Home > Women in Academic Leadership: Analysis of root causes for under-representation
Women in Academic Leadership: Analysis
of root causes for under-representation
Francesca Dominici, PhD
Professor
Department Biostatistics
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD, USA
fdominic@jhsph.edu
Ilene Busch-Vishniac, PhD
Provost and Vice-President Academic
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, CA
provost@mcmaster.ca
Barbara Landau, PhD
Dick and Lydia Todd Professor and Chair
Department of Cognitive Science
Krieger School of Arts and Sciences
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
landau@jhu.edu
Jeffrey Jarosz, PhD
Research Assistant
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Whiting School of Engineering
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
jjarosz1@jhu.edu
Emma Stokes, PhD
Consultant
Department of Medicine
School of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
estokes2@jhu.edu
Ray Gillian, PhD
Vice Provost for Institutional Equity
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
rgillian@jhu.edu
Cathy Lebo, PhD
Director of Institutional Research
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
clebo1@jhu.edu
Lindsay Thompson PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Management
Carey Business School
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
lthompson@jhu.edu
Scott L Zeger PhD
Vice Provost for Research
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
szeger@jhsph.edu
Kristina Johnson PhD
Provost
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
kristina.johnson@jhu.edu
Linda P. Fried MD MPH
Dean of Mailman School of Public Health
Columbia University
New York, NY, USA
lpfried@columbia.edu
Abstract
Despite interventions by leaders in higher
education, women are still under-represented in academic leadership
positions. This dearth of women leaders is no longer a pipeline issue,
raising questions as to the root causes for the persistence
of this pattern. To advance talented women in leadership positions,
on July 14 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a
Request for Applications (RFA) to support research on causal factors
and interventions that promote the careers of women in biomedical science
and engineering. We have identified four themes as the root causes
for the under-representation of women in leadership positions from focus
group interviews of senior women faculty leaders at Johns Hopkins. These
causes are found in routine practices surrounding leadership selection
as well as in cultural assumptions about leadership potential and effectiveness.
Abstract word counts: 131
Manuscript word counts: 2075
1. Introduction
Despite good intentions and selected
interventions by leaders in higher education, women are still significantly
under-represented in academic leadership positions, absolutely and relative
to the eligible pool of tenured women (1). This finding has been
documented extensively in the literature, by NIH, and by many academic
institutions that have undertaken self-evaluations (Table 1) (2,,3).
This dearth of women leaders, both academic and administrative, is no
longer a pipeline issue (1, 2), raising questions as to
the root causes for the persistence of this pattern.
In an effort to advance talented women
in leadership positions, on July 14 2008, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) published a Request for Applications (RFA) to support research
on causal factors and interventions that promote and support the careers
of women in biomedical and behavioral science and engineering (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2008/od-14.htm). The publication of this RFA signals recognition
of the still sub-optimal situation of leadership by women in academia
and of the need for evidence that will guide continued efforts to address
this problem.
Yet, there is already sufficient evidence
of a widespread problem. The tangible manifestations
of gender-based obstacles, i.e., lower salary, appointment at lower
rank, slower rate of promotion, lower recognition through awards, and
not being retained, have been described extensively (3-8).
For women in academia, time tables for tenure decisions often coincide
with optimal childbearing years (9,10), requiring women
to individually resolve the conflicts between their biological and career
clocks. One possible manifestation of this conflict is that tenured
women in academic science are twice as likely as tenured men to be single
(5,10). Women academics who have children still
shoulder the majority of domestic responsibilities (6). Women
with children of pre-kindergarten age are less likely to be in a tenure
track job than their male counterparts (7,11).
While the above manifestations
of gender-based obstacles have been consistently observed at many universities,
businesses, and governmental organizations, there are no qualitative
evaluations that have formally probed the experiences of and reported
the composite opinions of senior women faculty leaders on the
root causes of under-representation of women in leadership positions.
In 2002, Provost Knapp and President
Brody empanelled a University Committee on the Status of Women (UCSOW)
at The Johns Hopkins University (2). The committee and university
leadership agreed that one major focus essential to establish gender
equity at the university was to successfully cultivate women leaders.
