1. Engineering Women and Leadership Shobha K. Bhatia Syracuse University 1ADVANCE Auburn, May 18,2010.

2. Presentation  Status - Women in Engineering  Few Women Leaders-Why?  Gender Schema-Valian  Double Blind  Nature of Leaderships  Social and Professional Network  What can be done about it?  WELI  My Journey  Conclusions 2

3. University Presidents 3 Central New York college and university presidents included in the article were Nancy Cantor, Syracuse University, Hamilton College Colgate University, Binghamton University; Wells College; SUNY Oswego, OCC; Ithaca College. Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, RPI, Case Western Reserve University, Syracuse University, Lehigh University, CUNY- Hunter College and other.

4. Women Engineers in Leadership  There were 12 Women Deans out of total 400 or 3% (WEPEN 1999)  There are 39 Engineering Women Deans out of a total of 377 or 10.3% (In ABET Accredited Engineering Programs, 2009)  Syracuse University-First Women Dean 4

5. Gender Differences in Degrees The NSF reports that, overall, women  Earn most of the bachelor’s degrees in fields other than science and engineering, such as humanities, education, and fine arts, and  In the science and engineering fields of psychology, social sciences, and biological sciences. Men earn most of the degrees in  Computer sciences; earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; and engineering.

6. Status  More women began pursuing degrees and careers in engineering, with “30-fold increase” in the percentage of Ph.D.s in engineering awarded to women since 1970. 6Gibbons,2008 MajorsBSMSPhD Faculty Civil26.7%21.1%21.7%12.5% Envn.40.5%43%35.5%22.4% Civil & Envn.28.7%25%24%13.6% Mechanical11.9%14.6%14.2%9.6% Electrical12.1%19.7%16.6%10.7% Chemical34.9%32.3%27%13.3% Biomedical38.6%42.8%34.9%18.4% Aerospace15.1%15.3%10.3%8.9%

7. Percentage of Women at Each Faculty Level: 2008 7Gibbons, Michael. 2008. Engineering By Numbers. Washington, DC: ASEE.

8. Percent of Employed Engineers by Specialty who are Women 8 Source: US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, Women in the labor force: A databook (Report 1018) (Washington, DC)

9. Advancing Slowly In 1999, Virginia Valian questioned in her ground breaking book … Why So Slow? In 2010, Dr. Valian was on the Advisory Board for a new American Association of University Women report that asked… Why So Few? Over those 10 years, the number of women in engineering has grown, yet at each transition point women continue to seek other opportunities leaving few women in senior academic and leadership positions. 9

10. WHY? The Leaky Pipeline

11. Presentation  Status - Women in Engineering  Few Women Leaders-Why?  Gender Schema  Double Blind  Nature of Leaderships  Social and Professional Network  What can be done about it?  WELI  My Journey  Conclusions 11

12. So Few Women Leaders Women are still underrepresented in academic leadership positions both in percentage of overall women to men and relative to the eligible pool of tenured women. Impact: Women are not in positions to be key agents of change within their institutions. 12

13. Gender Schemas: inaccurate perceptions about women’s ability to be leaders Gender Schemas - the social attitudes that individuals have regarding what it means to be a man or woman. These attitudes influence how we interact with people and what we expect from them based on their gender. Impact: Often creates inaccurate assessment about a woman’s ability to seek and hold positions of authority; reducing opportunities. 13

14. Perception of Women as Leaders  Experiment- College students were shown slides displaying five people seated around a table. The group was described as working together on a project. The students were asked to identify the leader of the group.  ALL Males, All Female,  Mixed Group  Women at the head was not Cleary identified as a leader by both men and women.  Women has to work harder to demonstrate that her apparent position is a real position of leadership. 14Porter and Gas,1981; Valian,2005.

15. Example  Research on who looks at whom in a conversation show the effects of social dominance.  When men and women talk, outside of courtship relationships, men look less while talking, and women look the same amount whether talking or listening.  Superior Position. 15 Translation: What I say is important, what you say is not. How many times have your ideas been ignored while a male peer brings up the same idea and it suddenly has value?

