DISSERTATION TOPIC

Christian Higher Education, 7:388–404 Copyright C© 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1536-3759 print / 1539-4107 online DOI: 10.1080/15363750802171081

GENDERED REALITIES AND WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: PARTICIPANT VOICES FROM

FAITH-BASED HIGHER EDUCATION

SHAWNA L. LAFRENIERE and KAREN A. LONGMAN Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California, USA

Women who seek high-level administrative leadership positions in various sectors of higher education continue to meet a variety of barriers (Eagly & Carli, 2007). These challenges are especially evident among the 105-member Council for Chris- tian Colleges & Universities (CCCU), an association of faith-based liberal arts institutions. Seeking to identify, equip, and encourage more women to enter high- level positions of leadership, in 1998 the CCCU launched a series of year-long leadership programs, each of which began with a five-day Women’s Leadership Development Institute (WLDI). During four institutes held between 1998 and 2004, the WLDI involved 71 “emerging leaders” in a multifaceted leadership development program specifically intended for women. Survey responses from 53 of the 71 participants were used to assess which experiences in the one-year WLDI project had been most significant in encouraging and preparing partic- ipants for higher-level administrative leadership. Multiple regression analyses indicated that the experiences perceived as most beneficial by the participants were the shadowing/mentoring experience on another campus, the WLDI par- ticipation restriction to women, and the informal conversations and networking with other women. The shadowing/mentoring experience had the greatest influ- ence on increasing the participants’ confidence in themselves as academic leaders and changing their thinking about their own leadership potential. Participation in a leadership program that was limited to women was frequently cited as a source of encouragement for these participants to remain in Christian higher ed- ucation. More than half of the survey respondents moved into broader leadership responsibilities within one year of participating in the WLDI.

“After years of analyzing what makes leaders most effective and fig- uring out who’s got the Right Stuff, management gurus now know how to boost the odds of getting a great executive: Hire a female” (Sharpe, 2000, p. 74). Despite Sharpe’s conclusion, men still hold the majority of high-level leadership positions in American corpo- rations as well as in higher education. Although women continue

Address correspondence to Shawna L. Lafreniere, Noel Academy for Strengths- Based Leadership and Education, Azusa Pacific University, 701 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, CA 91702. E-mail: slafreniere@apu.edu

388

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 389

to gain increased access to supervisory or middle-management po- sitions, their presence is still rare in executive leadership positions (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

Because male leadership roles have been the norm for so many years, leadership tends to be perceived as a masculine do- main. As such, traditionally masculine qualities such as confi- dence and dominance are equated with leadership, giving men a clear advantage over women to obtain leadership roles (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Eagly and Carli have summarized several decades of leadership literature and offer three metaphors to explain how the landscape of barriers to, and perceptions about, women’s lead- ership have changed: the concrete wall, the glass ceiling, and the labyrinth.

The concrete wall metaphor represents an impenetrable bar- rier that is overt, absolute, and completely blocks the pathway for women to advance into leadership positions. According to Eagly and Carli (2007), clear barriers to women’s leadership existed un- til the middle of the twentieth century and consisted of exclusion- ary rules and clear-cut norms.

In the 1970s, realities behind the concrete wall metaphor be- gan to shift in ways that no longer excluded women from all po- sitions of authority, only from the highest levels of leadership. Women’s limited access to top leadership positions was subse- quently referred to as “the glass ceiling,” a metaphor for discrimi- nation that puts women at a disadvantage when being considered for advancement into organizational leadership positions (Carli & Eagly, 2001).

Eagly and Carli (2007) posit that the glass ceiling metaphor of a rigid, impenetrable barrier is no longer a definitive reality for women in the 21st century. They see barriers to women’s ad- vancement as being more permeable, with women gaining new and greater access to a wide range of leadership roles. The por- trayal of the inflexible limits of the glass ceiling has lingered too long. These authors now suggest a new metaphor, the labyrinth, for better capturing the current challenges that women face as they navigate their way into leadership positions.

