Footprints to the academic deanship

Material Information

Footprints to the academic deanship women, generative leadership, and power
Orman, Patricia Bowie
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
288 leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Women deans (Education) ( lcsh )
Leadership in women ( lcsh )
Power (Social sciences) ( lcsh )
Leadership in women ( fast )
Power (Social sciences) ( fast )
Women deans (Education) ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 244-288).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Patricia Bowie Orman.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
51805873 ( OCLC )
LD1190.E3 2002d .O75 ( lcc )

Full Text
Patricia Bowie Orman
B.A. University of New Hampshire, 1971
M.A. University of Northern Colorado, 1976
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation

2002 by Patricia Bowie Orman
Ail rights reserved.

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Patricia Bowie Orman
has been approved
Rodney Muth


Orman, Patricia Bowie (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Footprints to the Academic Deanship: Women, Generative Leadership,
and Power
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Nadyne Guzman
The purpose of this study was to develop a footprint, or picture, of female
academic deans in one western state by analyzing themes about leadership
styles, communication skills, and perceptions of career path opportunities.
Drawn from research foundation in leadership, higher educational
administration, organizational communication and power, career paths, and
gender studies, this qualitative study was built around four sub-questions
that emerged from the literature. Using a semi-structured interview protocol,
I interviewed 14 women deans from four-year, publicly-funded institutions,
reviewed and coded related artifacts, and administered the Leadership
Practices Inventory to 13 of 14 deans. In addition, I coded and analyzed 18
critical incident stories shared by the participants. Through manual and
computer-assisted analysis, I located 46 themes and sub-themes. This
process resulted in nine thematic conclusions about the participants in
this study: (a) women deans did not plan for leadership careers, (b)
women who disclosed mentorship experiences had male mentors, (c) women
deans were collaborative leaders and decision-makers, (d) women saw
power negatively, (e) women struggled with effective communication
behavior in bureaucratic organizations, (f) women climbed the ladder to
escape, (g) womens critical-incident stories revealed turning points in
their career paths, (h) most women did not plan to seek higher administrative
positions, and (i) mid-life women demonstrated high levels of caring,
nurturing, generative behavior.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.

I dedicate this thesis to my late parents, Clara O. and Hubert A. Bowie, for
their beliefs in and support of higher education, and to my special friends Jayne
Mitchell and Penny Green who supported me along the way. But, most especially,
this is for Donna, my friend and advocate.

It takes a community of scholars, peers, colleagues, friends, and loved ones
to write a dissertation, and I have had many supporters on this mid-life journey.
Among the most appreciated supporters are the deans who agreed to participate in
this study, and who gave of their time, energy, and souls to share important realities
of their lives. I thank them for their candor and enthusiasm.
My dissertation committee members were wonderful (and patient) role
models for this project in recent months. My advisor and dissertation director,
Nadyne Guzman, understood my strengths and weaknesses, and nourished my ego
at just the right moments. She encouraged me to trust the process and eventually I
did. I thank Rod Muth for his consistently good advice, dedication to detail,
unending patience, and willingness to run interference. Cherie Lyons, as professor
and committee member, gave me a foundation for understanding the structures and
symbolism of higher education. Theresa Meadows outlined feminist principles that
would carry me through the gender issues along the way. I thank them all for
agreeing to serve on my committee and staying the course.
I have special thanks for with Marcia Muth, whose guidance through a series
of dissertation workshop sessions shored up my resolve, anchored my prose, and
calmed my fears. Her observations and advice, and those of my workshop
colleagues, helped at every turn.
I also wish to acknowledge my UCD-Colorado Springs cohort members for
their unwavering support and good cheer as we traveled this bumpy road together.
They are life friends with whom I share a special bond. We are becoming the
My colleagues at the University of Southern Colorado let me take this
journey in peace, witnessing my joys and challenges, sharing my anxieties, and
supporting my efforts off-campus and on. I am particularly indebted to the faculty
and staff of the Mass Communications Department and Center for New Media, the
faculty of the Womens Studies program, and the team at the Presidents Leadership
Program. They stepped in and stepped up so that I might reach my goal. Thank you

USC librarians Sandra Hudock and Raymond Morris made my research
efforts easier and more focused. I appreciate their help and cheerfulness. Judith
Rice-Jones and the staff of the UCCS library handled many requests with ease and
good humor even when my student status was a mystery.
My family and friends have tolerated my limited social life and remained in
touch nonetheless. Carpe diem!
And to Wendy who shared so many wonderful ideas, including the seeds of
this thesis, my thanks and good wishes.

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................1
Higher Education at the Millennium.....................2
Women in Academic Leadership.....................3
Career Paths in Higher Education.................5
The Gender Lens: Women in the Academy............5
Statement of the Problem...............................7
The Footprint Metaphor.................................8
Studying Women in the Deanship: Conceptual Frames......9
Women in the Deanship: The Investigation..............12
Study Purpose...................................13
Study Contributions and Value...................14
Women in the Deanship: A Mixed Method Design..........15
Data Collection and Analysis....................15
Standards of Verification.......................16
Study Limitations...............................18

Structure of the Dissertation
The Nature of Leadership................................21
Defining Leadership...............................22
Leadership as History.............................24
Categorizing Themes of Leadership.......................26
Leadership Traits Approaches............................28
Behavioral Theories of Leadership.......................30
Theories X, Y, Z..................................32
Contingency Theories................................... 33
Neocharismatic Theories.................................36
Charismatic Theories..............................36
Transactional and Transformational Theories.......38
Leadership Styles in Focus..............................40
Women and Leadership................................... 43
Leadership as a Masculine Activity................45
Womens Leadership as Feminist....................46
Womens Ways of Leading...........................47
Leadership Studies Associated with Women..........49
Generativity and an Ethic of Care.................50
Deficit Theories Addressing Womens Leadership...51

The Dimensions of Leadership and Power...............53
Feminist Views of Power........................55
AND WOMEN.............................................58
Viewing the Organization............................61
Theories and Models of Organization............61
Contemporary Models of Organization............65
The Evolution of Organizational Culture.............66
Organizational Culture as Communication........67
Gendered Communication.........................69
Organizational Climate.........................71
Organizational Communication and Gender.............73
Understanding Career Paths..........................77
Setting the Stage: Higher Education Today...........83
The Roots of Higher Education.......................86
Models and Structures of Higher Education...........87
Models and Frameworks..........................88
Shared Governance..............................91
The Roles of Administrators in Higher Education.....92
The Academic Deanship in Focus......................95

Studying the People in Educational Administration....100
Associate Deans Emerge..........................102
Women in Higher Education: Setting the Stage.........103
Educational Equality in the United States........106
Deans of Women...................................109
Legal Recourses Evolve...........................110
Expectations and Treatment of Women..............Ill
Career Paths in Higher Education......................113
Emerging Leadership Styles.......................115
Earnings as a Measure of Value...................117
5. RESEARCH DESIGN..........................................120
Overview of the Research Design.......................122
Standards for Qualitative Research...............124
Drawing the Sample....................................128
The Sampling Process.............................129
Participant Career Paths: A Summary..............133
Instrumentation and the Data Collecting Process.......134
Documents and Artifacts..........................135
Data Forms.......................................135
Curriculum Vita..................................136

Great Stories as Critical Incidents
Centerpiece Data: Semi-structured Interviews......139
From Field Notes to Memos...................143
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)..........144
Data Management.........................................147
Data Analysis as Process................................148
Theme Development and Coding......................149
LPI Analysis......................................150
Limitations of the Study..........................151
Tracking the Footprints Through Document Reviews.......155
The Evolving Career Path...........'.............156
A Closer Look at Deans............................161
A Closer Look at Associate Deans..................162
The Interview Process: Patterns, Themes, and Language..167
The Nature of Leadership..........................168
Collaborative Leadership....................169
Participative/Facilitative Leadership.......170
Transformational Leadership.................171
Visionary Leadership........................171

Feminine Leadership
Leadership as Metaphor..........................173
The Relationship to Power.......................175
Balancing the Communication Scale...............178
The Act of Listening.......................178
Communication Weaknesses...................179
Decision Making in the Deanship............181
The Daily Lives of Deans........................182
Critical Incidents and Defining Moments...............185
Self-efficacy as Professional Confidence........189
Educational Decisions as Personal Markers.......190
Family Considerations as Conduit and Barrier..........193
Findings from the Leadership Practices Inventory......194
Moving Toward the Footprint...........................201
THE FEMALE DEAN.........................................202
Thematic Statements...................................205
Research Sub-Question One.............................205
Research Sub-Question Two.............................207
Research Sub-Question Three...........................210
Research Sub-Question Four............................213

The Etymology of Generative Leadership...216
Future Studies...........................220

5.1 Assessing Validity in Qualitative Research Designs.................125
5.2 Personal Interview Protocol........................................140
5.3 Summary of Data Sources............................................146
6.1 Deans by Pseudonym and Career Path Mobility........................162
6.2 Associate Deans by Pseudonym and Career Path Mobility..............163
6.3 Code Book: Themes (Direct and Emergent Responses)..................166
6.4 Critical Incidents: Categories and Themes..........................188
6.5 Leadership Practices Inventory: Participant Group Profile..........197

In 1985, academic strategist Ellen Chaffee wrote, The course of higher
education in times of change and scarcity will be determined largely by how well
administrators and faculties understand strategic management (Chaffee, 1985, p.
164). Fifteen years later, Stevens echoed, academic leadership is the single most
important issue facing higher education as we approach the twenty-first century
(Stevens, 2000, p. 21). Institutions of higher education compete among themselves
and with other organizations for attention, monetary resources, skilled personnel,
and visionary leaders to tackle the problems of educating an increasingly diverse
population with limited public and private funds (Darling, 1995; Lucas, 1996).
Pressing external constituencies and responsibilities have drawn the focus away
from a number of gnawing internal challenges, including educational assessment,
fiscal accountability, strategic planning, and technological innovation.
In these defining moments in educational history, when womens unique
talents and skills might serve their campuses well, their needs and issues remain at
the bottom of a lengthy list of campus concerns (Bell & Chase, 1995; Christian-
Smith & Kellor, 1999; Dolan, 1998; Eagleton, 1998). Womens ways of leading
innovative, participative, and informedare well suited to the challenges of shifting
paradigms (Regan & Brooks, 1995; Rosener, 1990).

Higher Education at the Millennium
The focus of academic leadership and strategic management should be
planning for change and innovation (Baldridge & Deal, 1977; Birnbaum, 1988,
2001). On many campuses, momentous and rapid change follows decades of
tradition based on longstanding rules and practices of a stable, or at least more
predictable, era. In short, the nature of work in higher education is evolving in
new directions (Komives, 1999). Once the elite bastions of scholarly labor, powerful
research laboratories, and homogeneous faculty-student populations, colleges and
universities face a paradigm shift to new, sobering realities (Barker, 1992).
Academic leaders must necessarily reframe their missions, goals, and visions to
accommodate changing student/faculty demographics as well as to offset the impact
of dwindling resources (Darling, 1995; Stanton & Pitsvada, 1993).
Beyond the heavily publicized financial crises of the 1990s, educators still
face accelerated demand for services, training, and technology on campus, while
increasing globalization of higher education creates new partnerships and priorities
off campus (Kolodny, 1998; Lucas, 1996). Raising funds and managing those
resources effectively requires a form of entrepreneurship assumed by leaders and
administrators at a number of academic and managerial levels (Facione, 1999;
Jencks & Reisman, 1996). While campus presidents or chancellors embrace
significant fundraising and lobbying responsibilities, deans and department chairs
share these roles in order to nurture synergistic relationships with discipline-specific

industries or organizations in local communities or around the globe (Gmelch, 1999;
Graham & Diamond, 1997; Lucas, 1996; Stevens, 2000).
Predictably, as academic institutions expand their reach, new and powerful
partners stake their own claims to higher education. The influence of these external
publicstrustees, legislators, donors, alumni, community organizations, and
corporate partnersconstrains administrative decision-making and strategic
planning. As Julius, Baldridge, and PfefFer (2000) note,
when strong external pressures are brought to bear on colleges and
universities, the operating autonomy of academic and administrative
professionals is significantly reduced; faculties and administrators lose
control over the curriculum, the institutions goals, and the daily operation
of the college, (p. 7)
Women in Academic Leadership
Because academic bureaucracies are complex organizations with unique
characteristics and vulnerabilities, they require a cadre of leaders and managers to
orchestrate both the external affairs of the campus and the day-to-day routines and
activities (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1977). Among the pivotal educational
leaders who have historically sustained the academic and student affairs functions of
the academy are the middle management administrators or deans (Robillard, 2000).
On the organizational chart, deans are typically at a reporting line above the
department chairperson or director, and a step or two below the provost, vice
president, or vice chancellor. At large universities, a number of associate or assistant

deans may report to one individual and that same person may then link with several
associates or assistants at the next leadership level, often the provost or vice
president (LaFontaine & McKenzie, 1985). The deanship is a line position, powerful
in itself, but often recognized as a steppingstone to upper administration and the
presidency (Boggs, 1989; Dibden, 1968; Robillard, 2000).
It may not be surprising that women are significantly underrepresented in
these middle management administrative positions (Johnson, 1993). Using College
and University Personnel Association (CUPA) data, Glazer-Raymo (1999) found
that as of 1996, women constituted 25.4 percent of the 5,004 deans at 1,385
American colleges and universities. Further, females represented a majority
percentage in only 4 of 31 CUPA categorieshealth fields, home economics,
nursing, and special programs. In the professions, the percentage of women deans
varied from zero percent in dentistry and veterinary medicine, to a high of 16.6
percent in business.
Female academic deans at four-year public institutions, the specific
participants for this study, have been assembled in aggregate as higher education
administrators in studies that include chairs, deans, provosts, and/or vice presidents
(DAngelo, 1991; Glazer-Raymo, 1999; Gorenflo, 1999), or by disciplines, such as
business (Miller, 1989; Stevens, 2000) and education (Crary, 1995; Stallings, 1997),
as well as in student support areas such as library deans (Hollis, 1999) or the
vanishing dean of women roles (Drum, 1993; Nidiffer, 2000; Schwartz, 1997a).

