1. CONTEMPORARY DIMENSIONS OF LEADERSHIP AND WOMEN Dr. Hope M. Jordan Dr. M. Gail Derrick

2. 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. Historical and Social Factors Quantitative and Quantitative Implications for Future Research

3. 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?

4. Interviews Design Questions Video Format Extension Questions Analysis

5. Results--Common Characteristics Emerged Dedication, Persistence and Commitment Relationship Building and Compassion Integrity, Authenticity and Autonomy, and Honesty Sense of Humor Passion and Energy

6. 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

7. 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.

8. Initiative Resourcefulness Persistence Desire Autonomous Learning

9. 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

10. 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

11. LAP Profile

12. Desire

13. Resourcefulness

14. Initiative

15. Persistence

16. 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)

17. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Measures by Educational Level, Marital Status, and Gender HS (n = 1,008) Bachelor (n = 534) Graduate (n = 735 VariableMSDMSD M SD Single (n = 1,256) Desire256.8139.49248.4638.98257.8940.55 Resourcefulness402.3766.19384.1961.56399.4663.48 Initiative327.3756.98314.5254.33325.6357.50 Persistence272.2546.17258.0145.70265.2446.79 Not single (n = 1,021) Desire252.1339.19255.3636.69255.2534.20 Resourcefulness406.0867.11398.3960.84406.3256.58 Initiative325.6660.86321.7553.81330.2047.12 Persistence272.7647.44265.5542.54270.4937.49 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.

18. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Measures by Educational Level, Marital Status, and Gender HS (n = 1,008)Bachelor (n = 534) Graduate (n = 735 VariableMSDMSD M SD Female (n = 1,486) Desire253.2739.00251.7737.31256.4338.50 Resourcefulness405.7767.39393.0562.47408.0062.58 Initiative327.3359.87318.1755.81331.4253.95 Persistence272.4647.54260.9045.87270.7243.22 Male (n = 791) Desire259.2340.20250.4740.07256.4735.71 Resourcefulness398.9864.25383.7559.31397.5356.07 Initiative325.1355.02316.2350.48324.2349.64 Persistence272.4244.43261.8241.43265.0140.41 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.

19. Results: Interaction Effect of 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

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

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

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

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

24. 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.

25. Recommendations Further Research on Women in Superintendency Character and Leadership Authenticity and Autonomy Leadership Styles Emphasis on Glass Ceiling? Support for Those to Follow

26. 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