Indeed, for many 21st century women, the glass ceiling has been broken. Obstacles that previous generations faced in pur- suing high-level leadership roles are no longer viewed as prob- lematic. As former executive Carly Fiorina stated upon becoming

390 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

Hewlett-Packard’s CEO in 1999, “I hope that we are at a point that everyone has figured out that there is not a glass ceiling” (Markoff as cited in Eagly & Carli, 2007, p. 6). Even when pathways to cer- tain high-level leadership positions can be difficult to find, such routes do exist, and women who now serve as role models have found them.

Women’s Leadership in Higher Education

While many have attributed the paucity of women in high-level leadership to “pipeline” limitations, others have challenged this assumption based on the data (Chliwniak, 1997; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Heilman, 2001). During the 21st century, the number of women in the labor force has grown while the number of men in the labor force has decreased (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Because women have greatly advanced in their educational pursuits, many more women are now prepared to step into positions at the ex- ecutive level. Women earn 57% of the bachelor’s degrees being awarded, 59% of master’s degrees, and 48% of PhDs (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). For every 100 men in all lev- els of higher education, 139 women are enrolled. Thus, women are no longer restricted in their ability to obtain an education and their increased educational attainment allows them to gain the preparation typically required for workplace advancement. Yet, even when women are educated with advanced degrees and equipped to take leadership roles, they are less likely to be pro- moted to top leadership positions (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

In higher education, while women continue to be underrep- resented in upper-level leadership, several trends are encourag- ing. According to data from the American Council on Education (2007), the percentage of women serving as university presidents more than doubled from 9.5% in 1986 to 23% in 2006. In re- cent years, women have been selected to lead prestigious uni- versities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Harvard University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania. Harvard University’s decision to name Drew Gilpin Faust as president in 2007 represented a sig- nificant and symbolic step forward for women in academe. Susan Scrimshaw, president of Simmons College, noted, “I think of it as the last really big glass ceiling in higher education. A woman

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 391

becoming president of Harvard is breaking the last barrier” (Wil- son, 2007, p. A1).

The Evangelical Christian Higher Education Leadership Landscape

Within the 105 member institutions of the CCCU, approximately 60% of the students are female (IPEDS, 2006). This association represents a cross-section of evangelical Protestant liberal arts in- stitutions, drawing members from 28 denominational affiliations. The organization, founded in 1976 and based in Washington, D.C., describes its members as “intentionally Christ-centered col- leges and universities” (CCCU, 2007). In 2007, only 4 of the 105 presidents (3.8%) were female.

Data submitted by the CCCU member institutions through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS, 2006) reflect that women represent 36% of the full-time faculty on those campuses compared to 41% of full-time female faculty represented at other institutions in the United States. Related to the gender imbalances on these campuses, female faculty tend to be overextended in roles as advisors and committee members. They serve as mentors and role models to students and junior col- leagues, while often being the primary caregiver at home (CCCU, 2004; Schreiner, 2002).

Women who seek leadership positions in CCCU institutions continue to meet more barriers than men. Some of these chal- lenges include a lack of role models; theological conservatism that limits access to top leadership positions; embracing a col- laborative leadership style that can be misunderstood or disre- spected; and feeling “out of sync” with the command-and-control leadership style of some male-dominated administrative cabinets (Schreiner, 2002). As one faculty member at a CCCU institution commented in a Chronicle of Higher Education article, “[A]t con- servative religious institutions, women face a stained-glass ceiling, with the Bible and church tradition routinely used to justify gen- der discrimination” (Mock, 2005, p. B24). The author continued, “While I am at times troubled by the alienation I feel, I remain far more concerned about the lack of female role models for students at Christian colleges and universities” (p. B24).

392 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

If emerging female leaders are to make significant contri- butions as leaders in CCCU colleges and universities, these con- cerns and issues need to be addressed. Over the past decade, the Women’s Leadership Development Institute (WLDI) has sought to address this need by equipping women to serve in current and future administrative leadership roles.