Career Paths in Higher Education
Much of the career path literatureparticularly those studies focused on
women in higher education (Johnsrud, 1991; Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Sandler,
1986; Sagaria, 1988; Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1991)centers on the dual issues of
career path development and career path mobility. What impression do women
make, and where are they headed along those footpaths? How do women move
through higher educational administration? How do the patterns of job promotion
differ between men and women? What kind of leaders are they? How do they view
their roles?
In response to these questions, scholars have pointed to male/female
discrepancies in such variables as time in rank or position, previous position held,
highest degree attained, and number of years experience (longevity) prior to current
position (Johnsrud & Heck, 1994) or structural constraints (Glazer-Raymo, 1999).
Career mobility and patterns of career advancement (as measured by the traditional
academic career ladder of faculty member, department chair, dean, provost, for
example) were often measured against a male standard (Glazer-Raymo, 1999;
Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999).
The Gender Lens: Women in the Academy
To feminists, the academic world, like the rest of society, is gendered.
Gender refers to psychological, social, and cultural differences between individuals

1960s when the womens rights movement swept across American campuses (Calas
& Smircich, 1992). As feminists and others write to reclaim that history and revise
the oversights, some women academics still perceive inequitable treatment in the
workplace and mixed messages from their leaders. As educators, our understanding
of how to learn, teach, and practice leadership is determined by the assumptions and
values embedded within dominant leadership culture (Gosetti & Rusch, 1995).
The emerging profile of the female dean, as described by Curry (2000),
DAngelo, (1991), Glazer-Raymo (1999), Gorenflo (1999), Morris (1982), ONeil
(1989) and Sanders (1998), is still a bit out of focus, but some common
characteristics are surfacing. If these and other observations are accurate, the female
administrator may have a different manner, a different look, and a different fit in
the academic environment than the more familiar male managers, thus it becomes
important to continue this research stream. How, then, can we deconstruct the career
pathways and leadership styles of women deans to learn more about the feminine
Statement of the Problem
Women in academic middle management, specifically the deanship,
represent only twenty-five percent of the leaders in this role. Glazer-Raymo (1999)
concluded that a closer examination of female academic deans is critical because
these women are in the pipeline, ready to move into upper administration and

eventually to the chief executive office. The common anecdotal argument that
women could and would be hired or promoted if they were mobile in that pipeline
suggests that a variety of conflicting questions need to be unraveled and studied
further. Where are women in the higher education pipeline? What do their
experiences, leadership and management abilities, and communication skills look
like as they move into and through this conduit to academic leadership? Given the
dearth of women in the deanship, the study I conducted focused on the overarching
question: What is the footprint of female academic deans in four-year, publicly
funded institutions of higher education?
The Footprint Metaphor
This study is the culmination of a decade-long dialogue I have shared with
feminist colleagues in womens studies and other academic disciplines. In our
conversations about the credibility and mobility of women in academia, we sought
answers to all of the questions above, and many others. However, for several of us
who were department chairs or directors at the time, the challenges and frustrations
of administrative life were raw and fresh; We also witnessed devastating failures
and relatively few successes among the women who ventured to higher levels of
academic leadership around us. After experiencing a particularly painful run-in with
an upper administrator, a colleague posed a crucial either/or question: Is the pipeline
so much different for us or are academic leadership positions just not a good fit for

women? I wanted to explore the fit and shape of that female footprint more closely,
and very late in my planning I serendipitously encountered kindred spirits, Gosetti
and Rusch (1995), who described this metaphor far more eloquently than I had:
Like a fossil captured in stone or a footprint indelibly left in wet cement, the
conceptions and impressions of what we know, experience, and imagine
become embedded in all facets of our lives. Theories, practices, rules,
norms, and standards make up the foundations of societies and cultures.
As foundations, they become the stone and the concrete into which we
embed the fossils and footprints of our assumptions and values. The
footprint impression, which is clearly visible, becomes obscure over
time as we accept it as a natural part of the concrete configuration. Like
the footprint we unquestioningly pass everyday, the underlying values
and beliefs of our societal framework become taken-for-granted and
uncritically accepted.... While a footprint remains visible, the fossil is so
deeply buried in the stone that unearthing it takes a concerted effort, (p.
This study, and the metaphor it captures, is an attempt to find the footprint
before it is obscured from view.
Studying Women in the Deanship: Conceptual Frameworks
My research is driven by a specific research question: What is the footprint
of female academic deans in four-year, publicly funded institutions of higher
education in one western state? To further explicate the footprint metaphor, I
developed six sub-questions based on a confluence of sources drawn from the
literature on leadership and leadership styles, higher educational administration and
governance, and organizational communication and culture. While these conceptual

frameworks shaped the breadth of my review, the role of gender provided the depth
probe, or grind, for each of the lenses as they shifted into place.
Based on the details that surfaced during an extensive literature review, the
initial six sub-questions emerged as follows:
1. What institutional factors can be identified that have enhanced
career path mobility for female deans in institutions of higher
2. What institutional factors can be identified that have inhibited
career path mobility for female deans in institutions of higher
3. What communication competencies can be identified that have
enhanced career path mobility for female deans in institutions of
higher education?
4. What communication competencies can be identified that have
inhibited career path mobility for female deans in institutions of
higher education?
5. What leadership style factors can be identified that have
influenced the career path mobility for female deans in institutions
of higher education?
6. What factors have influenced the fit, enculturation, and longevity
of female deans in institutions of higher education?

These questions emerged from themes found in the literature on leadership
and leadership styles, higher educational administration and governance, and
organizational communication in particular, but I also gleaned useful data from
studies and commentaries on power, career development, mentoring, and
educational history. Themes appeared and re-appeared throughout the literature,
reflecting the fluid and overlapping nature of the focus areas under study.
After returning to the literature, I collapsed sub-question 1 and sub-question
2 into one compound question and sub-question 3 and sub-question 4 into a second
compound question, and I wrote the overarching research question into its final
form: What is the footprint of the female academic dean in four-year, publicly
funded institutions of higher education in one western state? The final four sub-
questions are:
1. What institutional factors can be identified that have enhanced or
inhibited career path mobility for female deans in institutions of
higher education?
2. What communication competencies can be identified that have
enhanced or inhibited career path mobility for female deans in
institutions of higher education?
3. What leadership style factors can be identified that have
influenced the career path mobility of female deans in institutions
of higher education?

4. What factors have influenced the fit, enculturation, and longevity
of female deans in institutions of higher education?
I have summarized the research question categories, major themes from the
literature, and the key researchers in a table entitled Developing the Research
Questions. This is available in Appendix A.
Women in the Deanship: The Investigation
By design and purpose, feminist theory examines the evolution of issues that
influence womens lives and relationships. Shifts in leadership styles at the national
and global levels suggest the need for more systemic, transformational approaches
to organizational leadership, development, and change (Ackoff, 1999; Wheatley,
1992). As early as 1977, Kanter ignited a firestorm by proposing that women of the
corporation were victims of structural, behavioral, and moral oppression at nearly
every level of the hierarchy. In recent decades, organizational and leadership
scholars (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 1993; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Holliday, 1997;
Lewis & Fagenson, 1995) have posited that women unprepared for or unsupported
for leadership might be reluctant to accept responsible positions of leadership
despite their potential to contribute new ways of leading. Adler (1997) and Rosener
(1990, 1995) emphasize that women represent a fundamentally underutilized, highly
qualified administrative resource, and, in aggregate, a potent strategy for change
leadership in particular.

Researchers and historians have just begun to review the roles, expectations,
tasks, and satisfactions experienced by academic leaders, and beginning with
Dibden (1968) and Morris (1973), descriptive accounts of the deanship traced the
development of a heavily male-dominated administrative career path. Unfortunately,
these descriptive and prescriptive accounts were based on a white male model that
prevailed for much of higher educations history in the United States. By 1997,
however, the first comprehensive national survey of deans reported a cross-section
of new data regarding the critical nature and strategies of the deanship (Gmelch,
2000a, 2000b; Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002), the role ambiguity and stress
encountered (Gmelch, Wolverton, & Wolverton, 2000; Wolverton, Wolverton, &
Gmelch, 1999), a comparison of deans to corporate CEOs (Wolverton & Poch,
2000), and observations on the roles of associate deans (Jackson & Gmelch, 2001).
The growing interest in this critical mid-management role suggests that women
deans may be ready to share their experiences.
Study Purpose
Gmelch and his colleagues argue that deans voices should be heard, that
scholars need to fully explore their personal stories to enrich our knowledge beyond
the statistics. The academic deanship appears to be a crucible for shaping
educational administration and developing a cadre of leaders for the future.
Exploratory research on womens experiences, lessons, stories, challenges, and

failures informs a new generation of female academics who are poised to step into
the leadership pipeline.
The purpose of my study is to capture the thoughts and perceptions of
academic deans in their own words. To hear their voices is to understand how they
make sense of their academic careers, their modes of communication, their decision-
making and leadership styles, their relationships to power, and their comfort leyel
and fit on the job. Through coding and analysis of documents, interview texts,
critical incident stories, and survey data from the Leadership Practices Inventoiy, I
was able to discern more details about the footprint of the female academic dean.
Study Contributions and Value
This study contributes to the emerging knowledge of leadership roles, career
mobility, communication styles, and comfort level among middle management
women by offering another perspective on the paths that women take in their
journeys through the academy. To encourage young women to seek academic
careers and aspire to leadership in higher education requires an understanding of
how women view this world and their contributions to it. A qualitative study permits
researchers to utilize a direct method of obtaining and evaluating the voices of
leaders in the field and to observe these individuals on the job (Kubey, Larson, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Qualitative studies explore environments and encourage
observations. Because both deans and associate deans were included in this

investigation, the deanship can be viewed as a cluster of positions that potentially
lead to upper administration. My findings, as explicated in Chapter 6 and discussed
in Chapter 7, align with a number of conclusions drawn by scholars in previous
studies. In fact, as I was completing the final version of this thesis, a comprehensive
discussion of Wolverton and Gmelchs findings on academic deans (College
Deans: Leading from Within, 2002) was published. These current studies, including
my own investigation, open the door to another view of leadership behavior, a
demonstrable ethic of care, and a collaborative style described as generative
Women in the Deanship: A Mixed Method Design
In this study, I gathered data to inform that overarching question via
responses to four sub-questions: (a) what institutional factors can be identified that
have enhanced or inhibited career path mobility for female deans in higher
education? (b) what communication competencies can be identified that have
enhanced or inhibited career path mobility for female deans in higher education? (c)
what leadership style factors can be identified that have influenced the career path
of female deans in institutions of higher education? (d) what factors have
influenced the fit, enculturation, and longevity of female deans in institutions of
higher education? Using a conceptual framework that comprised a three-pronged
literature review of leadership and leadership styles, higher educational

administration, and organizational communication, I designed a mixed method
(qualitative/quantitative) research plan. Using theoretical constructs from feminism,
interpretivism, and social construction of gender, I investigated the perceptions,
experiences, stories, and career tracks of academic deans at publicly supported
institutions of higher education in one western state.
Data Collection and Analysis
The decision to develop a mixed method approach, endorsed by Brannen
(1992) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), emerged following extensive review of
the literature in three noted focus areas and examined through a gendered lens.
Three important sub-textspower, workplace culture/climate, and career path
developmentinformed the study through both the literature and pilot interview
stages. Because I analyzed the data through a grounded-theory approach using
constant comparison techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), I returned to the
literature frequently as new themes and patterns emerged.
Following document review and a written request for participation addressed
to twenty-eight eligible female deans, a sample of fourteen participants was drawn
for personal, on-site interviews. In addition to review of the transcribed texts from a
fifteen-question semi-structured interview protocol, I analyzed eighteen critical
incident stories for key patterns and metaphors. I logged detailed field notes at each
interview session and transcribed these observations into my data management

system. One quantitative measure, the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes &
Posner, 2001) was administered to 13 of the 14 deans, and to a superior and
subordinate (or co-worker) of each administrator in the group.
Standards of Verification
To meet standards of quality and verification (Creswell, 1998), I used a
mixed method design and multiple procedures to minimize threats to validity and
to insure an appropriate accounting of my data collection and analysis. Data
collection was triangulated into four phasesdocument review, personal
interview/field notes, critical story analysis, and survey analysisa procedure that
supports a multiple-methods design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Maxwell, 1995).
To initialize the process, I employed a trained transcriptionist to review
audiotapes of all interviews, and I served as a second reader to verify the content of
the tapes and transcripts. Data was sorted and stored via computer software and
initial data categories were categorized using QSR N-Vivo software. To immerse
myself in the data and the contexts of individual transcripts, I completed much of
the data coding and theme development personally. In addition, I established an
extensive two-pronged data management system using both hard copy notebooks
to organize materials for and about each participant, and computer-assisted storage
and retrieval for electronic access. A more detailed description of this mixed method
design is described in Chapter 5.

