Men vs. Women in International Education Leadership
<<<Go to Part I of International Education Men vs. Women
This is Part II of the article and survey results on perceived effectiveness, strengths, and transformational leadership differences between men and women in senior international officer (SIO) or equivalent international education positions.
SIO Representation
Half of the SIO Men represented by the survey were from doctoral universities, while the majority of SIO Women were from both doctoral universities (37.4%) and liberal arts colleges (23.2%) combined. More details are included in the chart below.
| Men | Women | |
| International Education Organization | 11.8% | 7.1% |
| Agricultural, Technical, or Specialized College | 0.8% | — |
| Community or Junior College | 0.8% | 4% |
| Liberal Arts College | 9.4% | 23.2% |
| Third-Party Provider | 6.3% | 8.1% |
| University – Bachelor’s level | 6.3% | 6.1% |
| University – Master’s level | 14.2% | 14.1% |
| University – Doctoral level | 50.4% | 37.4% |
Final Question (optional): How has this leader made a difference at your company or institution?
There were 46 responses for SIO Men and 42 responses for SIO Women. For the purposes of this article, I grouped them by perceived effectiveness and drew out comments and descriptors. Now, let’s take a look, starting from the bottom and working up.
Not Effective at all
No SIO women were labeled as not being effective, and there were only two comments about the nine SIO men that fell into this category.
“Brought a budget consciousness that hadn’t been in place before, which senior staff (the majority of whom are male) appreciate at this time. However, he does not have a study abroad background of the caliber that our institution needed.”
“If anything he has had a negative impact due to his inability to manage people, money or himself.”
Somewhat Effective
| Men | Women |
| Ambitious
Builds Reputation Competent Creates a good image Decisions all made by him Business-minded Consolidated (two offices under one roof) Developed (programming) Entrepreneurial Focuses Up, too much Forward thinking Hinders us & Plays favorites Improved (the program) Knowledgeable Political (seeks the upper echelons of business and government, rewards mediocrity, stifles creativity and motivation) Visionary |
Decisions made w/o consultation
Disregard for IE as a field, since her field is different (tenured faculty appointment) Gained respect and trust Lack of Experience in IE Lack of Understanding of IE Less than desired commitment to field of IE & to students (tenured, appointed faculty) No background in IE (appointed faculty) Raised profile of IE Rapid Expansion Selfish (this person’s professional development and opportunities take priority) Smart Solid Management Skills Supportive Too early to tell |
Effective
| Men | Women |
| Brings the needs of the office to the attention of higher administration
Brought media attention/publicity to the university and department Created a centralized office Created an office where there was none. Created programs that would otherwise not exist on campus Developed and maintained several overseas partnerships Developing new programs for internationalizing across our campuses Encouraging to those of us who are here wanting to make a difference Formed a great team of people around himself Offers the “backbone” to any of our decisions Shared a vision for international education Single-handedly grown the IE efforts Started the Centers Supports and enables the international agenda of the president Tries hard to keep the international agenda out there Worked with other university areas to develop policy |
Brave enough to deal with difficult personalities
Brings in her positive personality Brought in grant funding to support international initiatives Brought international issues to the forefront of the university’s agenda, with support from senior administration Brought together units that never communicated Created a strategic plan and encouraged others to do the same Created various ways for the entire academic community to become involved Demanded that the university ask deeper questions Embraces understanding of international education as encompassing full array of teaching, research and outreach functions Enhanced international opportunities Expanded the IE Program in a slow motion Fosters connections across international education subfields Increased awareness of off-campus study options Increased our international connections Increased institution’s international profile Fosters the team approach among the staff Garners greater support for the office among the faculty Implemented measures to significantly increase off-campus enrollments Make us a strong resource on campus Led the campus in developing a clear, forward-looking philosophy Led reorganization of international offices into a single center Organized and shaped the office of international programs Organized the intensive English program Outreach with public schools Persistence, networking and creativity pays off Provided extended services Provides the vision, the new ideas Stresses every day that “OUR” students are indeed BOTH domestic and international Supported faculty and students in studying and teaching abroad Swimming upstream as there is little institutional support Worked to carry out directives issued from a changing leadership Working with colleges and departments on internationalizing the campus |