The committee decided to focus on how the University can move to achieve
a significant and sustainable change. Recognizing the root causes
of obstacles to leadership, that is, the gender-stereotypes which are
found in cultural assumptions about leadership potential and effectiveness,
is the first concrete step toward their elimination. These
root causes are the most distal components of a complex web
of causation that lead to the under-representation of women in leadership
positions. Therefore the UCSOW initiated a formal process of interviewing
senior women faculty to identify the root causes of obstacles
to leadership by women. In this paper we summarize the findings of focus
group interviews on four themes on the perceived
root causes underlying the manifestations
of gender-based obstacles. Identifying these subtle factors
and disseminating the information provide a basis for developing successful
interventions to expand leadership by women.
2. Methods
Twenty-seven senior women faculty with primary appointments in all the major divisions of the University participated in five focus groups, where the following questions were asked, in a semi-structured interview:
Of the 27 women, 8 have a rank of Department
Chair or Dean or Provost. Details on the methods are described in the
supplemental material.
3. Root causes for the under-representation of women in leadership position
Analysis of the focus group discussions
identified four themes reported or endorsed by greater than the majority
of participants (Table 2).
Paths to leadership are slower
or more often blocked for women:
Participants thought that women��s paths to leadership roles do not
include their being recruited by the conventional pattern of jobs and
roles. Administrative positions in academia have a well-defined
hierarchy, with progressive ranks that are fairly uniform nationwide,
from division director to department chair, dean and then university
leadership roles. It is generally expected that a career in academic
administration progresses by moving up the rungs on this ladder sequentially.
However, participants observed that women are less often recruited into
the starting administrative ranks, and therefore there are fewer women
available to climb these ranks sequentially. Rather, their paths to
leadership often involve directing academic programs, chairing committees,
or leading a research center or institute that they initiate and often
fund themselves.
Participants articulated that understanding
and addressing the causes of the under-representation of women in a
department director (or chair) position is important for a number of
reasons. First, departmental leadership is the only discipline-specific
leadership position that resides entirely with one��s scholarly peers;
thus, being offered a department leadership position enhances a candidate��s
credibility as a scholarly leader within their field. Second,
being a division director and/or departmental chair provides a basis
for developing skills and credentials in administration, and thus offers
an opportunity for women to develop such expertise and a track record
of effectiveness as a basis for competitiveness for for leadership roles
of greater seniority. Third, being a departmental chair confers
a dramatic increase in administrative and leadership visibility, both
internally to the institution and externally, that is important to career
progression and to visibility of women as effective leaders. It
also offers the opportunity for women to determine, through experience,
whether longer-term careers in academic administration are attractive,
and to provide relevant mentorship and role modeling to others.
Leadership positions, as currently
defined and implemented or enacted, are less attractive to women, and
possibly to an increasing number of men:
Leadership roles appear under-resourced and therefore do not allow or
promote more contemporary types of effective leadership. To compensate
for this under-resourcing, the apparent expectation of the position
is that leaders must be available and do an inordinately extensive range
of duties -- a veritable ��24/7�� professorial role. To perform
the jobs in this manner, it seems necessary to have spouses who can
supplant their professional and personal roles. The senior women
interviewed observed that, normatively, not only are most leaders male,
but many, if not most, male leaders have spouses who do not work outside
the home, thus bringing the additional resource of the role of a spouse
to contribute to the human capital in the leadership role. Participants
believe that the implicit expectation is that academic leaders are available
to work at any time (see, for example, (12,13). This expectation
makes leadership roles less attractive to many women, in part because
it is likely that they have personal obligations that cannot be relegated
to others. The participants saw these expectations as being anachronistic
in a society where both men and women have fulltime jobs, and two-career
families are the norm.
Focus group participants also suggested
that male, transactional and hierarchical models of leaderships are
the current standard. For many women, this normatively valued style
was not perceived to foster collegiality and collaboration nor consistent
with the altruistic academic mission. Further, it was deemed to
be antithetical to an environment they would choose to lead. It was
noted that the academic leadership literature recommends evolution to
more transformative leadership styles, which are conducive to multidisciplinary
problem-solving and creative innovation (14). The literature
also identifies that women bring a diversity of leadership styles shown
to be effective in academia (15,16).
