Search News


Browse Archives

News

Gender and Leadership

May 22, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In some ways, men who are community college administrators are becoming more like women. And in some ways, women in these positions are becoming more like men -- in leadership styles and certain demographic trends.

Either way, research presented Monday in Austin, Tex., at the annual meeting of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development suggested that the differences between male and female community college administrators are narrowing -- in many cases significantly.

The findings are based on a national survey conducted of community college administrators this year, compared with findings from a similar study in 1985. The study -- on senior administrators, but not including presidents -- was conducted and presented by Steven Jones, president of Amarillo College, and Brad Johnson, vice president and dean of development at Amarillo.

People responding to the survey were asked a series of questions about their leadership styles generally and in certain scenarios. In 1985, women were more consistent than men in style, and by 2007, that gap had disappeared as men became more consistent than they had been previously.

In 1985, women under the age of 45 were significantly less "participative" in management style than were those over 45. Now men and women -- of all ages -- tend to have a "selling" style of leadership, in which they actively seek to lead their teams in certain directions, as opposed to a "participative" style.

Comparing the two studies, women today are much more likely to have a spouse and men are more likely to have a mentor. In 1985, 42 percent of female administrators and 8 percent of male administrators were not married. In 2007, the figure was 23 percent for women and 10 percent for men. In a discussion among those attending the session where the research was presented, several women said that they thought men of earlier generations were not comfortable or willing to support an ambitious spouse (or have one who earned more), and that this is now changing.

When it comes to mentors, a gap is also closing -- for men. In 1985, 85 percent of women had a mentor and 28 percent of men did. In 2007, the percentage for women was largely unchanged, at 84 percent. But for men, the figure jumped to 69 percent.

That men are seeking mentors may bode well for search committees trying to put together pools for presidential searches. For male and female administrators, those with mentors are more likely to aspire to the presidency than those without. So are administrators with doctorates, a group that is increasingly dominated by women, the study found.

Other characteristics appear to make one less likely to aspire to a presidency. Those reporting directly to presidents are less likely than other administrators to want to be presidents, and those working as administrators with longer tenures are less likely to aspire to the top job.

Quipped Jones: "The more you know, the more you don't want to know."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Gender and Leadership

  • Just Having My Regular Weekly Nervous Breakdown
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 22, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • Scott:

    I have only one comment about your article. The difference between (1) having a job at the “top” of someone’s definition of a management hierarchy – as opposed to a hierarchy of importance to the organization – and (2) “leadership” is like the difference between night and day.

    Despite the fact that various business schools have courses on “leadership,” and there are even people called “Professor of Leadership”, and everybody and hir sister is writing a book about it these days (just check out the business section of your local Borders’ Book Store), you may take my word for the fact that this is merely the business schools’ (always followed a year or two later by the education schools’) “flavor of the month.”

    So please don’t be so careless in your use of “leadership” when what you really mean is “the upper region of the page (or PowerPoint slide) on which some silly person scribbled who reports to whom.”

    For better of for worse, you’ll learn more about “leadership” from reading Lee Iacocca’s “Where Have All The Leaders Gone?” than you will by pursuing all of that nonsense “taught” in business and ed schools.

    See http://www.depression2.tv/d2/node/261

    [Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

  • Why leaders can't lead
  • Posted by KED , College President on May 22, 2007 at 2:20pm EDT
  • F Manley's "one comment" turned into several but he makes some good points. Iacocca's answer surely lies in society's move toward servant leadership and boottom-up or participatory management. Only history will tell us whether this participatory leadership movement has been a good thing for society in general. (President Bush doesn't seem to think so, for one very visible example.)

    In that college leaders on average seem to be providing more direction, according to the study at the heart of the essay, maybe the pendulum is swinging back toward support for stronger leaders in higher education who provide more direction while looking for broader input on how to get there.

    I'm sure Iacocca's book is good reading and so I'm going to take F Manley's advice, while I recommend Bennis's "Why Leaders Can't Lead" and simply "Leaders."

  • Leader
  • Posted by Walt Lessun on May 22, 2007 at 4:20pm EDT
  • Operational definition: One bringing into the Community College 10 times more new money each year than s/he is paid.*

    *This definition is subject to continuous improvement.