
General
Total
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Course Objectives
Professional
development
Personal growth
Networks
Diverse learning
group
Research
leadership
Tertiary sector
0.0
Leadership
Level of Satisfaction
4.0
NZ University Professors & Associate
Professors
2010
22.45%
19.2%
16.91%
2008
2006
Conclusions
“The NZ WIL programme is the best thing that the
university has done for university leadership
development ever”. Vice Chancellor
Selection processes
Pre-course preparation
Post-course debrief
Professional development plans
NZ WIL alumni
NZ WIL conferences
Link to Ely, Ibarra & Kolb (2011) – identity work and
sense of agency
Panellist 2:
Preparing Women for Leadership in
Faith-Based Higher Education
Karen A. Longman
Azusa Pacific University
Karen A. Longman, PhD
•
•
•
Karen A. Longman serves as program director and professor
of doctoral higher education at Azusa Pacific University.
She earned her doctorate from the Center for the Study of
Higher Education at the University of Michigan. Longman and
her colleague, Laurie A. Schreiner, co-edit the journal Christian
Higher Education: An International Journal of Research, Theory,
and Practice.
Longman’s previous professional roles have included six
years as vice president for academic affairs and dean of the
faculty at Greenville College (IL) and 19 years in Washington,
D.C., on the senior leadership team of the Council for
Christian Colleges & Universities. Her research and
publications focus on gender issues, leadership, and faithbased higher education.
Organizational Cultures Can be “Gendered”
“In addition to sex differences related to
leadership, organizational environments are
themselves gendered….
Organizations, particularly those that are maledominated, are not gender neutral – they reflect
environments where women ’s presence,
performance, and success are scrutinized,
measured, and evaluated differently from men ’s.
(Hopkins et al., 2008)
Distinctive “Ceilings” in Faith-Based (Evangelical)
Higher Education?
“This vision of a hierarchically ordered universe has been drawn
on with great success historically and continues as the orienting
gender story among the majority of conservative Protestants
today.”
(Gallagher, 2004)
Possibility of a “stained glass ceiling ”
Research Focus:
Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
• 118 member institutions represent c. 30 Christian denominations
(some non-denominational)
• These campuses collectively serve 324,000 students
• And have 1.6 million alumni
• Annual operating budgets of $4.5 billion
CCCU Profile, 2011-2012
Patterns of Gender Inequity?
Survey Data - 1,900 CCCU Faculty
(Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012)
When asked to respond to the statement
“Female faculty at my college/university are treated equally to male
faculty” (2009 data)
Strongly Agree:
47% of the male respondents
24% of the female respondents
Survey Data - 1,900 CCCU Faculty
(Joeckel & Chesnes, 2009)
When asked to respond to the statement
“Female students at my college/ university are treated equally
to male students.”
Strongly Agree:
63% of the male respondents
37% of the female respondents
Gender Balance in the CCCU (2010)
Gender Balance in CCCU Senior Leadership
CCCU Leadership Initiatives
Over 350 Participants To Date
• Launched in 1996
• Executive Leadership Development
Institute
Presidents’ Institutes
CAOs’ Institutes
Leadership Development Institutes
(200+ women; 60 people of color)
1998 – 2012 – Eight Offerings
Women’s Leadership Development Institutes
The WLDI/LDI/M-E LDI Year
• A four-day Institute (Washington State)
• Mini-library of leadership articles and books
• Design of a year-long PDP
• Networking with Resource Team
• A two or three-day shadowing experience
on another campus
• Optional follow-up “WALI”
Aligning Leadership Development with Calling and
Strengths Identification/Development
Five Clues to Talent
•
•
•
•
•
Yearning
Rapid Learning
Flow
Glimpses of Excellence
Satisfaction
2005 & 2010 Surveys -- 61% had advanced professionally
(82% response rate)
2 Presidents
10 Provosts
16 Vice Presidents
22 Deans
12 Directors
Six Multiple Regression Analyses Conducted:
Outcome Variables:
• Workshop sessions met leadership training expectations.
• Increased self-confidence as an academic leader.
• Changed participants’ perceptions of selves as viewed by male
leaders.
• Participants thinking about their own leadership potential.
• Participants felt encouraged to consider higher leadership roles.
• Encouraged participants to stay in Christian higher education.
Predictor Variables:
•
•
•
•
•
Value of workshop sessions.