Women already in leadership roles
are not as well recognized or appropriately rewarded within their institutions:
Although there are many women who provide leadership
within the University, focus group members report that they appear to
be less recognized and respected as leaders by their colleagues or by
others within the University because most of these women do not have
designated leadership positions such as department chairs or deans.
However, many are, at the same time, recognized nationally and internationally
as leaders in their fields of expertise. It was frequently reported
in the focus groups that these women leaders have developed centers
or programs that address unmet important needs, have often done so without
support from either departmental or university resources, with little
encouragement, and often with only tacit approval from their department
chairs and deans. In this challenging circumstance, nonetheless,
they have found external funding to support the activity and worked
internally to secure space and other resources, often over several decades.
These programs typically have benefited the university by producing
significant scholarship. However, their leadership roles and contributions
are often under-recognized or appreciated within the University. The
participants observed that experiences of these more senior women discourage
younger women faculty from taking similar initiative to develop new
programs and centers, or to inherit these leadership positions when
the founding leaders leave the University or retire,,
Women are more often excluded from
the informal network of intellectual
leadership: Deans and department chairs exercise
an instrumental role in cultivating the intellectual leadership capabilities
and productivity of faculty members. Newly-hired faculty, in particular,
rely on senior faculty for the transition to the collegial culture of
academia as well as for mentoring, networking, and critically reflective
dialogue towards developing a robust research agenda that complements
or enhances established research streams. This acculturation process
for new faculty builds on natural affinities of experiences, outlook,
and interests shared with senior faculty. With perhaps no gender
bias intended, male faculty members are observed to be more likely to
build substantive collegial relationships with other men, often leaving
newly hired women to fend for themselves because the majority of senior
faculty are men. The decreased access to informal networks appears to
contribute to lessened mentorship and guidance towards leadership positions,
and increased likelihood of marginalization.
4. Conclusions
Manifestations of gender-based obstacles
to leadership positions are well-documented and similar across academic
institutions (Table 1) (1). One of these manifestations
is the persistent dearth of women leaders in academia, observed in most
U.S. universities. This report seeks to add to our understanding of
why this might be, by defining four themes on the root causes
that underlie the persistent under-representation of women in leadership
roles.
The overall findings of our analysis,
as reported above, indicate thematic areas for further consideration:
factors in the slowed development of women��s careers; decreased access
to leadership and to mentorship to become a leader; lesser recognition
of leadership contributions, which undermines career trajectories as
well as stature and satisfaction in the role; and current norms regarding
valued leadership attributes and the nature, design and resourcing of
leadership roles. All of these issues appear to diminish the expectation
of access to leadership roles or likelihood of success in such roles,
and are perceived by senior women faculty to lead to much dampened interest
in leadership roles.
We hope that this information will provide
a basis for further evaluating these issues and for developing interventions
that target these root causes, in addition to correcting
the manifestations of gender bias. Such interventions will be
critically important components for increasing the proportion of leaders
who are women and in positioning them for optimal success in these roles.
It is also important to consider the
cultural changes needed to bring women��s contributions to the university
into full development. Recommendations are in place in universities
across the U.S. to accomplish this goal, including resolving the salary
gap between men and women, and establishing more family-friendly policies.
Their implementation has significant impact on the pipeline of women
in a university, as well as their success. For example, when MIT implemented
a policy change that gave women paid time off from teaching to allow
them to care for their children, the number of women faculty increased
by 50% (17). Further, visions for more diverse and inclusive
faculty, by gender, ethnicity and race, are increasingly being put forward,
with all faculty and leaders being held accountable. Assessing
whether the appointment of more women in high-level administrative positions
impacts the career and satisfaction of women in academia should be a
priority. Examination is necessary of both the informal practices
that are inherent in current leadership selection as well as some of
the implicit assumptions about the value that women might bring to leadership
roles. The cultural changes that establish inclusiveness and equality
of opportunity for success also need to be attended to, as a basis for
addressing the root causes of inequality of opportunity,
and to ensure successful and sustainable change in these areas.
