The month of March is designated as Women’s History Month. At a time when the word “women” itself is being targeted for censorship by the federal administration, it seems more important than ever to consider how Christian institutions of higher education are drawing upon their theological foundations in order to create environments that allow for the full thriving of all people rather than perpetuating systems that reward pride.
In the first part of this series, I explored what it might mean to consider a gender lens when contemplating sin and redemption, especially as it relates to pride. Drawing on the work of Valerie Saiving, I suggested that for some women, sin might be defined in relationship to pride not as “too much pride” but as “too little pride.” Likewise, drawing upon the theological scholarship of Mary Daly, I suggested that redemption from that particular sin might need to take the form of systemic (and not just individual) change.
The question, then, for educators and leaders in Christian higher education is how to shape campus environments in a way that accounts for this particular version of sin that moves beyond “pride as sin” and toward an expanded definition of redemption that accounts for both the individual and systemic healing that might be needed with regard to this particular issue. Building upon this foundation, then, I would like to use the second part of this blog series to explore practical steps that Christian institutions of higher education can take to reduce systemic barriers for women and combat the institutional conditions that breed imposter syndrome.
The presence of imposter syndrome among faculty in higher education has been well-documented.1 For individuals dealing with imposter syndrome, a variety of coping strategies might be employed to address the issue at an individual level.2 However, as suggested in the first part of this blog series, there are also larger institutional interventions, from hiring practices to nomination processes, that might be helpful for addressing environmental triggers for imposter syndrome
Challenge the “Confidence=Competence” Fallacy in Hiring
The beginning of a career in Christian higher education starts with the hiring process. For Christian universities seeking to challenge the conditions that breed imposter syndrome, hiring processes provide an important opportunity to dismantle such an environment.
Prior to stepping into my current administrative position, I had applied to several comparable positions. At one institution where I was a finalist for the position in question, I spoke to chair of the search committee after learning that I was not the successful candidate for the position. When I requested feedback on my candidacy, he offered, “Some people thought you didn’t seem confident enough.” As an administrator, I am sympathetic to the ways that projecting confidence can be helpful for leadership. Nonetheless, such a projection is only that: a projection. Successful leadership depends just as much (if not more!) on the actual skills required for a particular position.
Unfortunately, though, so much of academia’s hiring practices reward the projection of confidence rather than the actual competence needed for given positions. Interviews where candidates are asked to describe their accomplishments become the basis for hiring decisions. These processes tend to reward those who can speak confidently about themselves. Inversely, though, some research has suggested that even when women do project confidence by promoting themselves, such efforts can actually have a negative effect on their hireability compared to their male counterparts.3 Thus, academia’s hiring processes seem ripe for revision.
I wonder what it might look like to revise processes to move in the direction of more skills-based hiring rather than interview-based hiring. That is, rather than simply inviting a job candidate to talk about their accomplishments, what might it look like to invite the candidate to demonstrate their skills? In positions that require skills in teamwork or in leading colleagues, candidates could be asked to guide members of the search committee through completing a particular task so as to demonstrate how they might lead a team. Or, for positions that require excellent written communication skills, candidates could be asked to draft a memo addressing a hypothetical scenario. Such skills-based hiring may help to recognize candidates who bring the skills needed to succeed in a particular position even if those same candidates might not present themselves as confidently in a discussion-based interview setting.
Review Tenure/Promotion Processes
Beyond the hiring process, faculty must also engage in similar practices of self-promotion during tenure and promotion processes. With nearly as much on the line as during the hiring process, faculty are expected to mount an argument for their excellence in several areas, often including teaching, advising, scholarship, professional development, and service to the institution, to the church, and to the broader scholarly guild. While accomplishments in these areas can, to some degree, speak for themselves, faculty members are also often expected to submit an apologia for their work that boasts about how their professional accomplishments qualify them for tenure or promotion.
At many universities, these systems of faculty evaluation, tenure, and promotion tend to reward personal pridefulness. That is, faculty members under review are rewarded for their ability to brag about their own accomplishments and to highlight the importance of their achievements. Those who are able to craft a persuasive case in their own favor are rewarded with the tenure or promotion that they are seeking. For those to whom such pride does not come as easily, this can be a far more challenging process.