Study Limitations
This study is an exploratory, and somewhat risky, qualitative process. I
created a complicated framework of procedures to discern responses about
potentially nebulous concepts about footprints and job fit that may have been
interpreted differently by individual participants. In addition, because I employed
grounded-theory techniques to track and analyze my data, I added new prompts and
re-phrased questions when needed. Interviews varied in length and scope as a result.
One participant did not complete the quantitative measure (Leadership
Practices Inventory, Kouzes & Posner, 1997) and only two observers were polled
regarding each dean. This plan was devised to equalize the number of responses
from large campuses, where many observers might be available, with small ones,
where fewer colleagues limited the choice of candidates and, more importantly, the
confidentiality of the process.
Consistent with my promise not to reveal names, campuses, or descriptions
that might compromise a deans integrity or her position, I assigned pseudonyms to
participants based on document reviews, web site analyses, and pre-interview
surveys. When using these pseudonyms to define or describe text quotations, I
eliminated unnecessary descriptors that might reveal poor relationships or situations.
This cautionary stance may disengage or confuse the reader from time to time.
My skills as a journalist and interviewer aside, this is an exploratory study
that may reveal some researcher bias and misinterpretation. Clearly, the results of

this study cannot be extrapolated beyond the parameters of this participant group,
nor did I intend to do so. The discussion and conclusions I draw, however,
corroborate or confirm other trends and findings of similar studies among academic
women, and provide a springboard for further research on these important leaders.
Structure of the Dissertation
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this thesis describe the focused literature
reviews (conceptual frameworks) of leadership, organizational communication, and
higher educational administration, as well as the gender issues that parallel or
intersect these arenas of study. To clarify the sub-topics of gendered leadership,
gendered organizational communication, and gendered governance and
administration in higher education, these discussions are separated by topical
headings to better inform the reader of the parallels and differences between
mainstream theories and studies and those of (primarily) feminist writers. Each of
these focused descriptors is further isolated as a gendered entity by virtue of the
underlying assumption that gender is a salient and ubiquitous social construction
(Yoder & Kahn, 1992) of human life and work. In these chapters, leadership is
examined through its defining characteristics and behaviors, as a cluster of
dimensions including power and authority, and as a gendered phenomenon. The
permeable boundaries of scholarship suggest that these chapters and sub-topics
overlap significantly with each other and with those in other focus areas.

Chapter 5 describes the research plan and methodology for the study in more
precise detail, including the population and sample characteristics, the calendar of
data gathering activities, triangulation efforts, reduction of data, analysis
procedures, and concerns of confirmability and transferability of findings.
Chapter 6 outlines demographic and thematic findings, including excerpts
from transcribed interview sessions, comparisons of critical incident stories, and
results of the Leadership Practices Inventory. I also note observations about the
daily lives of these women as educational leaders on their campuses.
Chapter 7 describes the footprint of these academic deans as characterized
by patterns of themes discerned from textual analysis and suggests a series of
thematic statements, or conclusions, about these women administrators. I also
examine the implications of these findings, as compared to the extant literature, and
offer suggestions for further study.

This chapter probes the relationships among leadership, leadership styles,
and power, eventually melding these understandings with the notions of gendered
leadership and power. The character and dimensions of leadership are implicit in the
guiding research question: What is the footprint of the female academic dean in
four-year, publiclyfunded institutions of higher education in one western state?
This chapter will highlight the major definitions, theories, and models of leadership
before focusing attention on the leadership styles that have evolved during the
twentieth century. Power as an essential component of leadership is addressed here
and again in Chapter 3 with the issues of organizational communication.
The Nature of Leadership
Much of the current research focuses on European and American leadership
behaviors or traits exhibited in arenas such as politics, the military, education,
religion, and most notably of lateindustiy and business (Burns, 1978; Rost, 1991).
Current writings on leadership address power and influence models that explain the
motives and purposes of leading (Bass, 1981; Stogdill, 1974; Weber, 1947), and

others take a more collective view to examine leadership research with a longer lens
(e.g. Eagly & Johnson, 1990; House & Aditya, 1997; Napier, Fox, & Muth, 1994).
Defining Leadership
Central to an understanding of leadership is an operational definition to
provide a perspective through which to interpret nuances of meaning. After studying
seventy-five years of scholarship through more than 600 documents, Rost (1995)
confessed that he found no commonly accepted definition. Rosts own definition is
frequently cited, however: Leadership is great men and women with certain
preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders wish in order to achieve
group/organizational goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher
level effectiveness (1991, p. 180). Bums (1978) found similar prose, but he
emphasized the reciprocity: I define leadership as leaders inducing followers to act
for certain goals that represent the values and the motivationsthe wants and needs,
the aspirations and expectationsof both leaders andfollowers (p. 19). Gardner
(1990) proposed, leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an
individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the
leader and his or her followers (p. 1).
Leadership is a palate of constructs from a variety of traditions. That is,
leadership is moral and inspired (Bums, 1978; Sergiovanni, 1992), a noble
obligation in the service of others (Greenleaf, 1998), charismatic and evolving

(Conger, 1988, 1989; Nur, 1998; Weber, 1947), contingent and fixed to desired
goals (House, 1971; House & Aditya, 1997; House & Mitchell, 1974) transactional
(Bass, 1981, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bums, 1978; Kotter, 1990),
transformational (Bass, 1981; Bums, 1978); generative (Jablonski, 1993; Sagaria&
Johnsrud, 1988), connective, webbed and organic (Helgesen, 1995; Lipman-
Blumen, 1996, 1998; Wheatley, 1992), collaborative, relational, and participatory
(Chrislip & Larson, 1994; House, 1971; Rosenthal, 1998). InEtzionis (1965)
rubric, leadership is power. The conjugations seem limitless.
Scholarly interest in leadership may lie in its conceptual ambiguity (Pfeffer,
1977). Heifetz (1994) identifies leadership as a social contract among leaders and
followers. It may be an act of resistance or a benchmark for cooperation, and above
all it is emergent and evolving (Guido-DiBrito, Noteboom, & Nathan, 1996).
Leadership is most associated with public life and activities identified through
organizations, events, or the workplace (Bums, 1978). Leadership studies become
synonymous with those in management, administration, or power and authority
because these concepts have overlapping meanings and connotations for
organizations and scholars (Hackman & Johnson, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997;
Kotter, 1990).
In revisiting an earlier content analysis of empirical studies on leadership,
Napier, Fox, and Muth (1994) discovered that descriptors of organizational
leadership in the twelve articles under their investigation were sufficiently vague,

and when characteristics and traits were applied, the confusion among
administration, management, and leadership was obvious. They concluded,
assessments of leader behavior in organizations, because much of what position
occupants do in them is not extraordinary, probably identify relatively little that is
actually leadership (p. 10). The lessons of history provide a starting point,
Leadership as History
As leadership cartographers, Stogdill (1974) and Rost (1991) mapped
extensive rosters of purposes, functions, descriptors, and models of leadership,
including a century of leadership theories charted decade by decade. Both argue,
however, that when studied in classic times, in the rhetoric of Plato and Aeschylus,
and among the earliest Chinese and Egyptian philosophers, leadership was a
dialectic interchange among intellectuals. Bums (1978) notes that a rich literature on
rulership evolved during the Middle Ages, but he implies that the study of rulers is
not a substitute for examining the roots and complexities of leadership in practice.
Stogdill (1974) and others credit Adam Smiths zl Wealth of Nations (1776)
as the earliest discussion of leadership as an exchange or relationship between
leaders and followers, a relationship that Bums (1978) views as necessary to
examine leadership as a moral activity. That leadership involves a relationship
surfaced again less than a century later as a precursor to leadership trait theories.

The so-called great man philosophy that leaders are bom, not made, is credited to
the philosophical and religious writings of Thomas Carlyle, specifically, On Heroes,
Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841). Carlyle, a Scottish-born essayist,
eschewed democratic ideals and laissez-faire politics, arguing instead that great men
were bom with a destiny to lead. His theory identified singular figures whose
character, persuasiveness, or charisma elevated them to heroic, occasionally mythic,
heights at critical junctures of history (Bass, 1981; Rost, 1991). Exacerbated by the
dramatic work of George Bernard Shaw (e.g. Man and Superman, 1904) the great
man ideal emerged among contemporary historians and essayists shortly after the
American civil war and prevailed until the 1930s (Hollander, 1995; Stogdill, 1974).
Among the candidates for great man distinction were Jesus Christ, Thomas
Jefferson, Napoleon, and Winston Churchill (Bass, 1981).
The great man theory was a forerunner to the so-called trait theories, but as
House and Aditya (1997) note, these theories were actually atheoretical and often
based on little more than anecdotal discussion of the era. Hollander (1995) contends
that by the end of the nineteenth century, European social philosophers were
convinced that 1 the concept of leadership involved leaders relationships with
followers. He cites an obscure and ironic anecdote from 1896 contributed by a
social philosopher named Lebon. This French scholar observed a man chasing after
a crowd of protestors saying he had to catch up to them because he was their leader
(p. 57).

Categorizing Theories of Leadership
In his prologue to Leadership, Burns (1978) asserts, If we know all too
much about our leaders, we know far too little about leadership (p.l). Despite this
declaration, the literature on leadership continues to grow, and is so extensive that
no single review could adequately address all of its tributaries. Thus, it is useful to
examine the distillations of leadership theories and models that have helped to
organize these contributions to the literature in a meaningful way.
Stogdill (1974), Bass (1981), and House and Aditya (1997) are among the
dozens of scholars who have surveyed the historical threads and theoretical bases of
leadership in recent decades. Stogdill (1974) identified six theoretical traditions
including great man theories, environmental theories, personal-situational theories,
interaction-expectation theories, humanistic theories, and exchange theories.
Forging his retrospective out of his own earlier analysis (1948) of trait theories,
Stogdill (1974) was convinced that traits alone could not explain the variety of
leadership assessments and believed that situational factors must intercede to shape
behavior. Bass (1981), extended Stogdills traditional theoretical groupings
beginning with Stogdills initial work in 1948, and identified leadership scholarship
into trait, behavioral, contingency, transactional, and transformational categories.
A more recent typology from Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum (1989)
labels six dominant theoretical clusters as trait theories, power and influence
theories, behavioral theories, contingency theories, cultural and symbolic theories,

and cognitive theories. These clusters aggregate the twentieth century models of
leadership and management into discrete units that link concepts of educational
leadership with organizational frames from Bolman and Deal (1984/1997).
Hackman and Johnson (2000), drawing on a communications perspective of
leadership, identify four primary approaches, which they identify as the traits
approach, the situational approach, the functional approach, and the
transformational approach.
The variety of models and perspectives from which to view the development
of leadership through history encourages a researcher to find an organizational
frame to center the process. For purposes of this review, I have chosen to follow the
framework and paradigm approach organized by House and Aditya (1997), which
includes the following basic clusters: trait theories, behavioral theories, contingency
theories, and neocharismatic theories. They argue that these frameworks are
leadership paradigms that comprise largely American assumptions because they are
individualistic rather than collectivistic, stressing follower responsibilities rather
than rights, assuming hedonism rather than commitment to duty or altruistic
motivation, assuming centrality of work and democratic value orientation, and
emphasizing assumptions of rationality rather than asceticism, religion, or
superstition (1997, p. 409). By outlining the prevailing cultural and societal norms
through which leadership is identified and studied in western cultures, this historical

canvas provides a setting from which the study of feminist leadership can be viewed
as well.
Leadership Traits Approaches
If a leader is endowed with superior qualities that differentiate him from his
followers, it should be possible to identify these qualities (p. 27), Bass wrote in
hisl981 introduction to a discussion of trait theories of the 1930s and 1940s. Bass
tracked hundreds of trait-focused studies that have generated a seemingly unlimited
number of leadership variables by which we often identify and define leadership.
Internal characterizations such as vision, ability, knowledge, power, and decision
making skills were often compared with social and communication skills, physical
variables such as height, facial characteristics, or vocal tones (Bass, 1981).
The perceived value of any particular trait varied over time and
circumstances. For example, comparing Stogdills 1948 typology to a follow-up
study in 1970, characteristics deemed most important immediately after World War
IIeducation, intelligence, social participationwere replaced in 1970 by
dominance, self-confidence, and interpersonal skills (Bass, 1981). Trait theories
have disappeared in the literature from time to time, only to seek a rebirth, first in
the 1970s and then again in the mid-1980s. These reincarnations suggest a closer
look is needed.

A number of feminist writers, including Rosener (1990, 1995) and Bancroft
(1995), have observed traits that are more inclusive of womens strengths as leaders.
Bancroft presents a distillation of traits comparing men and women in dichotomous
comparison. Feminine traits are (a) holistic, (b) process-centered, (c) inclusive, (d)
collaborative, (e) emotional, and (f) self-doubting. The parallel masculine traits in
her model are (a) linear, (b) result-oriented, (c) hierarchical, (c) territorial, (d) stoic,
and (e) confident (Bancroft, 1995, p. 51).
House and Aditya (1997) identified three recent trait theories for discussion.
A meta-analysis of thirty-five works developed by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger
(1986) revealed that three traits emerged consistently(a) intelligence, (b)
dominance, (c) masculinitywith a fourth characteristic, (d) adjustment, closely
following. McClellands Achievement Theory (1961) and Leader Motive Profile
Theory (1975) are power-based models. Postulating that some individuals rise to
leadership because they are driven by needs for power, achievement, or affiliation,
these theories suggest that such leaders will take the appropriate risks to achieve
those ends. Although charismatic theories are often treated separately, Houses
(1977) Charismatic Leadership Theory is treated as a trait theory because traits are
antecedent to charismatic leadership. House and Aditya (1997) argue that
charismatic leaders support change and will resist defenders of the status quo, thus
summoning up self-confidence and other traits to achieve their goals.

