Abstract
The intentional preparation of future leaders for higher education remains a critical need today in institutions across the globe. Many colleges and universities are now seeking to design programs that develop the leadership skills of faculty, staff, and administrators, and because of the shortage of women in leadership positions, special efforts need to focus on the development of women. Yet guidance and assistance are required to do so effectively and efficiently.
The purpose of this final article is to highlight a few of the particularly important findings across all articles in this Special Issue, offer some overall implications for leadership development and the HRD field, and provide tables of sample leadership programs for women in higher education at the national, state, and institutional levels.
This article provides researchers and practitioners in various fields of study with implications toward more effectively developing, evaluating, researching, and implementing leadership programs for women in higher education.
The purpose of this Special Issue of Advances has been to (a) examine the topic of women and leadership development in higher educational contexts, (b) link theory, research, and practice together to assess the current state of leadership development programs for women in higher education, and (c) offer suggestions for future leadership development programs, strategies, and research. A primary goal has also been to provide researchers and practitioners in various fields of study with frameworks for developing, evaluating, and researching leadership programs for women in higher education, directly contributing toward HRD, leadership development, and higher education research and practice. To accomplish this goal, articles were written by authors who are currently directing and/or advising programs, centers, and/or initiatives focused on identifying and developing women for future higher education leadership. This collection of tales from the field can assist scholars and practitioners in continuing their work more effectively.
The purpose of this brief final article is to highlight a few of the particularly important findings, offer some overall implications for HRD, and provide three tables of sample leadership programs for women in higher education at the national, state, and institutional levels. This information, as well as that outlined in each article, can help guide the work of HRD professionals in the thoughtful design of programs focused on preparing future generations of women leaders. 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.
First, despite perceptions raised in the popular literature such as Rosin’s (2010) article in Atlantic Monthly titled “The End of Men” and comments from current college-age women who perceive that gender barriers are no longer a concern, each of the articles in this Special Issue documents the ongoing challenges women face in terms of both biases against women as leaders and internal biases that can prevent women from considering or seeking senior-level leadership. White’s (2012) summary of 2006 findings from a survey of HERS Institute alumni, for example, reported that the environment in which higher education leaders were functioning was more “demanding” and even more “hostile” than for earlier leaders and that “the impact for women was disproportionately negative” (p. 11). Thus, it is clear that leadership development programming is now more important than ever before.
Second, 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. The President and Provost’s Leadership Institute at The Ohio State University, for example, as described by Hornsby, Morrow-Jones, and Ballam (2012), was designed as a “quasi-succession planning program” for academic leadership that targets tenure-track and clinical-track faculty (p. 7). Similarly, the New Zealand Women in Leadership program (Harris & Leberman, 2012) was designed to target women in upper-middle staff and faculty positions with the goal of placing more women in senior leadership roles. The HERS Board clarified the mission and priorities curriculum of the HERS Institutes in setting strategic directions for 2006-2010 through four recommendations:
Focus on external relationships and connections between campuses and their communities
Increase instruction related to financial analysis and budgeting strategies
Encourage “risk-taking” as part of career and professional development
Provide explicit gender analysis of academic politics and challenges women leaders face in this culture (White, 2012, p. 11).
Various articles in this Special Issue cite an array of programmatic objectives, ranging from identifying and preparing students for future leadership roles (e.g., the “WILD” pilot program for undergraduate students at the University of Minnesota, described by Bonebright, Lonnquist, & Cottledge, 2012), to work with early and midcareer staff and faculty (e.g., residential programs for academic women and “general staff” in New Zealand’s universities, as described by Harris & Leberman, 2012), to alumni networks (e.g., “Women’s Advanced Leadership Institutes” offered to alumnae of entry-level leadership development programs, as described by Longman & Lafreniere, 2012). The strongest programs appear to be carefully targeted with support from the highest levels of leadership for specific program objectives. Other effective practices include building strong collaboration with multiple institutional units, including human resources, as well as focusing on strengthening leadership at both the individual and institutional level.
Third, while 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” (Longman & Lafreniere, 2012, p. 45). In fact, the motivators and discouragers of individuals considering future leadership roles appear to differ between men and women. White’s (2012) discussion of research used to redesign the HERS curriculum identified former Wellesley Institute participants as being “reluctant” to advance to senior positions (p. 9); similarly, research has documented that women in the United States typically are not oriented toward self-promotion (Budworth & Mann, 2010). The curriculum for leadership development programming may therefore need to be tailored to address such differences, including sessions oriented toward self-confidence, career planning, life balance issues, academic politics, and challenges faced by women leaders.
