Motivation of Women to Become Successful Leaders in Education - Report Example

Motivation of Women to Become Successful Leaders in Education 2009 Introduction Gender is different from sex, the latter being a biological phenomenon while former is a social construct that defines roles and responsibilities of men and women, regulating the role of sexuality, choice of occupations by men and women and the stereotypes in individual and social lives. In the social, economic and domestic scenario, women are expected to play stereotypical roles that are quite different from men. Women have less access to and control of economic powers and rewarded by less remuneration than men for the same work. On the whole, the mainstreaming of gender has generally failed because the approach towards ‘integrating’ women in the society does not challenge existing power equations. Women have continued to be offered stereotyped jobs, not receiving equal training and education and insufficient resources for women’s mainstreaming. In this paper, I will discuss gender relations in education and its effects on motivation of women in educational organizations in order to find out what motivates women to become successful leaders in education. Feminist Approach to Education Gender has always played an important role in education. Most early theories of education essentially followed a male approach, the main purpose of which was development of the individual as well as the civil society, but with no specific gender perspective. The first feminist thinker to incorporate gender into the philosophy of education was Jane Roland Martin (1985), who researched education theories in the 1970s and 1980s and said that education philosophers so far had largely ignored the role of women, both as learners as well as educators (cited in Rice, n.d). Since then, feminism has influenced the philosophy of education greatly, perhaps due to more women being involved with feminist thoughts, philosophy as well as education. However, feminist thinkers have adopted a wide range of philosophical strands to develop their own theories although the basic principle is to incorporate women’s thoughts and experiences in the purpose and process of education, thereby transforming the patriarchal forms of education and teacher-student relations. Feminist philosophers of education are typically concerned with education as a means of developing ethics of behavior. For example, Nodding (1984) is concerned with ethics and morality as the central role of education that develops a strong interaction between the ‘carer’ and the ‘cared for’ – both ‘natural caring’ or maternalistic and that driven by the purpose of social justice. Nodding (1984) brings in the feminist perspective by drawing attention to the epistemological difference between man and woman in child-birth and rearing. While recognizing that what may be regarded as ‘natural care’ in one society may not be so in another, Nodding (1984) says that the basic purpose of education is the development of the ethical behavior of caring. Jagger (1992) shows that ethics, or moral philosophy, that did not incorporate the women’s private realm, is essentially incomplete. The feminist interest in education relate largely to the pragmatist philosophy that attempts to relate theory with practice, incorporating social, cultural and political perspectives. Developing on the early theories of philosophers like Dewey who advocated education as a way of non-confrontationist attitude between the subject (teacher) and the object (student), Maxine Greene (1998) defines education as a practice of freedom by which “opening up of spaces” that would "tear aside the conventional masks…that hide women's being in the world" (quoted in Stanford Encyclopedia on Pragmatist Feminism) and would allow one to think in radically different angles. This pluralistic viewpoint essentially depends on the feminist approach of incorporating women’s views on their public and private lives. Thus, in education, women are assumed to be prepared to play the maternalistic role as the carer in later life. Motivation and Organizational Justice The motivation for educators may be analyzed by the hierarchy of needs theory developed by Abraham Maslow (1954) as: 1) physiological needs, 2) safety needs, 3) needs for love, affection and belonging, 4) need for esteem and 5) need for self-actualization. Based on this, the hierarchy of needs for an educator may be laid out as 1) remunerations required for the basic necessities of life 2) security, safety and stability of workplace environment, 3) sense of belonging with students and the institution, 4) rewards and respect from students, other teachers and the organization and 5) advancement opportunities and fulfilment of potential. The Maslow model is usually applied in the context of motivation of business managers. Motivation of employees is closely related to organizational justice and fairness. It is in the organizations’ self-interest that human resource decisions and policies are adopted in a manner that morale of the employees are maintained and bring out the best in them. Employees typically consider justice-related issues like pay structures, rewards, etc., as the main source of conflict. Moorman (1991) identifies organizational justice as a critical criterion for organizational citizen behavior. The outcomes of justice or fairness not only have a social role but also economic impacts on the organization. In the event of perceived injustice, counterproductive behavior on the part of the employee, like theft, sabotage or lawsuits, may have a great effect on the organization. The stream of research on organizational justice originates from Adams’ (1965) equity theory of cognitive dissonance that postulates that employees behaved in a dissonant fashion if the outcomes regarding pay and other organizational factors did not match with their