In his study of successful academic leaders, Kaplowitz (1986) located traits
in terms of personal attributes, interpersonal skills, and technical management
abilities. He cited personal characteristics such as humor, judgment, integrity, and
vision as critical for success. Eble (1978) found comparable attributes, but noted
negative or undesirable characteristics as well. Persons who were insecure, soft-
spoken, vain, or overly concerned with administrative matters were not viewed as
desirable leaders.
House & Aditya (1997) conclude that while consistent traits tend to appear
throughout these studies (including characteristics such as physical energy,
intelligence, prosocial influence, adjustment, self-confidence, achievement
motivation, and flexibility), situational factors must be carefully analyzed as well.
Interestingly, the authors conclude that future research may isolate others traits that
distinguish female leadership and that these traits may contrast with or contradict
those found in the current literature.
Behavioral Theories of Leadership
The leader behavior paradigm is the second cluster of theories in the House
& Aditya (1997) classification. Behavioral theories explain leadership based on
what leaders do, how they respond to situations, and what behavioral styles can be
typed and observed. Because these appeared shortly after World War II, there is a
timely marker between the focus on trait approaches and other variables. Key to

these theories are the works of Bales (1951) at Harvard, Parsons and Bales (1955),
and what have become known as the Michigan Studies and the Ohio State Studies.
A group of researchers from the University of Michigan tested leader
behaviors among employee work groups. Positing that leadership communication
was measurable on a continuum between employee-oriented behaviors and
production-oriented behaviors, the researchers identified situational variables where
attention to both employees and production was manageable as two separate
dimensions of leadership communication behavior (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor,
The Ohio State Studies, however, led to multi-dimensional views of
leadership communication style. Stogdill and Coons (1957) and a team of
researchers developed instrumentation to measure the leadership behaviors later
identified as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration refers to
interpersonal issues and interaction, while initiating structure focuses on task and
production endeavors. By recognizing that one leader may exhibit varying levels of
task or interpersonal behaviors, the researchers developed a better model of
behaviors in practice. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)
was one of the first tools to examine leadership traits in a more measurable and
accurate schema. Stogdill (1974) acknowledges that the study of traits and behaviors
ultimately required the context of situation to frilly explain leadership roles.

Other behavioral models, such as Blake and Moutons (1964) managerial
grid (now reconfigured as the Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid), were
popularized in organizational management literature, particularly under the rubric of
human resources management. The Blake-Mouton matrix uses two nine-point scales
to measure task orientation (the job) against relationship orientation (concern for
people). As measured on the grid, a (0,0) leader is deemed ineffectual on both
dimensions, a (9,0) or (0,9) leader would show considerable strength in one
measurement but virtually none in the other, and a (9,9) leader would be balanced
and strong in both task and relationships. As noted by Blake and Mouton, a (5,5)
leader often reflected the compromises of organizational leadership. The leadership
grid was a culmination of nearly twenty years of observations in organizational
settings, first through the University of Michigan and later at Ohio State University.
Theories X, Y, and Z
The work of Douglas McGregor (1960) further exemplifies the relationships
between leader and follower as well as the leader/manager models of the day. Based
on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1954) and the growing literature of organizational
leadership, McGregor posited dichotomous approaches to managerial leadership
called Theory X and Theory Y. Rigid versions of Theory X were predicated on
managements need for coercion, control, and punishments for non-compliance with
directives. Conversely, where workers concentrated on a common task, internal

control, and open, fluid communication, Theory Y leadership prevailed. The
essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions so that people
can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward organizational
rewards (McGregor, 1960, p. 61).
Decades later, Ouchi (1981) recognized a third model, which he called
Theory Z, that built on a Japanese prototype of collective decision-making, slow
promotion schedules, lifetime employment, and holistic concern for the employee.
He combined Organization J with the American model of individual decision-
making, rapid promotion, and short-term employment. His Organization Z
concept was committed to long-term employment and collective decision-making
policies. In this model, holistic concern for employees and their families was
balanced with carefully executed production schedules to combine the traditions of
both cultures within a new tradition (Ouchi, 1981).
Contingency Theories
A series of contingency theories of leadership followed the behavioral
models of the post-World War II era. The most studied of this group are Fiedlers
Contingency Theory of Leadership (1967), the Path-Goal Theory of Leader
Effectiveness (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974), Hersey and Blanchards Life
Cycle Theory (1982), and Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory. Based on the
supposition that factors external to the leader may constrain him or her in particular

situations, contingency models focused on how leader behaviors are shaped as a
In Fiedlers (1967) model, the nature of relations between leader and
followers, the type of task, and the positional power afforded to the individual
combine in different ways to direct the leaders hand. Based on an assessment called
the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scale, leaders with low LPC scores (task
focused) are favored when the situation is neither highly favorable nor very poor.
House and Aditya (1997) argue that Fiedler was the first to specify situational
variables as they relate to leader personality. Fiedlers work coincides with the
development of the managerial grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964).
Houses (1971) Path-Goal Model, built on the premise of expectancy theory,
outlines the motivations necessary to direct and clarify paths for followers to reach
the rewards of a particular task or solution. House and his associates posited that if a
follower could expect a reward for his efforts, he would select an appropriate path to
reach that goal. Further, they argued that communication stylesspecifically
itemized as directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-orientedwould
be appropriate in different task-follower situations to enhance both motivation and
satisfaction among followers. For example, a directive style is suitable when the
followers are inexperienced or unsure of their work and the task itself is
unstructured. Direction and supervision would be important to both parties. In
contrast, supportive communication behavior would be more appropriate when the

task is stressful and followers lack confidence in their work or situation, thus urging
support activity from a colleague, supervisor, or leader.
Hersey and Blanchards (1982) Life Cycle Theory identifies leadership
behaviors in light of their subordinates level of maturity regarding the task or
situation. Four leadership styles, telling, selling, participating, and delegating, are
centered on follower readiness levels, and identify stages of interaction mirroring a
parent-child model. The leaders style evolves as the subordinate becomes more
facile with the activity at hand. While oriented to more organizational or corporate
structure, this life cycle model suggests that leaders may identify communication
and other behaviors to positively (or negatively) influence follower behavior.
Leader-Member Exchange, orLMX, models (cf. Graen & Cashman, 1975)
explain relationships between leaders and followers in terms of social exchanges,
particularly centering on superior-subordinate interactions. By distinguishing the
characteristics of high quality versus low quality relationships, the influence on the
exchange between actors is a focal point. House & Aditya (1997) identify high
quality relationships as those exhibiting trust, respect, mutual obligation, mutual
loyalty and influence, and wide discretionary boundaries for subordinates. Their
research suggests the possibility of a Pygmalion effect as the bonds between leader
and follower strengthen. However, they also note that in-group and out-group
affiliations may encourage favoritism between the leader and an in-group member,

while out-group members aggregate against the more favored workers and the
Neocharismatic Theories
The neocharismatic paradigm, lodged in a 30-year period between the 1970s
and the late 1990s, comprises the new leadership theories identified by Bryman
(1993). Included in this cluster are Houses (1977) Theory of Charismatic
Leadership, Bums (1978) Theory of Transformational Leadership, visionary
theories outlined by Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Kouzes and Posner (1988), and
Conger & Kanungos Attributional Theory of Charismatic Leadership. House and
Aditya (1997) acknowledge the commonalities among the theories, particularly the
ability of leaders to establish common goals and to motivate others toward them, the
focus on a common vision, high levels of followership motivation and satisfaction,
and the appealing leader behaviors that each theory identifies.
Charismatic Theories
Although Claes (1999) and others credit charismatic behaviors to Christian
traditions of spiritual leadership, contemporary secular theories focus on the
sociological approach forwarded by German sociologist Max Weber (1947) and the
psychoanalytical approaches led by Zaleznik (1981). This social scientific study of
leadership, a demarcation point and theoretical shift in the examination of leaders

and their styles, began with the Webers analyses (Gerth & Mills, 1958). The works
were translated into English and published in 1947. Webers insightful
acknowledgement of the charismatic leader was particularly enriching to the post-
war literature because of its philosophical attachment to the notion of followers, and
for its critical definitions and models of power, both positional and non-positional
(House & Aditya, 1997). In his research, Nur (1998) concedes that Webers (1947)
definition of a charismatic leader, Bums notion of transformational leadership, and
Kotters (1990) generic descriptor of leadership are parallel concepts in the
examination of charismatic styles.
In keeping with the origins of charismatic thinking, Weber identifies
charismatic leadership as the extraordinary behaviors of individuals who are
innately endowed with special gifts and abilities to capture the attention and
admiration of followers. In their review of Webers theory, Trice and Beyer (1993)
located five elements or characteristics that must be in place to identify a
charismatic persona. These include a leader with extraordinary talents, a crisis
situation, a radical vision to solve the crisis, a motivated and engaged followership,
and a validation of the charismatic power over time.
Yukl (1994) describes the stages inherent in psychoanalytic theories of
charisma as regression, transference, and projection. As followers regress to
experience the feelings and behaviors of an earlier time, a charismatic leader assists
the process by controlling some of the daily behaviors, and through transference

helps a follower deal with feelings of inadequacy. Yukl points to cult leaders as
examples of what might be termed symbiotic relationships: As the follower is
engaged and validated by the leader, the leader is nourished by the attention and
glory reflected from his or her followers.
Nur (1998) posits that these leaders, particularly those most identifiable as
charismatic, draw motivational power from their followers adoption of missions
and belief systems. Serafms discussion of charismatic leadership describes
charisma as human expressiveness translated into nonverbal emotional
communications manifested by a particular individual (1992, p. 14). Yukl (1989)
notes that a charismatic leader is likely to emerge during periods of deep or rapid
change when interpersonal skills and personal visions will keep followers engaged.
The dark side of charismatic behavior, however, exemplified by political
leaders around the globe, is the narcissistic self-indulgence that draws the
charismatic leader into abuses of power and authority (Howell & Avolio, 1995;
Sankowsky, 1995). However, this view of reciprocity in the leader-follower
exchange parallels studies in LMX (leader member exchange models), and
intensifies the argument that more studies on followership patterns are needed.
Transactional and Transformational Theories
Among the social exchange theories that have gained particular professional
and scholarly attention in recent years are transactional leadership theory and

transformational theory. Although House and Aditya (1997) omit the transactional
language in their overview, I am including this synopsis from Burns:
Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing, by persons with
certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources,
in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals
independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers. The nature of
those goals is crucial. .. This is transactional leadership. The object in
these cases is not a joint effort for persons with common aims acting for the
collective interests of followers but a bargain to aid the individual interests
of persons or groups going their separate ways. (Burns, 1978, p. 425).
Transactional leaders engage in a quid pro quo agreement with their
followers; they accept the parameters of organizational culture and work within it
(Bass, 1981) as part of the negotiation of terms. As Bums (1978) notes,
transactional leadership is exemplified by political interchanges and agreements,
and is a valuable means of interacting in many societal settings.
Transformational leadership, on the other hand, moves beyond a bargaining
agreement within the status quo to a teaching moment where the leader motivates
followers to seek higher level values and goals, to lift them up perhaps, to a higher
moral synergy of purpose (Bums, 1978). This move to what Greenleaf (1998) and
Sergiovanni (1992) call moral leadership reconceives the higher purposes of
leadership toward virtuous cultural forms (Bass, 1985). House and Baetz (1979)
posit that transformational leadership is characterized by three factorscharismatic
leadership, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation. So defined,
leadershipespecially transforming leadershipis far more pervasive,

widespreadindeed, commonthan we generally recognize. It is also much more
bounded, limited, and uncommon (Burns, 1978, p. 426).
In the past two decades, researchers (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes &
Posner, 1995) have examined organizations to locate and survey transformational
leaders, and to study the nature and characteristics of transformed organizations.
Aphoristically, transformational leadership renews (Gardner, 1990). Simply
stated, the result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation
and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into
moral agents (Bums, 1978, p. 4).
Leadership Styles in Focus
The distinction between leadership theories (what constitutes leadership and
how it operates in an organization or system) and leadership styles relates to
behavior and how people act on the leadership principles (Bass, 1981). Further,
leadership behaviors are influenced by communication styles and how a leader
interacts with others in the organization (House & Mitchell, 1974).
Lippett and White (1958) differentiated leaders through concepts labeled
authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire, measuring the productivity of the group
and communication among leaders and followers. Their typology, a classic outline
for ongoing research and review among scholars, suggests that authoritarian leaders
are commonly directive (a control and command model), acting in hierarchical

