By Sera-Leigh Ghouralal
According to an article posted by Forbes in July 2018, the American College Presidents Survey conducted in 2017, by the American Council on Education, reported that only 30% of college presidents in the United States were women. Of this 30%, only 5% were women of color. The article states that there has been an upward movement in these numbers, with an increase of 10% in 1986 to the 30% reported in 2017; but why did it take 31 years for a mere 20% increase in female leadership in higher education institutions? Even looking at overall faculty ranks, and not just president ranks, at US universities, women are highly underrepresented.
Madsen (2011) indicates that while women make up 50% of assistant professor positions across US universities, as that rank goes up, that number falls; women account for 38% of associate professors, and even less, 26% of full professors. When compared to the push for enrollment of more female students, there have been great strides. As Madsen (2011) points out, 57% of all college students are women, but on the other hand of that, only 26% are full professors, and at the time of her study, only 23% of presidents were women. Madsen (2011) highlights the earlier point made with regard to this snail’s pace of increase in female representation, stating that there have been no significant further increases in the past 10 years. Another point, that Madsen (2011) makes is that female faculty still make less than their male counterparts, reporting that women make 82% of what the male faculty make.
The statistics show that women are highly underrepresented in higher education leadership and even shows that the higher the rank, the worse is the female representation. The question that arises from these statistics is, why is this the case? Research has shown that one of the main reasons for this lack of female representation is that society, which includes both men and women, underestimate and undervalue the effectiveness and competence of a female leader, especially when compared to a male leader (Nakitende, 2019).
Mentorship plays an important role in helping employees advance their careers. Meschitti and Smith (2017) state that “…mentoring implies an exclusive relationship in which a more experienced person provides strategic advice to facilitate the professional and personal development of another, less experienced one” (p. 167). These researchers conducted an extensive literature review on mentoring in academia and what role mentoring plays in the advancement of women’s careers in academic settings. Meschitti and Smith (2017) denote that, in organizations, mentoring relationships often involve the roles of networking, power, and status. In most circumstances, those persons in the majority and with higher status, usually male employees, then benefit from developmental opportunities such as mentoring, while the minority and lower status female employees are marginalized and excluded from these opportunities (Meschitti and Smith, 2017).
BlackChen (2015) touches on the point of mentorship by stating that research shows that people tend to prefer a male leader, and as such, the “boys club” keeps growing, as men in leadership positions will often mentor younger men who enter their organizations, rather than women. Meschitti and Smith (2017) also contribute to this point by stating that the power of the white male network in many organizations’ leadership structures sets up informal opportunities for white male employees to develop their careers. Madsen (2008) points out that women in leadership positions have attributed a great amount of their success to having mentors in their development, but this is mentorship more difficult to attain because mentorship favors men and informal networks and social groups usually involve the male employers and employees.
Research has shown that women in leadership positions often experience difficulty in mentoring their subordinates, because of the struggle with work and family life balance, which will be further discussed as another factor (Brown, 2005). Without relatable female leaders for younger women to look up to, and be mentored by, the transition and path to leadership positions are often more difficult for women (BlackChen 2015). The catch-22 cycle of lack of empowerment and mentorship for women is the main factor seen in the research, as to the lower female representation in higher education leadership.
However, on the factor of mentorship, research also shows that because leadership is often a male-dominated experience, women can benefit from having male mentors, in order to navigate their careers towards leadership (Hill & Wheat, 2017). In Brown’s (2005) study, the female college presidents who were surveyed reported that they had mentors who supported them throughout all rank promotions and 68% of the female presidents had mentors who were male. Brown (2005) also suggests that women should seek out mentors, whether male or female, but this is often difficult as women tend to prefer to seek out female mentors (Dunbar & Kinnersley, 2011), and more often than not, there are not enough female leaders to offer mentorship. Nevertheless, one qualitative study conducted by Levine, Mechaber, Reddy, Cayea & Harrison (2013), where female medical students were interviewed, the students reported that if there was a useful and helpful relationship with their mentor, gender did not matter as much. However, the students also reported that they were more cautious about what they shared with their mentors when the mentors were male, compared to those who had female mentors.
Seeking out and having female mentorship is usually impactful on women becoming empowered to apply for and be prepared for leadership positions. Mitchell (2018) suggests that women mentoring each other can help to increase confidence and assist women on their path of career advancement by providing experiences and advice that is practical and relatable among women. Mitchell (2018) interviewed women in leadership positions, to understand if and how mentorship helped them to get to their positions and found that all the women reported that having another woman as a mentor, and leaning on that type of support network, was a key factor in their success. Additionally, the research suggested, as did Dunbar and Kinnersley (2011), that these mentorship relationships cannot be left to chance, but should be orchestrated by the organization, to foster supportive networks for women seeking leadership advancement (Mitchell, 2018).
Gender Bias in Leadership
Gender bias is one of the most challenging and consistent factors that women face when trying to advance their careers. Madsen and Andrade (2018) suggest that unconscious bias occurs in the workplace when it comes to women in leadership. They define unconscious bias, also known as implicit or second-generation gender bias, as “when a person consciously rejects gender stereotypes but still unconsciously makes evaluations based on stereotypes” (Madsen & Andrade, 2018, p.63).