perception. According to this theory, individuals continuously compare their social positioning with a referent. In a social exchange situation like an organization, the outcomes compared are typically in terms of pay, rewards, authority and quality of assignments that are compared according to the referents like age, qualification, seniority, education, skill, social status, etc. Inequities in outcome may be perceived to be normal if these are acceptable according to the referent parameters but may result in grievance and anger if the perceived inputs are much higher than the actual outcomes (Ortiz, 1999). In the current literature, organizational justice has four dimensions: distributive justice (that originates from Adams’ equity principle), procedural justice, interpersonal justice and information justice. Folger and Cropanzano’s (1998) also provides a fairness theory by which perceptions of justice could be judged. Distributive justice is the typical outcome that affects employees in terms of hiring decisions, performance appraisals, promotions, downsizing and layoff decisions, etc. For example, when two persons apply for a job and one is selected, the individual who is not selected may perceive this decision to be unfair if he/she considers himself/herself more competent than the other. Or, at the time of performance appraisal, if an employee perceives the outcome regarding his increment vis-à-vis others as unfair in comparison his input in terms of hours worked, skills, etc., the decision may be considered as unfair. Greenburg (1987) categorizes two streams of thought regarding research on distributive justice - the reactive theories and the proactive theories. The reactive theories focused on employees’ attempt to avoid unfair situations while the proactive theories focused on promotion of justice in the organization so that unfair situations do not arise. Extending Adams’ equity theory, Greenburg postulates that over-paid employees would feel guilty if their outcomes exceeded their inputs and under-paid employees would be angry if they found their outcomes falling short of their perceived inputs. Distributive justice is particularly critical when there issues regarding allocating resources, that is there are a specific number of jobs, promotions, assignments, money for bonus and incentives, etc. available that can be distributed among the employees. Workers typically compare their outcome/input ratio to that of others. They react to distributive justice measures in a number of ways. For example, if they perceive the ratio not in their favor, they may reduce inputs (that is work slowly or inefficiently) so that the ratio is equated; request for or demand a change in the outcome (that is ask for a raise); get others to work harder or their outcome reduced so that the ratio is again equated; choose a different set of reference parameter, for example, with people with similar qualifications outside the company; change one’s cognitive approach, for example, accept the outcome. Procedural justice, stemming from legal research, differentiates between the verdict and the way that the verdict is arrived at (Greenburg, 1987). Employees perceive procedural justice as an indication of predicting future states on the basis of the current state. A fair procedural system in the organization allows the employee to feel that he would be valued and rewarded. Muchinsky (2000) defines a procedure just if it is enacted “without personal bias, with as much accurate information as possible, and with an outcome that could be modified”. Thibaut and Walker (1975) propose the concept of the ‘voice’ by which individuals have the option of voicing their opinion in the organization. The voice may be ‘instrumental’, when they can influence decisions or ‘noninstrumental’, when outcomes cannot be changed by the opinion. Levanthal (1976) categorizes the attributes of fairness as consistency (across time and employees), suppression of bias by decision-makers, perception of accuracy of the procedures, correctability of decisions on appeals, adherence to prevailing ethical standards. While these researches focused on why procedural justice occurs, Folger (1977) researches on how employees react to the measures (cited in Ortiz, 1999). According to Brockner and Weisenfeld (1996, cited in Anderson et al 2003), procedural justice is more important when the outcomes are negative. Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry (1980) concludes that employees perceived procedures to be fair if "they are implemented (a) consistently, (b) without self- interest, (c) on the basis of accurate information, (d) with opportunities to correct the decision, (e) with the interests of all concerned parties represented, and (f) following moral and ethical standards" (quoted in Anderson et al 2003). Informational justice relates to issues free flow of information that might critically affect the employees’ well-being, for example downsizing, lay-offs, etc. This is the social method of achieving procedural justice so that the people affected by organizational decisions are provided with as much information that those who impart the decisions have. Bies and Moag (1986) and Tyler and Bies (1990), both cited in Ortiz (1999) develop the dimension of interpersonal justice in organizations that studied the way that organizations treated the employees as well as the way that decisions are enacted. Use of abusive language or deception about important managerial decisions is a typical case of interpersonal injustice that employees face at the workplace. The four dimensions of organizational justice often interact and result in unique situations. Brockner and Wiesenfield (1996, cited in Anderson et al, 2003) postulate that the different dimensions of organizational justice interact "when two conditions are met: (a) the outcomes associated with the decision are considerably lower than imagined