Governance roles

Women faculty, and especially those of color, are typically asked to bear an extra burden of committee work at all levels of the university. Park (1996) suggests this occurs because women and minority faculty members are more sought after for their varied interests: Students seek them as role models, they are viewed as more caring, and the university needs diversity on its committees. Well-intentioned faculty colleagues, who want to ensure that women and ethnic minorities are represented on committees, may deluge women faculty with requests for committee service. As discussed earlier, stereotypes may make it easier to ask women to serve on committees but make it difficult for women to say "no" to extensive committee service without appearing uncooperative or uncaring.

Extensive committee service is detrimental. Every minute spent in committee work is a minute that cannot be spent on scholarship. Data on this point are shown in Table 21. Notice that, in every ethnic group, men allocate a higher percentage of their time to research than do women. These data, unfortunately, are aggregated across all types of postsecondary institutions, making it unclear whether these patterns would be true within a given university or whether they are a result of the underrepresentation of full-time women faculty at research universities, which we noted earlier. Moreover, the data are aggregated across all disciplines; women are more represented in the humanities and men in the physical sciences. Nonetheless, the aggregated patterns are clear: Women spend more time than men on teaching and service; men spend more time than women on research.

Administrative roles

We focus here on academic administrators at the rank of chair and above on the academic ladder (i.e., chair, dean, academic vice provost, provost, and president/chancellor). We have chosen not to discuss the roles of student affairs or other "nonacademic" administrators (e.g., financial aid and administrative services) as the impact of such positions varies depending on the academic administration’s culture and power structure. Further, although they may lead to higher levels of administration within their particular areas (e.g., an associate dean for student affairs may lead to a vice presidency for student affairs), they rarely lead to advancement on the "academic side" of the institution.

As leaders in higher education, administrators play a strategic role in setting institutional and departmental goals, making long-term budget and curricular decisions, recruiting students, promoting and retaining current faculty, and hiring a new generation of faculty—decisions that determine the quality of life for women faculty. Administrators are also highly visible, and thus serve as role models as well as mentors to students and younger faculty and administrators. However, the number of female administrators in academic institutions falls well below those numbers needed to provide leadership as mentors and role models.

In 1995, only 25% of the chief academic officers at U.S. colleges and universities were women (Ross & Green, 1998). Even more dismal is the female representation in the top leadership position. Only 16.5% (379 out of 2,295) of the chief executive officers/presidents of U.S. colleges and universities in 1995 were women. Most were employed at bachelor or associate degree granting public institutions. Few (5.8%) held presidencies at doctoral granting institutions. Of these 379 women female presidents, only 12.4% were women of color (32 African Americans, 9 Hispanics, 4 Asian Americans, and 2 Native Americans).

The number of women psychologists holding administrative posts is better than those just presented on presidents and chief academic officers. In 1999, among the 245 deans who were APA members, 35% were women (APA Research Office, 1999). In 1998-1999 just under 21% of chairs in doctoral-level psychology programs were women. In master’s level programs, women were 29% of chairs. Representation was noticeable and substantially higher in private than in public institutions, with 40% of master’s departments in such institutions chaired by women (Wicherski et al., 1999). Thus, women psychologists are beginning to gain the experience needed to move up the academic administrative ladder. The issues and barriers women face change as women move up into administrative arenas that have been traditionally dominated by men from the physical and biological sciences, however.

Demonstrated administrative and leadership skills are now more widely sought for higher education administrators. These skills can be acquired and demonstrated through involvement in campus service or professional organizations, but as mentioned above, service participation is always a difficult decision for untenured faculty. Service can assume Sisyphean aspects, and time given to service activities cannot be given to teaching and research. Untenured faculty who take on additional service/leadership roles in anticipation of developing an administrative portfolio may risk denial of tenure. Even with tenure, an associate professor who assumes an administrative position and is unable to maintain a productive research record may never be promoted to a higher rank (e.g., full professor; distinguished professor).

However, obtaining service experience is not necessarily a prerequisite for administrative positions, particularly for males. Although males represent the large majority of academic administrators, men actually dedicate less time to service (Park, 1996). Because men are perceived as "natural" leaders, men may not have to prove their leadership skills as much as women. Indeed, insofar as gender stereotypes shape women’s service opportunities into student-oriented, "housekeeping" roles, women may be more likely to become channeled into "helping" positions such as in the areas of student affairs or affirmative action. While these are excellent administrative positions, they are usually not integral contributors to the academic direction of an institution and are not considered positions of line authority.

Thus, one’s specific administrative aspirations may be congruent or incongruent with gender stereotypes depending on the specific administrative role. Traditionally, personnel and budget decisions have been viewed as requiring someone who is "tough" and who can make the "hard decisions." The collaborative models that are replacing this view may work to women’s benefit. Women’s leadership style is often viewed as based on cooperation and other-oriented motivation. This less aggressive style may foster "collaboration and encourage others to participate" (Hall & Sandler, 1982). Indeed, Ahmed (1991) demonstrated the difference between female and male academic deans in their perception of departmental priorities and personal style. She found women chairs expressed more concern for people while men expressed more concern about the department. Women were also more dissatisfied with their role as chair because they made more compromises in accepting their work roles, while men were comfortable following the traditional institutional definition of the chair role.