Helpfulness of the books, handouts, and other written resources.
Institute being limited to only women.
Shadowing visit influenced consideration of future leadership positions.
Informal conversations with other participants.
Open-Ended:
The Most Important Dimension?
• Getting to know other women through the WLDI.
• The mentoring/shadowing experience helped reframe
sense of leadership potential.
• The opportunity to form ongoing personal relationships.
• The opportunity to interact with others who shared
similar commitments.
• To focus, reflect, and clarify their personal sense of calling
to the academic profession and/or to leadership.
• Finding encouragement to press on in spite of resistance.
• Acknowledging the value of women in leadership in
Christian higher education.
Open-Ended:
The Most Important Dimension?
• “Concrete equipping – in both materials and in
relationships – to understand what’s needed to
succeed as a leader.”
• “…becoming aware of a women’s leadership
network within the CCCU institutions, and having
the opportunity to learn from others in that
network.”
(Gibson’s “constellation of developmental relationships”)
Implications for HRD Professionals
• Effective Leadership Development Programming to
Meet Particular Needs & Audiences
• Three age-related stages:
• Idealistic achievement phase
• Pragmatic endurance phase
• Reinventive contribution phase
O’Neil & Bilimoria (2005)
Panellist 3:
Developing Women Leaders at the
University of Minnesota
Denise Bonebright
University of Minnesota
Dee Anne (Denise) Bonebright
•
•
•
Dee Anne (Denise) Bonebright is the Director of
Systemwide Training for the Minnesota State Colleges and
University system. Prior to this position, she was an
organizational effectiveness consultant and training
manager for the University of Minnesota.
She has been involved in leadership development for both
organizations and spent almost 15 years as director of the
University’s women’s leadership institute. This past year
she helped design and implement an executive leader
development program sponsored jointly by both
organizations.
Bonebright is currently completing her dissertation
research toward a Ph.D. in Human Resource Development.
Women’s Center at the University of
Minnesota
• What has been its historical role in developing women
leaders on campus?
• What role can it play in the future?
• How can HRD and women’s centers work together to
achieve common goals?
Research process
Goal: Identify the guiding principles that have informed
the work and can apply to future efforts
• Primary sources
• Historical documents
• Conversations with key stakeholders
• Personal experience of the authors
• Literature review
Guiding Principles
1.
Overcoming bias against women in leadership
2. Honoring women’s leadership styles
3. Building collaborations and broad networks
4. Leading for equity and systems change
Lessons for HRD
• Ongoing need to monitor trends and improve the
environment for women in higher education
• Importance of broad collaboration across stakeholder
groups
• Future focus needs to go beyond developing individual
leaders to focus on system-level change
Conclusion
• Are campus women’s centers still needed?
Yes, but it’s time to broaden the focus of the work
• HRD can be a valuable partner by providing tools for
understanding systems and enacting change
Moderator Implications
In addition to identifying an array of helpful literature on
topics related to dimensions of leadership development
programming, a careful review of the Issue articles reveals six
particularly important findings and implications:
1. Each of the articles in this Special Issue documents the
ongoing challenges women face both in terms of biases
against women as leaders and internal biases that can
prevent women from considering or seeking senior-level
leadership.
2. Given the wide array of needs and leadership development
program possibilities, senior campus leaders and HRD
professionals should work together to specify the areas of
greatest need and related programmatic priorities.
Implications
3.
4.
Although the importance of leadership development
programming for both men and women is clear, several
articles emphasize the beneficial impact of women-only
opportunities (e.g., the women-only “safe spaces” found
to be beneficial in programming offered through the
University of Minnesota’s Women’s Center (Bonebright
et al., 2012) and the benefit of “getting to know other
women through the WLDI” being identified as “the single
most beneficial impact of programming within faith-based
institutions.
The benefits of professional networks both within and
beyond one’s institution were emphasized.
Implications
5. Higher education is currently facing a daunting array
of challenges (Hacker & Dreifus, 2010; Kezar, 2009;
Zemsky, 2009), with the complexity of issues facing
educational leaders increasing exponentially. If
leadership development programming is to be
relevant to the needs of today’s emerging leaders,
both the curriculum and the pedagogical approaches
used to equip future leaders require regular scrutiny
and a willingness to embrace modifications.
6. Ongoing research related to effective leadership and
leadership development programming is needed, as is
careful evaluation of existing programs.