Microsoft Word - BlackChen_To_ Lead_or_Not_to_Lead.docx


Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    153 

Advancing Women in Leadership Vol. 35, pp.153-159, 2015 
Available online at http://advancingwomen.com/awl/awl_wordpress/ 
ISSN 1093-7099 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

To Lead or Not to Lead: Women Achieving Leadership Status in Higher 
Education 

Marsha BlackChen 
Marsha BlackChen: The Mico University College, Kingston, Jamaica West Indies, email: marsha.chen@themico.edu.jm 

 
Accepted July 06, 2015 

 
 

The purpose of this article is to continue the dialogue and examine the exclusionary practices, and tenets on women as leaders in 
higher education. Too often women are left out of leadership positions in higher education, which engenders the perception or 
reality of these positions being androcentric. Women have also been faced with the daunting task of following in the footsteps of 
their male counterparts, and their experiences are never the same, because culturally and structurally, decisions are made 
differently. Higher education therefore needs to examine the value placed on female leaders, as theoretically, female leaders have 
been found to possess the various types of leadership qualities in order to be considered good leaders. These areas establish 
credibility, as we begin to examine the requisite ingredients of leadership. Women’s representation in colleges and universities 
throughout the world is on the rise, and is increasingly approaching the gender parity of 50 percent (Bradley, 2000). 
Importantly, in the United States of America, more women are expected to occupy college professor’s position, as they represent 
58 percent of young adults between the ages of 25 to 29, many of who hold an advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau News, 
2011). These phenomenal strides are important to recognize. The argument is put forward that attitudinal and organization 
biases against women in higher education tend to exclude women from upper-level leadership positions. Therefore, the author 
examines theoretical underpinnings of the different approaches to leadership, as well as the cultural and structural conditions 
and practices that create barriers to, and opportunities for the advancement of women in higher education. 

Keywords: Women, higher education, barriers, leadership 
 

Introduction

The obvious is that, higher education is seen as androcentric, as 
if it were a caveat, and, the barriers this situation has created for 
women in education, as well as the wider society. The “glass 
ceiling” (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991, p. 1) is evident, and 
women in higher education have had to face the daunting task of 
proving themselves in this so-called male dominated field, in 
order to be recognized as leaders. Their male counterparts on the 
other hand, have been allowed to grow at a greater pace in the 
higher education system, for example; men dominate 
presidencies in all categories or types of institutions (Glazer-
Raymo, 2008). Society is therefore seen as very male dominated, 
and as such, structurally and culturally, men’s methods of 
decision-making have created a myriad of challenges for women. 
And “the glass ceiling” which refers to the invisible or artificial 
barriers that prevent women from advancing past a certain level 
(Federal Glass Ceiling Commission- FGCC, 1997; Morrison & 
von Glinow, 1990) have created many obstacles for women in 
higher education to prove themselves worthy of being in the 
same category as men. This has therefore limited their leadership 
capacity, while fostering institutional prejudices, as leadership 
prepares and guides performance on a level where the individual 
and organization can be successful. 

The leadership capacity in women has therefore been overlooked 
because of their gender, and this highlights the fact that the 
competition for educational and economic opportunities is 
neither neutral nor fair, as women are judged by standards 
irrelevant to the competition. There is a tacit pro-male bias in 
hiring, and the scope for upward mobility poses many challenges. 
The evaluation procedures constitute a form of discrimination 
that continues to harm women in higher education. Aguirre 
(2000) echoed that if there is too much stress at the work place 
preventing faculty from performing workplace tasks 
satisfactorily, then professional socialization, such as promotion 
and tenure would be disrupted. Without a doubt, women have 
made significant progress in attaining leadership positions in 
higher education; however, they still need to be given the golden 
opportunity to adequately make their contribution as leaders. 
Higher education institutions need to be cognizant of the realities 
of the workplace, and therefore understand that the workplace 
needs to be conducive for females, as it is for males. 