In light of such stereotypes and misperceptions, how do women become and exist as credible leaders? How do we "change the structure without risking rejection by the structure?" (Sandler, 1992, p. 9). Some suggest that successful female academic administrators accept the reality that men are in control at present and learn how to work within the male-dominated system (Witmer, 1995). While this may at first be seen as a sell-out position, this does not mean the system will not eventually change or that women must buy into it completely. There is still room for individualism and the egalitarian leadership style that is more associated with women. In the meantime, however, it is important for women and men to connect and work with each other (Levy, 1982). As Sandler (1992) points out, men are a source of critical information, support, and advice. In particular, women must pinpoint the power brokers inside and outside the department and ascertain the informal rules from them.

Traditional White male leadership styles are now being questioned. New visions of leadership, some imported from more collectivistic Asian cultures, emphasize the importance of qualities stereotypically associated with women. In particular, service-oriented institutions are viewed as needing "leaders able to inspire commitment to service, to build successful teams and to facilitate systemic change. Many current department heads, however, are less skilled in these areas than they are at commanding authority—though it is increasingly understood that the tough-talking, control-oriented executive is less likely to contribute lasting improvements than one committed to understanding and motivating people" (AAMC, 1996, p. 806).

Academic leaders must also be skilled at consensus building and motivating others to commitment to service. Arana and McCrudy (1995) suggest that academic leaders be chosen, trained, and evaluated based on administrative and management skills as well as professional stature.

Thus, although such behaviors are not necessarily overt, women "know" this lack of acceptance exists, and may not feel accepted and powerful due to slights such as men’s ignoring women’s comments or interrupting them in meetings. Such slights, intended and unintended, are common and contribute to a larger pattern of discriminatory behavior that reinforces outdated gender stereotypes (AAMC, 1996).

Women of color may experience even more intense covert and overt discrimination. For example, they have a low probability of obtaining leadership and administrative positions (Dumas, 1980) and may apply for numerous jobs before getting an interview and subsequent jobs (Powney, 1997). Rusher (1996) interviewed 154 female African American administrators (academic and nonacademic), 98 of whom were deans and above. Many stayed at the same level over a long period of time. These women reported having supervisors who were not helpful or encouraging of their advancement. Similarly, Mosley (cited by Rusher, 1996), who conducted one of the first studies on African American women college administrators, found most were in staff positions, did not have mentors, and did not feel their career advancement was promising.

Macias (1994) surveyed 53 Hispanic women deans and assistant deans (academic and nonacademic) nationwide who expressed similar concerns of no support and lack of upward mobility. Gorena (1994) surveyed 68 Hispanic women deans, vice presidents, chancellors, provosts, and presidents to identify factors that influenced or deterred their leadership advancement. Participants felt economic status and recognition by non-Hispanic administrators influenced advancement positively. Factors that hindered advancement were traditional Hispanic cultural values (e.g., women’s roles, family issues), discrimination, and assignments to minority-related work.

Stress also results from overvisibility. Women, especially ethnic women, are tired of being the "different" or the only female administrator in a field that is predominantly White, male, and middle class (Powney, 1997). Although this increased visibility can have advantages, at times increasing the chances that one’s work is recognized, the work of ethnic women may be more closely scrutinized than others’ (Murrell & Tangri, 1999). This increased scrutiny can also limit ethnic women’s ability to mentor others and may lead many to hide their abilities or choose to forgo the administrative route completely. For those who choose to stay in administration, the combination of family obligations, other personal priorities, and administrative life is a recipe for burnout; many women administrators may forgo marriage and/or children or put a healthy relationship at risk.

Some female colleagues believe that women who have "made it" as an administrator must have "sold out" or betrayed other women (Walton, 1997). Because women are not perceived as leaders/managers, a woman who has "made it" may receive inappropriate attributions from her co-workers and subordinates as to how she obtained the position (i.e., affirmative action hire or inappropriate sexual favors). Many administrators are also taught that a manager must distance herself from subordinate staff. This means women must leave behind their support group of female faculty and staff and seek support from White males who may not be accepting (Powney, 1997).

Women may also fear developing social relationships with other female administrators because it may be viewed by others as using social relationships politically. These relationships may compromise their integrity and put them in inappropriate competition with other women, forcing them to conform to a masculine model for succeeding in an environment that rewards the "win-lose" philosophy (Park, 1996). Many female administrators feel it is important to maintain their integrity and honesty (Macias, 1994) and fear the traditional higher education administrative models will compromise this.

Maintaining one’s self-esteem and self-worth may also be difficult when support systems are lacking, traditional masculine models are still prevalent, and the climate is chilly (Yoder, 1985). Women may begin to wonder whether their not being qualified is the reason for not moving up the administrative ladder rather than discrimination (APA CWP & CEMRRAT, 1998). This type of insidious discrimination "can challenge (a person’s) own identity and threaten their inner security" (Rusher, 1996, p. 3).