Fourth, the benefits of professional networks both within and beyond one’s institution were emphasized in several articles. For example, the Office of Women in Higher Education (OWHE), operating under the auspices of the American Council on Education for the past 38 years, has been committed to the IDEALS (i.e., identifying, developing, encouraging, advancing, linking, and supporting) of assisting women to succeed in higher education leadership (Baltodano, Carlson, Jackson, & Mitchell, 2012). Evaluations of programming by OWHE’s state-based volunteer groups document the importance of female role models, mentoring, and networking with other women. By the same token, the New Zealand Women in Leadership Program participants identified networking among participants and presenters and the “instrumental” value of both national and institutional contacts as being key elements of the program’s success (Harris & Leberman, 2012). This emphasis is validated in the literature by Vinnicombe and Singh (2003), whose research concluded that women-only leadership training was essential for participants to develop both a stronger sense of self and the beneficial relationships that are important to leadership effectiveness. In addition, Hopkins, O’Neil, Passarelli, and Bilimoria (2008) have emphasized the value of establishing professional networks with other women.
Fifth, 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. For example, when HERS Institute participants expressed dissatisfaction with being considered “relatively passive recipients” of material presented by senior leaders, steps were taken to facilitate more shared learning between the expertise of both leaders and participants (White, 2012). Likewise, articles describing both the HERS program and the University of Minnesota Women’s Center (Bonebright et al., 2012) identified ways in which the content of various programs had been modified to address current challenges facing higher education such as the use of technology, diversity, and issues related to affordability, financing, fundraising, and budgeting.
Sixth, ongoing research related to effective leadership and leadership development programming is needed, as is careful evaluation of existing programs. Examples of various evaluation techniques are reflected in the articles in this Issue of Advances. The description by Harris and Leberman (2012) of the New Zealand Women in Leadership Program emphasizes the distinction made by Riggio (2008) that leadership development efforts are often evaluated by reaction criteria (participants’ perceptions of what they learned) but that measuring based on learning criteria and behavioral criteria offer more substantial evaluation, as does evaluation based on results criteria. Even when time-tested models for leadership development programming are adopted or adapted for institutional use, carefully designed evaluation is an important aspect of effective programming.
Compilation of Sample Leadership Programs
Tables 1, 2, and 3 compile information (i.e., programs, sponsors, audiences, and websites) on a variety of leadership development programs designed for female staff, faculty, and/or administrators at colleges and universities. These tables provide a unique contribution by bringing together potential resources for scholars and practitioners in HRD, higher education, and leadership development who are seeking to assist more women in postsecondary settings prepare for and then move into positions of greater influence. The online search included combinations of the following keywords: female, higher education, career development, professional development, leadership development, faculty advancement, senior leadership, future leadership pipeline, female STEM research, and specific names of institutions, regions, and/or countries. We looked specifically at websites that demonstrated that the program or effort was sustained and not simply a conference or short-term contact such as a lunch network. For some countries outside the United States (particularly Canada, England, and France), we looked at larger institutions by name; this approach was used for prestigious/ well-known U.S. institutions as well.
Sample International or National Leadership Development Programs for Women in Higher Education
Sample State or Regional Leadership Development Programs for Women in Higher Education
Sample Institutional Leadership Development Programs for Women in Higher Education
The majority of programs cited are offered by associations or individual institutions in North America. In this research process, programs outside the United States were the most difficult to locate, perhaps given language differences in countries where English is not the first language. Language may have also been a factor for English-speaking countries in which terminology, definition, and usage even of the term leadership may vary from the common American usage. For example, the majority of non-U.S. programs were broader in scope than our search parameters, focusing on more general issues (e.g., gender equity, political empowerment, education especially of female children, and poverty) and less on actual leadership development. In addition, the strength of the unions in certain cultural contexts appeared to be a contributing factor, as the existence of the union seemed to preclude a need for additional leadership development training specific to women.
In the United States, the proliferation of regional and state leadership development programs for women has benefitted from the success of programs offered through the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Office of Women in Higher Education and the American Association for Women in Community Colleges (AAWCC). On college and university campuses, women’s leadership development programming was often the initiative of a provost or president, or a female leader on campus.
Although there were many robust leadership development programs that were more broadly oriented, we also found numerous less formal networks, resource-centers, and/or conferences. The programs cited in the tables may offer models for other institutions and networks promoting greater diversity in the ranks of senior leadership across higher education.
Conclusion
The intentional preparation of future leaders for higher education remains a critical need, and “the extent to which higher education is underprepared for replacing a rapidly retiring leadership” is concerning (Fusch & Mrig, 2011, p. 7). In a recent higher education publication, Fusch and Mrig identified a lack of coordinated strategies for leadership development at most institutions and emphasized the importance of increased leadership development programming in higher education. In fact, institutions across the globe are seeking to design programs that develop the leadership skills of female faculty, staff, and administrators; guidance and assistance are required to do so effectively and efficiently. We are confident that the program frameworks and models described in this Issue of Advances can be valuable for scholars who research women and leadership and can also be useful as institutions, regional networks, national associations, and other entities seek to create and/or customize leadership development programs for women in their own cultures and settings.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.