 

 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    154 

Literature Review 

Women in Higher Education 

At whatever level women desire to reach in higher education, 
there appears to be a barrier-blocking ascendency. Women’s 
representation in colleges and universities throughout the world 
in on the rise, and is increasingly approaching the gender parity 
of 50 percent (Bradley, 2000). Most noteworthy is that, in the 
United States of America, more women are expected to occupy 
college professor’s position, as they represent 58 percent of 
young adults between the ages of 25 to 29, many of who hold an 
advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2011). And where 
as more and more women are in colleges and universities poised 
to enter leadership roles, upper leadership in higher education 
administration has a pyramid structure, and women are bunched 
at the base (Kaplan & Tinsley, 1989).  Consequently, women are 
far more likely to be deans, associate deans, directors, vice 
presidents or provosts especially in public institutions, as 
opposed to private ones, and there are many contributing factors 
to this. 

Lack of empowerment for women is a contributing factor why 
many women do not have leadership roles in higher education. 
We often hear of the old boys club, but never of the old girls 
club. Men seem to mentor other men, especially in professional 
situations leading to a gate-keeping phenomenon. Male faculty is 
also paid more than female faculty. Collins, Chrisler and Quina 
(1998) state that there are two determinants for this; human 
capital which determines the qualities the individual brings to 
the work place, and institutional structure which looks at the 
source of budget, their prestige, student population and their 
mission. The human capital one brings to the workplace makes 
them valuable commodities, as such; women need to be just as 
competitive as men in order to be valued in that light. 

However, this categorization was seen as deceptive (Collins et 
al., 1998), as it presumes that the structural and the personal are 
interdependent of one another. But the very human capital that 
the system rewards is also perpetuated in the education system. 
The Ivy League undergraduate is said to be on a fast track, 
gaining the credentials that will promote later success, including 
entry into the most prestigious and highest academic paying 
positions. The system is then seen as failing to accept certain 
categories of people or failing to encourage them to move into 
higher paying fields, and as such, one group is at a 
disadvantaged when compared to the other. As it were, women 
are at a disadvantaged, compared to their male counterparts. 

The Dilemma Women Encounter in Higher Education 

Women administrators are faced with a quandary of being 
underrepresented in high –level positions, especially at public 
co-educational institutions (Etaugh, 1984). This situation 
therefore prevents the inclusion of women in certain 
sophisticated positions, major research led institutions, and even 
career fields or subject areas in education, for example the 
sciences. Therefore, in order to be represented in high-level 
positions, the stereotype has to be removed, women need to 

mentor other women, and empower younger female 
professionals, as their older male counterparts have done.   

Many women in higher education institutions have been 
stereotyped as having a willingness to be more family-oriented, 
thus the time taken off from work to procreate and care for their 
families. This situation is therefore seen as interrupting their 
professional lives, as a result, many are not offered leadership 
positions. Armenti (2004) posits that “ department chairs, who 
tend to be men, make discretionary decisions about a woman’s 
leave time, and women’s request are not necessarily 
accommodated” (p. 211). Consequently, some female faculty 
seems particularly vulnerable in their ability to seek and receive 
parental leave, fearing the worst for their professional 
development and career goals. Many female faculty have had the 
desire to raise a family, however, because of their professional 
goals, and what others may refer to as impediments, many do not 
respond to their maternal instincts. However unfortunate this 
situation is, many have not had a choice, but have been forced as 
a result of their career path.  

Women as Leaders 

The question has always been asked by scholars, “Can women 
lead?”  There have been many causal factors that have created an 
atmosphere for the stigma of women not being able to lead. 
Women are often seen in the light as living in a male dominated 
world. Many areas in academe, for example the sciences, were 
considered out of the reach for females, even though much has 
changed with regards to women elevating themselves in higher 
education. The position of tenure has been difficult for many 
women faculty to achieve. Furthermore, being employed at 
highly research-oriented universities has been difficult. Lack of 
empowerment for women, and mentoring by other women 
would have made a serious difference in the lives of female 
faculty. The transition into higher education would have also 
been easier, had the way been paved for women by other 
professional women, and if society saw women in the same 
leadership roles as their male counterparts. Northouse (2009) 
asserts that, with the increasing number of women in corporate 
and political leadership roles, the question of weather or not they 
can lead is now a moot point, as the obvious is; female leaders 
are seen in a variety of leading positions, and often times seem 
to empower subordinates by using participatory management 
(Glazer-Raymo et al. 2000, p. 244).  

