A: i

h
.
I.

.o
.
I

14.. .
an. L.
, .

.....

i173

.9...

. v...

2

. _

3a...

.3 35%;?!
r 119%. .q 05......
If...”

_ .2
a 3.4
:9 s y
g. : .7...
7.. V

3.4L“. .. r

 

THESIS

IT LIBRARY

Michigan State ‘
L University

54.151373 3-

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PREPARTION, PROMOTION. AND
BARRIERS TO CAREER ADVANCEMENT: A STUDY OF
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLGE ADMINISTRATORS

presented by

Kim E. VanDerLinden

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Higher, Adult, and
PhD. Lifelong Education

 

 

I‘m/0' “I.” , 101W

' Majci Pradssor’s SigHature
3 I Ki I 05

Date

 

MSU Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

-.‘ -.-.- -.- —.— a - -

o.---- .l-.-¢-I-I---n-l-t-l-l-O-h-I-Q-l-l-A-o.

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

NOI %%2ZIIDQI

 

05cm (I $0M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6101 cJCIRCJDateDuopss-sz

 

 

 

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PREPARTION, PROMOTION, AND
BARRIERS TO CAREER ADVANCEMENT: A STUDY OF MICHIGAN
COMMUNITY COLLGE ADMINISTRATORS
By

Kim B. VanDerLinden

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
Department of Educational Administration

2003

Copyright by
Kim B. VanDerLinden

2003

ABSTRACT
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PREPARTION, PROMOTION, AND
BARRIERS TO CAREER ADVANCEMENT: A STUDY OF MICHIGAN
COMMUNITY COLLGE ADMINISTRATORS
By

Kim E. VanDerLinden

The ongoing retirements of the two generations of administrators who founded
community colleges have caused concern over where qualified leaders will come from in
the years ahead. While developing a new generation of leaders appears to be a high
priority for community colleges, this sector has been slow to bring women into top
leadership positions in proportion to their representation as faculty and students.
Therefore this study examined the career advancement and leadership development of
community college administrators with particular attention to gender.

The theoretical perspectives guiding this study were human capital theory and a
structural perspective. Researchers have suggested that career-related activities and
human capital investments such as obtaining educational credentials, participating in
professional development, and cultivating mentoring relationships have implications for
the career advancement and leadership development of administrators. Little is known,
however, about the implications of these activities in the careers of community college
administrators. Thus, one objective of this study was to explore the relationship between
career-related activities and career advancement of community college administrators.

The phenomenon of career advancement is complex and studying the process

without taking into consideration possible organizational and structural barriers assumes

that individual activities are not mediated by the organizational context. Therefore, a
second main objective of the study was to expose organizational or structural barriers that
may be influencing career advancement in the community college sector.

Analysis of survey data revealed that women in this sample remain under-
represented in senior level administrative positions. Women and men administrators,
however, made similar investments in human capital and were equally likely to
participate in a variety of professional development activities. Twenty-three percent of
administrators in the sample had been promoted in the prior two years, however, none of
the proposed predictor variables (educational attainment, professional development,
mentoring, or gender) helped to explain career advancement.

When asked about barriers to career advancement, the top three barriers reported
by this group of administrators were lack of opportunities at their current institution, an
unwillingness to move or relocate, and the nature of the institution. Higher percentages of
women were more likely to indicate that many of the barriers were problematic and
women were also more likely than men to indicate that their career had been interrupted
or constrained by family responsibilities. Institutional and individual implications are

discussed, along with directions for fiiture research.

This dissertation is dedicated to
my Mom, Sherrie Winters.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first and foremost like to thank my advisor Marilyn Amey. Marilyn, you
have been a wonderful mentor, colleague, and friend. I am extremely grateful to the other
HALE faculty members who served on my committee. Ann Austin, Reitu Mabokela, and
Roger Baldwin -— thank you for your time and thoughtful input. I am equally grateful to
Ed Wolfe for your statistical know-how and for your patience. And a very special thanks
goes to Jim F airweather for your support and for the many talks and coffee breaks over
the past four years.

Thank you to my parents and family for their encouragement. I found a most
supportive environment and a second family at Michigan State and am particularly
gratefiil to Pam Eddy, Liliana Mina, Regina Smith, Jean Bailey, Patty Farrell, Andrea
Beach, and Betty Murakami-Ramalho. Each of you made my graduate school experience
special and I am lucky to know such an amazing group of scholars and fiiends. I am also
grateful for the generous support financially and otherwise from the College of Education
and the Graduate School at MSU. Without the generous support of both of these units, I
would not have attempted, nor completed this degree.

Thank you to Matt who supported and encouraged me through many long
semesters, through comps, through the proposal, through job searches, and through the
dissertation process. Over the past three years, you provided many opportunities for me
to escape from the academic demands and to live life beyond the confines of Erickson
Hall and the MSU library. And all you ever asked for in return was a sentence in this

acknowledgement!

vi

And finally, I would like to acknowledge the 135 community college
administrators who took time out of their busy lives to complete the survey. It is my hope

that this research will be USCfiJI to you and your institutions.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study .................................................................... 3
Research Questions ...................................................................... 4
Definitions of Terms .................................................................... 5
Overview of Methodology .............................................................. 5
Significance .............................................................................. 6
Overview of Dissertation ............................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 8
Women Administrators .................................................................. 8
Theoretical Perspectives ................................................................. 9
Human Capital ........................................................................... 10
Education as Human Capital ....................................................... 12
Professional Development Activities and Training as Human Capital ...... l4
Barriers to Career Advancement ...................................................... 18
The Glass Ceiling ................................................................... 22
Mentoring ............................................................................ 23
Sponsorship .......................................................................... 26
Structure of Opportunity within Organizations ................................. 26
Community College Characteristics .............................................. 28
Multiple Roles of Women ......................................................... 29
Summary of Literature .................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 33
Data Collection ........................................................................... 33
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 38
Research Question 1 ............................................................... 38
Research Question 2 ............................................................... 39
Research Question 3 ............................................................... 41
Research Question 4 ............................................................... 43
Research Assumptions ............................................................... 49
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS ................................................................................. 50
Research Question 1 ..................................................................... 50
Research Question 2 ..................................................................... 50
Educational Attainment ............................................................ 50

viii

Professional Development Activities ............................................. 52

Total Number of Professional Development Activities ........................ 54
Mentoring ............................................................................ 56
Research Question 3 ..................................................................... 56
Logistic Regression Results ....................................................... 57
Research Question 4 .................................................................... 60
Baniers to Career Advancement .................................................. 60
Career Path Interruptions and Constraints ....................................... 64
Rasch Scaling of Barriers .......................................................... 65
Gender Differences in Scaled Measure .......................................... 65
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 67
Review of Findings ...................................................................... 67
Limitations ............................................................................... 77
Implications .............................................................................. 78
Institutional Implications .......................................................... 79
Organizational Culture ............................................................. 82
Nature of Administrative Work ................................................... 83
Implications for Individuals ....................................................... 84
Filling the Leadership Gap ......................................................... 87
Future Research ......................................................................... 88
Conclusion ............................................................................... 93
APPENDICES
Appendix A: 2000 Survey Excerpts .................................................. 97
Appendix B: 2002 Survey .............................................................. 99
REFERENCES ............................................................................... 101

ix

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

LIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of Sample and Respondents ............... 37
Rasch Model: Item Fit Statistics .............................. 48
Gender Differences in Administrative Titles ................ 51
Educational Attainment of Administrators .................. 51

External Professional Development Activities:
Participation Rates ............................................... 53

Internal Professional Development Activities
Participation Rates ............................................... 54

Number of External Professional Development Activities... 55

Number of Internal Professional Development Activities 55

Two-Way Interaction Model .................................... 58
Main Effects Model .............................................. 59
Barriers to Career Advancement ............................... 61

Gender Differences in Barriers to Career Advancement .... 63

Gender Differences in Career Path
Interruptions and Constraints .................................... 64

Independent Samples t-test: Gender Differences ............. 65

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Women’s representation and role in institutions of higher education increased
significantly during the 20th century. Today, women comprise over half of the
undergraduate population at US. colleges and universities, and women represent a large
population in graduate programs earning over 40% of all doctorate degrees (Chronicle of
Higher Education Almanac, 2000). In addition, women are increasingly occupying senior
faculty positions and top administrative positions in our colleges and universities. In
2000, Ross and Green reported that women accounted for 19% of all college and
university presidents. Although low in absolute terms, Walton and McDade (2001)
concluded that this figure was substantial given that the percentage of CEOs who are
women in most other significant social institutions is lower than 19%.

Community colleges, in particular, enroll and employ higher proportions of
women as compared to four-year colleges and universities (AACC, 2000; Townsend,
1995). Much of the literature on women in community colleges focuses on female
students and also, to some degree, female faculty members. Less attention has been paid
to women administrators - their career patterns and experiences, although many authors
(Amey & VanDerLinden, 2001; Falconer, 1995; Moore, 1985; Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1991;
Sandler, 1993) have noted the under representation of women in senior administrative
roles. And as Twombly (1995) noted, community colleges have been slow to bring
women into top leadership positions in proportion to their representation as faculty and

students.

Examining the career advancement of community college administrative leaders
may be particularly important given the current environmental context and the perceived
lack of qualified individuals in the community college leadership pipeline. Community
colleges have grown in number, size, and organizational complexity. The changes of the
late 20‘” century have resulted in the creation of new administrative offices and positions.
Other pressing issues include conflicts over institutional mission, the needs of an
increasingly diverse student body, cutbacks in state and federal handing, growing
competition from proprietary schools, and demands for an increase in work-based
training (Laanan, 2001; Levin, 2001; Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1997). These
challenges have caused many to conclude that “the development of a new generation of
senior leadership for America’s community colleges is imperative if these institutions are
to successfully operate in increasingly complex environments” (McFarlin & Ebbers,
1998, p.34).

Developing a new generation of leaders may be one of the greatest challenges
facing this sector. In 1998, the League for Innovation’s Alliance for Community College
Innovation conducted a survey of its member presidents to learn more about leadership
transitions. When asked about leadership succession, 70% of the CEOS who planned to
retire by 2001 were not confident that qualified candidates were available to fill the
position within their institution and nearly half of the respondents indicated skepticism
about a sufficient pool of qualified candidates within their state (Italia, 1998).

A more recent article (Evelyn, 2001) in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
described community colleges as facing a ‘leadership crisis,’ as some 45% of two-year

college presidents planned to retire in the next six years. These pending administrative

retirements have caused some to question where new leaders will come from and whether
they will be prepared for the task. Shults (2001), for example, noted that retirements will
leave an enormous gap in the collective memory and the leadership of community
colleges, and he suggested that community colleges identify new leaders and give them
the opportunity to acquire and practice skills they will need to lead colleges in the 21"t
century. The projected turnover presents an opportunity to “bring in fresh blood at a time
when two-year colleges face increasingly complex demands” (Evelyn, 2001, p. A36).
This pending ‘leadership crisis’ may also present opportunities for women to advance in
a sector that is often described as overly bureaucratic and dominated by male imagery

(Amey & Twombly, 1992).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research is to study the career advancement and professional
development of community college administrators, with particular attention to gender.
Higher education researchers (Anderson, 1997; LeBlanc, 1993; McDade, 1987; McFarlin
& Ebbers, 1998; Moore, 1988; Warner & DeFleur, 1993) have suggested that career-
related activities and human capital investments such as obtaining educational
credentials, participating in professional development, and cultivating mentoring
relationships have implications for the career advancement and leadership development
of administrators. Little is known, however, about the implications of these activities in
the careers of community college administrators. Thus, one objective of this study is to
explore the relationship between career-related activities and career advancement of

community college administrators.

The phenomenon of career advancement is complex and studying the process
without taking into consideration possible organizational and structural barriers assumes
that individual activities are not mediated by the organizational context. Therefore, a
second main objective of the study is to expose organizational or structural barriers that
may be influencing career advancement in the community college sector. While fulfilling
these two objectives, this study will also provide important data on the career trends and
occupational mobility of community college administrators. In doing so, the results may
have implications for how community colleges are addressing the “leadership crisis”

described above.

Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed by this study:

1. Are women administrators concentrated in middle level administrative positions
rather than senior level positions?

2. Do differences exist between the career—related activities and human capital
investments of men and women community college administrators?

3. Do differences in career-related activities and human capital investments help to
explain career advancement among community college administrators? Is career
advancement related to gender?

4. What individual, organizational, and structural barriers exist that prevent community
college administrators from advancing into senior leadership positions? Do gender

differences exist in terms of barriers to career advancement?

 

Definition of Terms used in Research Questions
Cm Advangment: Involves position changes, often in a sequence, which serve as
measures of career progress. May involve movement fi'om one employer to another or
fi'om one position to another (Caplow, 1957; Hodson & Sullivan, 1990).
Human Capigal: Education, training, skills, and experience that increase one’s present and

future job productivity (Reskin & Padavic, 1994).

 

Barriers: A characteristic or feature that may impede or restrict career advancement.
Barriers can exist because of individual attributes, such as a lack of appropriate
educational credential, or they can be embedded in the structural features of an
organization, such as a lack of institutional support for professional development

activities (Cleveland, et al., 2000).

Overview of Methodology

In order to address the research questions, quantitative methods and survey data
are utilized. Quantitative studies allow for inquiry into a social or human problem by the
testing of a theory composed of variables, by measurement with numbers, and by analysis
with statistical procedures in order to determine whether predictable generalizations of
the theory hold true (Creswell, 1994).

Two hundred and five administrators in the state of Michigan completed a survey
in spring 2000 and provided information on their educational attainment, professional
development activities, and mentoring relationships. In the spring of 2002, a follow-up
survey was mailed to the 205 survey respondents to inquire about their occupational

mobility during the previous two years. In addition, the one-page survey asked questions

on barriers or obstacles to career advancement. The survey data were analyzed in a
variety of ways including the use of descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, Kruskal-
Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks, t-tests, logistic regression, and Rasch

scaling techniques.

Significance

This study has the potential to add to the theoretical understanding of career
advancement, while also providing insight into the careers of community college
administrators. Knowledge about the relationships between certain activities and career
advancement may directly or indirectly help to eliminate barriers facing those who seek
to advance in this sector. This study may also expose certain organizational or structural
elements that help to explain the disproportionate representation of women in middle
rather than senior level positions. The longitudinal nature of this study will provide
important and unique data on the career patterns of administrators, which may have

implications for filling leadership gaps in this sector.

Overview of Dissertation
The subsequent chapters are organized as follows. The second chapter provides a
comprehensive literature review of relevant theoretical perspectives and research
findings. The review begins with a brief introduction to the topic of women in senior
leadership positions, followed by a section on human capital theory and the variables
commonly referred to in the literature as human capital. Drawing on some of the

criticisms of human capital theory, the next section of chapter two details structural

arguments and barriers to career advancement. Lastly, the literature review touches upon
the possible conflicts between professional and personal roles that may influence career
advancement.

The literature review is followed by chapter three which describes the
methodology and contains sections on the survey instrument, data collection procedures,
and data analysis strategies. Chapter four presents the results of the data analysis.
Finally, chapter five includes a discussion of the research findings, the limitations of the

study, implications of the findings, and suggestions for future research.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Women Administrators

Before 1970, female leaders in the community college movement were virtually
non-existent. Early women presidents of two-year colleges were marginal figures
nationally. Male domination of administrative positions was taken for granted, evidenced
by the fact that a 1960 profile of junior college presidents did not even mention gender
(Frye, 1995). Though women play an integral role as students, faculty, and administrators
in today’s community colleges, their stories are relatively absent from the historical
writings on the sector’s founding and development. In fact, it was not until the 19708 and
1980s that women’s experiences as administrators and leaders began to be noted or
examined.

The most comprehensive snapshot of community college administrators is the
Moore, Martorana, and Twombly, “Today ’s Academic Leaders” study from the mid-
l980s. These data provided systematic analyses of two-year college administrative
careers and various analyses of internal and external labor market issues (Moore, et al.,
1985; Twombly, 1988, 1986). One of the many findings of the study was that women
were most often found on the organizational periphery. A small percentage of individuals
filling presidencies and academic vice presidencies were women, but women were more
likely to be found in positions such as librarians, human resources managers, minority
affairs administrators, and financial aid officers. Similarly, Tinsley et al., in 1984,
observed that women administrators were likely to be responsible for human resources

and personnel, but that they rarely had decision-making or budgetary responsibilities.

