Susan R. Madsen

Orin R. Woodbury Professor of Leadership and Ethics

 Utah Valley University

Moderator

Leadership Programs for Women in Higher Education

AHRD Webinar—October 16, 2012

Moderator•S

usan 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•T

he 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•B

ennis 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•P

ostsecondary 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•T

he 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•T

he 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 Faith-Based 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 LebermanMassey 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

FindingsIncreased confidence NetworkingSatisfaction with course objectives

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0Le

ader

ship

Tert

iary

sec

tor

Res

earc

hle

ader

ship

Div

erse

lear

ning

grou

p

Net

wor

ks

Per

sona

l gro

wth

Pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

tCourse Objectives

Lev

el o

f S

atis

fact

ion

AcademicGeneralTotal

22.45%

19.2%

16.91%

2010

2008

2006

NZ University Professors & Associate NZ University Professors & Associate ProfessorsProfessors

Conclusions

Link to Ely, Ibarra & Kolb (2011) – identity work and sense of agency

Selection processes Pre-course preparationPost-course debrief Professional development plans NZ WIL alumniNZ WIL conferences

“The NZ WIL programme is the best thing that the university has done for university leadership development ever”. Vice Chancellor

Panellist 2:Preparing Women for

Leadership in Faith-Based Higher Education

Karen A. LongmanAzusa 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 faith-based 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 male-dominated, 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”

•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

Research Focus: Council for Christian Colleges & Universities

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 InitiativesOver 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 OfferingsWomen’s Leadership Development Institutes

The WLDI/LDI/M-E LDI Year•A

four-day Institute (Washington State)•M

ini-library of leadership articles and books•D

esign of a year-long PDP•N

etworking with Resource Team•A

two or three-day shadowing experienceon 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 Presidents10 Provosts16 Vice Presidents22 Deans12 Directors

Six Multiple Regression Analyses Conducted:

• 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.

• 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.

Outcome Variables:

Predictor Variables:

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•E

ffective 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 BonebrightUniversity 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?

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

Research process

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

Guiding Principles

• 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

Lessons for HRD

• 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

Conclusion

Moderator ImplicationsIn 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.

Implications3. 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.

4. 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.