Personnel review is an important part of workforce development in any industry. However, academia’s self-congratulatory processes in this regard are not well-suited to reward those who may not be inclined to brag about themselves. Although many institutions include elements of peer reviews or letters of recommendation, placing more weight on these artifacts generated by colleagues rather than self-promotional materials might assist in counteracting a tendency toward the sin of “too little pride.”
Expand Nomination Procedures
In some institutions, various awards, grants, or other honors are bestowed on the basis of reviewing applications from individuals who have nominated themselves to be considered for such accolades. However, the process of self-nomination is inherently built on the premise that individuals are comfortable and confident in nominating themselves. Such a self-nomination system, then, rewards those for whom pride comes easily.
Removing self-nominations altogether is likely not a perfect solution. However, in areas where self-nominations are used to confer special honors, expanding the means for collecting nominations to include nominations submitted by others may help to elevate the work of women who might otherwise be reticent to put themselves forward for recognition. In fact, women may even be inclined to nominate other women who would otherwise not self-nominate.
Let Women Lead
My final suggestion for Christian universities is somewhat more nebulous but is, perhaps, the most important. Both breathtakingly simple to articulate and painfully hard to achieve, it is this: let women lead. I have been in many settings where women have undoubtedly been welcomed as guests at the table. Their presence is praised, and perhaps their contributions are even valued.
However, as Rebecca Hernandez rightly points out, this “host-guest” model of inclusion does not always feel inclusive to the guests. Rather, this model of “welcoming” allows hosts to “engage hospitality on [their] own terms.”4
Such “hospitality” appears in several well-meaning invitations: to serve on committees where they can share their views, to offer an opening prayer at public events, and to contribute to an edited volume. However, in each case of such hospitality, one might ask who is playing host. Who is chairing the committee? Who is delivering the keynote address at the public event? Who is the primary editor whose name will appear on the book’s cover? I do not mean to denigrate such invitations but to point out that as long as women are made to be “guests” rather than placed in positions to be “hosts,” such inclusion can ring hollow.
When women are given the authority to be hosts in their own right, this can contribute to larger campus environments in which imposter syndrome no longer finds fertile ground and in which other systemic barriers to flourishing can also be eliminated. When women see individuals like themselves serving as committee chairs, keynote speakers, and honored scholars, it may no longer feel like as much of stretch for some women to recognize their own talents.
In sum, Christian universities are well-positioned to lead the way in abolishing environments that contribute to imposter syndrome. By drawing on a rich theological heritage that can speak to systemic conditions, Christian universities are equipped to exorcise the demons of patriarchy that too often hold women back from fully thriving. My prayer is that these institutions would become leaders in this space and begin to take the practical steps necessary to combat the cultural factors that contribute to imposter syndrome.
Footnotes
- Holly M. Hutchins, “Outing the Imposter: A Study Exploring Imposter Phenomenon among Higher Education Faculty, New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development 27, no. 2 (2015): 3-12; Holly M. Hutchins and Hilary Rainbolt, “What Triggers Imposter Phenomenon among Academic Faculty? A Critical Incident Study Exploring Antecedents, Coping, and Development Opportunities,” Human Resource Development International 20, no. 3 (2016): 194-214.
- Richard G. Gardner, Jeffrey S. Bednar, Bryan W. Stewart, James B. Oldroyd, & Joseph Moore, “‘I Must Have Slipped through the Cracks Somehow’: An Examination of Coping with Perceived Impostorism and the Role of Social Support,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (December 2019): 1-17; Alexandra Patzak, Marlene Kollmayer, and Barbara Schober, “Buffering Impostor Feelings with Kindness: The Mediating Role of Self-Compassion between Gender-Role Orientation and the Impostor Phenomenon,” Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017): 1-12.
- Laurie A. Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits of Counterstereotypical Impression Management,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, no. 3 (1998): 629–645.
- Rebecca Hernandez, “Beyond ‘Hospitality’: Moving Out of the Host-Guest Metaphor into an Intercultural ‘World House,’” in Thriving in Leadership: Strategies for Making a Difference in Christian Higher Education (ed. Karen A. Longman; Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2012), 227.
