Bassett Blog, 2011/08: The Diversity Factor in Leadership Searches

The Diversity Factor in Leadership Searches

By: Patrick F. Bassett 
Published: August 17, 2011 
Updated: November 23, 2011

Independent schools have come part way on the journey to becoming inclusive institutions where the adults, students, and leadership reflect the mosaic that is our country. One element of the journey where we seem to have hit a speed bump is manifest in a key industry challenge: the underrepresentation of women and people of color in independent school headships and in some of the other senior leadership roles. While virtually all searches advertise and seek a “diverse pool of qualified candidates” and increasing numbers of women and people of color are represented in the “finalists” stage, too frequently, they end of being the “close second,” especially for headships. That reality is illustrated by independent schools in the data NAIS collects on senior leadership team members by gender and race, where heads are disproportionately white and male in comparison to the general population and in contrast to some of the other senior leadership roles in the school.

Women have been a growing factor in the success of the U.S. economy since the 1970s. Indeed, the additional productive power of women entering the workforce from 1970 until today accounts for about a quarter of current GDP. Still, the full potential of women in the workforce has yet to be tapped. As the U.S. struggles to sustain historic GDP growth rates, it is critically important to bring more women into the workforce and fully deploy high-skill women to drive productivity improvement.

• At a corporate level, where many high-skill women are employed, the opportunity exists to advance women into leadership positions where they can make the greatest contributions. Yet, despite the sincere efforts of major corporations, the proportion of women falls quickly as one looks higher in the corporate hierarchy. Overall, this picture has not improved for years.
• The reasons why women choose to remain at their current level or move on to another organization — despite their unflagging confidence and desire to advance — include specific barriers they cite: lack of role models, exclusion from the informal networks, and lacking a sponsor in upper management to create opportunities.
• Another phenomenon that limits diversity at the top: Women often elect to remain in jobs if they derive a deep sense of meaning professionally. More than men, women prize the opportunity to pour their energies into making a difference and working closely with colleagues. Women don’t want to trade that joy for what they fear will be energy-draining meetings and corporate politics at the next management echelon. (Or, I would add, in the case of independent schools, taking on roles in such areas as fund-raising and finance that they may have little or no experience in).
• Managers — male and female — continue to take viable female candidates out of the running, often on the assumption that the woman can’t handle certain jobs and also discharge family obligations. In its Centered Leadership research, McKinsey found that many women, too, hold limiting beliefs that stand in their own way — such as waiting to fill in more skills or just waiting to be asked.
• These imbedded mindsets are often institutional as well as individual — and difficult to eradicate. A CEO’s personal crusade to change behavior does not scale. A diversity program by itself, no matter how comprehensive, is no match for entrenched beliefs. Targeting behavioral change without mindset shifts generally leads to an early burst of achievement followed by reversion to old ways. McKinsey’s evidence points to the need for systemic, organizational change. Companies that aspire to achieve sustained diversity balance must choose to transform their cultures. Management needs a powerful reason to believe in the benefits of this transformation, such as the potential competitive and economic advantage from retaining the best talent.

• Less likely than the men to have risen to the rank of assistant head or upper school division head (that important precursor to securing the job as a head);
• Less confident in their connections and interviewing skills, the reputation of schools where they have worked, and their ability to fit into a new school’s culture;
• Less urgent about finding a position, looking at a desired time frame of five years or longer;
• Less likely than men to pursue headships vigorously, foregoing such efforts as registering with multiple search firms and applying for multiple positions;
• More doubtful about undertaking a position as a head and sacrificing their home or personal life;
• More likely than men to say that the time commitment associated with the head of school position is unappealing; and
• More apt than men to say that staying in their local area is an important factor, often due to children and working spouses.

• Younger (as most candidates who are selected are over 40, whereas many aspiring leaders of color tend to pursue heads positions actively at a younger age);
• Less experienced than current heads and successful candidates; and
• Less often in assistant head or division head roles (the typical launch positions for headship) in their current jobs.

• Many major corporations recruit their “fair share” or more of women into the leadership track (as do NAIS schools).
• Many companies have introduced structural mechanisms — such as parental leave, part-time policies, and travel-reducing technologies to alleviate work-life constraints (as have many NAIS schools).
• While the many barriers that remain are substantial, interventions by organizational leaders at critical career points can have outsized impact (a reality current school heads have recognized for generations as they mentor “rising stars” for headships at other schools).
• Many “rising stars” in the corporate world are younger women with relatively light work/family concerns who, if companies can win their loyalty at this stage of their careers, will be more likely to stay the course. “These women are ours to lose,” McKinsey notes, for the corporations they study. (Ironically, in our industry, we promote our rising stars into headship at other “companies,” not to be our successors at our own school.)

1. What must candidates who are female and/or people of color do to increase their likelihood of being appointed to headships?
2. What must search firms do to help candidates and schools see women and people of color as equally appealing as white male candidates?
3. What must boards do (since boards ultimately make the head selection) to make it more likely that women and candidates of color are more proportionately, not just included in the pool, but also seen as the right choice?