Although the research base on women and educational administration is growing, the literature is predominantly focused on career paths and obtaining a position of leadership as opposed to women’s experiences in the leadership position. In the research literature that does exist, certain key aspects of women and the superintendency appear to emerge. These aspects are related to leadership context, leadership style, power and leadership, priorities for female superintendents, and the apparent qualities and focus of successful women superintendents. These themes are explored in greater depth in this section.
Background. Most female superintendents serve in urban and rural districts. Indeed, 60% of women serve in districts of fewer than 3000 students (Grogan & Brunner, 2005). In contrast, 26% of women superintendents serve in districts of more than 5000 students, as compared to only 16% of all male superintendents. As Kowalski noted in her 1995 book Keepers of the Flame: Contemporary Urban Superintendents, data from the prior decade suggested “women were twice as likely to be hired as administrators in urban districts as in other types of communities” (p. 27). In 2003, the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) reported that 28% of the superintendents in 61 of the largest districts in the country were women, 18%, women of color (Simmons, in Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). By the 2010 CGCS survey, 27% of the superintendents in 65 of the largest districts in the country were women, 18% were women of color (Council of Great City Schools, 2010). Hence, there has been virtually no change in the demographic makeup of the urban superintendent in the past seven years. These types of jurisdictions report higher rates of special student populations, poverty, student mobility, teacher turnover, and facilities in disrepair than their suburban counterparts (Buchanan, 2006; Haas, 2000; Kozol, 1991, 1995; Reeves, 2003; Ziebarth, 2004). Women are more likely to be appointed from within the district, but men are more likely to spend more time in the superintendency. Nearly three fifths (58%) of men have been in the superintendency more than 7 years, as opposed to only 31% of female superintendents (Brunner & Grogan, 2007). The general portrait is of women who do not have much experience disproportionately leading troubled, urban districts.
There are several reasons why women, particularly African American women, are selected to lead urban districts. Kowalski (1995) noted the confluence of factors that allowed women and people of color to break the glass ceiling in urban districts. Women and people of color were desirable for these positions, ironically, because the positions themselves were not seen as attractive by the dominant-culture superintendent. Conditions in urban districts have been reported as mired in politics, corruption, and the threat of state or mayoral takeover (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Ziebarth, 2004). Hence, just at the time job opportunities were opening up for women and people of color in general, the conditions of urban districts deteriorated and were viewed by mainstream administrators as intractable (Earle & Kysilko, 1990). Although the literature specifically paints the hiring of urban superintendents who are women of color pejoratively, that is, no one else will take the positions, our supposition is that these women are hired from a position of strength. That is, they are hired precisely for their resiliency, their ability to work collaboratively, and their understanding of the urban culture.
Another reason women are selected to run urban districts is because urban areas in general tend to tolerate difference. Tolerating women and women of color may be one benefit of the diverse urban environment. African American women, like their male counterparts, may be perceived as more culturally adept with predominantly African American populations (Kowalski, 1995). Although this theory has been posited for African American superintendents, the data do not suggest a similar pattern in hiring Latina superintendents, who make up 2% of the urban superintendency (CGCS, 2010).
The average tenure of the urban superintendent has spiraled downward over the past two decades and remains far lower than that of suburban and rural districts (Buchanan, 2006; Kowalski, 1995). In 1995, the average tenure of an urban superintendent was 3-4 years. By 2004, “the superintendent carousel [had] spun out of control…with many, if not most, of America’s large urban school districts looking for new leaders” (Buchanan, 2006, p. 15). The average tenure of an urban superintendent in 2003 was less than 3 years, and for about one third of the superintendents, it was less than a year (Buchanan, 2006). Therefore, another reason women were proportionally more prevalent in urban superintendencies may simply be because positions turned over more frequently, causing a wealth of vacancies. It is difficult to know if women feed into the turnover statistics or benefit from them, that is, take the vacant positions left by men. The 2010 CGCS survey noted that the downward trend in longevity has been reversed and the average tenure of an urban superintendent has slightly increased, to 4 years. The fact that this trend has been reversed, whereas the proportion of women in urban superintendencies has not changed, may indicate that these women are making a positive impact in the urban setting and, hence, remain leading their districts.