organization and communication systems that are top-down, but concentrated in
task orientations that lead to (arguably) higher productivity. Accordingly,
democratic leaders permit and encourage greater grassroots and lateral
communication, balancing their interests between the good of the workers or
followers, and the task or goal to be achieved. Laissez-faire leaders exemplify a type
of benign neglect, reduced interpersonal contact, and a dependence on followers to
achieve their own ends. Paramount in this initiating work on leadership behaviors
are the complex relationships among leadership, goals (or tasks), and the operative
communication patterns among them as well.
Leadership styles, studied extensively in business, education, and politics,
appear to surface within a cluster of behaviors identified and explicated by Bonner
(1959). Bonners major styles included (a) authoritarian, where concern for power,
authority, and discipline dominate and leadership is centered on a punishment and
reward system of interaction; (b) bureaucratic, a rigid and impersonal style that is
not people centered; (c) laissez-faire, where a leave it alone behavior curtails
leadership activity; (d) charismatic, where the individual is both an inspiration and a
motivation to the follower, and (e) democratic, where group goals and interaction as
a team supersedes a desire for power or recognition.
Taken into the field, the varied nature of these different styles becomes
obvious. Lewin, Lippitt, & White (1993), for example, investigated leadership
communication styles by adapting three of these stylesauthoritarian, democratic,

and laissez-faireinto a series of behaviors which they taught to YMCA
supervisors. The researchers observed vastly different interactions between
followers and leaders when authoritarian behaviors were present versus times when
democratic or laissez-faire styles were in place. They learned that groups with
authoritarian leaders were efficient and productive, but no bonds were established
within the group or between group and leader. Democratic leaders elicited
commitment and cohesiveness without a dramatic loss in productivity.
Stech (1983) studied task and interpersonal styles of leadership
communication, noting nearly dichotomous orientations: Task leaders were rigid,
interruptive, information and fact centered, and communicated often in writing.
Individuals engaging interpersonal styles were listeners, focused on feelings, sought
the opinions of others, and communicated orally more often than in writing. Stylistic
differences are not necessarily black and white, but when tendencies to act are
examined, women are often associated with interpersonal orientations.
If communication behavior is the channel between leadership philosophy or
theory and the enactment of those prevailing ideas, leadership styles become
conduits for observing leader behavior. Leadership styles, drawn from
communication behaviors, situational conditions, and personal characteristics
provide a wide range of opportunities to see what an authoritarian leader is thinking
and doing. In their Path-Goal Theoiy of Leadership, House and Mitchell (1974)
outline four leader communication styles, directive, supportive, participative, and

achievement oriented. As noted earlier, these styles are shorthand for suggested
behaviors in specific types of situations. A directive style, for example, is
procedural, organizational, and useful for a task coordination or policy-setting
situation whereas participative styles encourage input from followers to involve
them in decision-making.
Women are associated with both participative and supportive styles, and in
recent years, many of the feminist studies on leadership focus on the leadership
styles of women (Bern, 1993; Claes, 1999; Clark, Carafella, & Ingram, 1998; Kolb,
1997; Korabik, 1990; Regan & Brooks, 1995). Because some of this research is
essential to literature on women and leadership, several of these feminine styles
are discussed further below.
Women and Leadership
This discussion of womens leadership is not intended to be an afterthought
at the close of a chapter. Unless the study or essay focuses on womens leadership
concerns, it is still common to find issues of feminist leadership or womens ways
of leading relegated to a few footnotes or a paragraph here and there. Bums (1978)
noted that the assumption of male leadership prevails throughout the literature,
directly and indirectly relegating women to out group status. He concludes:
The male bias is reflected in the false conception of leadership as mere
command or control. As leadership comes properly to be seen as a process of
leaders engaging and mobilizing the human needs and aspirations of

followers, women will be more readily recognized as leaders and men will
change their own leadership styles, (p. 50)
Mintzberg (1973), in a classic review of leadership behaviors, studied
managerial work among male leaders through observations, diaries, and interviews
to discern 10 basic patterns of behavior from information processing to decision-
making. From his original studies, Mintzberg was able to discern and model the
structure of organizations based on a five interrelated operating systems in a
hierarchical model. Twenty years later, Helgesen (1995) replicated his study using
women leaders with somewhat different results. Her observations took her in a
separate direction that eschewed the hierarchical model as a male structure. Female
leaders in her study tended to center their leadership within a web of interconnected
associations with followers in a pattern characterized by nurturing behaviors and
inclusive decision-making practices. One of the assumptions underlying the current
study is that leadership is shaped by communication events and how leaders use
those events and interchanges to make sense of their world (Weick, 1995, 2000).
Not surprisingly, however, leadership theories and models were forged from
observations of male behaviors and exchanges (House & Aditya, 1997). Steeped in
the traditions of great men analysis, Rosts (1991) transformational/ethical
definition of leadership is among the few to include men and women in the same
definition. However, a consideration of environment, leader-follower relations, and

recognition of womens contributions to leadership and management, a finding
shared in the work of Cejka and Eagly (1999).
Women's Leadership as Feminist
Feminist leadership is omitted from many lists of leadership theories and
perspectives (Ferree & Martin, 1995). Feminists understand and encourage
subjective views of scholarship and leadership. Interestingly, feminist analyses of
leadership adopt a highly accepting stance of transformational theories (Bern, 1993),
but are also associated with characteristics that are unique to feminism. These
models are female-centered, but not female-bound. Males can be feminists and
feminist leaders (Buzzanell, 2000; Mumby, 1996). Acker (1995) and Buzzanell
(1994), among others, acknowledge that gender is socially constructed,
distinguishing clearly between sex roles (biological essentialism) and gender roles
(socio-psychological constructions). Nicholson (1990) provides an excellent review
of feminist principles and their relationships to leadership and gender issues.
Bern (1993) is particularly clear in explicating these differences as the lenses
of gender. Gosetti & Rusch (1997) identify these lenses as critical to locating the
gaps in mainstream androcentric views of leadership and behavior, noting that
without a feminist standpoint from which to view the world, women-centered ideas
would not be examined. Capper (1993,1998) acknowledges that scholars base
interpretations of leadership on how people experience the organizational culture;

when women view it differently from their male counterparts, feminist scholars
examine those differences.
In post-structural feminism, leaders have a predisposition to take a stand in
the midst of continual self-reflection. Weedon (1987) notes the interactions and
contradictions among subjectivity, resistance to power, language, and unquestioned
underlying assumptions that surface in feminist studies. Further, she posits that
subjectivity is a healthy state, allowing the individual to identify and integrate
information and ideas. Feminist leadership, in her view, is somewhat shifting,
incomplete, and contradictory because it is inclusive and involved with ongoing life
(Weedon, 1987).
Capper (1993, 1998) stresses the role of power and resistance to power in
feminist leadership. Conflict and dissension, she argues, are necessary to air the
issues of divergence; resistance to the power of domination is critical to
sustainability of feminist causes. Feminist leadership also centers on the subjects
and objects of discourse. Lather (1989) concludes simply, the way we speak and
write reflects the structures of power in society. Fergusons (1984) heralded
discussion on bureaucracy is a straightforward and challenging response to
traditional male-focused assessments of structural lenses and bureaucratic
frameworks in American life.

Womens Ways of Leading
Ranters (1977) treatise on the inequities of the corporation, the barriers to
female leadership and career mobility, and the bifurcation of organizational life in
the United States is another marker in the leadership literature. She exposes the
corporate organization as a powerless workplace for women where, psychologically
and pragmatically, male power brokers build allegiances and networks that ignore or
eliminate female contributions. Ranter proposes that women develop power-gaining
strategies through negotiation, collaboration, and strong communication skills, a
posture endorsed by Rorabik (1990) and others. Although not calling for
androgynous leadership, these scholars applaud the skills of males within traditional
patriarchal structures. The power linkages and the incisive decision making styles
suggest that women might shift roles to emulate the styles of men (Rorabik, 1990).
Bern (1993), Rorabik (1990), and Rolb (1997) are among the noteworthy
feminist scholars who have addressed the recommendation of androgynous behavior
as a solution to invisibility in the workplace. Bern disallows androgynous leadership
as insulting to both sexes, but Rolb characterizes the male, task-centered, command
and control behaviors as balanced with the person-centered, participative, or
collaborative qualities frequently attributed to women. Rolb, like Rorabik,
recognizes that each set of apparently opposite concepts or behaviors are observable
in persons of either sex during specific situations on the job, and she questions a
scholarly willingness to perpetuate old stereotypes. Further, Rorabik (1990) argues

that dichotomous gender-centered or structure-based studies weaken the
transferability of organizational research because they fail to recognize and control
for salient variables that might offer alternative explanations of genders role in
corporate life. In Korabiks view, situational or idiosyncratic characteristics may
supersede gender issues in social interplay within workplace settings.
Leadership Studies Associated with Women
Morrison, White, and Van Velsor (1987), Astin and Leland (1991), Regan
and Brooks (1995), and Erkut (2001) are among the contemporary investigators who
have examined the lives of working women and women aspiring to leadership.
Morrison, White, and Van Velsor focused on corporate women, studying and
assessing the aspirations and career paths of women in big business. Their three-
year study in the 1980s introduced glass ceiling terminology into mainstream
conversation, and revealed the widespread concern for career planning and mobility
barriers introduced earlier by Kanter (1977).
Regan and Brooks (1995) examined gender as a category of experience in
their study of common barriers to womens leadership. Among these were lack of
political savvy, unfocused career positioning, and male dominance in key leadership
roles. Yet, Regan and Brooks focused most of their report on strategies and self-
assessment tools to assist women in developing their career paths. In doing so, the
authors reinforced the concept of relational leadership as a particularly feminine

leadership style for the twentieth century. By focusing on womens strengths at
building relationships, caring for others, and building teams, Regan and Brooks
resonated with other researchers on the collaborative styles of women.
A centerpiece feminist study on academic women was published a decade
ago. Using a feminist lens and theoretical framework based on the energizing force
of power, Astin and Lelands (1991) cross-generational study of leaders examined
social change by investigating women leaders in different junctures of their careers.
They identified positional leadership and non-positional leadership as a conceptual
base to study four aspects of leadershipleaders, contexts, processes, and
outcomes. They located three generations of women educators and identified them
as predecessors, instigators, and inheritors, based on their entry into academic
leadership. They concluded that these women were both visionary and influential,
but more critically, they established a research chain for researchers following in
their footsteps. Shakeshafts (1987, 1993) investigations into K-12 leadership
opportunities provided benchmark data on the chilly climate for women
administrators in the public school system, and initiated a research stream that pre-
dated and informed many of the studies at college level.
Adapting Astin & Lelands model, Erkut (2001), interviewed national
leaders and public figures to assay womens views from a cross-section of
occupational, racial, social, and philosophical perspectives. She found that these
women were generally democratic, people-oriented leaders who have strong family

support as children and remained tenacious and enthusiastic about their prospects
for success. She labeled them resistors or adaptors based on their relationship with
power: Resistors denied the place of power in their lives or work, refusing to accept
its implications or use powerful language. Conversely, adaptors found ways to
understand, accept, and communicate about their power.
Generativity and an Ethic of Care
Generative and participatory explanations of leadership behavior appear in
the work of Sagaria and Johnsrud (1988) and Jablonski (1993) to explain a creative,
empowering and process-based leadership style, highly associated with womens
styles of leadership. Gilligans (1982) ethic of care and Greenleaf s (1998) servant
model suggest that generative leaders nurture and empower others through
calculated risk-taking and focus outside of the self. They tend to focus on teamwork
and group effort through collaboration. The Sagaria-Johnsrud model, based on
thematic analysis drawn from qualitative research on female college and university
administrators, includes traits derived from the dataparticipation, creativity,
empowerment and open communication. Jablonskis study of female college
presidents echoed her colleagues work. Generative leaders create a work culture
that values people. Such leadership engenders trust, collaboration, shared decision-
making, connections between people, and the valuing of differences (Jablonski,