This report further suggests that these cultural changes recommended
for faculty and students now need to be brought to the design and implementation
of leadership roles and the expectations of leaders.
Table 1: Reports on status of women
from peer institutions available on the web in chronological order for
the period 1999 to 2007
| Date | Institution | Title | Web link |
| March 1999 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | A Study on the Status of
Women Faculty in Science at MIT |
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html |
| August 1999 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | The Status of Women Faculty
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
|
http://www.admin.uiuc.edu/oc/csw/report/ |
| August 1999 | University of Virginia | Report on Gender Equity | http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/equity.html |
| August 1999 and October 2002 | University of Arizona | Millennium Project Phase One and Phase Two Reports | http://www.u.arizona.edu/~millen/index.html |
| October 1999 | University of Wisconsin | Initiative on the Status of Women | http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/status/home.htm |
| October 2000 | University of California at Los Angeles | Gender Equity Issues Affecting
Senate Faculty at UCLA
Report of the Gender Equity Committee |
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/NewsEvents/FASNews/GenderEquity/UCLAOct2000report.pdf |
| January 2001 | Marquette University | President��s Task Force on Gender Equity | http://www.marquette.edu/genderequity/index.html |
| September 2001 and May 2007 | University of Michigan | Gender Salary Study: Summary of Initial Findings and Update | http://www.provost.umich.edu/reports/U-M_Gender_Salary_Study.pdf http://www.provost.umich.edu/reports/Faculty%20Salary%20Study%20Report.pdf |
| November 2001 | Columbia University | Advancement of Women Through the Academic Ranks of The Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Where are the Leaks in the Pipeline? | http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/annual_reports/01-02/Pipeline2a_as_dist.doc.pdf |
| December 2001 | California Institute of Technology | Committee on the Status of Women Faculty at Caltech Final Report | http://diversity.caltech.edu/documents/CSFWFINALREPORT1.pdf |
| December 2001 | University of Pennsylvania | The Gender Equity Report | http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n14/GenderEquity.html. |
| January 2002 | Northwestern University | Annual Report for 2000/2001 Committee on Women in the Academic Community | http://www.northwestern.edu/provost/committees/cowac/2001report.pdf |
| February 2002 | University of California
Berkley |
Do Babies Matter: The effect of family formation on the life long careers of academic men and women | http://www.ucop.edu/pressummit/babies.pdf |
| March 2002 | North Carolina State University | Consulting Report on Gender Equity and Work/Family Issues | http://www.ncsu.edu/awf/Drago_report.pdf |
| March 2002 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Reports of the Committees on the Status of Women Faculty | http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports |
| September 2002 | Emory University | An Analysis of Faculty Gender Issues | http://www.pcsw.emory.edu/pdf/Gender Equity Report.pdf |
| October 2002 | New York University | Report to Dean Foley and P&P on Equity Analysis | http://www.nyu.edu/fas/NewsEvents/FASNews/GenderEquity/GenderEquity.pdf |
| March 2003 | Case Western Reserve University | Resource Equity at Case Western Reserve University: Results of Faculty focus Groups | http://www.case.edu/menu/president/resource.htm |
| May 2003 | Princeton University | Report of the Task Force
on the Status of Women Faculty
in the Natural Sciences and Engineering at Princeton |
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/reports/sciencetf/sciencetf-9-19-03.pdf |
| June 2003 | Duke University | Women Initiative Report | http://www.duke.edu/womens_initiative/report_report.htm |
| March 2004 | University of Michigan | Gender in Science and Engineering
Report of the Subcommittee on Faculty Evaluation and Development |
http://www.umich.edu/~advproj/GSE-_Faculty_ Evaluation_ Development.pdf |
| May 2004 | Stanford University | Report of the Provost��s Advisory Committee on the Status of Women Faculty | http://www.stanford.edu/dept/provost/womenfacultyreport/PACSWF.pdf |
| Fall 2004 | University of California at San Francisco | Slow Steps to Change 1971-2004 A History of the UCSF Chancellor��s Advisory Committee on the Status of Women and Strategies for Increased Impact | http://statusofwomen.ucsf.edu/pdf/CACSWhistoryNov2004.pdf |