As noted, there is very little research in this area from which to draw conclusions (Funk, Pankake, & Schroth, 2002). Beekley (1999) noted that women often experience isolation in the superintendency, are frozen out of the “ole boy” network, experience blatant gender bias by both staff and school boards, and suffer personal attacks on their character. This experience results in women’s resigning and taking lower leadership roles in other districts. Yet, it is also clear that urban school boards, and boards in general, are seeking the very skills that women are said to possess.
Leadership style. School boards may hire women because they perceive that women will be more adept at collaborative decision making and decentralization (Handy-Collins, 2008; Grogan & Shakeshaft, 2010; Kowalski, 1995). Yet the extent to which women actually lead differently from men is disputed. Bolman and Deal (2003), in their investigation of men and women leaders, utilizing the four frames of leadership defined by the researchers (structural, human resources, symbolic, and political) found “no differences in frame orientation among men and women” (p. 346). Their review of the literature suggested that men and women in like positions were viewed “more alike than different” (p. 346). Similarly, Hoyt (2007) noted that differences in leadership among men and women may be more a byproduct of women’s learned behaviors. That is, women know that hierarchical and dictatorial behavior will not be received well by men; therefore, women self-select to act in a more collaborative manner. In two meta-analyses conducted by Early and Johnson in 1990 and van Engen in 2001, as cited by Hoyt, gender “differences were found only in settings where behavior was more regulated by social roles, such as experimental settings” (p. 266). The only durable difference found between men and women was that women tended to be more democratic or participative than men (p. 266). A third theory is that given the bias women face in the workplace, it is much more difficult to obtain the superintendency. Faced with these barriers, only the best women administrators make it to the superintendency (Bogotch, 1995). Irrespective of whether the leadership styles exhibited by women are different, women are reported to experience the superintendency differently from the way men experience it.
Differential approaches to power and leadership. Although women have been found to perform slightly better in leadership roles that are consistent with their gender in fields such as education, government, and social service (Hoyt, 2007), researchers have found that one of the key ways in which women superintendents differ from men is in their approach to power. As Brunner (1994) noted, traditional conceptions of power are rooted in domination and reflected in control and power over another, whereas women tend to view power from a social production paradigm, working in collaboration with others, that is, power to. In their recent book Grogan and Shakeshaft (2010) wrote, “Women have modeled ways to use power and make change through understanding, a process that requires listening, not just talking” (p. 91). Arendt and Parsons (as cited in Brunner, 1994) described power as collective, existing for an individual only in concert with others, the purpose of which is to get things done. Brunner found that it is this conception of power that women superintendents describe.
Yet, it appears that women have been so acculturated to view power as an oppressive force, they may actually avoid even using the term. Brunner quoted one woman superintendent, who said,
“I have a difficult time with the word power because it has negative connotations for me. Culturally women were not supposed to be the power base. And their being powerful was not looked upon as a positive characteristic for a female. And so when you asked me about power, I want you to know that I want to get around the word. I just want to tell you that as a female, the word just isn’t a good word” [laughing]. (Brunner, 1998, p. 167)
Brunner (1994) found that women avoid using the term, rarely perceive themselves as powerful, and are more likely to describe themselves with terms such as “good listener,” “patient,” and “someone who gets things done” than with the word “powerful.”
Consistent with this conception of power as getting things done, Alston (2005) described the work of successful Black women in the superintendency through the theory of tempered radicalism. Alston noted that African American superintendents have been acculturated with a “double whammy” of power-based oppression that is related to their being women as well as their being Black. Yet, through tempered radicalism these women are able to harness the power that is intended to control them and utilize it in support of the goals of the organization, in this case supporting the education of children. In these instances, Black superintendents are able to lead with a strong moral authority in support of children, exerting their influence “for the cause” and, in this way, to outflank the oppressive power players in the community.