In addition to being on the organizational periphery, women have been
disproportionately concentrated in middle-level, rather than senior level administration
and in the 1980s few women were in administrative career tracks that led to top
management (Tinsley, et al., 1984). Sandler (1986) explained:

Women administrators remain concentrated in a small number of low status areas

traditionally viewed as women’s fields (i.e., nursing, student affairs, affirmative

action) or other academic support roles such as admissions ofiicer, registrar, or
bookstore manager. Or they are locked into associate or assistant positions with

little chance of advancing. (p. 176)

In a more recent study of women community college administrators in California,
Faulconer (1995) concluded that although more women are filling administrative ranks,
they remain concentrated in the lower levels and “the representation of women in the
management of higher education is not proportionate to their presence in the workplace
or in the classroom” (p. 18). And in 2001, Wenninger and Conroy stated that women are
increasingly occupying “dead-end administrative jobs, such as directors of programs and
affirmative action offices, where their skills have a minimal chance to affect policy and

they have virtually no chance for advancement” (p4).

Theoretical Perspectives
A variety of theoretical perspectives have been applied in attempts to explain
women’s under representation in senior level positions and to understand career
advancement. The two theoretical approaches used in this study are human capital and

organizational/structural baniers.

Human Capital

Some theorists and researchers turn to the study of quantifiable variables in order
to explain or understand occupational segregation and gender differences in career
advancement. Human capital theorists claim that any differences in the advancement of
men and women are due to differences in commitment, education, and experience
(Reskin & Padavic, 1994). In essence, organizations reward individuals for investing in
educational, personal, and professional experiences that enhance their worth or value to
the organization (Hurley & Sonnenfeld, 1998). From the perspective of human capital
theory, consequently, women are underrepresented in higher administrative positions
because they have less education, training, and commitment to their jobs than men. Each
of these premises will be discussed in more detail in this literature review.

Human capital variables have consistently been researched as predictors of
managerial career attainment, but less so in the context of colleges and universities. It is
important to note, however, that human capital variables are seldom studied in isolation
when looking for thorough explanations of career advancement. Rather, human capital is
often examined along with organizational factors or structural elements. Hurley &
Sonnenfeld (1998), for example, found that human capital variables such as education
and tenure in position and organizational factors such as the existence of different
advancement career ‘tracks’ contributed to the explanation of who was selected for top
level managerial positions.

The business and managerial literature on women’s career advancement is limited
by the disproportionate representation of women in the most senior positions of corporate

and business settings. Women comprise only 3 to 5 percent of senior managers of

10

companies included among the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 Service
companies (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). This absence makes it difficult to
study, draw conclusions, or make generalizations about women leaders and what
variables seem to influence career advancement. Thus, the majority of career studies and
theories in the business literature have focused on the careers of white men (Brown,
1990).

The few studies within the higher education literature that examine human capital
often make comparisons between men and women using descriptive statistics or less
sophisticated methods of analysis. AS one example, Warner & DeFleur (1993) examined
educational differences among senior administrators, including differences among fields
of study, and whether senior administrators had faculty experience in their backgrounds.
Using chi-square analysis, the researchers found some statistically significant differences
between the experiences and areas of advanced degrees of men and women.

Rather than look at career advancement as the outcome of human capital
investments, educational researchers often turn to more quantifiable measures such as
salary, which may serve as a proxy for advancement. In a series of studies using the
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty database, Pema (2001a, 2001b, 2001c)
examined human capital variables and their relationship to a variety of employment
experiences including salary, academic rank, and tenure status. Controlling for human
capital, productivity, and structural characteristics eliminated any male-female gap in
salaries among new assistant professors (2001a). Similarly, she found that the lower
observed representation of women among tenured faculty was completely explained by

gender differences in characteristics and attributes related to tenure such as the level of

11

human capital investment, the number of refereed publications, and the type of academic
field (2001b).

Following on these results, in her study specific to community college faculty,
Pema (2001c) concluded that differences in the employment experiences of female and
male faculty at public two-year colleges were explained by human capital, structural, and
market characteristics. Through a series of analyses, she found that the observed
overrepresentation of women among faculty at two-year (rather than four-year
institutions), the overrepresentation of men among full professors, and the lower salaries
of women faculty were all eliminated when differences in other variables such as
education and years of experience were taken into account. While education and
particular experiences appear to have some explanatory power in studies of gender
differences among faculty, less is known about the relationship of these variables in the

careers of administrators.

Education as Human Capital

A claim of the human capital argument is that educational differences account for
occupational segregation and the promotion gap (Reskin & Padavic, 1994). Beginning in
the 1960s economists began investigating the “returns to schooling,” which refers to the
notion that education is an investment in human capital that results in outcomes and
returns on that investment (Mincer, 1974). More specifically, education instills skills and
knowledge in a person that raises their productivity and employability (Becker, 1964).

Several theories attempted to further explain this relationship between education

and employability and may be applicable to the role of education in administrative

12

careers. Certification and signaling theories (Mincer, 1974) suggested that higher
education may or may not have a direct relationship on what is learned versus what is
required for a particular job, but that the act of receiving an education suggests or
‘signals’ to employers that a student is employable. Screening theories (Arrow, 1973), in
comparison, emphasized that employers can use educational attainment as a cheap and
easy measure of employability and ‘screen’ out potential job candidates, while chartering
theories (Meyer, 197 7) suggested that educational attainment signifies social value and
characteristics that makes a person employable.

As these theories of ‘return to schooling’ were being developed and researched
during the 19703, the argument remained that women invest less than men in their
education. This aspect of the human capital argument, however, is becoming less
applicable when considering that during the 19903, women outnumbered men among
recipients of postsecondary degrees at every level except at the doctoral level (Wentling,
1998). Women’s high rates of participation in higher education seems to suggest that
educational attainment may have little explanatory power when looking at differences in
career attainment between men and women. Yet, educational attainment at the doctoral
level, where men and women’s attainment does differ, may be an important variable
when studying administrator advancement in higher education settings. Given that the
majority of female college presidents hold a doctorate (Chronicle of Higher Education
Almanac, 2000), an advanced degree may actually be a prerequisite or ‘screening’ type of
variable for top administrative positions. Moore (1988) concurred when she stated,
“women seeking top positions should realize that 80 percent of all presidents and

provosts hold the doctorate” (p. 164).

13

Some researchers (Warner & DeFleur 1993) have pointed out, however, that the
amount of education may not be the most relevant factor, but rather the area of study. In
her study of women administrators in California, Faulconer (1995) found that 72% of
women community college presidents reported having a doctoral degree, and the most
fiequently cited majors were educational administration, higher education, and
educational leadership. This finding suggests that there may be a preferred credential in

an education-related area of study.

Professional Development Activities a_nd Training as Human Capital

 

Human capital theory stresses the importance of experiences such as on-the-job
training activities and other opportunities to gain additional skills and knowledge, which
may aid in advancement. Higher education is marked by a plethora of formal and
informal professional development activities and opportunities for administrators to
increase their human capital, knowledge, and skills. In addition to providing opportunities
for personal improvement and advancement, McDade (1997) noted that, “professional
development programs can formalize and accelerate necessary learning by providing an
organized, focused forum for developing specific skills needed to solve institutional
problems” (p.3). Although not supported by any empirical evidence, she stated:

Many institutions methodically send managers to programs as a way to upgrade

the administration and its collective skills. These programs increase the

participation of women and minorities in the senior administrator ranks by
helping them gain experience and credentials to catapult into senior positions.

(McDade, 1997, p.3)

l4

Similarly, Rosser (2000) concluded that institutions that enhance administrators’ career
and professional development opportunities provide internal pathways to gain access and
status within the organization.

While the professional development activities of college and university presidents
are often the focus of study, less is known about the modes for developing leadership and
management Skills of other top and mid-level administrators. Over 20 years ago, Scott
stated that “higher education has not yet realized its responsibility for the professional
development of its mid-level staffs” (1978, p.35). Some ten years later in his inventory of
existing professional development programs, Schuster (1988) asserted that Scott’s
statement required little altering, although he noted that the number and apparent quality
of professional development opportunities for administrators has grown over time.

Several professional development programs are open to both women and men
administrators in the form of leadership training, internships, conferences, and other types
of programming. McDade (1997, 1987) suggested that the large variety of programs and
opportunities open to administrators could be organized into four different types — the
first being national institutes which offer extended, intensive training programs and
investigate education issues and management techniques. Current examples of such
programs for community college administrators include the American Council on
Education (ACE) Fellows Program, the Kellogg Leadership Program, the League for
Innovation Executive Leadership Program, and other higher education management
institutes such as those offered by Harvard and Bryn Mawr. These types of institutes
provide individualized career-planning activities and teach skills needed to succeed in

higher education. The ACE Fellows Program, for example, is open to faculty and

15

administrators aspiring to senior positions who take leave from their institutions to intern
with a president or vice president at another institution. As another example, the Bryn
Mawr Summer Institute is a four-week residential program open to women in middle and
executive levels of higher education administration and focuses on four major areas
including the academic environment, the external environment, the institutional
environment, and professional development (Brown, Van Ummersen, & Phair, 2001a,
2001b).

The other types of programs in McDade’s typology included administrative
conferences that address specific tasks, responsibilities, and leadership roles in a specific
administrative area; conventions of national associations such as the annual meeting of
the American Association of Community Colleges which features prominent speakers,
panel discussions, position papers; and short seminars, workshops, and meetings which
provide focused instruction on specialized issues and problems in education. Some
studies (Brown, 2000; Buddemeier, 1998; Touchton, et al., 1993) have addressed the
participation rates of presidents in these types of professional development programs, but
little else is known about the participation rates of other community college
administrators. And by only describing participation rates, without looking at the
relationship between these activities and career advancement, these studies provide little
evidence as to what activities actually aid in the career advancement of administrators.

Administrators can also partake in other specific external activities that may
provide valuable skills, knowledge, and networking opportunities, but do not fall neatly
into McDade’s typology. Such activities include being a paid external consultant and

serving on national, state, or regional boards for professional organizations (which has

16

different responsibilities and accompanying activities from simply attending an
organization’s meeting). Few studies document such activities and their impact on
administrative careers, but Faulconer (1995) in her study of women administrators in
California found that the most frequently reported training to assist in career development
was conference attendance, followed by participation in workshops. Faulconer’s study,
though, failed to explain the influence of these activities on administrative careers and
provided only descriptive statistics on the activities of administrators.

While many institutions may rely on existing national and regional programs for
leadership development, other professional development activities take place on
individual campuses via performance and career reviews with supervisors or colleagues.
Institutions may offer staff development programs, sabbaticals and study leaves,
opportunities to take on additional responsibilities or serve on institutional task forces,
and temporary task or job rotations. A recent Catalyst study (1996) found that women
identified the activity of cross-firnctional job rotation as being helpful in career
advancement, but these types of institution-specific activities have not been
systematically investigated.

The professional development activities referenced throughout this section
resemble types of on-the-job training that might occur at industrial, business, or other
organizational settings. Human capital theorists stress that individuals can increase their
opportunities for career advancement by learning important skills via on-the-job training
(Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 1998). AS will be pointed out in the next section, however, vast
differences may exist between the on-the-job training opportunities for men and women

across occupations.

17

Barriers to Career Advancement

Rather than examining individual investments in certain career-related activities, a
second theoretical approach to the study of career advancement is to address
organizational or structural elements that may serve as barriers. The large number of
studies that often combine human capital variables with other more structural variables
implies that human capital theory, in isolation, has a number of limitations when
considering women’s career advancement (Bergmann, 1986; England, 1992). The most
potent criticism of human capital theory is that it simply does not explain the data on
occupational segregation and wage differentials based on gender (Cleveland, Stockdale,
& Murphy, 2000). Educational attainment, for example, may have little influence on
career advancement, because even if women have an advanced degree, a perceived lack
of preparation may still exist on many campuses. Maitland (1990), while discussing
obstacles for women in higher education, stated that “although women are attending
college and graduate school there is a common perception that women are less
prepared and as a result they receive fewer rewards such as promotions and salary
increases” (p.251). In support of Maitland’s statement, Chaddock (1995) studied the
relationship between community college president’s salaries and a number of
demographic and experiential variables, and concluded that a substantial difference in
average annual salary exists between male and female community college presidents.
She stated, “no variables, other than sex of the president, correlated with salary
differences” (p.25).

In terms of on-the-job training, Bergmann (1986) reported that women, across

occupations and fields, have less than half as much on-the-job training as men do. This

18

training can consist of general transferable skills such as learning to use a particular piece
of technology, or on-the-job training may be organization-specific such as training on an
institution specific initiative. Bergmann (1986) went on to point out that on-the-job
training is sometimes referred to in the economic literature as part of a “worker’s
investment in himself” (p.75), yet in most establishments it is employers, not workers,
who control the opportunity to enroll in such training. “Women have less on-the-job
training than men in part because many employers will not allow women into training
programs or onto career ladders where informal training occurs” (p.75). Individual
administrators, therefore, may actually have very little influence over the types of
professional development or training activities that they participate in. Merely describing
the participation rates of administrators in certain activities, as was often the case with the
above referenced studies, may not adequately depict the opportunities for administrators
that are mediated by organizational or structural influences.

Given these criticisms, reliance on human capital theory may fail to take into
account important institutional factors and forces that contribute to the maintenance of
occupational segregation -- such as barriers to training and development activities or
unequal access to information about such activities. The lack of advancement in higher
education administration documented by Moore (1985), F aulconer (1995), Sandler
(1993), and others may be related to certain gender-specific, discriminatory, or subtle
barriers that women face, rather than a lack of appropriate skills, credentials, and
experiences. The existence of such barriers led Oakes (1999) to conclude that although
women have emerged as leaders in higher education, “many female administrators

continue to encounter resistance and friction in their daily professional activities” (p. 57).

19

In her book, The Economic Emergence of Women, Bergmann (1986) disagreed
with theorists and labor economists who studied individual characteristics of men and
women and claimed no unfairness toward women.

They say that even if women wanted other jobs, employers would be right to

exclude them women allegedly engage in behavior that employers cannot

tolerate in anyone considered for promotion to a higher status, better paid job.

They [women] avoid expensive training; interrupt their careers for childbearing

and child-raising; and are unwilling to travel extensively, to take transfers fiom

one city to another, or to work overtime... the adherents of this school of thought

[say] the overwhelming majority of women lack competence and commitment,

and that is why they do so poorly [in the labor market]. (Bergmann, 1986, p. 64)
The main question that Bergmann explored was not whether discrimination was present
or absent from workplaces, but whether it was an important factor in the Sharp
differences in status and pay between men and women.

Discrimination, although subtle and not always easy to ascertain (Schneer &
Reitman, 1994), occurs when an organization is structured such that women are
disadvantaged in comparison to men in their efforts to navigate their careers to top levels
and involves actions towards individuals based solely on group membership. Rather than
talk of discrimination, some researchers choose to focus on sex stereotyping or systemic
barriers (Morrison & VonGlinow, 1990). The differences between the concepts, however,
are not always readily apparent or made explicit in discussions and writings on women’s
career advancement. Stereotyping may also result in discriminatory action, but it is

marked by the perceived lack of fit between women and top leadership positions which is

20

based on socially shared beliefs about the characteristics and attributes of men and
women. Systemic barriers, in comparison, involve organizational conditions that mirror
the prejudices of broader society and rather than attributing barriers to people’s
stereotypes, they are attributed to the “system” more broadly (Cleveland, et al., 2000).

Harriman (1996) asserted that barriers to career advancement occur in two stages.
First, women’s entry into the organization and access to appropriate jobs may be limited.
Secondly, upward mobility in the organization may be limited by what some term a glass
ceiling, which is an invisible but impenetrable barrier that denies access to the higher
levels of the organization (p. 181). Similarly Toren and Moore (1998) used various
metaphors to discuss impediments to career advancement of women such as filters,
thresholds, hurdles, and ceilings. One study found that a significant number of women
indicated that the combination of the old boy’s network and the glass ceiling prevented
them fi'om being appointed to prestigious posts (Buddemeier, 1998). Echoing others
(Harriman, 1996; Toren & Moore, 1998), Welch (1992) summarized the three major
concerns for women who become college administrators as: entry, survival, and
advancement.

Kanter (1977) also identified organizational and structural elements that prevent
women fi'om advancing in organizations. In her book, Men and Women of the
Corporation, Kanter exposed the masculine character of organizational management and
discussed the problems experienced by anyone who is a minority in a majority group.
She argued that the structure of opportunity within organizations, the distribution of
power, and the number of women in an organization shape women’s aspirations and

motivation to climb the organizational ladder. This perspective focused on both formal

21

and informal structures of organizations — such as the entrance requirements, well-
defined career ladders, traditions, colleague groups, and mentors. These Structures affect
career opportunities and have the potential to restrict or enhance women’s roles in
organizations. In opposition to human capital theory’s explanation of career advancement
of women, Kanter’s work described how the organization fails to train women, develop

their skills, or give them visible jobs that would enhance their mobility.