| February 2005 | University of California at Berkeley | Faculty Family Friendly
Edge
An Initiative for Tenure-Track Faculty at the University of California |
http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ucfamilyedge.pdf |
| May 2005 | Harvard University | Report of the Task Force on Women Faculty | http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/05/16-wtaskforce_release.html |
| March/April 2006 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Diversification of a University Faculty: Observations on Hiring Women Faculty in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT | http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/hopkins.html |
| May 2006 | The University of Iowa | Gender Equity Task Force | http://www.provost.uiowa.edu/work/getf.htm |
| August 2006 | University of Virginia | Women Leadership Council Report on Activities | http://www.virginia.edu/uvacommittees/presidentialcommittees/wlc/reports.html |
| November 2006 | Johns Hopkins University | Vision 2020 | http://www.jhu.edu/ucsow |
| June 2007 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | 2006-2007 Report of the Provost��s Gender Equity Planning Team | http://www.provost.uiuc.edu/committees/reports/GenderEquity.pdf |
Note: this table includes a sample of
the reports on the status of women from US academic institutions released
since 1999 and that are available on the web. Most of the academic institutions
listed in this table, including Johns Hopkins University, have produced
multiple reports on the status of women prior the year 1999 which
are not included in this table. Some of these earlier reports can also
be downloaded from the above web sites.
Table 2: Themes identified by the analysis of the focus group discussions
| Theme 1 | Paths to leadership are slow or blocked for women |
| Theme 2 | Leadership positions, as currently defined, are not attractive to women, and possibly to an increasing number of men |
| Theme 3 | Women who are providing leadership are not recognized, or are undervalued, under-resourced, and often marginalized |
| Theme 4 | Women are excluded from the informal network of intellectual leadership |
Reference List
1. J. Handelsman et al., Science 309, 1190 (2005).
2. Johns Hopkins University.
Vision 2020. Johns Hopkins University. 2007.
http://www.jhu.edu/ucsow/ (accessed 26 August 2008).
3. A. H. Eagly, L. L. Carli, The Leadership Quarterly 14, 807 (2003).
4. L. P. Fried et al., JAMA 276, 898 (1996).
5. E. a. T. D. Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, "Land of plenty: Diversity as America's competitive edge in science, engineering, and technology" (Washington, D.C., 2007).
6. Anonymous. The Mommy Track. The Atlantic, March 2007.
7. D. K. Ginther, S. Kahn, "Does science promote women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001" (2006). http://www.nber.org/~sewp/Ginther_Kahn_revised8-06.pdf (accessed 26 August 2008).
8. S. Dingfelder. Women who
succeed in male-dominated careers are often seen negatively, study suggests.
American Psychological Association. 2004.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/women.html (Accessed 26 August 2008).
9. R. Drago et al., Academe 91, 22 (2005).
10. M. A. Mason. Do babies matter: Closing the baby gap. American Physics Society (Conference, April 2007) http://www.aps.org/programs/women/workshops/upload/Mason_Mary_Ann_APS_Gender_Equity_Conference.pdf (Accessed 26 August 2008).
11. M. E. Heilman, A. S. Wallen, D. Fuchs, M. M. Tamkins, J Appl. Psychol. 89, 416 (2004).
12. J. Williams, Unbending gender: why family and work conflict and what to do about it (Oxford University Press, New York, 2000).
13. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, "Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering" (The National Academies, Washington, DC, 2007). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741 (Accessed 26 August 2008)
14. Anonymous, The Economist (2003). http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eniederle/Economist2003.htm (Accessed 26 August 2008).
15. A. H. Eagly, M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. L. van Engen, Psychol. Bull. 129, 569 (2003).
16. A. H. Eagly, M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, Journal of Social Issues 57, 781 (2001).
17. Members of the First and
Second Committees onWomen Faculty in the School of Science, N. Hopkins,
M. C. Potter. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT
. Massachusetts Institute of Technology . 1999.
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html (accessed 26 August 2008).
All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download
Copyright © 2011