16. Pamela Fishman:12 hours recording Topic introduced: 76 (47 by women and 29 by men) Successful topics: 45 (17 women: 28 men) Outcome: Topic Success

17.  Male style: (interrupted more, determined topic; disregard for turn- taking; silence to women’s topic)  Women style: asked questions three more  Innovative style of women: a. Attention-getter b. Evaluatory statements Reason for Male’s Success:

18. Accumulation of Advantage Small Imbalance add up to disadvantage women.  A computer Simulation showed the importance of very small amount of biases. The researcher simulated Eight level hierarchical institution with equal number of men and women at each level. The model assumed tiny bias (1%) in promotion. Repeated iterations, the tip level was 65% male.  Understand how gender schema works and importance of small daily inequalities in our treatment of colleagues. 18(Martell, Lane, and Emrich 1996; Valian 2005)

19. The Double –Bind Dilemma for Women Leaders  Research finds that gender stereotyping is one of the key barriers to Women’s Advancement in corporate leadership.  Predicament 1: Extreme Perception-Too Soft( Collaborative, acting friendly), Too Tough (acting assertive, focus task), and Never Just Right.  Predicament 2: The High Competence Threshold- Women Leaders Face higher Standards and Lower Rewards than Men Leaders. (prove that they can lead over and over again)  Predicament 3 Competent but Disliked- Women Leaders are Perceived as competent or liked, but rarely Both. 19Laura Sabattini, 2007

20. Double -Binds If a woman is perceived as too nice or nurturing, she is considered too weak to lead… If she is too directive or assertive, she is unlikeable. Higher standards… Lower rewards Philip D. (March, 2009). Through the labyrinth: Real answers on how women become leaders. Retrieved on Jul 15, 2009 from http://www.llrx.com.20

21. Nature of Leadership Career for Women Paths to leadership are slower with more obstacles. Often start in less valuable service oriented positions such as committee chair, program director, or research center administrative (which they created and funded). Leadership positions, as currently defined, are less attractive to women. i.e. 24/7 availability and extensive range of duties. Often excluded from the informal network of intellectual leadership that men enjoy. More often considered for leadership when the position is less valuable to the organization or there is significant trouble in the department or program. 21Dominici, F, Fried, L.P. and Seger, S.L. (2009). So few women leaders. ACADEME/AAUP. 95 (4). July – August, 2009.

22. Social Networks Women are less strategic at building crucial professional relationships through networking. As a result, receive less advice, have fewer supports, fewer champions and less visibility. Without broad networks, women are seen as less influential, cooperative and credible. The amount of networking required to equal that of men often cuts into obligations outside of work. 22 Philip D. (March, 2009). Through the labyrinth: Real answers on how women become leaders. Retrieved on Jul 15, 2009 from http://www.llrx.com.

23. Social Networks Because of minority status, women need broader networks for career advancement. Successful women tend to find alternative network routes to the top. Women need to use networks differently such as having ties to influential people who are hierarchically well placed with wide networks of their own. Borrowing from them to achieve network benefits. 23 Simard, C. (2007). Barriers to the advancement of technical women: A review of the literature. Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology.

24. Some Best Practices for Women’s Networking Engage in mentoring boards – have multiple people as mentors at different levels. Maintain relationships you don’t use as part of your normal day. Get buy-in of the administrative team. Include men in the network. Use quick, targeted opportunities to seek mentoring from top administrators. Reach back and mentor others. 24 Gutner, T. (2008). Women’s leadership: Revitalizing Women’s Initiatives. The Conference Board Executive Action series. No. 277. Conference Board Inc.:New York. July 2008.

25. Presentation  Status - Women in Engineering  Few Women Leaders-Why?  Gender Schema  Double Blind  Nature of Leaderships  Social and Professional Network  What can be done about it?  WELI  My Journey  Conclusions 25

26. WELI: Women in Engineering Leadership Institute Beginning ….. Established at the first Leadership Conference held in Winter Park, CO in 2000. Organizers: Deb Niemeier (UC Davis) Drs. Delcie Durham, Priscilla Nelson, Alison Flatau, NSF. Objectives  Increase the number of women in academic leadership positions.  Accelerate and enhance the success of women in academic leadership positions.  Establish and maintain a support network for women engineering faculty leader s. 26

27. Campus Leadership Activities reported by Participants(2000 Workshop) Type of Activities (No. Attendees Reporting Activities) Campus Level ActivitiesPresident/ Chancellor Advisory Committee on Women Faculty (5) Sponsored/ Organized campus Level Workshop(7) College Level ActivitiesDean’s Advisory Committee on Women Faculty (4) Dean/Chair Search Committee (2) NSF advance Advisory Board/Project Team (8) Individual ActivitiesMentoring New Faculty (15) Mentoring Students (17) Organized Faculty Lunches (1) Started Student Chapter in Women in Science and Engineering ( 1) 27

28. “I don’t think I have ever been in a room with so many women engineers … It has changed me forever.”