Therefore, women achieving leadership status in higher 
education is contingent upon several factors; how they are 
perceived by society, their academic peers, their commitment to 
the profession, mentoring, and being qualified, to name a few. 
Many women have been afforded the opportunity to lead in 
higher education, and many have not been give such an 
opportunity. Eagly (2007) highlights the fact that in the United 
States of America, women are increasingly praised for having 
excellent leadership skills, and in fact, more women than men, 
manifest leadership styles associated with effective performance 
as leaders. The increasing numbers of female leaders in higher 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    155 

education institutions can attest to the fact of women achieving 
leadership status in higher education.   

With the many leadership positions offered to women, there 
have been many successes. Eagly (2007) posits that more people 
prefer to have a male boss rather than a female. There is not a 
sense of the old girls club as there is the old boys club. However, 
there have been a few studies that have examined the 
significance of the relationship between women mentoring 
activities and academic career development (Bolton, 1980; 
Atcherson& Jenny, 1983; Cullen & Luna, 1990). Cullen and 
Luna (1993) interviewed 24 women who were in executive or 
administrative positions from Arizona and California. The 
findings revealed that only 3 of the 24 women lacked a mentor, 
of the remaining 21women studied, 5 identified a female mentor 
and 8 identified a male mentor. A barrier to women’s mentoring 
revealed that too few women were available to mentor other 
women. Contrary, Brown (2005) found that a majority of the 
college presidents in the study had received mentoring. These 
results therefore suggest that, mentorship plays a critical role in 
advancing female college presidents up the administrative ladder 
consequently; females’ having a mentor is essential for their 
career.  

In order to resolve some of these issues women have as it relates 
to leadership, women should be each other’s keeper. Women in 
higher education should coach other female faculty, because 
research shows that mentoring does alleviate some of these 
problem areas women faculty face in higher education. Along 
with mentoring, is also networking. Networking is very 
important, and as Collins et al. (1998) remarks, the larger the 
faculty, the more important networking is. Furthermore, at large 
higher education institutions, faculty rarely sees and knows each 
other, except on occasions where it is necessary for them to meet, 
such as faculty meetings. When senior faculty network and 
mentor junior faculty, a symbiotic relationship is created, which 
can be beneficial to females being groomed as leaders. Senior 
female faculty therefore needs to make a concerted effort to 
network and aid in the younger female staff’s development. This 
bonding creates confidence among female faculty, and the 
society sees this as positive, which can later lead to success 
among female academia. 

Theoretical Perspective 

There have been many theories put forward to aid in our 
understanding of the various types of leaders and the qualities 
they possess in order to be considered good leaders. 
Understanding of the problem on women achieving leadership 
status in higher education, the theoretical underpinnings have to 
be well defined. Therefore, the Trait Approach, Skills Approach 
and Transformational Leadership are all critical in explaining 
how women lead. Educators are leaders in their own right, and 
female faculty need to achieve leadership status in higher 
education, because interaction is taking place in the learning 
environment, and students are being mentored in their own right. 
However, there needs to be more recognition on the path of what 
female faculty does, and there needs to be less stringent barriers, 

in order for women to achieve leadership status to their fullest 
potential. 

Several reasons were listed as to why women faculties do not 
achieve leadership status just as equal as their male counterparts. 
Female faculties at some juncture in their career need to 
internalize their purpose in the profession; why did they choose 
higher education? According to Northouse (2009) research on 
the trait approach concluded that, over the century, there has 
been a list of traits that individuals might hope to possess or 
wish to cultivate, if they want to be perceived as leaders. Such 
traits are: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, 
and sociability. 