Bogotch (1995) also brought focus the theme of power to when he described the power definitions of the woman superintendent in his case as being equated to information, consistent with the common adage “knowledge is power.” In his case study of a first-year superintendent, knowledge reflected the personal power of the superintendent, but as information was given to others, knowledge was conceived as empowering to others. For this superintendent, when board members thought they were not being fully informed, relations were strained as this practice was considered a move toward the superintendent’s power over, and power was perceived as a zero-sum commodity.
Both Brunner and Alston described an approach to power and influence that is indirect yet equally as effective as the traditional control orientation to power. Successful women superintendents, it appears, do not attempt to directly control others to accomplish their agenda. In fact, efforts by women to exert authority directly are often met with hostility. As one respondent noted to Brunner, “women can’t be directive or before long they are called bitches. So if women want to stay in power they have to find a way to circumvent by using a softer style” (p. 169). It is this approach to power that characterizes women as collaborative leaders and makes them successful in districts that require collaboration and the bringing together of diverse stakeholders. Further, this style is consistent with the tendency of women superintendents to focus more clearly than male superintendents on the core technology of education, curriculum and instruction for student learning, which has made women successful in the superintendency.
Priorities for female superintendents. Consistent with the path they take to the superintendency (Brunner & Grogan, 2007), women tend to focus on issues associated with student learning while in the superintendency. In the age of No Child Left Behind (2002), the superintendent is being called upon increasingly to serve as the chief academic officer (Petersen & Barnett, as cited in Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). Ostensibly, this focus on student achievement actually supports the hiring of more women into the position of superintendent. Reciprocally, “the increased focus on academics and accountability should make the job more attractive to more women who tend to have more focus on curriculum, teaching, and learning” (Brunner & Grogan, 2007, p. 88). There is growing evidence that women’s focus on student learning has had a direct impact on their ability to be hired in the superintendency (Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Handy-Collins, 2008). Brunner & Grogan (2007) reported in their 2003 survey that 35% of the women employed as superintendents were hired because they were instructional leaders, and fully 46% were expected to be instructional leaders in the position of district CEO. The difference between the reason they were hired and the expectation once they were hired (35% to 46%) reflects both their actual focus on student learning and the stereotype that women are strong instructional leaders, perhaps at the expense of political and financial leadership.
Being a strong instructional leader can be a double-edged sword for women superintendents. Successful women superintendents have been found to be highly ethical, “doing what is right regardless of the circumstances” (Funk et al., 2002). Indeed, Bogotch (1995) chronicled the demise of a first-year superintendent who took moral offense when stakeholders were not fully committed to student learning in her district. In some instances, remaining highly focused on student learning instead of district politics and other issues can hinder a woman’s marketability and lead to professional isolation. Brunner (2000) noted that the women superintendents she studied often were silenced by their male colleagues, who were much more interested in discussing finance and politics than student learning. Moreover, although they are interested in improving student achievement, school boards and other community members still tend to think of male leadership in terms of fiscal stewardship (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Handy-Collins, 2008). Nonetheless, No Child Left Behind (2002) is increasingly placing pressure on school districts to improve student achievement, and school boards are increasingly turning to women who place a high priority on enhancing student achievement while in the superintendency.