Very Effective
| Men | Women |
| All the right pieces—worked abroad extensively and foreign language
Broad and deep knowledge Brought a new dimension of strategic thinking and global commitment Consistent and imaginative leadership Constantly proposing new ideas and approaches Created an extremely positive work environment (non-competitive, empathetic, and forward-looking) Created an effective, financially solvent, better focused entity Creative and forward-thinking Demands high quality academics Focused and keeps the focus on quality Full of useful ideas Hands off management style Hard-working Honest Internationalizes the campus Positive Leadership Re-energized our international programs initiative from the ground up Role Model Shapes the culture of the organization Significantly transformed the landscape for international education Single-handedly (created study abroad program) Smart Strives to diversify programs and funding sources Strong Vision & Leadership Supportive (verbally and financially) Team Concept Voice for comprehensive internationalization |
Brought about major changes that greatly increased the overall quality of the program
Champion for professional development of staff Contributes to the field Created faculty consulting committees Creative Creates Community Developed a comprehensive, centralized international center Encourages others to seek professional development Elevated the profile of international education Empathetic Engaged leaders Integrated study abroad with curriculum and teaching Fostered a global environment of caring Hard-working Keeps it growing Grew the program Open to Feedback Provided emergency management guidance as well as policies and practices to create and improve our programs Makes the company successful Mentored many staff and students Moved forward the institution’s agenda Positioned IE as being on the front lines of innovation, excellence, and offering many best practices to others to model Provides Vision Raised Visibility Seeks Input Significantly improved organization Supports her staff Supports and communicates the college mission and needs of senior management Supports faculty Thoroughly organized a very disorganized office and program Took a bright idea from the minds of the founders and developed it into reality Transformed a small international programs office into a professional, full-functioning part of a campus-wide initiative that prepares students (and faculty) for global citizenship Visionary |
Summary
Obviously, both men and women can embody all of the qualities above, regardless of their sex, and so it’s difficult to identify patterns. What I found interesting are the different perceptions of effectiveness, as they relate to descriptors, and the choice of words for the different sexes. For example, “decisions are made by him” (for a man) vs. “decisions made w/o consultation” (for a woman). It’s acceptable for a male to be described as someone who “demands high quality academics” and for a female as having “integrated study abroad with curriculum and teaching.”
More than anything, this data makes me wonder how powerful gender really is in defining people’s expectations and perceptions? One very effective man “brought a new dimension of strategic thinking and global commitment” while a woman “brought about major changes that greatly increased the overall quality of the program.” A very effective man showed “positive leadership” while an equally effective woman “engaged leaders.” Words like grow, foster, encourage, and support were used more often to describe women. One very effective male SIO was described as a “role model” while an equally effective female SIO was a described as a “mentor” (different connotation).
These results do not suggest that one sex is better than the other, as we all know there are good leaders and bad leaders among both. What they do tell us is both men and women are necessary and valuable to leadership, especially in higher education. Perhaps the SIO women in this survey have higher effectiveness ratings and more descriptors because the road to their position was narrower and longer than it was for the SIO men. Perhaps more research should be conducted to determine why women are overrepresented within certain International Education institutional categories but underrepresented in others.
Last week, I forgot to mention the 30% Solution, a brilliant strategy which gained traction at the UN Beijing Conference in 1995. The 30% Solution is the critical tipping point where enough women at power tables can be heard and heeded, positively affecting policy decisions, changing the terms of the agenda, and impacting the style of achieving goals. According to Linda Tarr-Whelan, business and government does better when there is thirty percent women in leadership, and she has plenty of examples to back this up. I’m a believer…are you?
Submitted by Wendy Williamson, Director of Study Abroad, Eastern Illinois University
I have greatly enjoyed your survey findings, thank you for undertaking this project and sharing the results.
I think leadership is fundamentally teaching. A leader must communicate information and enthusiasm. A leader is more effective when can demonstrate experience and share the fruits of that experience by sharing wisdom.