Lessons Learned from the Experiences of U.S. Women College Presidents: What They Wish They Had Known When They Began Their Presidencies.
| Author | Tunheim, Katherine A. |
| Position | Forum on Public Policy |
Introduction
According to The American College President (American Council on Education 2012), 26% of the college and university presidents in the United States were women in 2011, compared with 23% in 2006. The 'graying of the academy' (ii) was confirmed by Jacqueline King and Gigi Gomez (2008) as over half of all college presidents are 61 or older. The American Council on Education's (ACE) Report on Presidents (2012) predicted that, in the next ten years, over half of current college presidents will exit, suggesting a 'significant turnover in presidential leadership due to retirements in the near term [and] presenting an opportunity to further diversify the presidency' (American Council on Education 2012, xx). Starting in 2014, approximately six thousand vacant administrative positions are anticipated annually in higher education (Ben Leubsdorf 2006). The data suggest that more women will become U.S. college presidents in the next ten years as this turnover happens. During this time, preparing women to be successful in a higher education presidency becomes even more important. This study investigated the lessons learned from the experiences of women U.S. college and university presidents. It summarizes what they wished they had known when they began their presidencies.
Review of the literature
The number of female college and university presidents in the U.S. increased from 23% in 2006 to 26% in 2011 (ACE 2012). Among the top-10 elite institutions, women comprised 36% of sitting presidents in 2012 (Best Colleges 2012). In 2013, women presidents were leading half of the Ivy League institutions (Zweifler 2014). Overall, the data suggest that women are more likely to hold presidencies at community colleges (33%) (Cook 2012).
Benchmarking Women's Leadership in the United States 2013 (Colorado Women's College 2013) reported that 57% of middle-level managers across the sectors studied represented the pipeline of women for potential sector leadership. The researchers then compared the pipeline of potential women leaders to the actual percentage of women leaders and found tremendous disparity, with women representing approximately 19% of positional senior and executive leaders, and, conversely, men represented 81% of positional senior and executive leaders (Colorado Women's College 2013). These researchers also found that female academicians 'earned the majority of research awards, and that female administrators were more likely to hold the presidency or chancellorship within the top-ranked, top-10 institutions than among all doctoral-granting institutions as a whole' (Gangone and Tiffani Lennon 2014, 7). Data trends across all 14 sectors indicated that women are often among the highest performers and yet are disproportionately underrepresented in leadership roles, and frequently their institutions perform better than peer institutions without female leaders (Colorado Women's College 2013).
'The U.S. college and university presidency is a complex position that requires an exceptional combination of expertise, life balance and leadership' (Switzer 2006, 13). So what has been published on the lessons learned from women college presidents?
Madsen (2008) wrote about the life experiences of female university college presidents; the contributing factors included childhood background, youth activities, young adulthood and college years, professional positions and experiences, non-work roles, personal information, and leadership philosophy. Bornstein (2014) provided three keys to a successful presidency: leadership legitimacy, managed authenticity, and emotional stability. Julianne Basinger (2001) discussed the importance of campus chiefs forming networks to face the pressures and demands of their jobs. Moore (2005) suggested the importance of mentorship for female college presidents by seeking out their own mentors, male and female. Fisher, Koch, and McAdory (2005) suggested that female college presidents are more innovative and entrepreneurial than male presidents. In addition, they stated that females are more inclined than males to take measured risks in their job as president.
Switzer (2006) wrote extensively about the journeys and adaptations of women college presidents.
She described how women got into a presidency (a few aspired while most fell into it), their approaches to leadership, family statistics (married, single, with children or not), and housekeeping and other demands. One of the most interesting findings from this research study is how constituents' expectations of women college presidents differed from male presidents: they did not expect the women to be able to make tough decisions, and they perceived that women needed to be more accessible than their men counterparts. 'People think they can just walk in[to] a woman's office' (Switzer 2006, 6), noted one president.
A number of articles offer advice to future women presidents. Dianne Harrison (2007) suggested that presidential aspirants should 'seek as many university-wide experiences as possible' (6). In addition, she offered, 'Candidates must look for a good fit between their skills and values and those of the institution' (7). Switzer (2006) also provided advice: do not be negative about one's presidential predecessor or act as though nothing happened before they arrived; prospective presidents should learn as much as they can about finance, strategic budgeting, laws governing institutional accounting practices and investments. 'It's all about money,' said one president (Switzer 2006, 11). Another president described the presidency as being a job that consisted of five thirds:
One third involved strategic and long-range planning. The second third was administrivia, the daily tasks of running the institution. The next third was personnel work, including hiring, developing, supervising, evaluating and mentoring. The fourth third was the being here third, the time it took to be at campus events (athletic competitions, lectures, concerts, art exhibits, receptions). The final third was advancement and fundraising. A president with a job that has five thirds must bring clear priorities and intentionality about schedule in order to survive and thrive. (Switzer 2006, 11)
With the 'graying of the academy' (King and Gomez 2008, ii), meaning there will be more turnover at the top and a likelihood of an increase in more women becoming presidents of educational institutions (ACE 2012), the authors of this study wanted to research the lessons learned from women college presidents. Not enough has been written on this topic, and we believe these reflections and learnings could help not only current women college presidents, but also those aspiring to the role.
Theoretical framework
Learning organization theory served as a theoretical framework for the study. As suggested by Senge (1990), in his landmark book, and by Watkins and Marsick (1993), in their research and in the many research studies that have been undertaken to validate their dimensions of a learning organization. For an organization to become a learning organization, it must learn from both its successes and its failures. For colleges and universities to be learning organizations, which one would expect them all to be, their administrators must understand what is to be learned by the experiences of other administrators. This study, then, focused on the lessons to be learned from a specific group of higher education administrators-women.
Purpose, need, and justification of the study
In an article in Forbes, Ashgar (2013) argued that being a university president or chancellor is possibly the most challenging leadership role in the United States. Penney (2014) agreed: 'A college president is one of the most important and rewarding (yet sometimes frustrating) positions for a woman to undertake in the 21st century' (205). If this is the case, it is imperative that current or future women college presidents learn from those who have served in the role before them. This is the purpose of this investigation.
Methods and methodology
In this section, we describe the research design and methodology, the participants, the data collection processes, and the data analysis.
Research design/methodology
In this study, we used a qualitative methodology with a descriptive approach. This methodology allowed us to probe for the experiences of participant female college presidents related to their tenure (Creswell 2007). In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 women presidents in higher education in the U.S. Lessons learned while in the presidency provided an extensive description of what the women presidents wished they would have known at the beginning of their presidencies.
Participant selection and characteristics
According to ACE (2012), women make up 26% of all current college presidents. Through multiple searches on Google, we created a list of current female college presidents in the U.S. Seventy female presidents were identified. After gaining the approval of the Institutional Review Board at Gustavus Adolphus College a letter was sent to each one inviting them to participate in the study. The communication provided them with a description of the study, its purpose, the benefits and risks, a guarantee of anonymity, and a request to audiotape the interviews. One respondent cancelled due to lack of time in her schedule. Fifteen interviews were conducted.
Data collection
All 15 participants participated in the interview via telephone. One author conducted the interview, while another transcribed. The interviews averaged 30 minutes. The questions were: How long have you been a president? What do you wish you knew at the beginning of your presidency that you know now? What lessons...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