Deficit Theories Addressing Womens Leadership
Erkut and Fields (1990) and Rost (1991) acknowledge the so-called Pipeline
Theory, a perspective focused on the need for critical mass. Before women, or any
specified group, are ready to move into positions of leadership and authority, there
must be women in lower ranks posed to move. Generated to explain the glacial
progress of women in the workplace, pipeline theory has succumbed to the current
research. Most recent investigations suggest that women are clustered in low- or
mid-level positions where women compete with both men and other women for
limited positions in flattening organizational structures (Knott & Natalie, 1997;
Kossek, 1998; Rosener, 1990, 1995).
The increasing numbers of women in the workforce suggest that women
leaders, particularly females with more androgynous administrative styles, would
rate more favorably among colleagues and subordinates. As several scholars have
noted, however, as organizations and offices become more feminized (more women
in all roles, especially in the positional or line ranks), the character and credibility of
particular styles diminish or are devalued (Gummer, 1990; Lee, 1994; Smith &
Smits, 1994). Stivers (1993), in examining the leadership and managerial skills of
women in public administration and government service, argues that elected
officials and upper level managers who are already under fire for bureaucratic waste

and other accountability issues find little time to attend to the invisible or
underutilized women on the public payroll.
Kanters (1977) findings had an immediate and concerted effect on the
organizational researchers of her day. As outlined by Rosener (1990), the
collaborative, participative, team-oriented styles that women exhibit in the current
leadership marketplace mesh well with a global leadership culture. This new culture
eschews individualism, power, and authority and embraces a more collaborative
approach. At the outset, Rosener proposes an audacious idea that leveraging the
talents of professional women will lead to more innovative, productive, and
profitable organizations (1995, p. 3). She concedes that while generations of
womens invisibility was a social injustice, today it is an economic imperative (p.
3), but a mandate not universally recognized by organizational leadership.
The Dimensions of Leadership and Power
Specific dimensions or components of leadership help to build our
understanding and acceptance of male and female paradigms. Among the most
studied variables are the concept of power, and its integrative dimensions of
coercion and authority (Muth, 1984). Theories based on power and influence
compelled researchers to recognize the reciprocal relationships between leaders and
followers. Etzioni (1964) associated leadership with positional authority, arguing
that persons holding office or similar formal positions of social power have greater

opportunity to influence others than individuals in more informal settings do. Thus,
the situating of leaders into organizations and into seats of power maintains a
historical precedent established by ruling monarchies, landed gentry, and military
leaders (Bums, 1978). Further, as actors within a changing and public social order,
leaders are forever sketched as players with a cast.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) assert, Power is the capacity to translate intention
into reality and sustain it. Leadership is the wise use of this power... vision is the
commodity of leaders, and power is their currency (pp. 17-18). Among the most
recognizable of social power theories is that of French and Raven (1959), whose
five bases of power remain among the most tested in the literature. The five bases
include legitimate power, a form of positional power constructed through social and
legal systems; reward power, based on the ability to motivate others through
rewards; expert power based on leader skills, knowledge, or talents; referent power
or role modeling behaviors that attract emulators, and coercive power where an
actor forces compliance behaviors in lieu of punishment.
Yukl (1981) studied research on power bases and leadership effectiveness
with mixed results: Legitimate power is not correlated with performance, and results
on reward power are inconsistent at best. Bass (1990) and others have reviewed the
costs and benefits of power to suggest that, for example, coercive forms of power
may achieve immediate results and promote discipline, but coercion reduces
satisfaction, trust and commitment among followers. Legitimate power, on the other

hand, is cultural sanctioned and effective for gaining compliance. Task performance
may be reduced among followers, however.
Muth (1984) discerned that leadership, power, and authority could be
reviewed as a continuum of behaviors associated with power and identified as
coercive, authoritative, or influential rather than as discrete sets of behaviors
unrelated one to another. Considering the need for power-gaining strategies in many
leadership situations, the debate is continually nourished. Social exchange theories
of leadership (Hollander, 1995), for example, permit transactions or exchanges of
power between followers who seek the values and benefits of the exchange rather
than the power itself. Power and leadership linkages invariably point to the focal
point of the exchange through language and ultimately the communication of power
issues to constituencies.
Feminist Views of Power
Of particular interest to this study is the intersection between power as a
predominantly male phenomenon and perspectives that are more female-inclusive.
Rees (1999) argues that as more women have entered public affairs and corporate
life, the concept of power is more inclusive. Marshall (1984) studied power from
dimensions that approach male typologies, but created her own to include (a) power
over others, (b) structural factors which contribute to power, (c) power generated
with or through others, and (d) personal power.

The power over dimension was thought to parallel the early descriptions
translated from Webers work. However, Helgesen (1990) attributes power-over
styles to men in organizations, suggesting further that the asymmetrical nature of
this power type leads to command and control postures of leadership. Bennis (1998)
argues that the lone ranger is dead, implying that independent power-over styles
may be dying as well. Kelly (1991) concluded, Women tend to view power as a
means to promote change, whereas men tend to view power as a means to having
influence over other peoplepower to versus power over (p. 101).
Structural power, equated to positional power by Kanter (1983) and others,
awards power to individuals by virtue of position and may affect others
performance as well. Marshalls power through others has also been called
facilitative power (Dunlap & Goldman, 1991) and is associated with educational
institutions in particular. Sergiovanni (1992) borrows the power with others form
to create a power to model that is, by Marshalls description, as balanced and
symmetricala conduit for creating power through relationships with others.
Personal power equates to a combination of expert power and charisma, or a power
within (Marshall, 1984).
Feminist discussions of power (Buzzanell, 1994; Mumby, 1988) equate
power structures, institutional and personal, as an asymmetrical partnering of haves
and have-nots. Ferguson (1984) traces bureaucracy to the layers of power brokering
that demean those without power and impose a hierarchical corporate will on the

whole. Helgesen (1990, 1995) and Lipman-Blumen (1996) have created, in essence,
webbed and connective leadership models to isolate negative power relations out of
organizational structures by removing the hierarchy and placing leadership in the
center. Schaef (1985) locates dichotomous systems coexisting in a male-dominated
paradigm. In the White Male System, power is conceived in a zero-sum fashion. In
the Female System, power is seen as limitless (p. 124). Women tend to empower
others to increase their own power, Schaef postulates, while men engage with power
via a scarcity model.
Due in part to the intersections of power, race, class, and gender, Eurocentric
white males have experienced greater privilege and wielded more power than white
females or minority males (Duerst-Lahti & Kelly, 1995). In her discussion of power
and gender in the workplace, Newman (1994) outlines the gendered nature of
Theodore Lowis typology of policy types.
Higher education, like other institutions in society, borrows concepts of
leadership as well as management strategies from a variety of sources, including
business, the military, religion, and politics (Baldridge, et al., 1977). The unique bi-
cameral nature of higher education, however, demands specific attention to the
concept of shared governance between faculty and administration as well as to the
organizational communication strategies in place to accommodate such governance.
The particular communication opportunities and challenges found in academia are
among the topics discussed in Chapter 3.

When women moved into organizational leadership roles, the gendering of
the workplace was both observable and measurable. The presence of women
sexualizes the context of the organization (Eagleton, 1998) and creates new
meanings and interchanges. Mumby (1996), Mumby and Stohl (1998), and Bern
(1993) note that recognizing and acknowledging the existence of two sexesmale
and femalein language, in communication, and in the public arena of
organizations, are the first steps toward an understanding that women have a role
beyond the private domain of home and hearth.
Although women in todays educational workforce are the focus of this
study, a female presence in community and public life began in nineteenth century
civic and religious organizations (Buchanan, 1996; Clifford, 1983). Success in the
womens club movement encouraged suffragettes and other women leaders to move
into the business world (Reynolds & Tietjen, 2001). The gendering of the workplace
had begun.
Acker (1990, 1995) concludes that doing gender means to locate new
viewpoints separate from unidirectional androcentric (male centered or male
focused) norms and interactions. This expands the range of perspectives and

heightens human interchange. Through a more gender-adjusted lens, the student of
organizations begins to approach the issues of sex-identified roles, potential barriers
and biases, and discrimination or harassment with a more critical eye (Bern, 1993;
Buzzanell, 2000).
Although women were employed outside the home for decades, the
mandated hiring of women into potential positions of power and influenceas
supervisors, managers, administrators, and leadersforced organizational scholars
and theorists to recognize the impact and influence of women in the workforce
(Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Kanter, 1977). These social and political mandates,
initiated in the 1960s and legislated through a series of Congressional acts in the
1970s, were an uncomfortable fit for male-dominated organizations throughout the
United States, but the first of several opportunities to re-write organizational
theories (Calas & Smircich, 1992).
As Kanter (1977) notes, the obstacles, the unwritten rules of organizational
life, and the treatment of women employees and managers as second class
participants in the work of the organization, combine to devalue women and waste
valuable corporate resources. Kanters study was among the first to challenge the
male-dominated hierarchical structures and position assessments that often
prohibited women from moving through a glass ceiling to positions of power and
influence. She notes continuing problem of homosocialityspecifically the hiring
and promotion of white males by other white males in the hierarchy. Lack of

opportunities and responsibilities forced women to act like men, but look like
ladies (Hennig & Jardim, 1977). The value of a female voice and perspective
appeared lost on the corporate patriarchy.
If researchers conclude that women are comparative newcomers to
organizational work life, and that their admittance to the hierarchies of most
corporate bureaucracies was a reluctant inclusion, then a corollary conclusion might
be that when women do move into the workplaceparticularly at the managerial,
administrative, or leadership levelstheir entry might modify the climate and the
culture in unexpected ways. By gendering the organization, the daily activities
change, the climate and culture of the structure adjust (Tannen, 1995), and
eventually the identity of the workplace is transformed (Hale, 1999).
The interpersonal and intergroup relationships between female workers,
managers, or leaders and the male-centered organizational workplace have been
scrutinized by sociologists, feminists, organizational theorists, and more recently,
communication scholars (Bern, 1993; Kaplan, 1995; Smircich, 1983; Tannen, 1995).
These insights help researchers to better dissect what Weber (1947) posited
regarding organizations and to examine the growth of what Morgan (1997) called
the culture of organizations. Organizational culture, which includes the interactive
behaviors and communication patterns of that environment, is a gendered
phenomenon of particular interest to feminist scholars (Bern, 1993; York, 1999).

Viewing the Organization
Morgan (1997) argues that organizations, by definition, are groups of people
who serve collectively as tools to accomplish work or tasks. Drawn from the Greek
word organum meaning tool or instrument, definitions of organization stem from
historical records dating back to Egyptian plans to build the Pyramids or, more
recently, Prussian king Frederick the Greats attempts to raise an army in the mid-
1700s (Morgan, 1997). Drucker (1997) suggests that organizations are defined by
how work is being done (p.4), and by the relationships between the internal issues
of getting that work done and the external focus of serving a marketwhatever that
market may be. The organization is not just a tool. It bespeaks values. It bespeaks
the personality of a business, a nonprofit enterprise, and a government agency. It is
both defined by and defines a specific enterprises results (Drucker, 1997, p. 5).
Organizations, like other social phenomena, are studied from a variety of
perspectives. Prevailing organizational theories and models have disparate sources
and engaging lenses through which to view them. A brief review of these theories
provides a context for understanding educational organizations and for coaxing out
the issues that shape the roles of gender and communication in those organizations.
Theories and Models of Organization
The specter of scientific management and the resulting effect on the
workplace lives of Americans are easily viewed in the contributions of Frederick

Taylor, the so-called father of scientific management. Rooted in nineteenth century
time and motion studies, Taylors theories forged a relationship between industrial
productivity and the motivation and speed of the worker. Often called classical
management, this perspective on organizations was tied to a task benchmark and
clearly influenced by the industrial revolution in the United States and England
(Morgan, 1997). Taylor advocated five basic principles that outline the focus of the
organizational workplaceshift responsibility to managers, use scientific methods
to locate efficient work procedures, find the best worker, train the worker, then
monitor the worker. This top-down approach cemented a hierarchical, ordered
method for completing tasks or developing outcomes.
In the tum-of-the-century Taylorian world, workers were generally male and
the organization itself malea fraternal hierarchy of tasks and positions populated
by men (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Morgan, 1997). Women were thought to be
unsuited to these roles, and it was rare to find a female whose skills could be
matched to positions determined by physical strength or trained appropriately to
undertake the task (Acker, 1990).
Among the early theories of organization are the so-called administrative
(classical) management approaches introduced by Henri Fayol during the early
phases of the industrial revolution in Europe and the United States. Classical
management theory espoused a linear, intellectually rational, command and
control coding of practices and procedures involved in completing tasks, often

product/outcome tasks in the emerging world of industry (Morgan, 1997). Practices
steeped in discipline, obedience, order, and a veneration of the product resulted in
organizations that were invested in the whole, not in the individual. However, the
role and purpose of each individual was critical to achievement of the process to
create that whole. This mechanistic or structural view, exemplified by such
industrial procedures as the factory assembly line, laid the groundwork for the
bureaucratic organization of government, social and political groups, religious and
service collectives, even education and medicine (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Morgan,
Sociologist Max Weber (1947) is credited with coining the term
bureaucracy to study the ideal of the large organization through rational means.
Webers ideal bureaucracy took several beyond Taylors initial works and focused
on the formalization of rules and procedures, specialization of labor, clear lines of
authority established within an orderly hierarchical framework, and formal
processes to organize career advancement based on a merit system (Gerth & Mills,
1958; McNeil, 1978). Webers examination of the bureaucratic organization post-
dates the development of enormous political and religious hierarchies of structure
and power established over the centuries, yet his critique of the bureaucratic yoke
associates his position on the dangers of the organization to the individual.
Bureaucratic approaches, like mechanistic and scientific management perspectives,

limited the knowledge and contribution of the individual, focusing instead on
managerial leaders to define and monitor organizational operations (McNeil, 1978).
The human relations view of management emerged in the early years of the
twentieth century when Elton Mayo conducted a series of experiments at the
Western Electric Company. Conducted to find a causal relationship between
physical environment and productivity, Mayos Hawthorne Experiments
evaluated the change in lighting conditions on individual performance. The
Hawthorne effect that emerged from the second round of studies revealed that
performance was related to researcher attention rather than to physical environment.
These studies of behavioral issues were instrumental in recognizing the value of
social relations and job satisfaction in the workplace, concepts later studied by
Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor (Morgan, 1997).
Systems theory, advocated by a wide variety of scientific analysts but
applied to leadership by Wheatley (1992), is based on the interrelationships of
organizational effectivenessindividuals, the organization, and the environment. A
system includes inputs, transformation processes, outputs, and feedback, and may be
an open or a closed system. Among the advantages to a systemic approach is the
recognition that a change in any one unit within the system may influence or affect
the other parts. Systemic thinking was popularized in higher education as a
framework for sharing common visions and purposes as it relates to shared
governance and strategic planning (Darling, 1995).