The Gla_ss Ceiling

One well-documented organizational barrier for women is the glass ceiling
(Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). In the early 19903, a federal commission
defined the glass ceiling as a set of subtle barriers that inhibit women and also minorities
from reaching the upper echelons of corporate America, government, and academia and
constitute a form of labor market discrimination that may also be maintained by society at
large. Quina, Cotter, and Romenesko (1998) added to the definition when they stated that
the glass ceiling is the almost universal experience of middle-management women who
after climbing onto the career advancement ladder, now find the executive levels closed
to them. Some of the practices that maintain the glass ceiling include recruiting practices
based on personal contacts fiom the old boy network as well as stereotypes and
misconceptions. The Commission’s report cited the common myths that women are not
aggressive enough, are unwilling to relocate, and that men make better bosses.

Drawing on the literature in a variety of disciplines, Quina, et al., (1998) detailed
three categories of explanation for the glass ceiling effect: personal, situational, and

societal. A person-centered explanation, which goes hand-in-hand with human capital

22

theory, focuses on characteristics of women such as a lack of management experience or
leadership skills. A societal explanation of the glass ceiling focuses on the socialization
of men and women as dominant or submissive which can only be changed through
widespread social change. Quina, et al., (1998) concluded that the institutional
explanatory model has the most merit, however. This model suggests that formal and
informal institutional policies and practices differentially affect women. These authors
stated:

Focusing on institutional strategies problems perceived to be “personal issues,”

such as family-work stress, can be solved through institutional approaches such as

providing daycare. Societally based attitudes may not be changed, but the
problems they create can be mitigated (or their impact reduced) by enforcing
behavioral changes such as curbing derogatory language or requiring more

objective, open decision making. (p.218)

The Federal Commission offered a series of recommendations for organizations to
consider, including ensuring that all individuals have equal access and opportunity to
compete for positions; expanding searches for new employees to include those with
varied backgrounds and experiences; initiating policies that help employees balance the
demands of career and family; and establishing mentoring programs to prepare

individuals for senior leadership.

Menggring
As suggested by the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, mentoring may play an

important role in helping women to overcome barriers and possibly transcend the glass

23

ceiling. According to Cleveland, Stockdale, and Murphy (2000), mentoring is related to
organizational advancement, career development, and also career satisfaction. Mentoring
has received considerable attention in higher education literature. Moore and Salimbene
(1981) defined mentoring as an intense, lasting, and professionally centered relationship
between two individuals in which the more experienced and powerfirl individual, the
mentor, guides, advises, and assists in any number of ways the career of the less
experienced, often younger, upwardly mobile prote’gé.

Mentoring can have a significant impact on the career paths of women who aspire
to advance in higher education administration (Warner & DeFleur, 1993 ), and mentoring,
according to Brown, et al., (2001a) is the key ingredient that separates successfirl and
unsuccessful administrators. Moore and Salimbene (1981) found that deans, vice
presidents, and presidents felt mentorship had contributed to their career advancement in
higher education administration and they also found that mentor relationships can
determine whether a protégé has many or only a few opportunities for career
advancement. Durnovo (1990) found that women who had mentors were in significantly
higher administrative positions than women who had not experienced mentoring. She
also found that mentoring was helpful with women’s career advancement in that mentors
provided encouragement and opportunities, shared information, acted as role models,
encouraged the prote'gé to continue her education, and taught the prote'gé how to be
politically astute.

No single model of mentorship exists, but Smith (in Brown, et al., 2001a)
described three categories of mentorship seen in higher education. The first and the least

intrusive type is ‘mentor as supporter’ whereby the mentor offers advice and the contact

24

may be infrequent or unplanned. A second category is slightly more intrusive and
involves more pointed suggestions from the mentor as to training or educational
opportunities that would help the mentee prepare for a higher level position. The third
and most intensive type of mentoring involves formalized and planned sessions whereby
the mentee reports to the mentor and expectations are clearly defined. Brown, Van
Ummersen, and Phair (2001a) suggested that administrators may need different types of
mentorship structures at different stages of their careers.

One study (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988) documented the negative
consequences of a lack of mentoring for women in academe. The authors stated that
without clear goals of professional advice, “women tend not to plan intermediate five-
and ten-year strategies. Rather they take smaller steps, almost literally feeling their way
along” (p.45). They went on to state that without mentoring women frequently remain
unaware of specific steps important to their career advancement.

One overarching concern in both the education and the business literature is that
women may lack adequate mentoring opportunities (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy,
2000; Hansman, 1998). Authors note the scarcity of women in upper management who
are able to serve as mentors, as well as other challenges to establishing these types of
relationships, such as the societal taboos about close relationships between males and
females and the tendency of mentors to select proteges most like themselves (McDonald

& Hite, 1998).

25

Smngrship

Sponsorship, like mentoring, is another type of relationship that can shape
promotion and career advancement. Sponsorship occurs when an influential person
recommends or advocates the selection of an individual for a position. The advantages of
sponsorship for the sponsoree include career coaching and access to positions or decision
makers that might not otherwise be available (Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1992). One
consequence of Sponsorship is that those involved in hiring are provided with
personalized information during the matching process that is more highly valued than
paper credentials (Granovetter, 1981). Sponsorship can be a very time efficient way to fill
positions, but it can also be exclusionary. Sagaria & Johnsrud (1992) found that over 70%
of the positions at the top of the administrative hierarchy at one university were
effectively closed to any candidates other than the person being sponsored. These authors
observed that in organizations dominated by men, women as well as minorities benefit

least from the system of sponsorship.

Sflcture of Oppomnity within Organizations

In addition to the barriers cited above such as the glass ceiling phenomenon and
the lack of mentors, women’s placement in organizations and the workings of an internal
labor market may affect the structure of advancement opportunities within organizations
(Bergmann, 1986). The extent to which institutions promote from within or hire from
external markets largely determines an individual’s opportunity for advancement within
an institutional setting (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999). With regard to internal labor markets

and structures of opportunities that may be present in community colleges, specific

26

characteristics exist including boundaries, job ladders or career lines, and fixed or limited
entry points (Twombly, 1986). According to Bergmann (1986), the particular job ladders
associated with careers result in ladders that lead upward or ladders that lead to a dead-
end. Women are typically characterized as being on the shorter, dead-end ladders
(Bergmann, 1986). Thus, when women find themselves in careers on the organizational
periphery, their particular job ladder may prevent them from advancing into the upper
echelons of an organization.

One labor market phenomenon, which has received considerable attention in
fields such as sociology and labor and industrial relations, is occupational mobility
(Felmlee, 1982; Rosenbaum, 1979; Sicherrnan, 1990; Stewart & Gudykunst, 1980). With
the exception of a few studies in higher education (Johnsrud, 1991; Sagaria, 1988;
Twombly, 1986), the occupational mobility and career patterns of administrators have not
been thoroughly studied. Twombly (1986) detailed the four modes of career mobility in
colleges and universities: through positions at the same institution with greater status and
responsibility, through evolving jobs at the same institution, through departure fi'om one
institution for a higher position at another institution, and through acceptance of a lower
position at an institution with higher status. McDade (1987) posited that the hierarchy of
colleges and universities with its limited opportunities for advancement forces
administrators to move to other institutions in order to move up the hierarchy, and others
(Brown, Van Ummersen, & Phair, 2001a) noted a tendency at many institutions to
assume that external candidates are better than internal candidates. While some evidence
indicates that this movement described by McDade may be necessary to obtain a

community college presidency (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2001; Vaughan, 1994), the

27

career mobility patterns of other senior administrators remains unexarnined in the
literature. The lack of literature and information on career patterns and mobility limits the
understanding of women administrators’ experiences in the community college labor

market.

Community College Characteristics

While the internal labor market workings, as well as institutional factors or
structural elements that influence career advancement in community colleges are seldom
the focus of study, authors have noted the conflict between the images of community
colleges and the specific structures of the organization (Amey, 1999; Twombly, 1995).
As Bain and Cummings (2000) point out, certain barriers are intrinsic to particular
organizational settings or professional communities. Community colleges may have
specific structural elements and characteristics that make them less welcoming to women
administrators.

Community colleges have been categorized as bureaucratic and hierarchical
(Birnbaum, 1988) as well as being dominated by male and elite imagery (Amey &
Twombly, 1992). In their analysis of community college governance stnrctures, Reyes
and Twombly (1987) concluded that community colleges are “perceived to have
hierarchical modes of commands, written rules and regulations governing the
participants’ behavior, and highly authoritarian decision-making processes” (p. 10). In a
study of North Carolina community college administrators, Gillett-Karem (1997)
reported that over 60 percent of women administrators saw the nature of the institution

itself as a career obstacle. Based on these characterizations of community colleges, Amey

28

(1999) argued that the question is not whether women are qualified and able to be
community college leaders, but whether the community college offers an environment in
which women choose to exercise leadership. Studies in the private sector (Hardesty &
Jacobs, 1986) indicated that women may become disillusioned with the mores of
organizations and the quality of life that results when trying to fit the male organizational

mold, and a similar phenomenon may be happening in community colleges.

i l f W m
Many of the observations made by authors and researchers in terms of career

advancement, particularly within human capital theory, mention the role of the family
and its relation to women’s career development. Becker (1985) explained that family
responsibilities influence investments in human capital, continuity of labor force
participation, the types of employment sought, and the level of commitment to the job.
Thus examining either human capital or structural variables without taking into account
family and personal responsibilities may limit the understanding of careers. Early
theorists (Polacheck, 1981; Mincer & Polacheck, 1974), recognizing that women devoted
substantial portions of their adult lives to childbearing and child-rearing, suggested that
women are cognizant of this aspect of their lives and choose to enter occupations that
allow for ease of exit and reentry, as well as jobs that do not require the learning of skills
that may erode during periodic interruptions of employment. Consequently, then, early
human capital theorists concluded that women do not have the training, backgrounds, or
previous employment experience that would qualify them for senior administrative

positions.

29

Discussions of family/career conflicts in the higher education literature usually
focus on women faculty. For example, Riemenschnieder and Harper (1990) reported that
almost two-thirds of women faculty, but only one-third of men faculty, felt overwhelmed
trying to meet both child care and employment demands. Pema (2001d) concluded that
the lower representation of married women and women with children among the nation’s
college and university faculty may suggest the difficulties associated with fulfilling both
family and career responsibilities. In her study of faculty, she found that the odds of
holding a part-time, nontenure-track position were higher for married women than for
other women even after controlling for race, human capital investments, and other
structural characteristics.

In one descriptive study that did focus on administrators, rather than faculty,
Marshall and Jones (1990) found that two-thirds of female higher education deans,
administrators, and counselors believed that childbearing had negatively affected their
careers, particularly in terms of their professional advancement and mobility. Oakes
(1999) posited that “the long, irregular hours usually required of administrators often lead
to a lack of sufficient time for family” (p.60). In her interviews of women presidents, vice
provosts, and deans, Glazer-Raymo (1999) found that one overriding theme was the
difficulty of balancing personal and professional positions and that these dual roles were
perceived by women administrators to be career inhibitors. And Gillett-Karam (1997)
reported that over 30 percent of women administrators in North Carolina saw children
and family responsibilities as a career barrier. Such findings and conclusions suggest that
the traditional values, which hold women responsible for household duties and child-

rearing may conflict with women’s desires to have successful and fulfilling careers.

30

Summary of Literature

As evidenced by this literature review, different frameworks and theoretical
perspectives can be employed when examining career advancement. Building upon the
economic, business, and managerial literature, researchers in higher education are
compiling a body of literature that describes the career advancement of women in
academia. Faculty careers, however, dominate the career advancement literature in higher
education. In addition, when administrators are the subjects of study, it is seldom in the
community college sector and the focus rarely drops below the presidential level to other
administrative leaders.

Many of the studies described in the literature are limiting because they provide
only descriptive Statistics of participation rates in career-related activities. Multivariate
analysis is required to understand the extent to which any observed differences in the
career advancement of men and women are explained by variations in educational
attainment, participation in professional development, and mentoring activities.

Given these gaps in the literature, this study has the potential to contribute to the
understanding of the theoretical perspectives, as well as adding valuable insight into the
careers of community college administrators. Knowledge about whether certain activities
appear to matter in the career advancement of community college administrators may
directly or indirectly help to eliminate barriers facing those who seek to advance in this
sector. This investigation may also expose possible organizational or structural elements
that help to explain the disproportionate representation of women in middle rather than

senior level positions.

31

After reviewing the literature, the following four research questions emerged.

1. To what extent are women community college administrators concentrated in middle
level administrative positions rather than senior level positions?

2. Do differences exist between the career-related activities and human capital
investments of men and women community college administrators?

3. Do differences in career-related activities and human capital investments help to
explain career advancement among community college administrators? 13 career
advancement related to gender?

4. What individual, organizational, and structural barriers exist that prevent
administrators from advancing into senior leadership positions? Do gender

differences exist in terms of barriers to career advancement?

32

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative research study addressed the career advancement of community
college administrators with attention to gender, human capital investments, rates of

promotion, and barriers to career advancement.

Data Collection

Phase I - Sample and Instrument

Phase I of this research relied on a stratified random sample of 300 community
college administrators in the state of Michigan. The sample was drawn using the 1999
Michigan Education Directory. The Directory listed names, positions, and titles of
administrators in Michigan’s 29 community colleges. The stratification variable for
selecting the sample was administrative area. Approximately ten different administrative
areas were represented in the directory, but due to the size of some colleges and differing
organizational structure, not every community college listed all ten areas. Therefore,
rather than sample by college, administrators were classified by position and
approximately 30 administrators from each area were randomly selected to receive the
instrument.

The instrument was, in part, a replication of an instrument used by Moore et al., in
1985. The original Moore et al., instrument was adapted for language and terminology
and consisted of open-ended response items, closed-ended response items, and Likert
scale questions. Additional questions were added to the original instrument based on an

extensive literature review. The instrument (Appendix A) was pilot tested with

33

community college administrators and two peer reviewers in January 2000. It was also
reviewed by three experts at the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
who had previously administered surveys to national samples of community college
administrators. Changes made to the instrument included: re-wording and re-arrangement
of survey questions and deletions of some questions in order to decrease the page length.

Several steps were taken to encourage a high response rate. During February -
May 2000, two mailings of the survey packet were sent along with one follow-up
postcard. In addition, non-respondents were contacted via email when email addresses
were available on the institutional web pages. These efforts yielded 205 completed

surveys for a 68% response rate.

Chagapterigtics of the Respondents in 2000

Twenty-eight of the 29 community colleges in Michigan were represented in the

 

sample. The 205 respondents came from a variety of senior level positions including
Presidents and Chancellors, Chief Academic Officers and Provosts, Occupational
Education Directors, Directors of Continuing Education, Chief Student Affairs Officers,
Financial Aid Directors, Chief Business and Administrative Officers, Human Resources
Directors, Learning Resources Directors, and Directors of Information Technology and
Distance Education (Table 1). Seven percent held the title of President, Chancellor, or
Provost. Seventeen percent held titles of Vice President (including Executive, Associate,
and Assistant Vice Presidents). Twenty-eight percent were Deans (including Associate
and Assistant Deans). Forty-four percent of respondents were at the Director level and

four percent had other titles such as Coordinator or Officer. The administrative areas and

34

titles of survey respondents were similar to the original sample of 300 administrators (see
Table 1).

Women accounted for 45.6% of the respondents in 2000, which was equivalent to
the percentage of women in the original sample of 300 administrators. When asked about
race/ethnicity, over 88% of the sample indicated White/Caucasian, 4.4% indicated
Black/African American, 1.5% were of Hispanic origin, 1% were multi-racial, less than
1% indicated Asian, less than 1% indicated Native American, and 3.4% did not indicate
their race or ethnicity. The average age of respondents in 2000 was 52 years old. The

race/ethnicity and age of the 300 administrators in the original sample was unknown.

Phase H — Smple and Instrument

During May 2002, the 205 survey respondents from the Phase I data collection
were contacted to participate in a follow-up mail survey (Appendix B). The instrument
consisted of questions related to any career or title changes over the past two years. It
also included a section on possible barriers or obstacles to career advancement. The
questions related to barriers were developed based on an extensive literature review and
also incorporated questions asked by Gillett-Karem (1997) during a study of community
college administrators in North Carolina. The instrument was pilot tested with two
Michigan community college administrators who were not part of the original sample.

Of the 205 respondents in 2000, six administrators had retired during the previous
two years which resulted in a target sample of 199 administrators. One complete mailing
of the instrument and follow-up via email to non-respondents resulted in 135 completed

surveys for a 68% response rate (3 2% attrition rate) for the 2002 survey and a 45%

35

 

overall response rate given the original sample of 300 administrators in 2000. Two
additional surveys were returned, but were missing data and were thus excluded from the

data analysis.

Chmeristics of the Respondents in 2002

The 135 respondents came from a variety of senior level positions in 28 different

 

community colleges. The title and position percentages differed slightly from the
respondents in 2000 and from the original sample of 300 administrators (Table 1). Eight
percent of respondents in 2002 held the title of President, Chancellor, or Provost. Sixteen
percent held title of Vice President (including Executive, Associate, and Assistant Vice
Presidents). Twenty-four percent were Deans (including Associate and Assistant Deans).
Forty-seven percent of respondents were at the Director level (including Executive
Directors) and four percent had other titles such as Coordinators.

