Androcentrism is a value system that views the male perspective as superior to the female perspective. Some theorists maintain that androcentric bias explains why, compared to their numbers in education, women continue to be underrepresented in administrative positions. This article reports the findings of a study examining teacher reactions to job descriptions depicting attributes of the principalship purported to influence men and women differently. Contrary to our expectations, both men and women preferred the job descriptions depicting the collaborative style of leadership previously ascribed to women. Does this finding portend the demise of the gender-based value system found in educational administration?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. P. (1999a). Good principals, good schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29, 8–11.
2.
AdamsJ. P. (1999b). Survey of SCUM California Preliminary Administrative Services Credential Holders.California State University, CA: Northridge.
3.
AdkisonJ. A. (1981). Women in school administration: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 311–343.
AndersonM. E. (1991). Principals: How to train, recruit, select, induct, and evaluate leaders for America's schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on educational management, College of Education, University of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 843)
6.
BarberA. E., & DalyC. L. (1996). Compensation and diversity: New pay for a new workforce? In KossekE. E., & LobelS. A. (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 194–216). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
7.
BarkerS. L. (1997). Is your successor in your schoolhouse? Finding principal candidates. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 85–91.
8.
BlountJ. M. (1999). Manliness and the gendered construction of school administration in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(2), 55–68.
9.
BurstynL. N. (1980). Historical perspectives on women in educational leadership. In BiklenS. K., & BranniganM. B. (Eds.), Women and educational leadership (pp. 65–75). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
10.
ChaseS. E. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school superintendents.Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CubanL. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
13.
DoudJ. L., & KellerE. P. (1998). The K–8 principal in 1998: A 10-year study of the National Association of Elementary School Principals.Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
14.
EagleyA. H., & JohnsonB. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
15.
Educational Research Service (ERS); National Association of Elementary School Principals; and National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study.Arlington, VA: Author.
16.
FauthG. C. (1984). Women in educational administration: A research profile. Educational Forum, 49(1), 65–79.
17.
GossettiP. P., & RuschE. (1995). Reexamining educational leadership: Challenging assumptions. In DunlapD. M., & SchmuckP. A. (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 11–35). Albany State University of New York Press.
18.
HallV. (1997). Dusting off the Phoenix: Gender and educational leadership revisited. Educational Management & Administration, 25(3), 309–324.
19.
HansonM. (1984). Exploration of mixed metaphors in educational administration research. Issues in Education, 2(3), 167–185.
20.
HansotE., & TyackD. (1981). The dream deferred: A golden age for women school administrators (Policy Paper No. 81-C2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
21.
HelgesonS. (1991). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership.Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
JonesB. K. (1990). The gender difference hypothesis: A synthesis of research findings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 5–37.
24.
KeppelG. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
KochanF. K., SpencerW. A., & MatthewsJ. (2000). Gender-based perceptions of the challenges, changes, and essential skills of leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 290–310.
26.
LacyW. B., BokemeierJ. L., & ShepardJ. M. (1983). Job attribute preferences and work commitment of men and women in the United States. Personnel Psychology, 36, 315–329.
27.
LeithwoodK., & DukeD. L. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In MurphyJ., and LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 45–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
LoganJ. P., & ScollayS. (1999). The gender equity role of educational administration: Where are we? Where do we want to go?Journal of School Leadership, 9(2), 97–124.
29.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McAdamsR. P. (1998). Who'll run the schools?American School Board Journal, 185, 37–39.
32.
MertzN. T., & McNeelyS. R. (1997, October). Exploring the boundaries of gender and role in administrative decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Orlando, FL.
33.
MurphyJ., & ShipmanN. (1999). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: A standards-based approach to strengthening educational leadership. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 205–224.
34.
MuseI. D., & ThomasG. J. (1991). The thinning ranks of rural school administration: The principalship in trouble. Rural Educator, 13, 8–12.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). Digest of education statistics 1997 (U.S. Department of Education Publication No. NCES 98-015). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.
NogayK., & BeebeR. J. (1997). Gender and perceptions: Females as secondary principals. Journal of School Leadership, 7(4), 246–265.
37.
PitnerN. J. (1981). Hormones and harems: Are the activities of superintending different for a women? In SchmuckP. A., ChartersW. W.Jr., & CarlsonR. O. (Eds.), Educational Policy and Management (pp. 273–295). New York: Academic Press.
38.
PounderD., & MerrillR. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.
39.
PounderD. G., & YoungI. P. (1994). Recruitment and selection of educational administrators: Priorities for today's schools. In LeithwoodK. (Ed.), & A. W. Hart (Section Ed.), The international handbook of educational leadership (pp. 279–308). Netherlands: Kluwer.
40.
ReadA. (2000). Is it any wonder we're experiencing a shortage of school leaders?School Community Journal, 10, 57–80.
41.
ReisS. B., YoungI. P., & JuryJ. C. (1999). Female administrators: A crack in the glass ceiling. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 71–82.
42.
RynesS. L., & BarberA. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15, 286–310.
43.
SchwabD. P., RynesS. L., & AldagR. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and choice. In RowlandK. M., & FerrisG. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 5, pp. 129–166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
44.
ShakeshaftC. S. (1981, April). A feminist critique of feminist research in educational administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 461)
45.
ShakeshaftC. (1989). Women in educational administration.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
46.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to include a more gender inclusive profession. In MurphyJ., & LewisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47.
TannenbaumR. J. (1999). Laying the groundwork for licensure assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation, 13, 225–244.
48.
YerkesD. M., & GuaglianoneC. L. (1998). Where have all the high school administrators gone?Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28, 10–14.
49.
YoungI. P., PlaceA. W., RinehartJ. S., JuryJ. C., & BaitsD. F. (1997). Teacher recruitment: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis for race and sex. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 86–106.