29. WELI ADVANCE Grant Six Participating institutions:  Iowa State University, University of Utah, University of Connecticut, Syracuse University, Louisiana State University, University of Central Florida. Develop:  Two Leadership Development Conferences  Advance Leadership Workshop  Leadership Summit  Electronic Network Community 29

30. Leadership Development Conferences  3 day events  Common modules  Academic leadership roles, responsibilities  Skills development  Team building  Advice from the trenches  Assessment and evaluation

31. WELI Activities  Leadership Development Conference: successful leadership skill development  Utah, Nov, 2003 (30 participants)  Floriad,April,2005(40 participants)  Advanced Leadership Workshop: examining transformative leadership  Syracuse,Oct,2004( 30 participants, )  Leadership Summit Broad national strategies for advocacy for women engineers in the workplace  Storrs, Connecticut, May 2004 ( 70participants,different organizations) 31

32. ADVANCE Leadership Workshop Syracuse, New York GOAL: Increase the success of women academic leaders in engineering through personal- advancement development and building innovative leadership skills. ACTIVITIES:  Training Sessions with Leadership Experts  Panels and Speakers with Successful Academic Leaders  Focused/Facilitated Case-Study Discussions  Personal Reflection Exercises  Case Studies & Problem-Solving Approach  Inter-institutional Networking PROGRAM BREAKDOWN:  Personal Leadership Assessment & Style Training: Developing a Personal Vision  “Advice from the Trenches”: Building a Career Roadmap  Negotiating Leadership Challenges: Diversity, Fundraising, Negotiations  Transformative Leadership & Institutions: Becoming a Change Agent 32

33. Advanced Leadership Workshop in Syracuse,New York 33

34. Advanced Leadership Workshop Syracuse, New York 34 Kristina M. Johnson is the current Under Secretary for Energy at the United States Department of Energy. She has previously been the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Johns Hopkins University since September 1, 2007.Previously, she had been the dean of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University since 1999.United States Department of Energyprovost Johns Hopkins UniversitydeanPratt School of EngineeringDuke University

35. Impact of WELI Activities The conference and Summit involved faculty members and administrators from 96 institutions representing 38 states, Puerto Rico and Canada.  Conference participants developed new network of engineering faculty- “network of awesome women which facilitates mentoring, support, leadership”.  Personal experience  Better understanding of academic leadership  Importance of collaborative leadership for increasing women leaders 35

36. ABOUT WiSE WiSE at Syracuse University is an innovative program designed to enhance and support the professional development and persistence of women faculty and students in the sciences and engineering Increase the number of women in science, math and engineering fields through  Support and Networking Programs and Opportunities  Mentoring and Opportunities to promote scholarship  Leadership skill development

37. Reaching Back: My Journey 37 WiSE - FPP WiSE Post Doc Mentoring WiSE Faculty Peer Mentoring 19992000200620082010

38. 38

39. Climate Transformation Leadership for transforming climates must include diverse voices, based on a broad definition of diversity. i.e. gender, ethnicity, cultural and regional backgrounds, academic field, position in organization, and communication/leadership style. 39 Zoli, C., Bhatia, S.K., Davidson, V. and Rusch, K. (2008), Engineering; Women and Leadership. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. ISBN: 9781598296686 (paperback) or 9781598296693 (ebook).

40. Organizational Climate Engaging Men as Diversity Partners Barriers: Fear of being blamed or making mistakes. Lack of awareness of the extent and costs of inequity. Strategies: Inviting men in Exposing men to male role models who champion gender equity. Safe opportunities to examine gender issues with other men and with women. Appealing to their own self-interest and sense of fairness. 40 Gutner, T. (2008). Women’s leadership: Revitalizing Women’s Initiatives. The Conference Board Executive Action series. No. 277. Conference Board Inc.:New York. July 2008.

41. Presentation  Status - Women in Engineering  Few Women Leaders-Why?  Gender Schema  Double Blind  Nature of Leaderships  Social and Professional Network  What can be done about it?  WELI  My Journey  Conclusions 41

42. Conclusions Women have made impressive in roads in engineering at all levels in higher education. Women are more and more successful in taking activist roles in creating change in their institutions. The next challenge: Activism needs to translate into broad leadership in institutions. Women engineers in leadership must be prepared today to lead in an environment of underrepresentation of many different voices both in the academy and the professional workforce. 42