Qualities of successful women superintendents. Researchers have suggested that women approach the superintendency in very different ways from men and that successful superintendents stress different leadership styles and characteristics than their male counterparts do (Alston, 2005; Brunner, 1998; Funk et al., 2002). Bogotch (1995) described the female superintendent he studied as valuing other people, possessing a strong commitment to children, and being collaborative. Similarly, Brunner (as cited in Alston, 2005), noted that women “dedicate themselves to the care of children. . .[and] use collaboration that is more relational and consensus building” (pp. 681-682). Funk et al. described the strengths of female administrators as “including collaborative and transformation leadership, a focus on curriculum and instruction, inclusion of all clienteles in decision making, empowerment of teachers, students, and parents, and articulation of new missions of what schools should be” (p. 3). In their study of six outstanding superintendents in Texas, the researchers identified eight leadership themes, including the following: (a) developing and holding her own vision and creating a collective vision of those around her; (b) maintaining high ethical standards of honesty, fairness, integrity, and determination; (c) being a visionary; (d) communicating and relating to people, especially the school board; (e) hiring and motivating people who are committed to the success of children; (f) possessing a strong sense of commitment to the success of students; (g) working hard with a strong sense of responsibility; and (h) maintaining high energy, stamina, and good health. Although it can be argued that these eight strategies for success may be applied to both men and women in the superintendency, these themes emerged from the researchers’ data as the strongest in relationship to their female subjects.
In contrast, Brunner, in her 1998 study noted seven gender-specific key strategies that successful women superintendents used. These included the following: (a) balancing both role and gender expectations; (b) keeping their agenda simple to focus on the care of children and their academic achievement; (c) remaining “feminine” in their communication styles while navigating the masculinized culture; (d) disregarding the concept of “acting like a man” while working in, essentially, a male role; (e) removing anything that blocks success; (f) maintaining a fearless, “can do” posture, while also ensuring “down time” to rejuvenate; and (g) sharing power and credit, much as a servant leader orients her work toward the service of others. These findings suggested that women both approach and experience the superintendency in significantly different ways than men do and that traditional theories of leadership are limiting when describing women in the superintendency (Bjork, 2000).
This was noted as well in the research of Ardovini, Trautman, Brown, and Irby. Rather than working with traditional leadership theories, they validated synergistic leadership when investigating female behaviors and experiences. In addition to what Brunner (1998) discovered, they reported that superintendents expressed a need for a connection of all concerned stakeholders. “The female superintendent was very intent on the need to be in touch with what was going on in the community and described the need to have an inclusive vision” (p. 43).
Working with colleagues. Historically, women ascended to the superintendency in the early part of the 20th century because they were perceived to represent an honest, ethical alternative to their corrupt male counterparts (Funk et al., 2002). Although community stakeholders preferred this transition, to be unseated by women must not have been popular with their male predecessors. In the 1930s, women were seated in almost 28% of the superintendencies nationwide (Funk et al., 2002); that number subsequently diminished to a low of 3% by 1970 (Blout, 1998). Women have been found to be disadvantaged when either supervising or being rated by a high proportion of men (Hoyt, 2007). In such instances, women tend to be evaluated less favorably than men. This pattern holds in the superintendency as well. Women have been found to be sabotaged by new male board members and male subordinates alike (Beekley, 1999).
Brunner (1994), in her study of power relationships in the superintendency, noted that the differing discourse of power among men and women leads to alienation for women who cross over to male power circuits, for example, women who become superintendents. Women superintendents reported that their male counterparts talked about irrelevant or inappropriate things in collegial gatherings, ignored comments by women, interrupted or talked over women, and “in general left them out of the conversation” (Brunner, 1998, p. 168).
Yet, consistent with their approach to power, women also have found ways to circumvent this type of gender bias and, at times, to use it to their advantage. Brunner (1998) described women superintendents that used male subordinates as their spokespersons to ensure that men communicated with males, who discounted their opinions. Women have reported talking differently to various audiences to be heard, depending on the audiences’ perceptions of women. For example, one superintendent noted that she utilized much simpler language when discussing issues with her school board, if board members perceived women as less capable. She noted that by using simpler language, she was perceived as less threatening to some board members (Brunner, 2000). Although women still face unique challenges of bias, isolation, and alienation by their colleagues, they remain committed to leading collaboratively in support of children and academic achievement. This commitment may contribute to the slow increase in numbers of women among the population of superintendents nationwide.