In 2002, women made up 49.6% of the sample. Interestingly, in phase H of the
research, a large percentage (18%) of respondents chose not to indicate their race or
ethnicity. Over 76% of administrators indicated White/Caucasian, 4% indicated
Black/African American, 1% indicated Hispanic, and 1% indicated multi-racial. The

average age of respondents in 2002 was 53 years old.

36

Table 1

Characterigics pf Sample and Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'* CharacteriStics f , ‘ Original ; Resrrondents 11689011116143 ~.
~ , . v ' - Sample .in2000 . in2002
t (  . l -<N=-300) w (hr-=20» ‘(N=135) r ,
Percentage female 45.5% 45.6% 49.6%
Average Age Unknown 52 53
Race/Ethnicity
White Unknown 88. 8% 76. 1%
Black/African American Unknown 4.4% 3.7%
Hispanic Origin Unknown 1.5% 0.7%
Asian Unknown 0.5% 0.0%
Native American/American Indian Unknown 0.5% 0.0%
Multi-racial Unknown 1 .0% l .4%
Unknown/Did not indicate Unknown 3 .4% 17.9%
Administrative Title
President/Chancellor/Provost 9.0% 7.0% 8.0%
Vice President 16.0% 17.0% 16.0%
Dean 23.0% 28.0% 25.0%
Director 48.0% 44.0% 47.0%
Coordinator 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Administrative Area
President/Chancellor 10.0% 7.3% 6.9%
Chief Academic Officer/Provost 10.0% 14.5% 11.2%
Occupational Education 10.0% 7.8% 8.2%
Continuing Education/Industry Liaison 10.0% 12.2% 11.9%
Chief Student Affairs Officer 10.0% 8.7% 10.4%
Financial Aid/Other Student Affairs Areas 10.0% 11.2% 11.9%
Admin Areas/Business Affairs/IR 10.0% 10.2% 9.0%
HR/Resource Development 10.0% 8.7% 8.9%
Learning Resources 10.0% 9.7% 11.9%
Distance Education/Info Technology 10.0% 9.7% 9.7%

 

37

 

Data Analysis
Data analysis proceeded in several steps and utilized data and variables from both

phases of this research in order to address the research questions.

Reg-arch Question 1
To what extent are women administrators concentrated in middle level
administration and Director level positions, rather than senior level positions such as

Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Deans?

Variable in Question 1

During Phase II of this research, administrators were asked for their firll
administrative title. These titles were coded into the following categories: 1) Presidents
and Chancellors; 2) Vice Presidents and Provosts (Including Executive, Associate, and
Assistant Vice Presidents); 3) Deans (including Associate and Assistant Deans); 4)
Directors and Coordinators. The re-coded title was the dependent variable, while gender

was the independent variable of interest.

Data Analvsis for Question 1

Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks
(KWANOVA) were used to examine whether women were disproportionately
represented in middle rather than senior level administrative positions. KWANOVA was
selected as the method of analysis because the variable of administrative title was ordinal

and rank ordered (e. g., Presidents are the highest rank on the administrative hierarchy,

38

 

while Directors are a lower rank on the hierarchy). The KWANOVA is similar to chi-
square analysis in that it uses the chi-square sampling distribution, but is dissimilar from
chi-square analysis in that it relies on rank-ordered rather than dichotomous or categorical
variables. In all instances throughout the four research questions, a probability value of

.05 was set to determine significance.

Research Question 2

Do differences exist between the career-related activities and human capital

investments of men and women community college administrators?

Variables and Data Analysis in Question 2

Gender remained as the independent variable of interest for research question 2.
The dependent variables were educational attainment, participation in professional
development activities, and mentoring activities, all of which were discussed extensively
in the literature review as being part of one’s human capital and/or career-related
activities. These variables were collected during Phase I of the data collection. The
specific questions used to collect this data are in Appendix A and are described in detail

below.

Level of Education: The respondents were asked to provide their educational background
including all earned degrees. Level of education was measured by the highest earned
degree. All respondents had obtained at least a Bachelor’s degree, thus highest earned

degree was re-coded into three levels: Bachelor’s degree (coded as 1), Master’s degree,

39

 

including MBA and MLA (coded as 2), and Doctorates, including Ed.D. and Ph.D.
(coded as 3). Because educational level is an ordinal rank-ordered variable (e. g.,
Doctorate was the highest level, while Bachelor’s was the lowest), the Kruskal-Wallis
one-way analysis of variance (KWANOVA) was used to determine significant gender

differences (p_<_.05) in educational attainment.

Professional Development Activities: Respondents were asked whether they had
participated in 12 external professional development activities, as well as 7 internal
professional development activities (listed in Appendix A). External activities were those
that occurred in professional settings off campus, while internal activities were those that
occurred at an administrator’s institution. Participation rates in these activities were
measured for each individual activity, as well as counted to provide an overall number of
activities that administrators had participated in. The overall number of professional
development activities was recoded into the following ranges for both external and
internal activities: 0-1 activities, 2—3 activities, 4-5 activities, and 6 or more activities.
Chi-square analysis was used to examine significant gender differences (p505) in
the participation rates for each of the professional development activities. In addition to
examining each activity individually, KWANOVA was used to determine whether there
were significant differences in the overall number (recoded as ranges) of professional

development activities for men and women administrators.

Mentoring: Respondents were asked if they had a mentor in higher education. The

following definition of mentor was provided: the term mentor is often used to identify a

40

 

long-term, professionally centered relationship between two individuals in which the
more experienced individual, the mentor, guides, advises, and assists in any number of
ways the career of the less experienced protégé. Respondents were asked whether they
felt they had a mentor during their careers in higher education administration and could
respond with yes (coded as l) or no (coded as 0). Chi-square analysis was used to reveal

significant gender differences (p505) in mentoring.

W
Do differences in career-related activities and human capital investments help to
explain career advancement among community college administrators? 13 career

advancement related to gender?

Vgg'sblss in mestipn 3

The dependent variable of interest for research question 3, collected during Phase
II of the data collection, was a dichotomous measure of whether respondents have
advanced in their career since the initial data collection during Phase I of this study
(Appendix B, survey question 6).

In addition to gender, the variables in research question 2 (educational attainment,
number of professional development activities, and mentoring) were the independent

variables of interest in research question 3.

41

Data Analysis fpr Qpestion 3

Logistic regression analysis was used to explain the relationship between the
independent variables (gender, educational level, number of external professional
development activities, number of internal professional development, mentoring) and the
dichotomous outcome variable of whether the administrator had advanced in their career
since the initial data collection in 2000. Logistic regression was selected as the method of
analysis for research question 3 because the outcome or dependent variable of career
advancement was dichotomous and because the independent variables were a mixture of
continuous and categorical variables.

For the logistic regression analysis the coding of the variables remained the same
as in research question 2. The education variable had three levels: Bachelor’ 3, Master’s,
and Doctorate. The numbers of external and internal professional development activities
for each administrator coded into the following ranges: 0-1 activities, 2-3 activities, 4-5
activities, and 6 or more activities. Mentoring was a dichotomous variable of whether or
not the respondent indicating having a mentor in higher education.

The logistic regression model is similar to the traditional linear regression model
in that it relies on the equation: Y= a + ,8le + ,6sz + [3ka where a is the intercept, ,B
are regression coefficients, and X are the predictor variables. In logistic regression
though, Y is the dichotomous outcome variable, rather than a linear measure, and is
expressed as logit (it). More specifically, for a dichotomous variable, Y, that is scored 1 or
0, the probability that Y==l is expressed as 1:. The term logit (1:) refers to the logit firnction

of this probability and equals the natural log of rt/(l-rt) (Agresti, 1996; Jaccard, 2001).

42

Logistic regression is dissimilar from linear models in that it does not provide an
F-statistic to test overall model fit, but logistic regression does provide comparable
likelihood chi-squared tests or a Wald statistic. Logistic regression also does not provide
an R2 measure of model fit, but the log-likelihood can be converted to a “generalized R2”
value. In this case, the chi-square tests computed from the log likelihood statistics were
examined along with individual parameter estimates. These parameter estimates provided
a summary of the influence of a variable on the log odds of having a characteristic or

experiencing an event. In this case, the event under study was promotion.

Rsssgch mestion 4

What individual, organizational, and structural barriers exist that prevent
administrators from advancing into senior leadership positions? Do gender differences

exist in terms of barriers to career advancement?

Vasiablss in Qpestion 4

The variables of interest for research question 4 come from Phase II of the data
collection and include the following barriers: 1) lack of an appropriate degree or
credential, 2) unwillingness to move or relocate, 3) lack of opportunities at current
institution, 4) limited time for professional development, 5) limited organizational
support for professional development, 6) lack of administrative experience, 7) the nature
of the institution/leadership/politics, 8) lack of mentoring opportunities, 9) lack of
peer/colleague support, 10) late entry into administration, 11) race/ethnicity, 12) gender,

13) age, and 14) other personal characteristics. These fourteen barriers were measured on

43

a 5-point Likert scale where administrators indicated their level of agreement (l=Strongly
Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree) with the statements about barriers to career advancement.
Administrators were also asked yes (coded as l) or no (coded as 0) questions as to
whether their career paths had been interrupted by child-rearing/family responsibilities,
constrained geographically by their spouse/partner’s employment, or interrupted by other

factors.

Dasa Qalysis fpr ststipn 4

After descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses were used to describe barriers
as well as the interruptions and constraints on career paths, a Rasch measurement model
was utilized to address research question 4. Rasch measurement converts rating scale
observations, in this case, the 14 Likert scale items related to career barriers, into more
usefirl linear measures by computing the probability that a specific administrator (n) will
rate a particular item (i) using a specific rating scale category (x) (Andrich, 1978). Bond
and Fox (2001) provide a useful metaphor when stating, “when we analyze data using a
Rasch model, we get an estimate of what our construct would be like if we were to create

a ruler to measure it” (p.8). Specifically the rating scale model is written as:

exp 2 [Av (5s + 11)]
j=0

“nix:

 

m k
ZCXPZIBn-(5i+fj)l
k=0 j=0

where it nix is the probability of administrator n responding with a rating of x on item i. [3,,
is the attribute parameter of administrator n, 5; is the attribute parameter of item i, and t ,-
is the difficulty of the rating step fi'om level j-l to level j on item i, where t o = 0.
Calibration of data with the Rasch model resulted in separate parameter estimates
(and standard errors for estimates) for each individual administrator and for each of the
14 items. The attribute parameter indicated an administrator’s tendency to perceive
barriers to their career advancement. High values of the parameter estimate indicate that
individuals perceive barriers as being problematic to their career advancement (e. g.,
administrators strongly agreed with statements about barriers), while lower values of the
estimate indicate that individual administrators perceived barriers as not being a problem
to their career advancement (e.g., administrators disagreed with statement about barriers).
These parameter estimates were used for subsequent analysis of gender differences. Prior
to examining gender differences, however, several statistics for each survey item and for

each person were examined to determine the fit of the model.

Mags] Fig

The resulting Rasch model indicated that it was most appropriate to treat the 14
barriers as one factor, rather than multiple factors, and that one factor accounted for over
52% of the variance in the model. Rasch modeling provides two sets of general
guidelines to help determine the validity of a set of measures (Bond & Fox, 2001). First,
the Rasch model provides information that helps to assess whether all items (in this case
the 14 barriers) work together to measure a single variable. And second, the Rasch model

provides information as to whether each administrator was responding in an acceptably

45

predictable way given the expected hierarchy of responses (Wright & Stone, 1979). This
information is conveyed through fit statistics.

Infit and outfit statistics for each administrator and for each item were calculated,
and these statistics indicated how accurately or predictably the data fit the model. The
mean square outfit statistic is defined as the unweighted mean of the squared
standardized residuals of the observed ratings fiom their expected values. The mean
square infit statistic weights each squared standardized residual by its variance. Fit
statistics are reported as chi-square values, divided by their degrees of freedom which
results in an expected value of 1.00 and a range from 0.00 to infinity. A mean fit statistic
greater than 1.00 suggests the presence of unexpectedly large residuals, and a mean
square outfit value of less than 1.00 indicates less random variability than expected. In
general, elements with mean square fit statistics ranging from 0.6 to 1.4 are considered to

show adequate fit to the model (Wright & Linacre, 1994).

Person Fit Statistics

For individual administrators, Rasch estimates of the barriers to career
advancement on the logit scale ranged fi'om -4.05 to .89, with a mean measure of -.99.
(Twelve administrators [9%] strongly disagreed with all 14 statements about the barriers
and were therefore not considered during item calibration estimation.) The infit and outfit
statistics revealed whether persons (as well as items) had noisy or muted response
patterns. Noisy patterns indicated more erratic or haphazard responses than predicted by
the Rasch model, while muted response patterns indicated less variability than predicted

by the Rasch model. Twenty-six (19%) administrators displayed extreme misfit with

46

mean fit statistics exceeding 1.5 indicating noisy response patterns, while 26
administrators (19%) had fit statistics below 0.6 indicating muted response patterns.
These percentages suggest that a narrower Likert rating scale with less than 5 points may

have been more appropriate for these barriers (Wright, 1991).

Item Fit Statistics

Estimates and fit statistics for each item are presented in Table 2. The estimates
range from -.71 (an unwillingness to move or relocate) to .83 (race/ethnicity).
‘Unwillingness to move or relocate’ was the easiest item for administrators to endorse
followed by ‘lack of opportunities at current institution,’ while ‘race/ethnicity’ and ‘lack
of administrative experience’ were the most difficult items for administrators to endorse.
Two items had fit statistics that exceeded the acceptable range and had noisy response
patterns. ‘Lack of educational degree or credential’ and ‘unwillingness to move or
relocate’ have the most extreme misfit (outfit MS of 1.56 for both items) and thus do not
fit the model as well as the other items. For the majority of the 14 items, however, the

statistics in Table 2 indicate acceptable fit of the data to the rating scale model.

47

Table 2

Ragh Mpdel: 11m Fit Slatistics

 

Infit Outfit
Item Emate Error MS ZSTD MS ZSTD
Unwillingness to move -.71 .10 1.37 2.7 1.56 3.5
Lack of opportunities at
current institution -.65 .09 1.18 1.4 1.15 1.0
Nature of institution -.41 .09 .92 -.7 .98 -.1
Limited time for PD -.19 .10 .87 -1.1 .87 -.9
Lack of mentoring -. 19 .10 .57 -4.0 .62 -3.0
Lack of degree/credential -. 16 .10 1.38 2.5 1.56 3.1
Limited organizational
support forPD -.04 .10 1.15 1.0 1.17 1.1
Lack of peer support .09 .10 .70 -2.4 .73 -1.8
Gender .11 .10 1.11 .8 1.08 .5
Other personal
characteristics .17 .11 1.11 .7 1.24 1.3
Age .23 .11 .90 -.7 .97 -.2
Late entry .39 .12 .78 ~14 .98 -.1
Lack of experience .53 .12 .90 -.7 .83 -1.0
Race/ethnicity .83 .14 1.14 .7 .96 -.2

48

After examining the Rasch model fit statistics, a t—test was used to reveal gender
differences in the parameter estimates. A probability level of .05 was used to determine

significance.

Research Assumptions
1. This research assumes that the sample is representative of administrators in the state
of Michigan.
2. This research assumes that participants’ self-reported information is accurate.
3. This research assumes that the instruments being used are sensitive enough to detect

the concepts being Studies.

49

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis of the survey data. The
purpose of this study was: (1) to examine the representation of women in senior level
administrative positions at community colleges; (2) to determine differences in the
professional development activities of men and women community college
administrators; (3) to determine any predictors of career advancement; and (4) to

determine barriers to career advancement and any gender differences in barriers.

Research Question 1
As expected based on the literature review, women survey respondents were less
likely than men to hold the administrative titles of President, Vice President, and Dean.
Nearly 63% of women respondents held the title of Director or Coordinator, while only
40% of men were Directors or Coordinators (Table 3). The Kuskal-Wallis test revealed

that these differences were significant (Kruskal-Wallis Test Chi-Square = 6.67, df=1,

p=.01).

Research Question 2

u ion Attainmen

A smaller percentage of women administrators, as compared to men, hold a

doctorate (Ed.D. or Ph.D.), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kruskal-

50

 

Wallis Test Chi-Square = 2.40, df=1, p=.12). Approximately 19% of women have an

Ed.D. or Ph.D., while 30.9% of men have an Ed.D. or Ph.D. (Table 4).

Table 3

Di r n in Admini r tive Titles

 

AdmmlstratweTltle , w _ - . . . , ‘ w , _ .

