CONTEMPORARY DIMENSIONS OF LEADERSHIP AND WOMEN

Dr. Hope M. Jordan

Dr. M. Gail Derrick

Overview Two current research

projects on the specific dimensions of women and leadership as it relates to their development and capacity as prominent leaders as public school superintendents.

The data analysis from the two studies centered upon understanding how women lead and how women learn.

Implications for Future Research

Quantitative and Quantitative

Historical and Social Factors

The Origin of the Research

PDK Meeting Interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with eight public school female superintendents in Virginia to ascertain if common characteristics and similar experiences could be determined

Why Just Women?

Interviews

Design Questions Video Format Extension Questions Analysis

Results--Common Characteristics Emerged

Dedication, Persistence and Commitment

Relationship Building and Compassion

Integrity, Authenticity and Autonomy, and Honesty

Sense of Humor Passion and Energy

Journey to Character, Authenticity and Autonomy

Investigation – History of Women in The Superintendency

Investigation – Leadership Traits of Women

Common Themes Character, Authenticity & Autonomy

Emerge Character and NCLB

Authenticity & Autonomy

Leadership is Authenticity Not Style

The best leaders are those who are authentic and autonomous—in their thinking, their actions, their behaviors, and their learning.

Initiative

Resourcefulness

Persistence

Desire

Autonomous Learning

Autonomous: What does this mean?

Desire -- Freedom, Power, Change

Resourcefulness -- Learning Priority, Deferring Gratification, Resolving Conflict, Future Orientation, Planning, Evaluating Alternatives, Anticipating Consequences

Initiative -- Goal-directedness, Action-orientation, Persistence in overcoming obstacles, Active-approach

to problem solving, Self-startedness

Persistence -- Volition, Self-Regulation, Goal Maintenance

Learner Autonomy

LAP Learner Autonomy Profile Four components that assess an

individual’s level of personal autonomy

Specific demographics collected including gender, age, marital status, and education level

Conflicting results

LAP Profile

Desire

Resourcefulness

Initiative

Persistence

Data Analysis Means with standard deviations in

parentheses for pooled data (N = 2,277) are as follows: desire, 254.61 (38.45) resourcefulness, 400.42 (63.53) initiative, 325.02 (55.63) persistence, 268.40 (44.90).

The age of participants ranged from 16 to 88 (M = 32.98, SD = 11.48).

Female (n = 1,486) Male (n = 791)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Measures by Educational Level, Marital Status, and Gender

HS (n = 1,008) Bachelor (n = 534) Graduate (n = 735

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Single (n = 1,256)

Desire 256.81 39.49 248.46 38.98 257.89 40.55Resourcefulness 402.37 66.19 384.19 61.56 399.46 63.48Initiative 327.37 56.98 314.52 54.33 325.63 57.50Persistence 272.25 46.17 258.01 45.70 265.24 46.79

Not single (n = 1,021)

Desire 252.13 39.19 255.36 36.69 255.25 34.20Resourcefulness 406.08 67.11 398.39 60.84 406.32 56.58Initiative 325.66 60.86 321.75 53.81 330.20 47.12Persistence 272.76 47.44 265.55 42.54 270.49 37.49

Note: Scores for each measure can range from a low of 0 to a high of 330 for Desire. 0 to 530 for Resourcefulness, 0 to 440 for Initiative, and 0 to 340 for Persistence.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Measures by Educational Level, Marital Status, and Gender

HS (n = 1,008) Bachelor (n = 534) Graduate (n = 735

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Female (n = 1,486)

Desire 253.27 39.00 251.77 37.31 256.43 38.50Resourcefulness 405.77 67.39 393.05 62.47 408.00 62.58Initiative 327.33 59.87 318.17 55.81 331.42 53.95Persistence 272.46 47.54 260.90 45.87 270.72 43.22

Male (n = 791)

Desire 259.23 40.20 250.47 40.07 256.47 35.71Resourcefulness 398.98 64.25 383.75 59.31 397.53 56.07Initiative 325.13 55.02 316.23 50.48 324.23 49.64Persistence 272.42 44.43 261.82 41.43 265.01 40.41

Note: Scores for each measure can range from a low of 0 to a high of 330 for Desire. 0 to 530 for Resourcefulness, 0 to 440 for Initiative, and 0 to 340 for Persistence.

Results: Interaction Effectof Factors and Demographics

Education: all four measures were significant with very low effect sizes

Marital status: all four measures failed to reach statistical significance

Gender: significant differences were only noted for resourcefulness and initiative.

For resourcefulness, females (M = 403.44, SD = 64.56) scored higher than males (M = 395.19, SD = 60.06)

Similarly, for initiative, females (M = 326.34, SD = 57.08) scored higher than males (M = 322.89, SD = 51.89)

Out of the four interaction effects tested, only the marital status x gender interaction was significant

Figure 1. Marital status x gender interaction effect for desire.

Figure 2. Marital status x gender interaction effect for resourcefulness.

Figure 3. Marital status x gender interaction effect for initiative.

Figure 4. Marital status x gender interaction effect for persistence.

Conclusion The results of the data analysis indicate significance (p

< .001.) with regard to main effects tested (gender, educational level, and marital status). However, the effect size was small for each main effect.

It appears that the demographic variables are important but not statistically significant in terms of effect size.

Additional analysis should confirm more definitely the role of gender, marital status, and prior educational attainment upon autonomous learning.

Appears that males and females display unique behaviors with regard to resourcefulness and initiative.

Aligns with the qualitative interviews.

Recommendations Further Research on Women in

Superintendency Character and Leadership Authenticity and Autonomy Leadership Styles Emphasis on Glass Ceiling? Support for Those to Follow

A Special Thank You To The Virginia Ladies Who Lead

Dr. Jo Lynne Demary, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Margaret VanDeman Blackmon, Superintendent, Prince Edward

County Public Schools Kathleen Brown, Retired Interim Superintendent, Hampton City

Public Schools Dr. Brenda Cowlbeck, Superintendent, King William Public County

Schools Dr. Mary English, Superintendent, Northampton County Public

Schools Dr. Deborah Jewell-Sherman, Superintendent, Richmond City Public

Schools Dr. Rosalie M. Martin, Superintendent, Craig County Public Schools Dr. Jean Murray, Superintendent, Stafford County Public Schools And the anonymous ladies who supported this work but choose to

remain unnamed