In order for leadership to be effective, Northouse (2009) put 
forward that intellectual ability is positively related to leadership. 
Wenniger and Conroy (2001) posit that the number of women in 
administration has been increasing steadily since 1970, and 
women’s movement, affirmative action, feminist, women’s 
strong work ethic and abilities, and the goddess herself have 
fueled this. They continue by stating that, 

“Five percent of all presidents of colleges and universities in 
1975 were women…the percentage increased to 12 percent by 
1992, 16.5 percent by 1995, and 19.3 by 1998. The largest 
percentage of women presidents leads private two-year colleges, 
27 percent” (p. 4).  

The intelligence trait as researchers see it, have confirmed that 
with such an increase in women as presidents of colleges, one’s 
intellectual ability is positively related to leadership. In order for 
women faculty to move up the academic ladder, they would have 
had to get themselves qualified, which would speak positive of 
their intellectual ability. This would therefore boost other areas 
such as, their confidence level and professionalism. 

The second trait is Self –Confidence. Northouse (2009) 
highlighted that this trait assists one to become a leader. If 
leaders lack confidence, they will not be able to perform, and 
when women faculties are expected to influence others, they 
need to possess such leadership qualities while ensuring it is 
utilized. Furthermore, displaying a high confidence level in 
higher education will prove to society that female faculty can 
venture into the so-called male domain. Even though the strides 
women faculty have made at private institutions far supersedes 
that of public institutions, Etaugh (1984) stated, “the status of 
women faculty and administrators in higher education has 
improved somewhat…but much remains to be accomplished” (p. 
24). The confidence level can therefore be a factor in 
determining women’s ability, and if there have been strides in 
higher education, then there has been attempts by female faculty 
to be confident leaders in their own respect. 

The third trait is Determination. If this is possessed then women 
might be considered good leaders. “Determination is the desire 
to get the job done and includes characteristics such as initiatives, 
persistence, dominance, and drive” (Northouse, 2007, p. 20). 
Women faculty in order to be successful must be determined in 
their endeavors in higher education. Wennigner and Conroy 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    156 

(2001) stated that in gaining tenure, women are making slow 
progress, as in 1989, 22 percent of tenured faculty were women, 
and by 1998 the percentage increased to 26 percent. In order for 
women to be seen as achieving leadership status in higher 
education, female faculty need to be more determined. Several 
barriers are seen in the male dominated field, however, if 
younger female professionals are mentored, then there can be a 
dominance shown in the profession, and the gate keeping that is 
done by their male counterparts will be diminished. Good 
leaders must be determined in their endeavors, and female 
faculty must show their dominance by coaching and mentoring 
other female faculty. 

 The fourth trait is Integrity, and this integral in leadership and 
for female faculty to be seen as good leaders. As Northouse 
(2009) asserted, integrity is the quality of honesty and 
trustworthiness, and when people adhere to a strong set of 
principles, as well as take responsibility for their actions, they 
are demonstrating integrity. Leaders need to exude an air of 
confidence and trust. Female faculty, who exhibit integrity, will 
no doubt demonstrate that they can be trusted, and those being 
served will feel confident that their leader is trustworthy and 
loyal. 

Most noteworthy too, are senior faculty who need to mentor 
younger female professionals.  Hetherington and Barcelo (1985) 
referred to the situation as “Womentoring” noting that, the 
presence of senior women who have made it in the profession in 
higher education can be a facilitating factor in the formation of 
such identity. This bonding and mentoring that will take place 
will aid in the passing down of principles, from the senior 
faculty to the junior faculty. This Womentoring process will no 
doubt pave the way for others to see the principles that have 
been set by the senior staff, and the junior staff following suit. 
Fundamentally, this lends itself to the integrity of the profession 
and the bond that female faculty share as being loyal and 
dependable. 

The final trait is Sociability, and as Northouse (2009) stated, in 
order to be sociable, a leader therefore has to seek out pleasant 
social relationships. Leaders who show sociability are friendly, 
outgoing, courteous, tactful and diplomatic. They are seen as 
sensitive to others’ needs, and show concern for an individual’s 
wellbeing. Female leaders though, have been criticized for 
showing too much emotion; where as, male leaders make 
decisions without being emotionally attached, yet still remain 
sociable. Female faculty, who mentor other female faculty, will 
display the trait of sociability. Showing concern for the 
wellbeing of others’ is important in any profession, and once this 
image is portrayed, the wider society will see female leaders as 
effective leaders. This creates a bond with other female staff 
members who will pass on such attributes to others they come in 
contact with. Good female leaders should therefore display a 
focus on ‘we versus me’ to show concern for others. 