 

President or Chancellor 1 I

10.3%
(N=7)

6.0%
(N4)

 

Vice President or Provost

20.6%
(N=14)

11.9%
CN=8)

 

Dean

29.4%
(N=20)

19.4%
(N=13)

 

Director or Coordinator

39.7%

62.7%

 

 

 

 

 

(N=27) (N=42)

 

Table 4

Educational Attainment of Administrators

marrow Attainm‘fent ' w ’

 

, . 3%Men: ' ° * 1%.4Women ‘
, _ 4 . , ,. (N=68) (N=‘55Y‘
Bachelor’ 3 1 1.8% 15.4%
(N=8) (N=10)
Master’s (including MLS and 57.4% 66.2%
MBA) (N=39) (N=43)
Doctorate (Ed.D. or Ph.D.) 30.9% 18.5%
(N=21) (N=12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Two female respondents did not provide highest level of educational attainment.

51

Pspfessional Development Activities

Few significant differences existed between the external and internal professional
development activities of men and women administrators. Table 5 details the percentage
of men and women participating in each external professional development activity and
the corresponding chi-square value and probability level. Table 6 details the percentage
of men and women participating in each internal professional development activity and
the corresponding chi-square value and probability level. In instances where cell counts
were less than five, Fisher’s Exact Test probability is reported.

In terms of external professional development, women administrators were more
likely to participate in specialized workshops or seminars for women than their male
counterparts. In terms of internal professional development activities, women
administrators were more likely than men administrators to participate in a career review
to plan ways to acquire additional skills, education, and training. No other significant

gender differences existed.

52

 

Table 5

Eagernal Prpfeasipnal stslupment Activities; Participatipn Rates

 

 

Paid external consultant

 

American Council on Education
Fellowship/Internship

WK. Kellogg Leadership 4.5% 1.5% 1.06 p=.37
Program Fellowship (N=3) (N=1)

League for Innovation 9.1% 4.5% 1.07 p=.49
Executive Leadership Program (N=6) (N=3)

Other administrative fellowship 12.3% 17.9% 0.81 p=.37
or internship (N=8) (N=12)

Higher education management 13.6% 9.0% 0.73 p=.39
institute (N=9) (N=6)

Serve on board of directors of 56.7% 62.7% 0.50 p=.48
state or regional professional (N=3 8) (N=42)
organization
Serve on board of directors of 22.7% 22.7% 0.00 p=1.0
national professional (N=15) (N=15)
. _organization
Attend specialized professional 23.9% 50.8% 10.22 p=.00*
workshops or seminars for (N=l6) (N=33)
women
Attend specialized professional 22.7% 22.7% 0.00 p=l.0
workshops or seminars for (N=15) (N=15)
minorities
Publication of books, articles, 29.2% 28.4% 0.01 p=.91
technical, or curriculum reports (N=19) (N=19)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presentations at national, state, 70.1% 71.6% 0.04 p=.85
or regional conferences (N=47) (N=48)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at the .001 level

53

 

Table 6

Intgual Professional Develepment Activities: Participation Rates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IntemaIProfess-onal ‘ " -/°f °/°f ~ Pm Prob
DevelopmentActw-ty * I Mal“ Erma“ d“ : W“.
Formal written performance 79.1% 79.1% 0.00 p=1.00
review (N=53) (N=53)
Career review to plan ways to 31.3% 49.3% 4.47 p=.04“
acquire additional skills, (N=21) =33)
education, training
Inservice staff development 94.1% 97.0% 0.67 p=.41
programs/courses (N=64) (N=65)
Temporary task or job rotation at 19.1% 31.3% 2.68 p=.10
a similar level (N=l3) (N=21)
Participation in special 94.1% 97 .0% 0.67 p=.41
institutional task forces, (N=64) (N=65)
committees, and commissions
Opportunity to take on additional 88.2% 88.1% 0.00 p=.98
responsibilities above job (N=60) (N=59)
description
Sabbatical or study leave 7.5% 7.5% 0.00 p=l.00
(N=5) =5)
1:

Significant at the .05 level

Total Number of Professional Development Activities

Men and women administrators participated in similar overall numbers of

professional development activities. For example, 14.7% of men participated in six or

more external activities, as compared to 14.9% of women (Table 7). The Kruskal-Wallis

one-way analysis of variance of ranks revealed no significant gender differences in the

number of external professional development activities (Kruskal-Wallis Test Chi-

Square=.09, #:1, p=.77).

54

 

 

A much higher percentage of women administrators, however, had participated in six or
more internal activities (20.9% of women compared to 7.4% of men) (Table 8). The
Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance of ranks revealed that these differences

were not statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis Test Chi-Square = .2.45, aY=1, p=.12).

Table 7

Number ef Eatmfl Prefessienal Development Activities

 

Numberofactmt'es

. menCN==68)-i

Percentageof
5..61171101.le£311.01#67)~

 

0-1 activities

26.5%
(n=18)

23 .9%
(n=16)

 

2-3 activities

30.9%
(n=2 1)

31.3%
(n=21)

 

4-5 activities

27.9%
(n=19)

29.9%
(n=20)

 

6 or more activities

 

 

14.7%

 

(n=1 0)

14.9%
(n=10)

 

Table 8

Number ef Internal Prefessional Develepment Activities

 

Numbemfactmtles

Percentageof

Percentageof
women(n=67)

 

‘ or activities

4.4%
(n=3)

1.5%
(n=1)

 

2-3 activities

13.2%
(n=9)

14.9%
(n=10)

 

4-5 activities

75.0%
(n=51)

62.7%
(n=42)

 

6 or more activities

 

 

7.4%

 

E2

20.9%
(rem

 

55

 

 

 

Meutering

Administrators were asked whether they had a mentor during their career in
higher education administration. The term mentor was defined as a long-term,
professionally centered relationship between two individuals in which the more
experienced individual (the mentor) guides, advises, and assists in any number of ways
the career of the lesser experienced protégé. Statistically, men and women administrators
in the sample were equally likely to have a mentor, although the percentage of women
administrators with a mentor was higher. Over 62% of women indicated having a mentor,

while 55.9% of men indicated having a mentor (chi-square=.54, df=1, p=.46).

Research Question 3
Twenty-three percent (N=31) of the sample indicated that they had been promoted

during the previous two years. Another 5% (N=7) of administrators had titles changes
during the previous two years, however, these changes were due to reorganization of the
college rather than due to promotion. And the remaining percentage of administrators
(72%) did not indicate promotions or changes in job titles since the 2000 survey. Prior to
logistical regression, descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used to reveal
initial gender variation in those who had been promoted versus those who had not been
promoted. Although not statistically significant, a slightly higher percentage of females

had been promoted (25.4% of women, 20.6% of men; chi-square=.44, df=1, p=.51).

56

 

Qgistic Remssion Results

Five variables were entered into a logistic regression analysis in an attempt to
build a predictive model for the dependent variable of promotion. The five independent
variables and possible predictors of promotion were: gender, level of education,
mentoring, number of external professional development activities, and number of
internal professional development activities. A model containing all two-way interactions '
was the first logistic regression model that was examined. Table 9 details the model fit

statistics, as well as the coefficient estimates for the two-way interaction model. Table 9

 

indicates that none of the parameter estimates for the interactions made a statistically E
significant contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable of promotion. Because
none of the interactions terms were significant, it was appropriate to run a main effects

model. Table 10 details the results of the main effects model.

57

Table 9

Twe;Way Interagion Model

Criterion
-2 Log L

Test
Likelihood Ratio

Parameter

Intercept
Gender

Edu
Gender‘Edu
Mentor
Gender’Mentor
Edu*Mentor
Ext PD
Gender‘Ext PD
Edu*Ext PD
Mentor*Ext PD
Int PD
Gender‘lnt PD
Edu‘Int PD
Mentor‘Int PD
Ext PD‘Int PD

Fit Statistics

Intercept Intercept and
Only Covariates
143.90 130.5 1
Chi-Square DF

13.39 15 0.57

Pr > ChiSq

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates

DF

1
l
l
1
1
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1
1
1

Parameter Standard
Estimate Error
-3.34 3.06
-1 .61 2.32
1.34 1.56
0.49 0.86
3.00 2.41
-0.21 1.05
-1.32 0.94
-l .08 1.52
-0.51 0.51
0.50 0.45
-0.39 0.56
0.37 1.68
0.81 0.75
-0.73 0.77
0.57 0.78
0.32 0.46

58

Wald

1.19
0.48
0.73
0.33
1.55
0.04
1.99
0.50
1.03
1.25
0.48
0.05
1.17
0.90
0.53
0.48

Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

0.28
0.49
0.39
0.57
0.21
0.85
0.16
0.48
0.31
0.26
0.49
0.82
0.28
0.34
0.47
0.49

 

Table 10

Main Effggs Meuel
Fit Statistics
Intercept Intercept and
Criterion Only Covariates
-2 Log L 143.90 140.77
Test Chi-Square DF Pr > ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 3.12 5 0.68

Parameter

Intercept
Gender
Edu
Mentor
Ext PD
Int PD

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Parameter Standard Wald

DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
1 -2. 10 1.03 4.20 0.04
1 0.38 0.43 0.78 0.38
l 0.24 0.37 0.40 0.52
1 0.50 0.47 1.14 0.29
1 0.11 0.22 0.26 0.61
1 -0. 12 0.35 0.12 0.73

59

-_._A

 

Table 10 indicates that the independent variables do not have significant
predictive value. The proposed predictor variables contribute no more than chance to the
explanation of the dependent variable of promotion. The log likelihood statistic of 140.78
indicates that this model does not do a good job of explaining the data. The non-
significant likelihood ratio chi-square value of3. 12 indicates the individual independent
variables were not usefirl in predicting promotion. None of the variables of interest
(gender 0 of .38, p=.38; education 0 of .24, p=.52; mentor B of .50, p=.29; external 5

professional development B of .11, p=.61; and internal professional development 0 of -

 

.12, p=.73) were significant at the .05 level in predicting whether an administrator had

been promoted during the previous two years.

Research Question 4
B ' r o r A v ncem n
Administrators were asked about 14 potential barriers to career advancement. The
barriers and the corresponding percentage of administrators who agreed or strongly
agreed with the statements are listed in Table 11. Lack of opportunities at current
institution, an unwillingness to move or relocate, and the nature of the
institution/leadership/politics were the top barriers to career advancement reported by

administrators.

60

Table 11

Barriers to Gamer Advancement

 

 

 

 

 

 

' 1::-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bamers I" ' ' Overall % of adnunrstrators
r . agreerng‘ that Item was a
; barrier to their career ,,,,,
~ . ~ . . ~ advancement

Lack of opportunity at current institution 28.9%

Unwillingness to move or relocate 28.1%

Nature of the institution/leadership/politics 23.7%

Limited time for professional development 17.0%

Lack of appropriate degree or educational 16.3%

credential

Limited organizational support for professional 14.1%

development activities

Lack of mentoring/networking opportunities 14.1%

Gender 1 1.1%

Other personal characteristic 8.1%

Lack of peer/colleague support 7 .4%

Age 6.7%

Late entry into administration 5.2%

Lack of administrative experience 4.4%

3.0%

Race/ethnicity

 

 

 

 

a. Percentage includes those who indicated strongly agree or agree on the Likert scale.

61

Further examination by gender reveals that larger percentages of women, as
compared to men, agreed or strongly agreed with many of the fourteen statements about
barriers to their career advancement. For example, 35.8% of women administrators
agreed or strongly agreed that the nature of the institution/leadership/politics served as a

barrier to career advancement, while only 11.8% of men agreed or strongly agreed with

 

that statement (chi-squarF10.79, df=1, p=.001). Over 20% of women administrators I
agreed or strongly agreed that lack of mentoring/networking opportunities served as a

barrier to career advancement, as compared to 7 .4% of men administrators (chi-

square=5. 12, (#:1, p=.02). Over 13% of women administrators agreed or strongly agreed L

that lack of peer/colleague support served as a barrier to career advancement, while only
1.5% of men felt similarly (chi-square=7.04, df=1, p=.01). And 17.9% of women
administrators agreed or strongly agreed that their gender served as a barrier to career
advancement, in contrast to 4.4% of male administrators (chi-square=7.04, df=1, p=.01)

(Table 12).

62

Table 12

Gender Differences in Barriers to Career Advancement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barners ' % of men % of Pearson “ Prob
_ . ,f. .. _ agreemg women 'Chlu level _ _
I .1 £15 .;.(N-68) agreeing y-Squareggi _'jf‘,_';.f{;i:i';-jig;
.. ,_ *g’: . 7 '_ . , , a . =67) g. .. . :7 value ,7:
Lack of opportunity at current 25. 0% 32. 8% 1.01 p=.32
institution (n=17) (n=22)
Unwillingness to move or relocate 27.9% 28.4% 0.00 p=.96
(n=19) (n=19)
Nature of the institution/leadership/ 11.8% 35.8% 10.80 p=.00"
politics (n=8) (n=24)
Limited time for professional 16.2% 17.9% 0.07 p=.79
development (n=1 1) (n=12)
Lack of appropriate degree or 19.1% 13.4% 0.80 p=.37
educational credential (n=13) (n=9)
Limited organizational support for 16.2% 11.9% 0.50 p=.48
rofessional development activities QI=1 1) (n=g
Lack of mentoring/networking 7.4% 20.9% 5.12 p=.02"
opportunities (n=5) (n=14)
Gender° 4.4% 17.9% 6.23 p=.01*
(n=3) (n=12)
Other personal characteristicc 5.9% 10.4% 0.94 p=.37
(n=4) RFD
Lack of peer/colleague supportc 1.5% 13.4% 7.04 p=.01"
(n=1) (n=9)
Agec 5.9% 7.5% 0.14 p=.74
In=4) (n=5)
Late entry into administration" 1.5% 9.0% 3.85 p=.06
(n=1) (n=6)
Lack of administrative experiencec 1.5% 7.5% 2.85 p=. 12
(n=11 Q=51
Race/ethnicityc 2.9% 3.0% 0.00 p=l.00
9:2) (n=2)

 

* Significant at the .05 level
"“' Significant at the .001 level

a. Percentages include those who indicated strongly agree or agree on the Likert scale.
b. Chi-squares were calculated by creating two categories of administrators: those who
indicated agree or strongly agree on the Likert scale versus those who indicated neutral,
disagree, strongly disagree, or not applicable.
c. In instances where cell counts are less than 5, Fisher’s Exact Test is reported.

63

 

 

r P h Int i nd 11 r int
Administrators also indicated in yes or no questions whether their career paths
had been interrupted by child-rearing/family responsibilities, constrained geographically
by spouse/partner’s employment, or interrupted by other factors. Approximately 21% of
administrators overall (5.9% of men and 35.8% of women) indicated that their career
paths had been interrupted by child-rearing or family responsibilities. Twenty-six percent
of administrators overall (19.1% of men and 32.8% of women) indicated that their career

path had been constrained geographically by their spouse/partner’s employment, and

 

16% (10.3% of men and 20.9% of women) said that their career path had been
interrupted or constrained by other factors. In all three of these instances, more women

then men indicated that their career paths had been interrupted or constrained (Table 13).

Table 13

(finder Differences in Career Path Interruptions and Censtrg’nts

rv yw—u' ‘rvrflY—r—Im ' w—w ..

 

Pema“ ‘1

  

 

 

Career path interrupted by
child-rearing/family
responsibilities

Career path constrained
geographically by
Spouse/partner’s employment
Career path constrained or 10.3% 20.9% 2.89 p.=.09
interrupted by other factors (N=7) (N=14)

18.40 p.=.00**

 

3.31 p.=.07

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** Significant at the .001 level

 

Rasch Scaling of Barriers

A Rasch model was used to scale the data related to barriers to career
advancement. The modeling resulted in a linear measure for each individual
administrator, which could then be analyzed to determine gender differences. Given the

fit statistics discussed in chapter 3, the model was deemed acceptable for this study.

Gender Differences in Scaled Measure

Men administrators had a lower mean estimate than women administrators (-l.51
mean score for men versus -1.18 mean score for women), indicating that on average, men
were less likely to endorse (disagree on the Likert scale) the items. A t-test revealed that
this gender difference, however, was not statistically significant (t=-1.27, @2133, p=.21)

(Table 14).

Table 14

Independent Samples t-test: Gender Differences

“ ‘ " N Mean Std StdError
‘ ‘" -'..D¢vifati,on~éizz~: Mean

 

 

 

Men ‘68“-131‘ 1.5 .13
Women 67 -1.18 1.5 .18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; (52.4- , DifferenCe :Difference * Confidence Confidence .
~ , , j j, _' ' I tailed) . , ,. ' ‘ Interval ’ Interval V
-1.27 133 .21 -.327 .26 -.81 .18

ft _ ' ‘fdf ' Sig. ’. Mean l StdErrOr- , Lower . Upper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

 

This chapter detailed the findings of the data analysis for each of the four research
questions. Chapter five will provide a discussion of these findings, as well as summary

sections related to implications, firture research, and conclusions.