Background, Purposes, and Desired Outcomes of the WLDI

In 1998, the catalyst for launching the WLDI was a concern among CCCU leaders for creating programmatic initiatives that would support the identification and equipping of more women for higher education leadership across CCCU member institutions. Selection criteria for WLDI participators have included: (a) recog- nition at an institutional level as someone with demonstrated lead- ership skills, (b) possession of a doctorate or nearing completion of a doctorate, and (c) evidence of increasing levels of leadership responsibility within and/or beyond higher education.

The core of the WLDI experience is a five-day institute held every other year (1998–2006) at a retreat center located near Bellingham, Washington. In addition to the institute itself, the broader year-long WLDI program includes: (a) a series of read- ings before, during, and after the on-site institute, (b) the guided design of a one-year Professional Development Plan, and (c) a follow-up “shadowing” experience for two or three days with a senior-level mentor on another campus.

Resource leaders at the institute offer a variety of presen- tations and panel discussions along with ample time for group interaction. Topics covered include leadership, higher educa- tion, and gender issues. Sessions typically have also included an introduction to board governance, external constituency re- lations, internal politics, conflict resolution, strengths-based leadership, finding balance in competing demands, gender roles, strategic planning, team building, and balancing multiple respon- sibilities.

Since its inception, the desired outcomes of the WLDI pro- gram have included: (a) the identification of emerging female leaders in Christian higher education; (b) equipping, motivating, and challenging these emerging leaders through training at the institute; (c) the provision of opportunities for participants to

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 393

explore senior administrative positions through mentoring rela- tionships with senior leaders on other campuses; (d) the creation of deep and lasting friendships/networks with other women in the institute; and (e) the provision of structured opportunities for participants to identify tangible professional goals by writing Professional Development Plans.

This study was conducted in order to understand the im- pact of the WLDI on women who have participated and whether the desired outcomes of the institute are being met. The re- search question that guided this study asked: “In what ways has the Women’s Leadership Development Institute impacted the lives of its participants and met the desired outcomes of the WLDI?”

Method

Participants

All 71 women who participated in any of the four WLDIs from 1998 to 2004 were contacted; 53 responded. Demographic results reflect that 86% of the respondents were married; 73% had two or more children. The respondents ranged in age from 30 to over 50; the majority were age 50 or older. Of the total respondents, 94% held doctoral degrees. The respondents were largely Cau- casian/white (88%). A majority of respondents had worked in higher education for 11–20 years; 42% had served in administra- tive roles for 6–10 years. In total, 38% had been at their current in- stitution for 11–20 years; 46% had served for 11–20 years in Chris- tian higher education; and 30% had 11–20 years of professional experience outside of Christian higher education.

Materials and Procedure

A Web-based survey instrument consisting of 44 questions was cre- ated by the researchers. Approval of the instrument and permis- sion to contact the WLDI participants about the research project were received from the CCCU. The survey questions related to the desired outcomes for the WLDI program on the lives of the participants and used a 7-point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicat- ing “not at all” and 7 indicating “a great degree.” There was also one open-ended question to evaluate the single most beneficial

394 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

impact of the WLDI. On-line surveys were distributed, with two weeks allowed for survey completion, to the 71 women who had participated in the WLDIs in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. The re- sponse rate was 75%; three surveys were not completed in their entirety.

Design

In order to examine the extent to which the program has met its desired outcomes, participants’ responses were analyzed using de- scriptive and inferential statistics. In the inferential analyses, the independent variables were those components of the on-site in- stitute that were perceived as contributing most significantly to the equipping of participants for leadership roles. Other inde- pendent variables included the perceived beneficial impact of the confidence boost of having being nominated and selected for par- ticipation, the creation of a one-year Professional Development Plan, and participation in a two- or three-day “shadowing expe- rience” with a senior leader on another campus. The dependent variable was the impact of the WLDI on the participants.

Descriptive Statistics

One goal of this research was to assess which aspects of the WLDI were viewed as contributing most significantly to the professional development of the participants. The mean ratings of each com- ponent by the participants were used to rank order aspects of the WLDI. As seen in Table 1, informal conversations with other women during the five-day institute were rated as most beneficial, followed by being in a group limited to other women. Other di- mensions of the WLDI experience that were perceived as highly beneficial to participants included the shadowing experience on another campus and its influence on participants considering fu- ture leadership positions, the workshop sessions at the WLDI, and the increased confidence in participants as academic leaders as a result of participating in the year-long WLDI.