Another approach used to analyze the challenges women face in 
higher education is the Skills Approach. The Skills Approach is 
important to female leaders in higher education, and as 

Northouse (2009) see it, the Skills Approach takes a leader-
centered perspective on leadership. In utilizing this approach, an 
emphasis is placed on skills and abilities that can be learned and 
developed, as these are needed for effective leadership. The 
Skills Approach is indicative of leaders who can accomplish, 
and the ability to use ones knowledge and competences to 
accomplish a set of goals or objectives (Northouse). Wennigner 
and Conroy (2001) states that, “in the last twenty years, the 
number of women presidents of colleges and universities has 
more than tripled, from 148 in 1976 to 453 in 1996. Women now 
make up 16 percent of all top leaders in U.S higher education 
institutions” (p.10) and such accomplishment would confirm that 
female leaders are using the Skills approach.  

Sax (2008) study addressed the gender gap in higher education 
and concluded that the presence of women faculty on campuses 
makes a positive educational difference for students. The study, 
which included 17,000 participants from 200 institutions, found 
that men attending colleges with more female professors showed 
gains in “mathematical confidence, scientific orientation, 
leadership ability, and emotional well-being. There was also a 
positive effect on GPA being even stronger for men than women” 
(p. 226), because of the influence of female faculty. Moving 
beyond equity, Sax’s findings provide educational justification 
for the increasing numbers of female faculty on college 
campuses, and the influence their presence has on the student 
population. This therefore exemplifies the skills that women 
have learned in order to be leaders and the impact they can have 
on individuals.  

With the Skills Approach, there are three basic administrative 
skills; technical, human and conceptual. The technical skill 
according to Northouse (2009) is knowledge about proficiency 
in a specific type of work or activity, and women according to 
Wennigner and Conroy (2001) made up the 16 percent of all top 
leaders in U.S. higher education. This therefore demonstrates 
that women would have exemplified knowledge about, and 
proficiency in the teaching profession to reach thus far. 
Wennigner and Conroy continue by stating that “…the number 
of women in the pipeline, as senior leaders, their assistants, and 
associates, has also risen dramatically, and these women are 
poised to take the rein in the next millennium” (p.10). Even 
though the Technical Skills as Northouse (2009) sees it, is being 
more practical oriented, the technical skills needed in the higher 
education, such as; stretching budgets, experienced at being the 
go-between such as faculty and trustees to reach agreement, 
would no doubt be valuable skills female faculty posses to 
achieve leadership status. 

In achieving leadership status, human beings would have to 
work together. This is quite evident since simple societies, and 
utilizing the Human Skills is having knowledge about, and the 
ability to work with people (Northouse, 2009). Female faculty 
who want to achieve leadership status will have to utilize their 
Human Skills. Knowing how to effectively work with peers, 
students and superiors can aid in fulfilling the institution’s goals. 
One of the reasons why women have achieved leadership status 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    157 

is that, they have been considered to be holistic and strategic 
thinkers, viewing problems as multifaceted, and requiring a 
series of solutions rather than policy change. Most women are 
likely to work with people, and as a leader, female leaders work 
with people, rather than expecting people to work for them. 
Furthermore, there has to be an atmosphere of trust, and when 
this is created, others become involved and feel a part of the 
institution, thus becoming involved in the daily happenings. 
Some amount of loyalty is also felt by all involved when female 
leaders use this approach. 