Contemporary Models of Organization
Organizations have been portrayed and modeled as structures of efficiency
and bastions of gender, racial, and class warfare throughout the twentieth century
(McNeil, 1978), but among the more useful models for review are the use of
frameworks (Bolman & Deal, 1991) and the overlay of metaphors (Morgan, 1997).
In a now classic series, Bolman and Deal argue that organizations can be
experienced and evaluated via frames.
Frames are windows on the world. Frames filter out some things
while allowing others to pass through easily. Frames help us to order the
world and decide what action to take. Every manager uses a personal frame,
or image, of organizations to ... get things done (1991, p. 4).
Organizations and the leaders who provide oversight within them operate
through these frameworks, but each frame interprets the organization differently
structurally (as Weber did), as a human resources frame, a political frame, or a
symbolic frame. These frameworks summarize the earlier research studies on the
relationships between worker and the workplace, and provide lenses for managers
and leaders who oversee them.
Briefly stated, Bolman and Deal see structural organizations as hierarchical,
with clearly defined divisions of labor, a focus on productivity and task, and a goal
of a flawless performance and product. Human resources frames focus more closely
on the needs and success of the workers or employees. Political frames operate
where resources are scarce and competition for them is significant, where competing

groups have disparate needs and issues, where negotiating and posturing are critical
to success, and where conflict and power are dominant features of the organization.
The symbolic frame of reference suggests that organizations and their leaders are
loosely coupled entities and the patronage of managers and leaders is ceremonial
and ritualistic rather than actual and defined. Cohen and Marchs (1974) discussion
of the academic presidency is an example of the organized anarchies they viewed
as operative within higher education.
Morgans (1997) mode of analysis extends the frameworks approach and
offers the metaphor as a lens. Morgan revisits the Bolman and Deal constructs, but
draws again from the hard and social sciences, as well as emerging organizational
theories to build each metaphororganization as machine, brain, organism, culture,
psychic prison, even tool of domination. Among the most comfortable metaphors is
the parallel of the organization as culture, a particularly apt framework to
understand the roles and functions of higher education.
The Evolution of Organizational Culture
Kunda and Van Maanen (1999) argue that work organizations are cultural
phenomena that are best understood when their character, ritual activities, and
systems of meaning are acknowledged and studied. While the concept of corporate
or organizational culture is often attributed to organizational sociologist Andrew
Pettigrew (1979), it has emerged more recently as a study of the close relationships

between managers, professionals, workers, and their employers (Kunda and Van
Maanen, 1999; Morgan, 1997). Like many systems of social life, organizational
cultures are constructed, overtly through the expectations and behaviors of the
workplace, as well as covertly through ceremonies, interpersonal relationships,
communication activities, and other modes of interchange among the actors in that
workplace (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Chatman, Polzer & Barsade, 1998;
Smircich, 1983). The structuring connector that threads these cultural elements
together is organizational communication.
Organizational Culture as Communication
Bantz (1993) describes organizational communication as the collective
creation, maintenance, and transformation of organizational meanings and
organizational expectations through the sending and using of messages (p.18), and
culture is an outcome and a process of meaningful activity together. Mumby (1988)
posits that organizational cultures are built on communication networks and webs of
power that link individuals to the workplace:
Simply put, power is exercised in organizations when one group is
able to frame the interests (needs, concerns, world view) of other groups in
terms of its own interests. In other words, the group in power can provide the
frame of reference for all organizational activity. As such, the exercise of
power is intimately connected with organizational sense-making, which in
turn is largely delimited by the communication process, (p. 3)

Power becomes an operative construct within the context of organizational
communication. Clegg (1989) describes this power of organizational structure as
both medium and outcome. Power, in essence, is both a product of organizational
activity and the process by which activity becomes institutionally legitimized (p.
63). Suggesting, for example, that meetings are organizational symbols of decision-
making and exchange, Clegg emphasizes the greater value of such activities as the
visible and important site of organizational power. In that context, he argues, such
an event is a forum for reviewing the actors who play out the organizational agenda.
The relationships among organizational members, then, create the realities of
the workplace. A binding, but evolving, set of signs and symbols creates a language
through which those organizational members can communicate (Dance & Larson,
1976). Mumby concludes further, From the perspective of organizational culture,
communication is an intrinsic part of the process through which organizational
reality is created; in a real sense, communication is culture (Mumby, 1988, p. 12).
The reality, from Mumbys view, is socially constructed. Extending the argument
further, Deetz (1982) posits, a reciprocal relationship exists between
communication and the ongoing structure of organizational power interests (p. 21).
He credits language as the code that is responsible for constructing meaning:
Of all institutional forms, language has a special position. All other
institutional forms may be translated into language ... Further, every
perception is dependent on the conceptual apparatus which makes it possible
and meaningful, as this conceptual apparatus is inscribed in language. Talk
and writing are thus much more than the means of expression of individual

meanings; they connect each perception to a larger orientation and system of
meaning. The conceptual distinctions in an organization are inscribed in the
systems of speaking and writing. Speaking and writing are thus epistemic.
Organizational actors exchange meanings to construct a culture. It is difficult
to function in even the simplest organizational unit without informative linkages
(communications) between and among the stakeholders (Cooren, 2000). Cossette
(1998), in his study of language in organizations, posits that individual words,
labels, and phrases help to forge the currency of the organization, locating both
power relationships among workers and assigning nuances of meaning that pervade
the culture.
Gendered Communication
The differential use of language as a tool of communication identifies
women as different from men (Acker, 1990; Mumby, 1996; Putnam & Fairhurst,
2001; Putnam & Mumby, 1993). Padavic (1991) found that the most obvious
gendering processes in the organization occurred in open communication
interactions, a result confirmed by Ashcraft (1998,2000), Ashcraft and Kedrowicz
(2002), and Ashcraft and Pacanowsky (1996). By affirming their bond and
superiority as men, by sexualizing women in the abstract and stereotyping those
women who entered their domain male plant workers recreated gender at the micro
level (Padavic, 1991, p. 289).

Gendered workplaces create boundaries and expectations for acceptable
behavior within the organizational culture, simultaneously fashioning
communication opportunities that are also gendered. Still (1994) concluded, for
example, that enough evidence has been compiled to show that organizational
culture impedes womens progress to upper administration or management. Women
trapped at lower or middle management positions are effectively isolated from
senior positions; Managerial females in particular are caught between their
occupational class and their gender class (Symons, 1992).
As communication processes become increasingly gendered, sex roles and
power agendas surface. Focusing on the intersection of organizational
communication, sexuality, and domination, Clair (1994) addresses how resistance
and oppression act as a self-contained opposite that contributes to hegemony in the
workplace. Gender structuring of the organization through discursive practices
contributes to resistance and oppression. Cheng (1999) adds, sex does not
predetermine gender behavior performed, social order does (p. 415), but in daily
interactions, the differences become boundaries of behavior. Bahniuk, Hill, and
Darius (1996) found that men were more successful with power-gaining strategies
than their female counterparts were because women have less access to the
resources and information systems in the workplace. In a similar finding, Fritz
(1997) concluded that womens relationships in organizations are seen to be more
intimate, stronger, and more talk based than mens relationships. She added that

women have fewer strong ties to power because of their cross-sectional approaches
to interaction. Franzwa and Lockhart (1998) posited that gender-associated
communication styles are manifestations of deeper gender-related personality
differences that are socially cultivated over time.
Tannens (1990, 1994) studies of gendered communication in the workplace
suggest measurable differences between men and women regarding the number of
interruptions, vocal hedges, and tag questions in everyday interchanges. Postulating
that women are associated with more tentative communication behavior, her
research revealed that men interrupted more and were more decisive and specific in
their speech. Women appeared more hesitant and unsure of themselves. In a follow-
up study, Grob, Meyers, and Schuh (1997) found no significant differences in these
same speech characteristics between men and women. They did note, however, that
men used more powerful language, including metaphors, than their female
Organizational Climate
In his review of organizational culture, Wilpert (1995) identifies a process, a
social construction of organizational reality(p. 60), which re-defines workplace
culture in numerous waysfrom perceptions of an organizational mind or collective
ideation, to networks of meaning, depending on theoretical perspective. Wilpert also
emphasizes that organizational culture is a deep, complex, comprehensive structure,

quite distinct from a workplace climate, which refers only to the readily accessible
and observable facets. The culture of the workplace, then, is multi-faceted: It
includes both intrinsic and extrinsic manifestations, an observable climate, and a
common carrier of culture itself, the flow of communication within its boundaries.
Schein (1994) identifies organizational climate as a surface manifestation of an
organizational culture, noting that organizational culture is a deeper, richer
phenomenon that requires ethnographic methods to tease out the full measure of
artifacts, rituals, and symbols that shape it.
Johnson and McIntyre (1998) studied nineteen different aspects of
organizational culture and climate in a survey of more than 8,000 government
employees to conclude that job satisfaction is positively related to several measures
of culture, including empowerment, involvement, and recognition. Measures of
climate most strongly associated with scores on job satisfaction were
communication, followed by goals, creativity and innovation, and decision-making.
An organizational culture appears to be both a context for communication
behaviors and the net result of them (Bern, 1993; Mumby, 1996). Workplace
climates foster dyadic and group interchanges through emphasis on collectivist
activities and projects, or they stress individualistic enterprise to get the job done
(Chatman, Polzer, & Barsade, 1998). Defining organizational culture as the
observable norms and values that characterize an organization, Trice and Beyer
(1993) argue that these coherent structures, while invisible to an outside observer,

may influence a wide variety of decision-making and problem-solving behaviors as
well as affect interpersonal relationships, particularly those between persons of
different sexes.
Studies show that organizational cultures may help to script job satisfaction
and work commitment (McNeese-Smith, 1999), influence employee relationships
with managers and organizations (Anderson & Martin, 1995), and dictate the roles
of leaders and teams within the culture (Alvesson & Billing, 1992; Casey, 1999;
Eisler, 1993). Organizational culture is a powerful, and often exacting, template for
behavior and one that demands a full understanding of communication and language
(Calas & Smircich, 1992; Smircich, 1983).
Organizational Communication and Gender
Acker (1990, 1995), Bern (1993), and Gherardi (1994) argue that gendered
bodies and gendered language inevitably yield gendered organizations. Grounding
their arguments in feminist theory and social constructionism, these scholars
challenge the essentialist and sex role theories of gender as insufficient explanations
of how humans do gender. In his review of gender theories, Barrett (1995)
describes the essentialist view as a dichotomous (male-female) biological
perspective that centers squarely on sex differences as the defining variable, rather
than social or environmental factors. Following this argument, social structures and
cultural practices in which men are more likely to hold positions of power, are

simply mirroring human nature. ... Social inequality is biologically determined
(Barrett, p. 8). Sex role theories emphasize the social expectations of gender roles
and how these expectations shape and guide behavior (Bern, 1993). Barrett notes
that sex role theory tends to neglect power issues and replaces biological factors
with a kind of cultural determinism (1995, p. 8).
Barrett (1995) further postulates that gender, like language and organization,
is a social construct that is produced and cultivated to structure and potentially
constrain behaviors. Gender is a dynamic concept, the meaning of which emerges
from within a contested field of ongoing relational dynamics. ... Gender is a
powerful institution with rules and patterns of expectation regarding what is
normal (p. 8). Acker (1995) echoes that analysis:
Organizational logic is anchored in and helps to reproduce the
fundamental structuring of industrial societies .. that [are] clearly separated
in time, place, form, and conceptualization from the reproduction of human
beings and daily life. This division and the organizing practices are deeply
gendered, and include sets of taken-for-granted organizational practices that
assume a male participant, (p. 139)
Employee communication with peers, as well as the interchange patterns
between managers and workers, contributes profoundly to an understanding of
corporate climate and organizational networks (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Bern,
1993). Observed at different levels of the workplace, managerial communication
also identifies rhetorical patterns and language motifs that are useful in assessing the
culture of a particular workplace (Knott & Natalie, 1997). The literature also reveals

that women experience communication (particularly nuances of language and
meaning) differently than men in the same work environment (Acker, 1990; Bern,
1993; Fritz, 1997; Hale, 1999; Helgesen, 1995; Kaplan, 1995;Lakoff, 1975).
Further, organizational culture may contaminate our on-the-job communication
because of previous expectations and biases about members of the opposite sex
(Hale, 1999; Putnam & Mumby, 1993).
If Smircich (1983) is correct, the inextricable links between language and
organizational culture outline some clear disparities: Females are embraced at the
organizational surface, but in the workplace itself they are perceived as a different
species and then treated differently as well. Formal and informal communication
networks distinguish the language parallels and differences between men and
women on the job (Knott & Natalie, 1997; Tannen, 1995). In addition, Bern (1993)
and Mumby (1996) note that expectations of gender roles and the communication
patterns that often result from such stereotypes combine to create an artificial, but
very obvious, imbalance in organizations between the male haves and the female
have nots.
Cossette (1998), a student of symbolic interactionism, argues that the
functions and uses of language are readily observable through environmental,
cognitive, and emotional contexts, and can be viewed simultaneously to better
understand how communication flows among work groups. The level and use of
rational and emotional cues, frequently debated along gender lines, reveal that the

dispassionate stance of contemporary hierarchical organizations omits or devalues
the emotion and passion that appears evident in flatter, more collaborative
workplaces (Domagalski, 1999; Hale, 1999; Kanter, 1977; Martin, Knopoff, &
Beckman, 1998).
Kim and Bresnahan (1996) examined social constraints on communication
to locate masculine and feminine communication traits. They concluded that
biology reveals few differences in communication constraints, but gender may be a
greater factor because of the stereotypical associations with behaviors such as
interrupting, clarity, risking disapproval for self, and other variables. Alvesson and
Billing (1992) and Anderson and Martin (1995) dissected organizations to
investigate the communication patterns that have an impact on job satisfaction.
Anderson and Martin found, for example, that non-task, affective communication
behavior correlates with high job and communication satisfaction, a finding
reinforced by Burrell (1984) and Borisoff and Hahn (1995).
Communication plays a major role on the job. When both race and gender
are contributing factors, language becomes a critical component of organizational
socialization, comfort in the workplace, and self-efficacy (Allen, 1996).
As introduced earlier, the use of terms like gendered organization and
different voices enter the organizational theory lexicon from feminist standpoint
theory. New voices that incrementally re-write more traditional scripts include the
work of Kanter (1977), Gilligan (1982), Smircich (1983), Bullis and Glaser (1992),