Overall, 60% of respondents indicated that they had moved into new positions that reflected increased leadership responsi- bilities since participating in the WLDI. Of these, 51.6% had as- sumed new responsibilities within one year; 29% within two years;

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 395

TABLE 1 Aspects of the WLDI That Contributed to the Professional Development of the Participants (N = 53) Rated on a 7-Point Scale Characteristic M SD

Informal conversations with other women helpful 6.25 1.11 Beneficial impact of WLDI limited to women 5.60 1.43 Shadowing influenced consideration of future leadership 5.54 2.07 Workshops helpful to professional development 5.32 1.25 Increased confidence in self as leader 5.31 1.37 Resources helpful to professional development 5.21 1.46 Changed thinking about leadership potential 5.10 1.30 Intentionally mentoring other women 5.04 1.78 Being chosen boosted confidence 5.02 1.59 WLDI met expectations for leadership development 4.96 1.45 Considered new position of responsibility 4.94 1.72 Served as encouragement to remain in CHE 4.90 1.62 Extent of PDP as building block 4.25 1.57 Network of WLDI women as source of encouragement 4.15 1.82 WLDI changed how viewed by male colleagues 3.75 1.93 Extent of contact with mentor from shadowing experience 3.12 2.07 Sought increased leadership position and not been selected 2.35 2.13

and 19.4% had assumed broader responsibilities more than three years after participating. Most of these women reported having an affirming experience in their first expanded leadership position after attending the WLDI. Women who had moved into a new leadership position were asked to choose one aspect of the WLDI that contributed most to their sense of being prepared for their new position. As can be seen in Table 2, the aspects of the WLDI that most contributed to the participants’ sense of being prepared

TABLE 2 WLDI Aspect That Contributed Most to New Position (N = 31) Aspect n

Shadowing/mentoring experience 11 Networking with experienced administrators 8 Informal conversations with other women 6 Content of WLDI sessions 3 Readings/resources provided/recommended 1 None of the above 2

396 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

for their new leadership position were the shadowing/mentoring experience, networking with experienced administrators, and in- formal conversations with other women.

Multiple Regressions

To analyze which components of the WLDI program explained the most variation in participants’ ratings of the program’s effec- tiveness, six multiple regression analyses were conducted, enter- ing all predictor variables simultaneously in one block. Each anal- ysis used the same predictor variables: (a) creating a Professional Development Plan to serve as a building block to consider future academic leadership opportunities; (b) the beneficial impact of the WLDI experience being limited to other women; (c) the shad- owing experience on another campus as an influencer to consider future academic leadership positions; (d) the helpfulness of in- formal conversations with other women during the WLDI; (e) the helpfulness of the books, handouts, and other written resources provided before, during, and after the WLDI; and (f) the helpful- ness of the workshop sessions for professional development.

The first regression analysis utilized as its criterion variable the participants’ rating of the extent to which the WLDI had met their expectations for leadership development training. The model explained 74% (R 2 = .743) of the variance in the ratings of expectations, with three predictor variables reaching significance. The workshop sessions had the greatest influence on whether par- ticipants’ expectations for leadership development training had been met through the WLDI experience (β = .557, p < .001), fol- lowed by the helpfulness of books, handouts, and other written resources (β = .356, p < .001), and the impact of the institute being limited to other women (β = .183, p < .05). In all cases, here and in the following sections, the direction of influence of the predictor variables was positive.

Participants’ increased self-confidence as an academic leader as a result of participating in the year-long WLDI experience was the criterion variable in the second regression equation. The model explained 50% (R 2 = .499) of the variance in the ratings, with two predictor variables reaching significance. The shadowing experience on another campus as an influencer to consider future academic leadership positions accounted for the most variance in

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 397

increasing the participants’ self-confidence as an academic leader (β = .423, p < .001), followed by the helpfulness of the written resources for professional development (β = .321, p < .001).