The final skill in the Skills Approach is Conceptual Skill. This 
skill lends itself to having the ability to work with ideas and 
concepts. Northouse (2009) states that Conceptual Skills are 
central to creating a vision and strategic plan for the organization. 
Every leader should have a vision as well as share that vision 
with others on the team. Tinsley (1985) explains a situation of 
upward mobility for women administrators who are 
underrepresented in leadership positions. In order to achieve 
upward mobility, help from private organizations was solicited 
and donations made to support projects designed to promote 
administrative advancement were made. These foundation 
fundings had two major purposes, 1) to increase the ranks of 
women and minority professional workers in America, for 
example higher education, and 2) to improve the leadership of 
higher education. Foundation officers believed that the 
experience and expertise of women would increase institutional 
vitality and bring new vision. And as such, the skills these 
female leaders had in galvanizing the support from outside 
organization was phenomenon in aiding the growth of the female 
administrators who were underrepresented.  

Essentially, this demonstrates what the Skills Approach embrace; 
creating a vision, sharing it with the team, and building on that 
concept as a strategic plan for the organization.  A female 
faculty who will be willing to consider alternative solutions to 
problematic situations can be considered a good leader. A 
female leader in higher education should be able to hold a bake 
sale for the institution if the alumni do not fulfill their promise, 
while balancing multiple responsibilities. Therefore, working 
with ideas and concepts is essential for women to achieve 
leadership status in higher education. 

The final model that will be used to analyze the problem of 
women achieving leadership status is; Transformational 
Leadership. Transformational leadership is important in any 
organization. Female faculty in particular, should see themselves 
as transformational leaders, as in the learning environment they 
are transforming the minds of the learners. Regardless of the 
plethora of explanations given about transformational leadership, 
Mezirow (1997) states “personal transformation leads to 
alliances with others of like mind …effecting necessary changes 
in relationships, organizations and systems…” (as cited in 
Merriam, Caffarella& Baumgartner, 2007. p. 134). When these 
alliances are formed, changes are effected and bonds are created. 

Northouse (2009) sees transformational leadership as a process 
that changes and transforms people, and as such, is concerned 

with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. 
Transformational leadership therefore, involves an exceptional 
form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than 
what is expected of them, consequently, the transformational 
leader is to create change. Eagly (2007) posits that 
“transformational leaders mentor and empower their 
subordinates and encourage them to develop their potential and 
thus, contribute more effectively to their organization” (p. 2). 
Furthermore, female faculty who are eager to achieve leadership 
status need to know the importance of mentoring and 
empowering other female faculty, as well as their subordinates.    

Female faculty who are also serious about achieving leadership 
status in higher education, need to acknowledge and accept the 
importance of being a transformational leader. The 
transformational leader will be open to constructive criticism, as 
they are constantly in dialogue with followers, and should be 
able to raise the level of morality in others. Also, for women to 
achieve leadership status in higher education, it is important for 
them to understand the institution’s agenda, the organizational 
structures, and the political processes, as these come via 
dialogue with others, which is a part of the transformational 
process. 

As Tinsley (1995) states, “each of us, irrespective of gender, has 
the right to participate in the leadership and management of 
higher education, the right to have our expertise and wisdom 
guide our institutions and our profession” (p.11). Therefore, each 
female faculty has the right to participate in leadership, while 
making a meaningful contribution to higher education 
institutions and the profession. That contribution will lend itself 
to some amount of transformation, as the collective good is what 
is of essence. 

Discussion and Personal Definition of Leadership 

Great leaders are everywhere in society, some are born, and 
some are made. Women are perceived to have a soft persona, 
and as such, may not be seen by many to have a strong character 
to be good leaders. This is often seen as a negative, as well as a 
stigma. Hence, good leaders are said to posses certain qualities, 
traits, and skills that aid in the transformation of lives, as well as 
situations. This is true, however, some of the negative stigma 
attached to women preventing them from achieving leadership 
status in higher education, are the same qualities that have 
molded society and their male counterparts, who are revered as 
great leaders. Leaders should therefore have a vision, and that 
vision should be communicated to the followers. Female faculty 
who are passionate about a particular situation in higher 
education should not be afraid to speak out and solicit help to 
see their dreams come to fruition. Confidence should be an 
integral role in the female faculty’s character. This confidence 
will generate the energy required to be successful, and spur the 
dialogue needed to get tasks going as a successful leader. 