 

66

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Developing a new generation of leaders is imperative if community colleges are

to be successful in an increasingly complex environment. Examining career advancement

 

and the professional development activities of community college administrators is F
especially important and timely in light of the onset of retirements. The ongoing

retirements of the two generations of administrators who founded community colleges I
have caused some (Gallego, 1998; Italia, 1998; Shults, 2001) to question where qualified %

leaders will come from in the years ahead. Atypical hires, as well as bringing in “new
blood” may be necessary to fill the leadership gaps. New administrative offices and the
reorganization of many community colleges have potentially created new opportunities
for the exercise of leadership, but do the current circumstances create new opportunities
for women administrators to advance in a sector that is often described as overly
bureaucratic and dominated by male imagery (Amey & Twombly, 1992)? This question
can only be answered definitively through continued study of access and promotion of

women into senior leadership positions.

Review of Findings
Research Question 1: Are women administrators concentrated in middle level
administrative positions rather than senior level positions?
Similar to previous research findings, this analysis revealed that women
community college administrators who responded to the survey were disproportionately

represented in middle level administrative positions, rather than senior level. Women

67

 

administrators were more likely than men administrators to be Directors or Coordinators
rather than Presidents, Vice Presidents, or Deans. The representation of women in
administrative positions, however, has increased Significantly since the mid 1980’s when
Moore, et al., (1985) found, for example, that only 3.1% of community college presidents
were women. As many scholars and researchers have noted though, the representation of
women in top administrative positions is still not proportionate to their representation in
the classroom, nor in the community college faculty ranks.

The purpose of this present study went beyond merely describing the participation
rates of women in senior administrative positions in that it sought to determine
differences in the professional development activities and human capital investments of
men and women community college administrators, as well as predictors of career
advancement and barriers to career advancement. The next sections will focus on each of
these research questions independently and then will provide summary sections of

implications, firture research directions, and conclusions.

Research Question 2: Do drflerences exist between the career-related activities and
human capital investments of men and women community college administrators?

This study provides valuable information about the activities of administrators
that are often referred to in the literature as human capital investments. The analysis
revealed few statistically significant differences between men and women administrators
in terms of their educational level, external and internal professional development
activities, and mentoring activities. Overall, the quantity and participation rates of men

and women were similar. This finding, taken alone and focusing only on quantity rather

68

 

 

than quality of experiences, suggests that women respondents are making equal or similar

investments in human capital as men administrators.

Educational Attainment

Some of the trends in the descriptive data do warrant attention and suggest
possible differences in the activities and experiences of men and women administrators. .3
Although not statistically significant, a lower percentage of women administrators (only

18.5%), as compared to men (30.9%), have doctoral degrees. Examination of job postings

 

reveals that many senior administrative jobs require a doctorate. The criteria for selection H
of a chief academic officer, for example, generally include a doctoral degree (Walton &

McDade, 2001). Others concur, that a doctorate is a prerequisite to advancement to many

of the positions with the most power in academe (Quina, et al., 1998). Therefore, a large

percentage of the women administrators in this Study may be at a disadvantage when

seeking to advance.

 

Professional Development Activities

Administrators in this study participated in a variety of professional development
activities both off- and on-campus. A majority of men and women administrators had
served on state or regional boards of professional organizations, as well as having made
presentations at national, state, or regional conferences. These findings indicate that
administrators in this sample are cultivating important professional networks outside of

their institutions.

69

 

Women respondents, however, had very low participation rates in the more
selective or exclusive professional development activities, such as the American Council
on Education Fellowship, the WK. Kellogg Leadership Program, and the League for
Innovation Leadership Program. In fact, none of the women respondents had participated
in the American Council on Education Fellows program (as compared to three men); only
one woman respondent had participated in the WK. Kellogg Leadership Program (as
compared to three men); and only three women had participated in the League for
Innovation Leadership Program (as compared to Six men). These findings suggest that
there may be access issues associated with these particular programs. The more selective
leadership programs may have certain requirements (e.g., that participants have an
advanced degree or already be a college president) or these programs may require that
participants be nominated to attend. Women administrators may be lacking the
qualifications to participate in the selective programs, they may be unaware of the
opportunity to participate, or they may fail to be nominated.

Further examination of what the American Council on Education (ACE) Fellows
program entails may help to explain why women are less likely to participate in this or
other Similar types of programs. For the ACE program, administrators take a leave from
their institution to intern with a senior administrator at another institution (Brown, Van
Ummersen, & Phair, 2001a). While this program may provide an excellent leadership
Opportunity, it may be difficult to balance the demands of the program with other life
circumstance and possible family responsibilities.

In terms of on-campus activities, a majority of administrators had participated in

formal written performance reviews, staff development programs or courses, and special

70

 

 

institutional task forces, committees, and commissions. A large percentage of
administrators (over 88%) also had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities
above their Specific job description. Although little is known about the nature of these on-
campus experiences, these findings suggest that the respondents are active participants on
their campuses and are partaking in activities that help to shape the campus environment.

The few significant differences that do exist between the types of professional !
development activities of women and men are revealing. A majority of the women in the

sample participated in specialized workshops or seminars for women, which suggests that l -

 

these types of programming efforts may provide valuable forums and important
networking opportunities for women administrators. Women administrators in this
sample were also more likely than men administrators to participate in career reviews to
plan ways to acquire additional Skills, education, and training. This finding may be
viewed as a positive result, however, little is known about the nature of career reviews -
whether reviews are initiated by the administrator or mandated by a supervisor; whether
reviews are formal with specified objectives/outcomes or more informal; and whether
reviews are conducted on a regular basis or a one-time experience.

When examining the total number of professional development activities that
administrators participate in, women did participate in similar numbers of external
professional development activities. In terms of internal professional development
activities, however, over 20% of women had participated in six or more internal
professional development activities, as compared to only 7% of men. This finding may
suggest that women administrators are ‘doing more’ to advance their careers and be

active in shaping the campus environment, or it may be the case that women

71

 

administrators are over-extended in terms of on-campus service and commitments.
Approximately one-third Of women administrators, for example, indicated that they
experienced a temporary task or job rotation (as compared to 19% of men), but again it is
not clear whether this activity was a choice or mandated by a supervisor. Additional

research is needed to examine the on-campus professional development activities in order

to assess what impact these activities have on careers.

Mentoring

 

Higher percentages of women (62%), as compared to men (56%), indicated L
having a mentor in higher education — although this finding was also not statistically
significant. Considering the concerns in the literature about the possible lack of mentors
for women in senior administrative positions, this finding from the community college
sector is encouraging. A majority of women in this study are finding mentors. As will be
mentioned in the review of findings related to barriers to career advancement, however, a
significantly higher percentage of women agreed or strongly agreed that lack of

mentoring and networking opportunities had been a barrier to their career advancement.

Research Question 3: Do diflerences in career-related activities and human capital
investments help to explain career advancement among community college
administrators? Is career advancement related to gender?

Approximately 23% of administrators were promoted during the intervening years
after completing the 2000 survey, and a slightly higher percentage of women

administrators (25%), as compared to men (21%), had been promoted. Unfortunately, the

72

use Of logistic regression did not help to further illuminate the relationship between
gender, the human capital variables described above, and the outcome measure of career
advancement. None of the proposed predictor variables (gender, educational level,
numbers of external and internal professional development activities, or mentoring)
helped tO explain the outcome variable of promotion. Descriptive statistics indicated that
slightly higher percentages of those who had been promoted had doctorates, had mentors,
and had participated in slightly higher numbers of professional development activities.
Although these percentages were not statistically significant, they warrant further
investigation and may have been significant predictors had the sample of administrators
been larger.

The findings related to research questions 2 and 3 neither clearly support, nor
refute human capital theories. Statistically, men and women administrators in this sample
made Similar investments in human capital. While other researchers have found clear
relationships between human capital variables and promotion, the findings here do not
support the notion that promotion is related to one’s human capital. One clear positive
finding, though, is that promotion is not related to gender. Men and women
administrators in this sample are equally likely to have advanced in their careers, which
may be viewed as one indication of a gender equitable working environment.

The findings related to research questions 2 and 3 beg the question, though, of
what does matter in promotion? While some variables, such as seniority and age, were
not included in the equation, it was expected that educational level and investments in
professional development would have relationships to promotion. And if these activities

are not important considerations for promotion, what purposes do these activities serve in

73

 

 

the work lives Of administrators? While more human capital variables could be added to
the regression equation, there may be current job market features, other organizational
characteristics, certain structures of opportunity, and individual preferences that were not
captured in this study. The unanswered questions resulting from the logistic regression

will be discussed as future research opportunities in the remaining sections.

Research Question 4: What individual, organizational, and structural barriers exist that
prevent administrators from advancing into senior leadership positions? D0 gender
differences exist in terms of barriers to career advancement?

The findings on barriers to career advancement are revealing. The top barriers
experienced by this group Of administrators were the lack of opportunities at their current
institutions, an unwillingness to move or relocate, and the nature of the institution
including institutional leadership and politics. While these barriers were the top three for
both men and women administrators, higher percentages of women administrators rated
both the nature of the institution and the lack of opportunities at their current institutions
as barriers to their career advancement.

A Rasch scaling model was employed to create an overall measure, based on the
14 Likert scale items, of barriers to career advancement for each individual administrator.
While the data had reasonable fit to the model, the t-test did not reveal significant gender
differences, although again, the measure indicated that women, on average, were more
likely than men to experience barriers to career advancement and a larger sample may

have revealed a Significant gender difference. The negative mean measure for both men

74

 

and women administrators indicated that, in general, it was difficult for administrators to

endorse (or strongly agree) with the items.

While the overall measure created by the Rasch model was not as useful for
exposing gender differences, examination of the 14 individual barriers did reveal
differences in the perceptions of men and women administrators. Higher percentages of
women agreed that they had experienced 12 out of the 14 barriers listed on the survey.
The two exceptions were items related to the lack of an appropriate degree and limited
organizational support for professional development activities. With respect to these two
barriers, higher percentages of men agreed that these had been barriers to their career
advancement. This finding is somewhat contrary to the findings revealed in research
question 2 — that higher percentages of men, as compared to women, had advanced
degrees. It was expected that higher percentages of women would indicate that a lack of
an appropriate degree had been a barrier, but women in this sample were less concerned
about educational attainment being a barrier and were much more likely to indicate that
other barriers were problematic.

Over 20% of women indicated that lack of mentoring and networking
opportunities served as barriers to career advancement, and 13% of women indicated that
a lack of peer/colleague support had served as a barrier. Another 18% of women
indicated that their gender had served as a barrier to career advancement. These findings
coupled with the fact that over one-third of women believed that the nature of the
organization was a barrier to career advancement suggest that the current work
environment may be a less than ideal place for a number of women in this Study. And

some administrators in this sample might agree with the sentiment expressed by Oakes

75

 

(1999) that “many female administrators continue to encounter resistance and friction in
their daily professional activities” (p. 57).

It is important to note, however, that the percentages of women indicating that
they had experienced barriers are relatively small. When Gillett-Karen (1997) asked
administrators in North Carolina about obstacles to career development, over 50% of
women respondents agreed that their gender was a barrier. A much higher percentage
(60%) of women in the North Carolina community college system also agreed that the
nature of the institution was an obstacle. These differences may suggest that Michigan
administrators perceive fewer barriers or it may be the case that barriers have changed
since the late 19903.

Women administrators in the current study were also more likely than men
administrators to indicate that their career paths had been interrupted by child-
rearing/family responsibilities, constrained by their spouse/partner’s employment, or
constrained by other factors. This finding suggests that women administrators are
balancing multiple roles while pursuing their administrative careers.

Overall, the findings related to barriers stand somewhat in contrast to the findings
related to human capital and promotion. While women in this sample have similar
participation rates in professional development activities and have been promoted at the
same rates as men, women administrators still perceive barriers to their advancement — to
a greater extent than their male counterparts. Although the percentages of women
indicating barriers to their career advancement are relatively small, these perceived
barriers may still help to explain why women remain underrepresented in the more senior

levels of community college administration.

76

 

Limitations
Sample Size
The largest limitation is alluded to in the above review of the findings. The small
sample Size prohibited the discovery of many statistically significant differences between
men and women administrators. While no firm conclusions can be drawn from the
descriptive statistics alone, many of these statistics do reveal percentage differences [
between men and women administrators that are worthy of continued investigation. A ‘

larger sample that incorporates data from other states or from national samples might

 

illuminate many of the trends seen here in the descriptive data. it

Generalizabilit

This research is limited by the fact that it is only generalizable to the state of
Michigan. The state of Michigan has a somewhat unique decentralized structure which
makes these findings even less generalizable to states with very centralized governing
systems. While additional data from other states might help to discern more gender
differences, it might also gloss over some of the distinct characteristics of any given state
system. The data as presented may in fact be very useful to state planners, state

professional organizations, and institutional leaders within Michigan as they develop
programming and review institutional policies. A larger national sample that masks state

System differences might potentially be less useful for decision-makers.

ES urvey Questions

77

Even though the survey was pilot tested, after collecting the data it was clear that
some of the survey questions were limiting and prohibited drawing additional
conclusions. In terms of the professional development activities, the survey did not ask
about the timing of these activities. Thus, it is not clear whether, for example, presidents
are participating in these activities en route to the presidency or after they arrive at the
presidency. While the data here provide valuable information about participation rates,
little is known about the nature or quality of these activities and whether such activities
are adequately meeting the career needs of administrators.

Another limitation with the survey questions was that the 2002 survey did not ask
administrators whether they wanted to advance in their careers or whether they were
actively seeking a promotion. The question was asked, however, on the 2000 survey in
Phase I of this research and will be explored in future studies. Aspirations for promotion,
which were left out of the current study, may be particularly important when trying to
discern differences in career advancement. Walton and McDade (2001) for example,
found that when asking chief academic officers about their aspirations, only 63% aspired
to a presidency, while a large percentage preferred to stay in their current position. An
assumption exists in this research, and in other research that looks at career advancement,

that everyone aspires to promotion. This assumption may impact how research questions

and studies are formulated.
Implications

Administrators rarely have the freedom to pick and appoint themselves to their

positions (Brown, 2000), and success or lack of success in an administrative position can

78

 

be affected by factors beyond one’s control. Administrators do make choices though, that
are thought to aid them in advancing in their careers such as attaining appropriate
educational credentials, Skills, knowledge, and training. Although one focus of this study
was on individual activities of administrators, the discussion and findings related to

professional development, promotion, and barriers to career advancement have

 

implications not only for administrators but also for the institutions and organizations that P
employ and support them. Administrative positions are both shaped by and dependent on
the institution in which they are found (Brown, 2000), and leadership development .

I
should be an institutional concern, not simply a personal one (Green, 1988). This L,

institutional concern may be augmented by the current higher education environment and
the pending ‘leadership crisis’ facing community colleges. Career and leadership
development, therefore, should be viewed as an individual and institutional cooperative

endeavor with benefits for all involved.

Institutional Impfilications

While this study did not find evidence that women administrators were given less
opportunities to participate in career-related activities, nor were they less likely to be
promoted, the findings related to career barriers suggest that community colleges should
examine the current working environment for all administrators with special attention to
the barriers and work lives of women. An institution’s treatment of women is an
important indicator of its health and vitality (Brown, et al., 2001a) and thus warrants

attention from institutional leaders and policy-makers.

79

In order to understand their role in developing leaders, institutional leaders and
decision-makers Should review existing policies and practices that may either help or
hinder women. The Office of Women in Higher Education, in a 2001 publication entitled
Breaking the Barriers, suggests an institutional assessment or audit whereby leadership
development, career advancement, campus climate, and mentoring programs are studied.
The audit is guided by such questions as: 13 financial support available for women to take
advantage of professional development activities? What support mechanisms are
available for administrators to further their education and complete an advanced degree?
Are some professional Opportunities limited to only a select group of administrators?
How do women find out about such opportunities — is it via an informal network that may
not be accessible to women? And what policies may be covertly sustaining a ‘good Old
boys’ network or perpetuating the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon? Efforts to answer these
questions would reveal formal or informal polices and practices that create barriers to
career advancement.

In this same vein, institutions should prepare an annual status report on women
that includes efforts to attract and support women leaders (Shavlik & Touchton, 1988).
Such a report could contain both quantitative and qualitative measures, or what Brown, et
al., (2001b) refer to as explicit and implicit indicators related to women’s experiences on
campus. Explicit indicators could document and quantify human capital investments
(e.g., degree attainment), as well as visible changes in structures, policies, and practices.
Some examples would include changes in hiring or promotion policies, budget priorities
that address resources for professional development, new structures possibly including

centers for women or formal mentoring programs, and other efforts to increase women’s

80

 

participation in leadership positions. Implicit indicators would include attitudinal and
cultural evidence. Some examples of implicit indicators would include any changes in
interactions among groups, changes in the institution’s self-image such as new
terminology on campus, or changes in the rationales behind particular policies or
practices on campus (Brown, et al., 2001b).