alternative outcomes and (b) the procedures that give rise to the outcomes are unfair, thereby rendering the outcomes unjustified". At the same time, it might be the case that employees are not given a clear picture of the decisions thereby resulting in informational injustice. If, over and above this, the decision-makers adopt an unfriendly attitude while finally communicating the decision, it also implies interpersonal injustice in the organization. Colquitt (2001) postulates that while the informational aspect determines the fairness in communication, interpersonal aspect determines how one is treated in the organization. Research has demonstrated that employees perform better when they perceive their supervisors to act in a fair manner. Employees’ perception of organizational justice is most critically reflected on the attitude towards performance appraisals. Most research emphasize on the perception of distributive and procedural justice that affects the morale and reaction. Motivation in Education Most education researchers have found that despite education being a predominantly female profession, not many women reach the top of the management of education institutions. Al-Khalifa (1992) notes that if the promotions worked properly, that is organizational justice was achieved, then 60 percent of senior management of teaching organizations would be women. Especially in the last two decades, promotions of women in education have deteriorated, particularly in the highest scales. Further, as a result of reorganization of institutions following declining rolls in class, the system has turned even further against women. Sex stereotyping and sex discrimination in promotions have affected women’s advancement opportunities greatly. Factors like career opportunities for women as well as the lack of self-assessment have aggravated the problem. Women have generally confined themselves to classroom teaching, giving greater stress to the ‘carer’ aspect of teaching rather than to the managerial role in education. According to Al-Khalifa (1992), women have also been more self-critical than men and consider roles outside of profession while choosing career options. Especially women with children or other dependents have to balance a number of roles and responsibilities, affecting their professional lives. Classroom teaching and curriculum-based activities provide women the flexibility of combining professional and personal responsibilities. Self-assessment of teachers also indicate that women consider a move away from classroom teaching to a managerial role would result in a drift away from their basic career motive, which is teaching. Most women teachers consider their competence areas to be in teaching and not in managing the organization. There are stereotypes in the roles assigned to men and women in education, both at the time of recruitments as well as for promotions and role assignments. While the ‘masculine’ traits of strength and detachment are considered to be vital for management, the feminine attitude to ‘care’ is assigned to classroom teaching. The head teacher, perhaps, is the only one who needs both traits, which may also vary depending on the size and type of school. Thus, in terms of Maslow’s hierarchical needs, rewards, self-esteem and self-actualization all lead to sex stereotyping of education institutions. Hoyle (1986, cited in Al-Khalifa, 1992) noted that symbolism, like men’s show of authority in his sober suit and clipboard in hand or loosening his tie among male colleagues in the mixed staff room, signify the stereotypical attitudes. The masculine attitude towards leadership in management, according to Hoyle (1986, cited in Al-Khalifa, 1992), is similar to that in other professions. Typically, the managerial role is considered to be a technical one, stressing on solving the organization’s technical problems. The leadership, or in this case, the head teachership role is assigned on the basis of personality, experience and personal authority. Especially, the personality aspects are given to toughness, detachment and task direction, all assumed to be masculine traits. The tasks that the managers of education institutes are allotted are also essentially gender-neutral, like curriculum, staff development and evaluation, which do not require knowledge or experience of gender-related issues. Women, too, presume that their careers would involve authority and leadership by senior male colleagues (Al-Khalifa, 1992). The gender stereotyping in education follows the theory of socialization of women by which the norm involves the male leadership image and the female deficit image. Bush and Middlewood () found that typically every secondary school has assigned typical roles to women senior managers. Usually, each school has three deputies – one female who has the pastoral or girls’ responsibilities and two males who are in charge of curriculum, examinations, boys’ responsibilities and so on. Even the female head teachers, even in the schools that are led by women, have prior experience as a deputy with girls’ responsibilities and with little or no experience in curriculum, which becomes a deficiency for leadership. Typically, the stereotyping of men as the tough leader and women as the caring one result in both being at disadvantage to understand students’ problems and issues. The gender stereotypes prompt men to gain promotions faster on the basis of personal traits than women (Bush and Middleton, 1997). Men are promoted more because they are seen proactive, businesslike, strong and so on rather than on the traits of approachable, listening aptitude and so on, the latter being equated with feminine characteristics. Women are seen to be less assertive on promotions, lacking in confidence as well as in capability to apply for risk-taking assignments. Women are often more scrupulous and self-critical while applying. On the other hand, even