Women, according to Northouse (2009) are seen, as less 
effective in a role that is masculinized, however, they were more 
effective than men in education. Therefore, if women are seen as 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    158 

effective leaders in education because of their personality and 
the way they handle situations, for example as a transformational 
leader the way they mentor and empower their subordinates, 
then there is no doubt that women can achieve leadership status 
in higher education. Collins, Chrisler and Quina (1998) believe 
that “there are many reasons why women should assume 
positions as faculty leaders… from the principled approaches to 
the common good to more individual reasons, such as career or 
personal development. All are important” (p. 200). If women 
want to be recognized and be considered good leaders in higher 
education, they need to empower each other, achieve seniority at 
their institution for that to occur, participate in committees, 
volunteer in a wide variety of campus activities, upgrade 
themselves, and generally, be satisfied with their jobs. 

For a female to become an effective leader, they must be 
dedicated to the institution and take on departmental projects 
that will be successful; a sense of commitment has to be shown. 
Women have often been chastised for leaving work to attend to 
family situations, where as the men stay at work. Again 
commitment must be shown. Female faculty should also be 
willing to show organizational ability, creativity and initiative on 
the job to be considered for leadership positions as well as to be 
considered effective leaders. Women wanting to achieve 
leadership status in higher education must be willing to accept 
appointments, and take on projects that will bring out their 
creative side, and use their initiative, even if they had no prior 
experience. Women in higher education must be willing to take 
on challenges, and take risks, as the stereotypical leader is seen 
by society. Women faculty should be great team leaders, if even 
for the moment, just for the good of the organization, as there 
are goals to be met. 

Women faculty who aspire to be leaders in higher education 
must be role models. We need to be cognizant of the fact that, 
once women are in education, they are touching the lives of 
people, and this is important. When this happens, the values and 
principles that were instilled will be passed on from one 
generation to the next. Good leaders need to be mentors and 
show a sense of citizenry. Female faculty need to be there for 
each other, creating an atmosphere that will act as catalyst for 
the profession. While female faculty is seen as facilitators in the 
classroom, in order to be effective leaders, there needs to be a 
nurturing tone set in higher education, as individuals will have 
problems require solving. Also, be an advocate for students, 
petition on their behalf when it is appropriate, yet maintaining 
that respect with other faculty. These characteristics make good 
female leaders and will need to be in effect, in order to achieve 
leadership status in higher education. Therefore, with the strides 
women have been making in leadership positions and the styles 
used to get the job done, the expectations of women in higher 
education needs to be reexamined in light of the realities of their 
positions and organizations.  

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Prior to what many researchers have suggested, that of the image 
of higher education being a male domain, the strength of 

character that women have are just as efficient as men in higher 
education. Women inclusion on higher education campuses has 
not been easy. The strides they have made over the years has left 
a historical mark, as well as galvanize the attitudes of other 
women and support groups, therefore making leadership status 
in higher education possible for female leaders. 

The criteria for upward mobility, such as tenure for women may 
not be equally weighted for both male and female faculty, and as 
such, female faculty members need to be cognizant of this, and 
match their male counterparts in research and publishing. To be 
considered good leaders as quite pointedly stated, women need 
to be mentors for each other, and be principled about the 
profession. It is necessary for female faculty to seek out new 
ventures and present their vision to the institution, and seek 
support for that vision in higher education. Therefore, society 
will need to stop judging women based on their personalities, 
and look beyond such to see effective contributions that have 
been made, and merit accordingly.  

However, if women are judged as if it were only a man’s world, 
there will never be changes. Higher education needs to 
understand that female faculty, just as much as male faculty has 
a lot to contribute. The onus therefore is on women to dominate 
and overcome the stigma attached to the gender, as they aspire to 
achieve leadership status in higher education. Female educators 
who have taught across all levels of the education system, would 
have found their comfort zone, and once this occurs, it takes a 
lot of reflection and internalization to really know if this is 
where she wants to be. Every one is a leader in their own right, 
and when we have found our niche, we need to put those whom 
we come in contact with first. Being in higher education comes 
with a lot of challenges, but there are rewards by just being there. 
Women have come a long way in leadership positions, and for 
that successful path to continue, women would need to be just as 
qualified as their counterparts, mentor younger female faculty, 
serve their higher education institution, facilitate and nurture 
students, be focused, and have a vision that will be shared with 
all whom they come in contact with. Transformation is also a 
part of that successful path, and is integral in achieving 
leadership status, both personally and institutionally. 

