Perspectives on Leadership: Race, Gender and the Superintendency—A National Study 197who still consider women ‘weak’ in areas of leadership. There are some who simply
manipulate the system and use the “I’m a good ol’ boy and you owe me one” to get
the position they want.In terms of board of education composition and their views of leadership, the women
continued with their comments, “It is still a man’s world” and “School board members here
were uneasy accepting a female superintendent. They are fine with it now.” “Three of five
board members still believe a man can do better.” The following comment offered a glimmer
of hope, “The history of this district is male dominated in administrative positions, but this is
changing.” Overwhelmingly, the cadence continued with community preferences for a male
superintendent, “Men are usually considered better candidates for fiscal management,” and
finally, “The board of education stated this (preference for a male superintendent) directly last
week during the search for my replacement. I believe that I was hired by a board who thought
they could ‘run’ the district with a female and when they found out how strong I was, they
would never go there again. It is more the ‘community’ that is not favorable to female
administrators, a very good old boy network.” These comments permeated the discourse on
the hurdles women must overcome to stereotypes that appeared to dot the landscape of the
nation’s schools. The substantive dialogue dispelled the myth that gender discrimination
doesn’t exist, and undergirded the urgency required of graduate schools to reconstruct
leadership preparation programs to prepare women for this reality. The 2000 AASA study of
the superintendency (Brunner, 2000 in Glass et al.), spoke to this issue.
The significant difference between the female superintendents’ views that
discriminatory practices exist and the male superintendents’ majority views that
discriminatory practices and barriers are not a factor is troubling. Unless these
practices and barriers are addressed, increasing the numbers of women in the position
of superintendent of schools will be extremely difficult. It is after all, most often the
male superintendents who are mentors for others aspiring and entering the position.
And if male superintendents do not believe that women face discrimination and/or
barriers that limit their administrative opportunities, they are less likely to understand
the need for them to mentor and encourage women (p. 89).Gender stereotypes have damaged the ascent of women to the superintendency because
“According to role congruent theory, the agentic qualities thought necessary in the leadership
role are incompatible with the predominately communal qualities stereotypically associated
with women, thus resulting in prejudice against female leaders” ( Hoyt, 2007 in Norhouse,
2007 p. 277). Women face prejudice through “...the decision-making process for selecting
elite leaders” because these decisions “succumb to homosocial reproduction, a tendency for a
group to reproduce itself in its own image” (Hoyt, 2007, in Norhouse, p. 277). According to
Hoyt (2007), when male leaders search for a replacement, the preference for “similar others”
can place women at a disadvantage (in Newhouse, p. 277). Since this is a national issue,
perhaps the United States should follow the example of Norway’s 2003 law “requiring
companies to fill 40 % of their board seats with women by 2008,” a goal that has been
achieved, or Spain’s legislation by Parliament calling for “40 percent board participation by
women by 2015” (Reier, 2008).