In the third regression analysis, the criterion variable was the extent to which involvement in the WLDI changed the way partici- pants perceived themselves as being viewed by male colleagues on campus. The model explained 43% (R 2 = .430) of the variance in the ratings, with two predictor variables reaching significance. The creation of the Professional Development Plan to organize participants’ thinking about future academic leadership strategies had the greatest predictive ability (β = .360, p < .001), followed by the beneficial impact of the informal conversations with other women during the WLDI (β = .264, p < .05).

The extent to which participants’ thinking about their own leadership potential changed as a result of involvement in the WLDI was examined through the fourth regression analysis. The model explained 42% (R 2 = .424) of the variance in the ratings, with two predictor variables reaching significance. The shadowing experience on another campus as an influencer to consider future academic leadership positions had the greatest impact (β = .364, p < .05), followed by the helpfulness of the workshop sessions for professional development (β = .356, p < .001).

The fifth regression analysis examined whether WLDI partic- ipation had encouraged respondents to consider positions else- where and/or be willing to move into a new level of responsibility on their home campus. The model explained 34% (R 2 = .343) of the variance in the ratings, with one predictor variable reach- ing significance. The beneficial impact of informal conversations with other women during the WLDI had the greatest influence on encouraging participants to consider positions elsewhere and/or be willing to move into new levels of responsibility (β = .287, p < .05).

In the final regression analysis, the criterion variable was the extent to which involvement in the WLDI served as an encourage- ment for participants to remain in Christian higher education. The model explained 32% (R 2 = .317) of the variance in the rat- ings, with one predictor variable reaching significance. The bene- ficial impact of the WLDI being limited to other women had the greatest influence as an encouragement for participants to remain in Christian higher education (β = .290, p < .05).

398 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

The Beneficial Impact of the WLDI

The participants were asked to identify the single most beneficial impact of their involvement in the WLDI on their professional and/or personal lives through open-ended questions. The key theme responses in order of frequency are summarized below.

The women cited the positive benefits of getting to know other women through the WLDI. One noted, “The networking relationships that occurred during the week gave me multiple op- portunities to reflect on my goals and strengths within the con- text of Christian higher education.” Another commented, “I be- lieve the most important benefit is that of becoming aware of a women’s leadership network within the CCCU institutions, and having the opportunity to learn from others within the network.”

For many respondents, the mentoring/shadowing experi- ence was important. When asked to identify the single most ben- eficial impact of involvement in the WLDI, one individual re- sponded, “Being mentored as a female professional into the ‘big picture’ of how a university really works.” One participant com- mented on the importance of learning about how to juggle multi- ple responsibilities: “It gave me insight into how other women in positions of leadership at institutions of Christian higher educa- tion balance the responsibilities of being a wife, mother, and ad- ministrator.” Another highlight was the opportunity to form ongo- ing professional relationships. One woman commented that she appreciated “having a highly qualified group of peers to encour- age me in my leadership journey.”

Many women expressed appreciation for the opportunity to interact with others who shared similar commitments. One woman commented, “So often we (women administrators) are the only one or one of a few on our campus, so it was good to connect with other women to hear their realities and see that we have sim- ilar experiences.”

Some participants found encouragement to press on in spite of resistance to women in leadership in Christian higher educa- tion. One respondent identified the single most beneficial im- pact for her as “networking with other women of similar calling and drive and finding support in their similar struggles.” Partici- pants appreciated understanding and dialoging about the issues that women in leadership face. “Knowing there are others like me

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 399

who understand the unique nature of being a women leader on a Christian campus.”

Another important aspect of the WLDI was acknowledging the value of women in leadership in Christian higher education. “It delivered me from the myth that women must operate like men in the administrative world, or that there is one prescription for leadership that one must follow. I learned to appreciate different forms of leadership as well as different expressions of Christianity and saw that the struggles within my own institution were common to many institutions.”