Calas and Smircich (1992), and Bern (1993). Barrett (1995) suggests that social
constructionist theories more accurately explain the organization of social life and
how gender roles are determined. Wanca-Thibault and Tompkins (1998)
acknowledge the importance of interpreting the organizational voices in this
emergent field to separate issues of climate, culture, and communication from
gender constructs in the workplace.
Understanding Career Paths
The bureaucratic hierarchies of the industrial era may overshadow our
current view, but the growth pattern of flatter, more collaborative structures is now
in place to anchor a new framework for organizational thought. While leaner
organizations may recruit fewer men or women, those women who do move toward
key roles can be mentored toward positions of power and influence (Cantor &
Bemay, 1992; Erkut, 2001). If organizational culture is understood, in part, through
its communication behaviors and the norms, values, and collective systems of belief,
then organizations become dynamic structures that move and change over time. For
women, the late comers to this work life, the movement into, over, and up has been
more difficult; Power differentials (Fritz, 1997) and systemic discrimination (Hale,
1999) have forced women to take different routes to advancement and leadership.
The career path literature reveals that a so-called glass ceiling effect, coined
and studied by the Glass Ceiling Commission Studies (Buzzanell, 1995; Daley,

1996; Gupton & Slick, 1996; Symons, 1992; Watwood, 1995) have merged into
discussions of glass walls (Mitchell, 1993) and glass escalators (Maume, 1999) to
illustrate that women in higher education, as well as in other workplace settings, can
see outside the positional box. These authors argue that women who venture to the
top often have difficulty reaching those entry points.
Females working in the professions face criticism about their level of
commitment to the organization or institution. Powell (1988), Siriani and Negrey
(2000), and Smith, Smits, and Hoy (1998) are among the scholars who have
examined organizational climate from the vantage point of commitment issues:
Women who confront the double life of working professional and motherhood are
frequently reminded of their difficulty with staying on the career track. As a result,
these scholars report, female employees and administrators reap fewer of the
rewards of public life.
For academic women, the path to upper administration is based on a number
of issues addressed specifically by Twombly (1990) and Carroll (1991). These
researchers note that in higher education, academic status surpasses administrative
status; Men and women travel through faculty ranks to the presidency more often
than through other conduits. Carroll (1991) reports that women earn terminal
degrees at an older age than men and progress through faculty ranks at a slower
pace, but are often appointed to a first administrative position (such as department
chair) more quickly than males. He adds that women who are appointed to an

administrative line above the department level, are selected more often and stay
longer in administrative positions that men (Carroll, 1991).
Ross and Green (1990) report that old stereotypes and new rules are often
unwritten, potentially limiting womens opportunities for personal and professional
growth in the academy. Women have less mobility across institutional lines
(Johnsrud, 1991), and often find that promotion within an institution is rare at best.
Ropers-Huilman (1998) found that female resistance to male power and influence in
academe may result from these limited career opportunities and growth. Fobbs
(1988) , and Maume (1999) address the lack of experience, training, and mentoring
that prevent women faculty or directors from moving into positions of
responsibility, arguing that men and women are trained in their disciplines, but are
rarely prepared for the duties of the chairmanship or the deanship.
Ironically, perhaps, Sagaria (1988) and others report that academic women
aspire to administrative positions in higher education more often than men do.
Twale (1992) and Twale and Shannon (1996) posit that the inflexibility of
institutional governance hierarchies and the structure of search committees actually
impair womens progress because they lack female scripts and expectations. Boggs
(1989) concluded that although women might be well suited for administration and
leadership, lack of preparation and adequate career planning were stumbling blocks
to mobility.

Glazer-Raymo (1999) points to the increasing need for budgetary expertise,
visionary planning, and interdisciplinary skills on campuses nationwide, noting that
women and minorities are not often credited with these skills and abilities because
they are not in positions where these characteristics are measured and valued.
As more current studies of administrative mobility in the academy emerge
(Glazer-Raymo, 1999; Gorenflo, 1999; Mitchell, 1993), it appears that the mobility
patterns and on-the-job behaviors of female administrators would produce a
different mark or impression than their male counterparts. The position of dean, for
example, fits a man differently than it fits a woman. I suggest the use of a
metaphor here. I posit that a female footprint or impression has a different look, a
different shape, and a different set of identifying marks than those of males. Further,
when tracking that footprint through positions of academic leadership, the trail of
impressions also has a different line, a different length of stride, and it may center
and move in different directions. The shape of those footprints and the direction
from which they travel create a different career pathway.
Schwartz (1992) proposes that progressive, responsive organizations need to
break with tradition by developing new career path options for both men and
women in the workplace. She reviews the career pyramid of the corporate world, in
particular, to propose a paradigm shift:
Were moving into a world where it will best serve the employer to
structure the work environment so that managers can succeed in a variety of
ways. An optimal way to do this is to replace the concept of the pyramid

with that of a jungle gym. In the jungle gym individuals expectation for
limitless upward mobility would be replaced by the option to rise to levels
that are self-selected. Managers choices would be commensurate with their
ability, as well as consonant with the degree of career focus they choose and
the extent of the commitment they are willing to make. (p. 302)
Schwartz admits that such a paradigm shift would benefit women, especially
those who are raising children on a mommy-track agenda, but would also benefit
males at every level of advancement. Additionally, Schwartz contends that
organizations often position individuals as either career-committed or family
(other)-committed when indeed many women and men are committed to both
careers and family (other). By examining different paths, different footprints
become available and encouraged. The pool of options enlarges. In short, Schwartz
advocates a new path, a new track. Taken one step further, Schwartzs new
paradigm offers a way to look at position strengths and career paths. By changing
the routes women take to those positions, the positions themselves offer new
opportunities and different impressions.
As the literature of female deans is compared with the career path studies of
other fields, a better and more focused picture of the foot printing issues for women
may emerge. Chapter 4 shifts the lens one more time to examine the structures and
boundaries of higher educational administration that develop or hinder the career
pathways for women in academe.

For most of the history of higher education, a womans place was not in the
ivory towers of the academy (Clifford, 1983). Although hired as kitchen helpers or
secretarial assistants, women could not participate in the collegiate experiences
reserved for men. In fact, it was not until the American Civil War that female faces
appeared in the classroom, and late into the nineteenth century before women took
steps into the professoriate or administration (Bernard, 1964; Clifford, 1983;
Schwartz, 1997b; Soloman, 1985). For women who did reach faculty or leadership
status, many found themselves in what Packer (1995) describes as the academic
proletariat or among a society of outsiders (Farrant, 1986), in the everwhite
halls of ivy (Christian-Smith & Kellor, 1999).
In the new millennium, college and university leaders confront new
challenges and opportunities, from enrollment management to legislative
accountability, and technological paradigm shifts to battles over the impact of
virtual campuses. As a result, issues particular to any groupwomen includedare
likely to receive short shrift on the daily agenda. Yet, women remain significantly
underrepresented stakeholders on campus (Billing & Alvesson, 1997).

In this chapter, the relationships among leadership principles, higher
educational administration, and organizational communicationthe three
conceptual frameworks for this study--are examined with the lens focused on
higher education. To understand how fluid these relationships are, it is imperative to
investigate the salient issues in higher education, the roots and structures of
collegiate administration in the United States, and the impact of this history and
structure on women in higher education. The centering point is the female academic
dean, however, women as student affairs administrators, and as students, staff, and
faculty are also addressed briefly to provide a context for this study.
Setting the Stage: Higher Education Today
Nationwide, institutions of higher education face the dilemmas confronted
by their corporate and political counterpartsdownsizing, reduced budgets,
dwindling human and financial resources. Planning processes are interrupted and
constrained by a highly competitive academic marketplace for students, high profile
faculty, and donors (Julius, Baldridge, and Pfeffer, 1999). The recent research of
Lucas (1994, 1996), Graham and Diamond (1997), and Westmeyer (1990), among
others, reveals that historical treatments of education and academic governance
navigate the same organizational issues and problems encountered in corporate life.
The analyses are both descriptive and prescriptive.

Two particular and interrelated realities of the twentieth century also
emerge: (a) the rise of the research institution with the associated costs and politics,
and (b) the university as corporation or, at the very least, as corporate partner. The
emphasis on powerful and productive research institutions has reified the roles of
products and customers, and neglected some critical campus issues, including
competition for quality students, attention to pluralistic audiences, and the passing
of the golden age of higher education in the 1960s (Jencks & Riesman, 1996;
Lucas, 1996). Using social systems theory as a base, Westmeyer (1990) compares
the typical organizational chart of a research institution with that of a small
university or college to illustrate the differences in hierarchical structure between
the two. In his model, the small campus has six identifiable layers of bureaucracy; a
research institutionespecially one linked with several educational branches
could have several more.
Scholarship on the parallels between academic bureaucracy and corporate or
governmental hierarchies (Chaffee, 1985; Fuhrmann, 1987; Funk, 1988; Senge,
1990; Wolverton & Poch, 2000) reveal that educational systems, and those who
administer them, have turned further and further toward a business model of
operation. Lucas (1994) argues that a business ethos dominates in higher education,
invoking a variety of responses from academic and administrative partners in line on
campus. Feminist educational scholars Ferguson (1984), Glazer-Raymo (1999), and
Kolodny (1998) denounce educational bureaucracies as impersonal, controlling, and

unnecessarily complicated systems of organization. Glazer-Raymo, in particular,
addresses issues of academic freedom and the demise of shared governance on
campus in light of the corporate dance with educational partners. Kolodny (1998),
pointing to the autonomy granted to atomized units on large, complex campuses,
observes that each unit acts independently to meet its own needs without concern
for the larger system mission or goals. This practice often results in conflicting
recommendations, as well as lost time and energies. Gerber (1997), however,
suggests a different lens on the corporatization issue:
The ties that bind teachers, researchers, and students into a community of
scholars are qualitatively different from the ties that bind stockholders,
managers, and employees in a private business. A college or university is
less a hierarchical bureaucracy in which those at the top can claim authority
based on superior training and technical expertise to others in the
organization than it is a community in which faculty and administrators are
in many ways peers who share a common educational background. 7)
These issues are complex and suffer from a lack of faculty and
administrative attention to the underlying issues such as commitment and integrity
(Bogue, 1994; Fincher, 1998; Kerr, 1994).
Birnbaums (1992) characterization of educational leadership and
governance is more inclusive. He argues that presidents, in particular, must be
responsive to particular constituencies rather than to organizational hierarchies.
Trustees, faculty, and administrators must be carefully nurtured to build a solid base
of support. For a president to succeed in maintaining a strong and healthy institution
with a vital and credible mission, he or she must be perceived as an influential and

effective leader among a variety of stakeholders. The relationship between
education and the corporate sector, particularly in recent years, suggests that
academe is once again moving through a paradigm shift of significant proportion in
the twenty-first century. From what embattled bases of power and influence do
current struggles emerge?
The Roots of Higher Education
In the United States, higher education developed through a patriarchal
system similar to European scholarly guilds: Universitas or collegium scholastica
were established to educate young men through organized interchanges between
teachers and students (Westmeyer, 1990). This Greek model offered an elite setting
for learning, but in the early years of American life, few men had the intellect and
opportunity to join the intelligentsia. When Harvard College opened in 1636, a staff
of four offered teaching and administrative services for a select few. Colleges of the
colonial period employed boards of male trustees to oversee the rigid curriculum
and educational processes (Westmeyer, 1990). As colleges developed, followed
later by the organization of graduate schools and universities, the paternalistic
pattern continued (Schwartz, 1997b).
Lucas (1994) divides the history of American higher education into four
basic temporal units beginning with the pre-Revolutionary War period of the early
colleges and religious academies. His second unit is a nineteenth century look at the

growth of state universities and women colleges, followed by a third period of
curricular innovations and development of the junior college system in the early
years of the twentieth century. His final unit is a post-World War II synopsis
focusing on the growth of research institutions, the GI Bill, and the intrusion of
business and government into the academic life. I will examine this history more
closely as a context for the womens movement in higher education later in this
Models and Structures of Higher Education
As noted earlier, scholars and other observers of higher education have
embarked on a mission to compare academia to other societal organizations by
virtue of common cultural and decision-making characteristics (Masland, 1985;
Riley & Baldridge, 1977). Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, and Riley (1977) argue that
academic organizations are complex and unique, with striking differences peculiar
to higher education; These include goal ambiguity, client service expectations,
problematic technology, professional autonomy, and environmental vulnerability.
Lack of goal clarity, or more common, a conflict in mission or goals, differentiates
higher education from other organizations creating much different workplace
cultures (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Morris (1981) posits that administrative management
in the academy deserves particular attention because higher education serves very
narrow publics, with a virtually unmeasurable service, offered by intelligent and