In an institutional audit or status report, institutions may want to carefully assess
and document professional development activities to ascertain what combinations of
campus-based, state-wide, and national programs best fulfill the leadership development
needs of administrators. An audit or annual report would also allow institutions to assess
how they are identifying leaders on campus and what programming efforts they are
taking to develop leadership skills. This collection of baseline data and then the
monitoring of changes in that data should be part of an ongoing institutional self-
evaluation, which would alert campus leaders to the need for programmatic changes
(Brown, et al., 2001b). An institutional audit also allows institutions to compare
themselves to highly successful institutions using set standards or benchmarks for
comparison.

An institutional audit, however, can lead to rnisinterpretations of data and thus
requires a wide variety of information and indicators, as well as the involvement of
multiple constituencies. As Quina, et al., (1998) pointed out, institutional data are often
presented as summaries across an institution. For example, many studies report only the
numbers —— such as large increases in the number of women faculty and administrators.
And an example of a summary from this study would be: women administrators were as

likely as men to be promoted in the previous two years. Such statements, taken alone or

81

 

out of context, can be misleading and should be used cautiously because they may not
adequately describe institutional conditions (e. g., women remain in middle rather than
senior level positions and are more likely to indicate facing barriers to career
advancement). Therefore, qualitative data and more implicit measures, such as attitudinal
measures and perceptions about barriers, are essential to understanding the processes
behind the numbers. Such data would also expose more details about organizational

culture.

Qrganizationi Culture

Above and beyond a review of policies and practices, Bierema (1998) suggested
that organizations need to systematically identify any barriers resulting from an
organizational culture that does not support or reward women. More than one-third of
women in this study agreed that the nature of the organization was a barrier to career
advancement. This finding lends support to the claims that community colleges may have
environments that are not conducive for women’s leadership.

As noted in Breaking the Barriers (2001), professional development initiatives
cannot succeed without corresponding efforts to ensure a positive and productive
working environment. Therefore, simply examining or changing policies may do little to
change a work environment that is negatively perceived. Attempts to look at career
advancement objectively through numerical data and written policies may obscure or
mask over some of the more subjective and political aspects of who advances. Examining

working environments using discrete measures may not reveal whether a negatively

82

 

perceived environment is intentional or unintentional and whether it is limited to a
department or pervasive throughout the organization.

By doing an audit and taking steps to address organizational culture, an institution
might find that women feel undervalued or underinvolved in the life of the institution or
disenfranchised from its decision-making processes (Brown, et al., 2001b). Or such an
audit may find instead that women are over-extended when it comes to service on-
campus and that these activities have little payoff in terms of career advancement. In
summation, an examination of policies, practices, and culture can expose both the

structures and institutional dynamics that support or curtail the advancement of women.

Nature ef Administrative Work

Another important element to consider when examining leadership and
professional development of administrators, as well as organizational culture is the nature
of the work itself. Administrative work, particularly in the more senior positions, can be
demanding, stressful, and result in few tangible rewards. The actual duties of the job may
require administrators to work long hours, to juggle personal and professional
obligations, and to make personal sacrifices. What is not captured by this study is that
institutions may struggle to find people who are interested in leadership positions because
of the unappealing aspects of the job. Career advancement, therefore, may be better
explained by examining individual choices, aspirations, and motivation. This idea is

discussed firrther in the section related to firture research.

83

' 1
'WJ

 

Implications for Individuals

Career advancement requires motivation, Skills, ability, and experience — all of
which can be conceived of as individual attributes. Women who aspire to advance into
leadership positions should actively plan and develop multi-dimensional career paths that
address Specific goals and objectives (LeBlanc, 1993), as the lack of a clear career
strategy was cited as a deterrent to career advancement (Wentling, 1996). Others
(Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988) observed that women in academe think in terms of a job
instead of a career strategy. While there is no evidence from this study to suggest that
women administrators are not thinking in terms of career strategies (and in fact, women
were more likely then men respondents to participate in career reviews at their
institutions), career counseling and career reviews to develop a long-term perspective
may be useful for all administrators.

While much change can and Should occur on the organizational level, it is
essential that individuals work to help create and sustain an equitable and supportive
environment. Nidiffer and Bashaw (2001) posed the question: Do women have a
particular obligation to create women-centered universities? Women at all levels of
administration and across the campus do have an Obligation and an important role to play.
Individuals must recognize what factors can be controlled and take action to improve
working conditions in the academy (Carli, 1998).

Women who have formal positional authority seem to have a large role to play in
ensuring full access and equal opportunity. Nidiffer and Bashaw (2001), in tracing the
historical roots of women in administrative positions, stated:

women continue to lack full access and equality of opportunity. We must

84

rely on today’s leaders - those in positions who have considerable formal

authority and the capacity to enact the vision today’s senior administrators

have the Opportunity to exercise leadership in higher education in ways only

dreamed about by the early [women] pioneers. (p.5)

Women who are currently community college leaders, as presidents, board members, or
other top-ranking administrative positions, have the opportunity to help Shape the
organizational culture and create an inclusive environment for women administrators.

Historically, women have worked as change agents in the academy. Nidiffer and
Bashaw (2001) learned that women presidents, deans, chief academic and student affairs
Officers, as well as others pursued activist strategies dedicated to deepening and
broadening opportunities for women administrators, faculty, and students. Activist
strategies included mentoring, encouraging involvement in professional organizations,
and recognizing and promoting leadership Skills among women. In addition to these
activities, the authors highlight the perseverance of women leaders who were often
willing to change course and to pursue diverse strategies to achieve their goals. They
conclude that administrators wishing to be successful at change require a thoughtful
understanding of their institutional culture.

The institutional culture of community colleges, though, is clearly an issue for
some of the women respondents in this study who indicated that the nature of the
institution was a barrier to their career success and that they lacked peer/colleague
support. As Quina, et al., (1998) noted, “women who are repulsed by the current
institutional politics, or who find the policies in conflict with the interests that are most

important to them, are faced with a difficult dilemma” (p.225). One solution, according to

85

 

these authors, is to become adept at the “game” in order to secure a position or
promotion, and then work from within to influence change and pursue more activist
strategies. Indeed, Walton and McDade (2001) when detailing advice to aspiring leaders
suggested that administrators acknowledge that “politics” need not be a dirty word.
Institutional organizations and national networks can help aspiring leaders to overcome
barriers, be aware of the politics, and play the “game” if necessary.

Unfortunately, some women may not even be aware of the politics or barriers.
Even though women may frequently run into barriers in academe, they may not recognize
the barriers or they may choose to ignore them. Discrimination can be subtle and not
always easy to ascertain (Schneer & Reitman, 1994). Carli (1998) explained,

Many women are unaware of the pervasiveness and subtlety of gender

discrimination in the academy or how their experience compares with

that of their male and female peers. Consequently, women who experience

discrimination may not only fail to recognize it, but instead may assume

that their experience is unique and attribute it to bad luck or to mistakes

on their part. (p.279)
Such statements emphasize the need for activist strategies and supportive networks.

The evidence is overwhelming in the literature that significant sources of social
support in the academy are networks and mentors. While institutional initiatives or
formal structures are important in helping to foster these types of relationships, women
administrators can play more direct roles. Because of the varied nature of mentoring
relationships, formal or institutionally mandated programs are not necessarily required.

Whereas some efforts, such as increasing funding for professional development, may take

86

 

extensive time to work through the institutional bureaucracy, mentoring, on the other
hand, can begin today through the efforts of individuals.

Other individual obligations include keeping a constant watch over the
distribution of resources, including opportunities for training and professional
development. In addition, it is important to keep watch over the make-up of important
committees or task forces both at the institutional, regional, and national level so that they

are representative of all constituents.

Filling the Leadership Gap

Two of the top career advancement barriers reported by both men and women
administrators in this study were lack of opportunities at their current institutions and an
unwillingness to move or relocate. These two statements, taken together, suggest a
potential problem associated with filling leadership gaps. Administrators may be
unwilling to move to advance in their careers and yet they are frustrated at the lack of
opportunities at their own institution. Unlike a study of four-year college administrators
(Sagaria, 1988) that found higher education administrators to be highly mobile, changing
positions every two years, and willing to move to advance their careers, this study found
a large percentage (28%) of administrators agreeing that their unwillingness to move had
served as a career barrier. This finding suggests that institutions may have to make
considerable effort or be more creative in their efforts to attract qualified applicants from
outside the organization, and individual administrators may need to be more flexible if

they wish to advance.

87

These findings also suggest that community college administrators, as a group,
may have strong desires to build their careers at one institution. If this is indeed the case,
the need to examine institutional policies and practices related to leadership development
takes on added emphasis and raises an important question: How do institutions create
environments whereby administrators are able to grow, develop professionally, and build
meaningful careers — while also being able to stay at one institution? Unfortunately, this
study provides only a small set of data about the mobility of administrators and leaves

many unanswered questions and areas for future research.

Future Research

The current study points to a variety of directions for future inquiry about how
investments in human capital, including participation in professional development
activities and attaining graduate degrees relate to career advancement. Some researchers
(Warner & DeFleur 1993), for example, point out that the amount of education may not
be the most relevant dimension, but rather the area of study. Future research could
address the specific areas of educational training and look at the relationships between
career advancement and area of study.

Additional analysis of the data from this research, as well as future studies
should take into account the age, life stages, and family circumstances of administrators.
As was mentioned previously, administrative jobs are demanding and may have
unappealing or unrewarding aspects. The demands of the job may be particularly
problematic for women and men who are raising families and balancing competing

demands. Women in this study were more likely than men to indicate that their career

88

 

path had been interrupted by child-rearing and family responsibilities, and this finding
warrants additional attention in firture studies addressing career advancement.

Rather than quantify the professional development experiences, as was the case
with this research, the nature and quality of professional development experiences, as
well as the institutional context for partaking in these activities, are equally important as
foci of additional research on community college administrators. A finding from this
study that warrants additional research is the high participation rates in on-campus
activities such as committees and task forces. Research on faculty careers (Konrad, 1991)
reveals that women may decrease their chances for tenure by doing too much institutional
service and women, more so than men, may be asked to serve on undesirable committees.
Additional research on the quality and nature of the institutional activities described in
this study may reveal that women administrator’s experiences serving on committees or
task forces may have positive consequences in terms of networking possibilities. Or such
activities may provide little in the means of professional development or useful career-
related experience. Currently, the quality and usefirlness of these activities for
administrators are unexplored topics.

Future research, that would require examination of institutional documents rather
than additional data collection, could address organizational structures and the percentage
of women occupying leadership positions in community colleges. These structures could
then be discussed in relation to perceived barriers and answer the question of, does the
percentage of women in senior leadership have any relation to barriers to career
advancement? Interestingly in a study of faculty, Tolbert et al., (1995) found that as the

proportion of women in a department increased, so did the likelihood of turnover, until

89

‘ ..'I".'I‘
'W'.‘

 

the number of women reached a certain proportion. As the percentage of women
exceeded 40%, negative social dynamics were reduced and turnover rates decreased for
both men and women which suggested an improved climate. No similar studies were
found that described climate at community colleges in relation to the number of women
in senior leadership positions.

The Rasch model developed during this research was used to describe gender
differences in perceived barriers, but the resulting measures could also be used to look at
other group differences. For example, by limiting the sample to one institution, the barrier
measures developed here could be used to uncover commonalities in the experiences of
administrators on that one campus. Such an analysis could expose the pervasiveness of a
particular barrier or it could expose positive aspects of the campus environment as well.

Much of the evidence from research on faculty career suggests other possible
Opportunities for inquiry in administrative ranks. In addition to receiving fewer
promotions and lower salaries as compared to men, Hensel (1991) found that women
faculty took longer to attain promotions. Similar studies could be done that look at the
timing of promotion that takes into account the interruptions and constraints to career
advancement described in this research.

More investigation is needed into title changes and whether administrators are
following expected career paths and patterns. As the literature revealed, women in
academe are more likely to hold positions, such as registrar, librarian, or student affairs
professional. These areas do not have the same upward career tracks as academic
administration positions (Quina, et al., 1998). Therefore, the typical path to more senior

level positions excludes the positions that women are more likely to occupy. While the

90

 

 

data collected during this study may reveal some trends, only 31 people were promoted.
Therefore, a larger sample would be more beneficial when examining title changes.

Future research should also address mentoring among community college
administrators. Denmark (1988) suggested that beginning professionals need both a
supportive mentor to encourage career development, but more importantly a political
mentor to teach them how to build their reputations and “toot their own horns.” Merely
indicating yes or no on a survey question about mentoring does little to explain the
possible nuances of the mentoring relationships of the survey participants. Additional
analysis of open-ended questions, along with follow-up interviews about mentoring
would provide more usefirl data about mentoring in community college administration.

Peer relationships may be equally important as mentoring relationships and
receive little attention in the literature on community college administration. Research on
faculty peer groups and networks indicates that exclusion from professional networks can
have lasting negative effects on women’s careers (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988). The
finding from this study that over 13% of women felt that lack of colleague/peer support
was a barrier to their career advancement requires additional research.

Like mentoring and peer networks, sponsorship for administrative positions
requires additional investigation. A step beyond mentoring, sponsorship occurs when an
influential person recommends or strongly advocates the selection of an individual for a
position. Sagaria and Johnsrud (1992) found that over 70% of positions at the tap levels
of the administrative hierarchy at one four-year university were effectively closed to non-
sponsored candidates, and perhaps there is a similar phenomenon in other sectors of

higher education. Phase I of this research asked several questions that may lend insight

91

into sponsorship. For example, administrators were asked whether their mentor had
helped them to attain their current position and they were also asked how they became a
candidate for their current position and what the best resource was for finding out about
their current position. Examining this data may be useful in light of the findings from this
study.

The findings related to human capital investments and the lack of a relationship
between these activities and promotion suggest a need to further explore McDade’s
(1997) hypothesis that those aspiring to senior leadership positions may actively
construct administrative careers/experiences through the purposefirl selection and timing
of certain kinds of work and professional development opportunities. McDade referred to
those who engage more deliberately in career decisions as “intentional administrators.”
Interviewing administrators and asking questions about meaningful professional
development experiences, the role of education, critical people or events, and barriers to
career advancement might be particularly revealing in terms of discussing administrator
intentionality.

Qualitative research with administrators might address the following: What
professional development experiences have proved to be most valuable? Did obtaining an
advanced degree change your career? Was a career in administration something that you
pursued? Who are the people who have taught you the most during your career? What
factors do you perceive as limiting your advancement as an administrator? Is there
something that your institution could be doing differently to help support you in terms of
professional development? And what professional development steps or activities do you

need to prepare for the next step in your career? These broad interview questions might

92

 

WIWK‘H'E

lead to an understanding of how community college administrators make career
decisions.

Although the 2002 survey attempted to entail a comprehensive list of possible
barriers to career advancement, several other barriers may exist and could be explored
through qualitative means. Missing fiom the current research are specific questions
related to attitudes and stereotypes; unfair hiring practices or promotion policies; and the
availability, or lack there of, of needed information or clear job expectations. Open ended
interview questions about barriers to career advancement may be more revealing than the
findings from the survey questions in this research.

Because it went beyond the confines of this research, the finding that 5% of
administrators in this study had title changes due to reorganization of community colleges
was not explored in any detail. Jones and Komives (2001) pointed out that the current
climate of restructuring holds the potential to eliminate or lessen opportunities for women
and other underrepresented groups. The most affected by restructuring efi’orts that are
aimed at improving efficiency and reducing redundancy, are those in less powerful
positions. Therefore, more research on the effects of reorganization on the career paths

and advancement of community college administrators are in order as well.

Conclusion
Women leaders have helped to shape community college environments both on
the margins in positions that may be less central to the institution, and increasingly in
more senior administrative positions. Women have worked to gain recognition, access,

and visibility in the leadership ranks of higher education (N idiffer & Bashaw, 2001). The

93

 

current leadership crisis facing community colleges may provide Opportunities for
women to advance and to play a significant role in Shaping this sector during the 21St
century. Developing a new generation of leaders at all administrative levels is imperative
for community colleges to remain successful in an increasingly complex environment.

Researchers must continue to take snapshots and investigate the work lives of

.-i‘in

 

women at all levels of the organization. This research examined the career advancement

and professional development of community college administrators, with particular

attention to gender. This study found that although the number of women filling

leadership positions in community colleges has increased since the 1980s, women still i

remain concentrated in middle level administration rather than senior level positions. This
study found few Si gnificant gender differences in terms of human capital, professional
development activities, and promotion. Men and women administrators in this sample
were making similar investments in human capital and career-related activities. And for
this group of administrators, these activities did not have a clear relationship to
promotion.