male teachers who want to be in primary education often self-assess themselves inadequately, emphasizing on the feminine characteristics of caring. Students, used to female teachers with maternalistic instincts, find male teachers deficient in patience and gentleness. Despite attempts towards providing equal opportunities to men and women, there is frequent covert, and often overt, gender discrimination in recruitments and promotions. The basic training of selectors and for performance appraisals in education, therefore, needs to be towards overcoming gender stereotypes (Bush and Middleton, 1997). Women have been involved in education but in most western countries, this began within the confines of the home or with groups of small children in what was known as “dame schools”. When women entered the public education system, it was on the basis of their experience with educating small children, an on their maternal role, and also because women teachers are perceived to be cheaper rather than in their qualities of knowledge bearers. As a result, women outnumber men in the lower grades while the reverse is true in the higher grades. The subjects that men and women teach are also stereotyped. While there are few male teachers for home economics, the perceived masculine subjects like mathematics, science and industrial education and computer sciences are taught by men. The most glaring difference is in the administrative positions in schools, where men outnumber women by a large extent. This is also true for teaching associations (Gaskell et al, 1989). Conclusion Education, particularly school education, has traditionally been considered as a feminine profession since the basic purpose of education is to develop the sense of care for society. However, the leaders in education are usually men and gender stereotyping that is prevalent in society in general is as much existent in education as well. Most leaders in the administration of educational institutes are men. This is because of both the societal attitudes that are reflected in selections, promotions and role assignments as well as self-evaluation by teachers. While the typical attitude is such that classroom teaching requires the ‘caring’ instinct associated with maternalism, administration requires strength and objectivity, associated with masculinity. Women teachers, too, assess themselves in this light and consider their raison-d-etre of being in the teaching profession to be association with classroom teaching. Women are also not assertive to promotions and applying for risky jobs, as in other professions resulting in most of them accepting men as their senior colleagues. Therefore, in order to motivate women to be leaders in education, it is essential to shed to gender stereotypes and assessing personal traits more objectively. While women teachers usually fulfill the hierarchical physiological needs from their professions, the motivation towards achieving the needs of higher hierarchies is often missing. This results in lack of organizational justice in terms of gender. Distributive justice (in terms of remunerations), procedural justice (in terms of selection and promotions), inter-personal justice (in terms of role assignments) and information justice (in terms of equal opportunities for all types of roles) are grossly lacking for women in educational organizations. Hence, in order to motivate potential women leaders in education, it is essential to remove the gender stereotypes associated with the profession of teaching and recognize that both men and women can be as caring and as strong as each other. Only then can teachers understand the requirements of students, irrespective of gender. Works Cited Greene, Maxine (1998) The Dialectics of Freedom (John Dewey Series), Teachers College Press Jaggar, A.M. (1992). “Feminist ethics:. In L. Becker and C. Becker (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics. New York: Garland Press, 363-4. 1992 Noddings, N (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stanford Encyclopedia of Education, Pragmatist Feminism, retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-pragmatism/ Rice, Suzanne, Feminism and Philosophy of Education, retrieved from http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/feminism.htm Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Anderson, et al (2003) Gender equity in the context of organizational justice: A closer look at a reoccurring issue in the field. Journal of Leisure Research, Second Quarter. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The history of organizational justice: The founder speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2 pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New York: Academic Press. Moorman, R.H (2001). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizen behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855 Muchinsky, P.M (2000). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (6th edition). Belmont CA: Wadsworth/ Thomas Learning. 275-284 Organ, D.W (1988). Organizational citizen behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. Ortiz, Luis (1999). A Comprehensive Literature Review of Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Is There a Connection to International Business and Cross-Cultural Research? Retrieved from www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/sribr/1999/22.pdf Russell Cropanzano, ed. Mahwah (2001). Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, vol. 2, NJ: Erlbaum Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Al-Khalifa, Elisabeth (1992), “Management by Halves: Women Teachers and School Management”, in Nigel Bennett, et al (ed), Managing Change in Education, Sage Publications Bush, Tony and David Middlewood (1997). Managing People in Education. Sage Publications Gaskell, Jane Stobo et al (1989), Claiming an Education, James Lorimer and Co Read More