Some experienced a renewed confidence in their personal leadership abilities. One woman commented that the WLDI “built my confidence by placing me in a supportive community of like- minded women. I found I was neither too old, nor too shy, to move ahead in Christian higher education. Two women from WLDI re- main my best friends and mentors.” Another stated, “After partic- ipating in WLDI, I realized I had the skills and talents to take on a senior leadership role. WLDI gave me the confidence to do the work.”

For some participants, having time to focus, reflect, and clar- ify their personal sense of calling to the academic profession and/or to leadership was of primary importance. One respondent said that she appreciated “the time set aside to learn and assess my capabilities. We live at such a hectic pace that we rarely have time to constructively think about ourselves, our dreams, and how to realize those dreams.”

Discussion

This study was designed to determine the ways in which the five-day Institute and the year-long WLDI had impacted the lives of participants and the extent to which the desired outcomes of this initiative had been achieved. Overall, the data reflect that nearly all of the desired outcomes were met for most participants through the five-day institute program.

Motivating and equipping women through the institute pre- pared more women for increased levels of leadership. Participant ratings of the workshop sessions and of having access to books, handouts, and other written resources, were very positive. The value of women’s leadership in Christian higher education was

400 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

acknowledged and celebrated, and a sense of collaboration around ideas and experiences was evident.

The women participants reported that they had created deep and lasting friendships/networks with other women in the insti- tute. They also reported appreciating the opportunity to learn from one another about their experiences in higher education and having the opportunity to build ongoing professional rela- tionships with one another. Hearing about the professional jour- neys of the resource leaders served as an encouragement to other participants who often came to the WLDI feeling alone in their professional world.

The importance of being nominated as an emerging leader in Christian higher education was noted by several participants. Some reported that this nomination process led senior admin- istrators to articulate, for the first time, their confidence of the leadership potential in these women. This expressed confidence from a high-level leader, especially a male leader, prompted some of the female participants to consider the possibility of leadership advancement.

At the same time, participation in the WLDI did not change the way some participants perceived themselves as being viewed by male colleagues on their home campuses. Some women described the “old boys’ club” at their institution and wondered whether there really was a place for them in senior leadership. As Eagly (2007) pointed out, a legacy of discrimination and exclusion has shaped a world in which women’s experiences and behaviors are often unlike those of men. Although prejudice and discrimina- tion still make it harder for women to advance to positions of leadership, many have broken through the barriers to their ad- vancement. Still, questions remain as to why the barriers, both perceived and real, seem great.

Recent scholarly contributions by Eagly (2007) concluded, “In the United States, women are increasingly praised for hav- ing excellent skills for leadership and, in fact, women, more than men, manifest leadership styles associated with effective per- formance as leaders” (p. 1). Despite such affirmation, Eagly’s research suggests that in organizational life, employees typi- cally prefer male supervisors rather than female supervisors. As a result, women face greater difficulty in obtaining leader- ship positions and succeeding in male-dominated organizational

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 401

structures. These realities are equally present in higher educa- tion, where the norms, structures, and systems sometimes exclude women from high-level leadership positions, leading some women to feel marginalized as members of the academy.

Eagly’s (1987) social role theory maintains that male and fe- male leaders who occupy the same role do not display the same be- haviors. Because people internalize their gender role to some ex- tent, women and men tend to differ in their expectations for their own behavior in an organizational setting (Eagly, Johannesen- Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). It is these behavioral expectations and differences that need to be openly discussed and addressed if more doors are to be opened for women to step into high-level leadership roles.