References 

Aguirre, A. (Jr). (2000). Women and minority faculty in the 
academic workplace.Recruitment, retention and academic 
culture.27 (6).Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. 

Amenti, C. (2004). May Babies and Post tenure Babies: 
Maternal decisions of women professors. In Altbach, P., 

Arnold, K., Bassett, R., El – Khawas, E., Holub, T., &Youn. T. 
(Eds.). The review of higher education: The journal of 

 the association for the study of higher education27 (2) 211-
231.  

Atcherson, E., & Jenny, J. (1983). What about mentors and 
women in academe? Tempe, AZ, annual mid-year 
conference of American Educational Research Association 
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED242-642). 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    159 

Bradley, K. (2000). The incorporation of women into higher 
education: Paradoxical outcomes: Sociology of Education, 
73, 1-18. 

Bolton, E. B. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor 
relationship in the career development of women, Adult 
Education, 30, 195-207. 

Brown, T. M. (2005). Mentorship and the female college 
president. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), DOI: 10.1007/s11199- 
0053733-7. 

Collins, L. H., Christer, J.C., &Quina, K. (1998). Career 
strategies for women in academe. Arming anthena. Sage 
Publications. 

Cullen, D. L., & Luna, G. (1990). A comparative study of 
female mentors in academe and business, in A. D. Johnson 
& P. Mroczek (Eds.), Mentoring Minorities and Women, 
18-23, DeKalb, Il: Northern Illinois University Press.  

Cullen, D. L, & Luna, G. (1993). Women mentoring in academe: 
Addressing the gender gap in higher education. Retrieved 
from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?  

Eagly, A. H. (2007) Female leadership advantage and 
disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions.In Psychology 
of women quarterly, 31, 1-12 BlackwellPublishing. 

Etaugh, C. (1984). Women faculty and administrators in higher 
education: Changes in their status since 1972. In Journal of 
the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, 
and Counselors,48, 21-25. 

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1997). The Glass Ceiling, in 
D. Dunn (Ed.), Workplace/Women’s Place: An Anthology, 
226-233, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing. 

Glazer-Raymo, J. (2008).Unfinished agendas: New and 
continuing gender challenges in higher education. 
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Glazer-Raymo, J., Townsend, B. K., & Ropers-Huilman, B. 
(2000).Women in higher Education (Eds.).A feminist 
perspective.Pearson Custom Publishing. 

Hetherington, C., &Barcelo, R. (1985). Womentoring: A cross-
cultural perspective.Journal of the National Association for 
Women Deans, Administrators,and Counselors.48, 12-15. 

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R.S., Baumgartner, L. M., (2007). 
Learning in adulthood. A comprehensive guide. (3rded). 
Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. 

Morrison, A. M., & von Glinow (1990).Women and minorities 
in management, American Psychologist,45, 200- 208. 

Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership theory and practice. Sage 
Publications. 

Sax, L. (2008).The gender gap in college: Maximizing the 
developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco, 
CA: Wiley. 

Tinsley, A. (1985). Upward mobility for women 
administrators.Journal of the National Association for 
Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors.48, 3-11. 

U. S. Census Bureau News (2011). Census Bureau Reports 
Nearly 6 in 10 Advanced Degree Holders Age 25-29 Are 
Women. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC,  

 20233, retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/educat
ion/cb11-72.html 

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling 
initiative. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Wennigner, M. D., & Conroy, M. H. (2001). Gender equity or 
bust? On the road to campusleadership with women in 
higher education. (Eds.). Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Advancing Women in Leadership     2015     Volume 35    160