This study also examined barriers to career advancement. Administrators reported
that a lack of opportunities at their current institutions, an unwillingness to move or
relocate, and the nature of the institution were the top barriers. These barriers have
significant implications for institutions and suggest that institutions may want to examine
their current policies and practices, as well as their institutional culture if they wish to
support and encourage leadership development on their campuses.

The findings of this study resulted in many unanswered questions such as what

individual and institutional variables, factors, or characteristics help to explain who is

94

promoted? What role does professional development play in the work lives of
administrators? And what other factors, such as personal choices and/or labor market
characteristics may be impacting administrative careers? In addition to these questions,
areas for future and more in-depth research include the role of mentors and sponsors in
community college administration; the relationships between titles, positions, career
ladders, and organizational structures; and the nature of administrative work.

AS long as women remain underrepresented in top leadership positions, it is
imperative that we strive to understand the participation rates, experiences, and the
possible barriers facing future women leaders. For as Deborah Stanley (as quoted in
Brown, et al., 2001a, p.21) stated, “In the final result, helping to advance the careers of
women faculty and staff... is one of the real blessings of being in a position to make a
difference. Providing for a more representative membership across the university

structure is a duty we owe to the future.”

95

APPENDICES

96

Appendix A

2000 Survey Excetpts

Question 1: External professional activities often contribute to professional advancement

as an administrator. Following is a list of activities other administrators have considered

important. Using the scale identified below, read each item and circle the number that

indicates whether you participated in each activity.

Did Not Participate = 0 Did Participate = 1

0 1
0 l
0 1
0 1
0 l
0 l
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1

Paid external consultant

American Council on Education Fellowship/Internship

WK. Kellogg Leadership Program Fellowship

League for Innovation Executive Leadership Program

Other administrative fellowship/internship

Higher Education Management Institute

(e.g., Harvard, Bryn Mawr)

Serve on board of directors of state or regional professional
organization

Serve on board of directors of national professional organization
Attend specialized professional workshops or seminars for women
(e. g., AAWCC, NAWE, NASPA)

Attend specialized professional workshops or seminars for
minorities

Publication of books, article, technical, curriculum materials

Presentations at national, state, or regional conferences

97

 

 

Question 2: Following is a list Of internal professional development activities that higher
education institutions may provide for administrators. Using the scale provided, please

read each item and circle the number that indicates whether you participated in each

activity.
Did Not Participate = 2 Did Participate = 1

0 1 Formal written performance review

0 1 Career review to plan ways to acquire additional skills,
education, and training

0 l Inservice staff development programs/courses

0 1 Temporary task or job rotation at a similar level

0 1 Participation in special institutional task forces, committees,
and commissions

0 l Opportunity to take on additional responsibilities over and above
specific job description

0 l Sabbatical or study leave

Question 3: The term mentor is often used to identify a long-term, professionally centered
relationship between two individuals in which the more experienced individual, the
mentor, guides, advises and assists in any number of ways the career of the less
experiences prote'gé. According to this definition, do you feel you have had a mentor or
mentors in your career in higher education administration?

O—No l—Yes

98

 

Appendix B
2002 Survey

In the evolution of your administrative career, you may have encountered certain
challenges or obstacles to career advancement and attaining your goals. With this in
mind, please read the following statements and indicate your level of agreement using the
following scale. Please make any comments about the statements in the Space provided.

1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree

3 Neutral

4 Agree

5 Strongly Agree
N/A Not applicable

a. My lack of appropriate degrees or educational credentials has served as a
barrier to my career advancement.

b. My unwillingness to move or relocate has served as a barrier to my career
advancement.
0. Lack of opportunities at my current institution have served as a barrier to

my career advancement.
d. My age has served as a barrier to my career advancement.

e. Limited time for professional development activities has served as a barrier
to my career advancement.

f. Limited organizational/institutional support for professional development
activities has served as a barrier to my career advancement.

g. My lack of administrative experience has served as a barrier to my career
advancement.
h. The nature of this institution/leadership/politics has served as a barrier to

my career advancement.

i. Lack of mentoring/networking opportunities have served as a barrier to my
career advancement.

j. Lack of peer/colleague support has served as a barrier to my career
advancement.
k. My gender has served as a barrier to my career advancement.

99

 

i3

N

I”

.0

.09-99‘!” F"

.Hz

My late entry into administration has served as a barrier to my career
advancement.

My race/ethnicity has served as a barrier to my career advancement.

Other personal characteristics have served as a barrier to my career
advancement.

. Has you career path been:

Interrupted by child-rearing/family responsibilities? Yes No
Constrained geographically by spouse/partner’s employment? Yes No
Interrupted or constrained by other factors? Yes No

What is your firll position title?

 

For how many years have you held the position listed in question 3?

What was your position/full title two years ago (Spring of 2000), if different fi'om
what is listed in Question 3?
If your job position/title has not changed since Spring 2000, skip Question 6.

 

A promotion is marked by increased responsibilities and a possible increase in salary.

Is the job/title change reflected between questions 3 and 5 due to (circle letter)

a promotion in the same division/department at the same community college.

a promotion in the same division/department at a different community college.

a promotion in a drflerent division/department at the same community college.

a promotion in a drflerent division/department at a different community college.
re—organization of college/division where title changed, but did not constitute

a promotion.

Other circumstances (such as moving from a two-year institution to a four-year
institution, movement from the private sector, or a lateral move). Please explain.

 

 

100

 

References

AACC (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics, 3'“
edition. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York:
Wiley.

Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the
sacred grove. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Amey, M. (1999). Navigating the raging river. In K. Shaw, J. Valadez, and R.
Rhoads (Eds), Community colleges as cultural texts, 59-82. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Amey, M. & Twombly, S. (1992). Re-visioning leadership in community
colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 15 (2).

Amey, M. & VanDerLinden, K. (2001). Perspectives on community college
leadership: Twenty years in the making. Paper presented at the Association for the Study
of Higher Education annual conference, Richmond, VA

Anderson, J. (1997). Leadership training initiatives for community college
administrators. Community College Review, 24 (4), 27-53.

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories.
Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.

Arrow, K. (1973). Higher education as a filter. Journal of Political Economy, 2,
193-216.

Bain, O. & Cummings, W. (2000). Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal,
professional, organizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement of
academic women. Comparative Education Review, 44 (4), 493-514.

Bergmann, B. (1986). The economic emergence of women. New York, Basic
Books, Inc.

Bond, T. & Fox, C. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, D. (1990). Summary, comparison, and critique of the major theories. In

D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds), Career choice and development, (2”1 ed., pp.338-363).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

101

 

Brown, G., Van Ummersen, C., & Phair, J. (2001a). Breaking the barriers:
Presidential strategies for enhancing career mobility. Advancing Women’s Leadership
Series 11. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Women in Higher
Education.

Brown, G., Van Ummersen, C., & Phair, J. (2001b). Breaking the barriers: A
guidebook of strategies. Advancing Women’s Leadership Series 111. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education, Office of Women in Higher Education.

Brown, T. (2000). Female presidents of selected independent colleges. !__
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
ED442346.

Buddemeirer, S. (1998). Female community college presidents. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

 

Caplow, T (1957). The sociology of work, 2"d edition. Minneapolis: University of I
Minnesota Press.

Carli, L. (1998). Coping with adversity. In L. Collins, J. Chrisler, & K. Quina
(Eds), Career strategies for women in academe, p.275-302. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.

Catayst (1996). Women in corporate leadership: Progress and prospects. New
York: Catalyst.

Chaddock, D. (1995). Factors influencing the hiring of women as community
college chief executive officers. Michigan Community College Journal, I (2), 13-27.

Cleveland, J ., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. (2000). Women and men in
organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denmark, F. (1988). Models of achievement: Reflections of eminent women in
psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dumovo, M. (1990). Emerging characteristics of women administrators in Texas
public community and junior colleges. In L. Welch, Women in higher education, 147-
160. New York: Praeger.

England, P. (1982). The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational
sex segregation. Journal of Human Resources, 1 7, 358-3 70.

Evelyn, J. (2001). Community colleges face a crisis in leadership. Chronicle of
Higher Education, April 6, A36.

Faulconer, K. (1995). Women in community college administration. Initiatives,
57 (1), 11-19.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995). A solid investment: Making full use of
the nation’s human capital. Washington, DC. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/
GlaSSCeilin ecommendZ. df.

Felmlee, D. (1982). Women’s job mobility processes within and between
employers. American Sociological Review, 47, 142-151.

Frye, H. (1995). Women in the two-year college, 1900 to 1970. In B. Townsend
(Ed.), Gender and power in the community college. New Directions for Community
Colleges, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gallego, A. (1998). Are we in the midst of a leadership crisis? Community
College Journal, 68(3), 3.

Gillett-Karem, R. (1997). Administrators in North Carolina community colleges.
ED409073.

Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore:
The John Hopkins University Press.

Granovetter, M. (1981). Toward a sociological theory of income differences. In I.
Berg (Ed), Sociological perspectives on labor markets, 11-47. New York: Academic
Press.

Hansman, C. (1996). Mentoring and women’s career development. In L. Bierema
(Ed), Women ’s Career Development Across the Lifespan, p. 63-71. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Hardesty, S. & Jacobs, N. (1986). Success and Betrayal. New York: Franklin
Watts.

Harriman, A. (1996). Women/Men/Management (2nd Ed. ). Westport, CT:
Praeger.

Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing gender equity in higher education: The need to
integrate work/family issues. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education No. 2. Washington, DC:
George Washington School of Education and Human Development.

Hodson, R. & Sullivan, T. (1990). The social organization of work. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

103

 

 

 

Hosmer, D. & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Hurley, A. & Sonnenfeld, J. (1998). The effect of organizational experience on
managerial career attainment in an internal labor market. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
52, 172-190.

Italia, N. (1998). What CEO’s want to know. Catalyst, 4 (2), 3.

Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Sage University
Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-135. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Johnsrud, L. (1991). Administrative promotion: The power of gender. Journal of
Higher Education, 62, 119-149.

Johnsrud, L. & Rosser, V. (1999). Predicting and reducing mid-level
administrative staff turnover. C UPA Journal, 1-8.

Jones, S. & Komives, S. (2001). Contemporary issues of women as senior student
affairs officers. In J. Nidiffer and Bashaw, C., Women administrators in higher

education: Historical and contemporary perspectives, 231-248. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Konrad, A. (1991). Faculty productivity and demographics. Thought & Action, 7,
19-54.

Laanan, F. S. (2001). Accountability in community colleges: Looking toward the
21St century. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds), Community colleges: Policy in the
fiiture context, 57-76. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

LeBlanc, D. (1993). Barriers to women’s advancement into higher education
administration. In P. Mitchell (Ed.), Cracking the wall, 41-49. Washington DC: The
College and University Personnel Association.

Levin, J. (2001). The buffered and buffeted institution: Globalization and the
community college. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds), Community colleges: Policy
in the future context, 57-76. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Maitland, C. (1990). The inequitable treatment of women faculty in higher
education. In L. Welch, Women in higher education, 246-254. New York: Praeger.

104

 

 

McDade, S. (1987). Higher education leadership: Enhancing skills through
professional development programs. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5.
Washington DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

McDade, S. (1997). Intentions of becoming an administrator. Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 45 (2), 2-13.

McDonald, K. & Hite, L. (1996). Human resources development’s role in
women’s career progress. In L. Bierema (Ed.), Women ’s Career Development Across the
Lifespan, 53-62. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. l

McFarlin, C. & Ebbers, L. (1998). Preparation factors common in outstanding
community college presidents. Michigan Community College Journal, 4 (1), 33-47.

_ _.-'_‘I

Meyer, J. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of
Sociology, 83, 55-77.

 

Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: National
Bureau of Economic Research.

Moore, K. (1988). Administrative careers. In M. Green (Ed), Leaders for a new
era, 159-180. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Moore, K. & Salimbene, A. (1981). The dynamics of the mentor-protege

relationship in developing women as academic leaders. Journal of Educational Equity
and Leadership, 2, 51-64.

Moore, K., Martorana, S.V., & Twombly, S. (1985). Today’s academic leaders: A
national study of administrators in two-year colleges. University Park, PA: Center for the

Study of Higher Education.

Morrison, A. & VonGlinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management.
American Psychologist, 45 (2), 200-208.

Nidiffer, J. & Bashaw, C. (2001). Women administrators in higher education.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Oakes, J. (1999). Women as capable leaders in higher education administration.
Leadership Journal, 3 (2), 57-62.

Pema, L. (20013). Sex differences in faculty salaries. Review of Higher
Education, 24 (3), 283-307.

Perna, L. (2001b). Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion.
Research in Higher Education, 42 (5), 541-567.

105

Perna, L. (20010). The status of women and minorities among community college
faculty. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November,
Richmond, VA.

Pema, L. (2001d). The relationship between family responsibilities and
employment status among college and university faculty. Journal of Higher Education,
72 (5), 584-611.

Quina, K., Cotter, M., & Romenesko, K. (1998). Breaking the (plexi-) glass
ceiling in higher education. In L. Collins, J. Chrisler, and K. Quina (Eds), Career
strategies for women in academe, 215-238. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Reskin & Padavic (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.

Reyes, P. & Twombly, S. (1987). Perceptions of contemporary governance in
community colleges. Community College Review, 14 (3), 4-12.

Riemenschnieder & Harper (1990). Women in academia: Guilty or not guilty?
Conflict between caregiving and employment. Initiatives, 53 (2), 27-35.

Rosenbaum, J. (1979). Organizational career mobility. American Journal of
Sociology, 85, 21-48.

Ross, M. & Green, M. (2000). fire American college president. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Rosser, V. (2000). Midlevel administrators: What we know. In L. Johnsrud and V.
Rosser (Eds), Understanding the work and career paths of midlevel administrators, S-
14. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 1 11. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sagaria, M. (1988). Administrative mobility and gender: Patterns and processes in
higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59(3).

Sagaria, M. & Johnsrud, L. (1992). Administrative promotion: The structuring of
opportunity within a university. Review of Higher Education, 15 (2), 191-211.

Sandler, B. (1993). The campus climate revisited. In J. Glazer, E. Bensimon, and
B. Townsend (Eds), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective, 175-203.
ASHE Reader Series.

Schneer, J. & Reitman, F. (1994). The importance of gender in mid-career.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 199-207.

106

 

Schuster, J. (1988). Professional development programs: Options for
administrators. In M. Green (Ed), Leaders for a new era, 201-224. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.

Scott, R. (1978). Lords, squires, and yeomen: Collegiate middle manager and
their organizations. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report, No. 7.
Washington DC: AAHE.

Shavlik, D. & Touchton, J. (1988). Women as leaders. In M. Green (Ed), Leaders
for a new era, 98-117. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community
college leadership. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges
Press.

Sicherman, N. (1990). Education and occupational mobility. Economics of
Education Review, 9(2), 163-179.

Stewart, L. & Gudykunst, W. (1980). Differential factors influencing the
hierarchical level and number of promotions of males and females within an
organization. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 586-597.

Tinsley, A., Secor, C., & Kaplan, S. (Eds) (1984). Women in higher education
administration. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 45. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Tolbert, P., Simons, T., Andrews, A, & Rhee. J. (1995). The effects of gender
composition in academic departments. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 562-
579.

Toren, N. & Moore, D. (1998). The academic “hurdle race”: A case study.
Higher Education, 35, 267-283.

Touchton, J., Shavlik, D., & Davis, L. (1993). A descriptive study of women in
college and university presidencies. Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Townsend, B. (1995). Gender and power in the community college. New
Directions for Community Colleges, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Townsend, B. & Bassoppo-Moyo, S. (1997). The effective community college
academic administrator. Community College Review, 25 (2), 41-56.

Twombly, S. (1986). Boundaries of an administrative labor market. Community
College Review, I 3, 34-44.

107

 

Twombly, S. (1988). Administrative labor markets. Journal of Higher Education,
59 (6), 668-689.

Twombly, S. (1995). Gendered images of community college leadership: What
messages they send. In B. Townsend (Ed.), Gender and power in the community college,
67-77. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vaughan, G. (1994). The community college presidency. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.

Walton, K. & McDade, S. (2001). At the top of the faculty: Women as chief

academic officers. In J. Nidiffer and C. Bashaw (Eds). Women administrators in higher
education, 85-100. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Warner, R. & DeFleur, L. (1993). Career paths of women in higher education
administration. In P. Mitchell (Ed.), Cracking the wall, 4-18. Washington DC: The

College and University Personnel Association.

Welch, L (1992). Perspectives on minority women in higher education. New
York: Praeger.

Wenninger, M.D. & Conroy, M. H. (2001). Gender equity or bust! 0n the road to
campus leadership with women in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wentling, R. (1996). A study of career development and aspirations of women in
middle management. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 7(3), 253-270.

Wright, B.D. (1991). Diagnosing misfit. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 5,
156.

Wright, B.D. & Linacre, M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 8 (3), 370.

Wright, B.D. & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement.
Chicago: MESA Press.

Wright, B.D. & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.

108