One of the important contributions of the WLDI experience has been to remind participants that the journey into administra- tive leadership has not been easy for most women. The eras of the “concrete wall” and the “glass ceiling” that blocked women’s progress into leadership are now history for most of American cul- ture and in much of higher education. However, in some sectors of the academy, helping women who are gifted with leadership abilities to “navigate the labyrinth” toward high-level leadership remains a challenge. This labyrinthine journey requires persis- tence, self-evaluation, and reflection on the many twists and turns it takes to reach the desired destination. While safe arrival is possi- ble, the journey is more uncertain and inefficient than following a straight path (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

Implications and Recommendations for Practice

Since the early 1990s, leadership literature and theory has shifted from a focus on hierarchical, individualistic, and command-and- control approaches to models of leadership that reflect mean- ingful relationships and mutual collaboration between leaders and followers (Eagly & Karau, 1991; Kezar, Carducci, Contreras- McGavin, 2006; Northouse, 2007; Rost, 1991). Many modern-day leadership theorists commend leadership approaches that value strong relational skills, bring out the best in followers, and em- phasize collegiality, empowerment, and consensus-building (Ben- nis, 1991; Buckingham, 2005; Collins, 2001; Eagly & Johannesen- Schmidt, 2001). This shift from power over followers to power with

402 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

followers allows for mutual influence in the leadership/follower relationship. Given this paradigm shift in leadership theory, the collaborative and empowering leadership style typical of many women prepares them well to lead effectively in modern-day organizations. Including women’s leadership styles in organiza- tions can help create collegial and process-oriented environments that offer empowerment to organizational members (Helgeson, 1990).

Presidents and other cabinet-level administrators have a re- sponsibility to encourage and support emerging leaders on their campus, particularly women and ethnic minorities that are cur- rently underrepresented in leadership. Though relatively modest numbers of women can be served through the WLDI, other prac- tices such as public recognition for institutional contributions and a commitment to advance women can indicate to women that their gifts and potential are valued. In addition, both institution- ally and collectively, it is important to create strategies and pro- grams for encouraging the development of young women at the undergraduate and graduate levels who have the potential for fu- ture administrative and faculty leadership roles.

After reviewing decades of literature about what contributes to effective leadership, Eagly and Carli (2007) conclude, “There is no defensible argument that men are naturally, inherently, or ac- tually better suited to leadership than women are” (p. 189). The intentionally Christ-centered member institutions of the CCCU believe that every individual has been uniquely created by God with an array of gifts to make significant contributions to their spheres of influence. Those currently serving on boards and in administrative leadership face the stewardship responsibility of af- firming and empowering the use of women’s gifts for leadership, opening avenues for greater service to their institution and the world around them.

References

American Council on Education. (2007). The American college president (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Bennis, W. (1991). Why leaders can’t lead: The unconscious conspiracy continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buckingham, M. (2005). The one thing you need to know. New York: Free Press.

Gendered Realities and Women’s Leadership Development 403

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An intro- duction. Journal of Social Sciences, 57(4), 629–636.

Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap. ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25(4). Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins. Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. (2004). Gender issues in the

CCCU faculty. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://www.cccu.org/ resourcecenter/resID.2358,parentCatID.128/rc detail.asp

Council for Christian Colleges & Universities Fact Sheet. (2007). About us: Mis- sion and organization. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://www.cccu.org/ docLib/20061002155255 CCCU%20Profile%2006.pdf

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transforma- tional, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis com- paring women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital: The environmental scan: A fact-finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.

Helgeson, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2006). U.S. Dept of Educa- tion. The chronicle of higher education, Almanac Issue 2007–8. August 31, 2007, vol. 54(1), p. 24.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report 31(6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Markoff, J. (1999). Hewlett-Packard picks rising star at Lucent as its chief execu- tive. New York Times, July 20, C1.

Mock, M. S. (2005). Confined by the stained-glass ceiling. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(11), B.24.

404 S. L. Lafreniere and K. A. Longman

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Schreiner, L. A. (2002, March). Closing the gender gap. Presentation at the Council

for Christian Colleges & Universities Critical Issues Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule: New studies find that female managers outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. Business Week, p. 74. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from Business Week Online, http://www.businessweek.com/common frames/ca.htm?/2000/00 47/b370 8145.htm

Wilson, R. (2007). Harvard’s historic choice. Chronicle of Higher Education, Febru- ary 23, 2007, 53(25), p. A1. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://0- proquest.umi.com.patris.apu.edu/pqdweb?index=27&did=1255297101&Src hMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName =PQD&TS=1188859451&clientId=23686&aid=1