Research shows that both men and women exhibit gender bias when hiring or advancing women, when compared to men who have the same qualifications, considering women less competent and not deserving of equal pay as men (Linkova, 2017). Linkova (2017) argues that gender has long been a deciding factor within organizations when it comes to hiring and promoting leaders, as men are typically considered to have more leadership qualities and capabilities than women. Some of the reasoning behind this gender bias culture that exists in organizations is based on the patriarchal and societal perspectives that leadership requires hostile, competitive personalities, little emotional and longer work hours – all factors that women are not associated with.
Kossek, Su and Wu (2017) indicate that the path to leadership for women is often riddled with gender bias, making it more stressful and difficult, than the path men have to take. The researchers used the term “glass cliff”, originally developed by Ryan and Haslam (2005), to indicate that women often face greater challenges in accessing leadership positions, because women are often offered leadership positions that are less desirable and more stressful; using the example of Mary Barra who became the first female leader of General Motors, but only when the compared declared bankruptcy. Furthermore, women are often paid less for the same jobs and are offered promotions less frequently than men, making their advancement to a leadership position a more stressful experience. Because of this, Kossek, Su and Wu (2017) argue that women have less career longevity and satisfaction.
In hiring women for leadership positions, bias often leads to considering women as a last resort. As mentioned before, the concept of the glass cliff is another factor that women face on the path to leadership; research has shown that across many corporate industries, women are mostly considered for leadership roles when there is a precarious situation for the organization. In their study based on industrial firms in the United Kingdom, Mulcahy and Linehan (2014) found that gender diversity in leadership appointments (where women are considered more), increased when the “loss” the firm suffers is considered to be a “big loss,” when compared to a smaller loss.
Similar findings are seen in the study conducted by Elsaid and Ursel (2018), who found support for their hypotheses that women are appointed as CEOs when the organization is facing a precarious situation. The researchers also found that female CEOs in these positions stay in their positions longer than male CEOs in the same positions, which they argue is in part due to the company’s avoidance of negative publicity that would result from terminating a female CEO (Elsaid & Ursel, 2018).
Although women are typically more likely to avoid risk or risky circumstances, research shows that women have been found to accept such precarious leadership positions, as promotion into leadership positions are often few and far between for them (Darouei & Pluut, 2018). Furthermore, the glass cliff concept links to overall gender bias, of women being considered for jobs that typically considered feminine, and as such fall into gender-stereotyped organizations. Smith (2015) states that women hold leadership positions in certain areas such as education, health, and human services, childcare and women’s rights organizations. Due to the emotional labor that women provide, they are more likely to access leadership positions in these organizations, when compared to manufacturing organizations and other male stereotyped companies. Even so, in male stereotyped organizations, women who are in leadership positions are often in human resource roles, “dealing with employees and their emotions” (Smith, 2015).
One study, done in Sweden, highlights the glass cliff in higher education, as researchers found that women had greater access to leadership positions in higher education because it was being considered as administrative, low-status jobs, that were less associated with the need for male leaders (Peterson, 2015). Furthermore, the research showed that the attractiveness of the leadership positions in higher education was diminishing, as it hindered the opportunity to also have a successful scholarly career, and as such it was not as appealing to male employees and left for female employees to pick up (Peterson, 2015).
While this is not case in the United States, and higher education leadership is still patriarchal, this study highlights the fact that women in leadership is still not normal practice, and women are being used to fill less-desirable positions.
Work-Family Life Balance
Additionally, women face gendered stereotypes of being the caretaker of the family, responsible for raising and caring for children, and as a result, are also often seen as the caregiver and more emotional; qualities that have not traditionally been associated with leadership. BlackChen (2015) states that female faculty are considered to be more family-oriented and when time is taken for maternity leave or any other family-related events, women are usually not offered leadership positions because of these “interruptions.” On the flip side of this, many female faculty have reported neglecting their desire to have a family, for fear of compromising their professional positions and missing out on leadership opportunities (BlackChen, 2015).
Linkova (2017) analyzed some of the existing research on leadership in research organizations in the natural sciences field. She found that lab leaders and research managers thought that the researchers in their organizations, who were mothers, were “unavoidably able to commit fully to science because they must dedicate themselves to children” (Linkova, 2017, p.54). From Linkova’s (2017) analysis of the responses, it was also suggested that motherhood was seen as the most important barrier facing women’s advancement in science and that women lost time in their professional lives when they become a mother.
Research shows that gender stereotypes, with regard to marriage and family, affect women’s choices to apply for leadership roles, and inevitably, decisions made by hiring committees. In higher education, family and professional conflicts are common, and research has shown that when compared to married men, fewer married women achieve higher academic rank, most female university faculty remain childless and men are more successful at having an academic career and being a parent, than women are (Watkins, Herrin & McDonald, 1998).
This is seen in the research done by Shollen, Bland, Finstand, and Taylor (2009), who compared the family situations and perceptions of organizational climate between male and female faculty at the University of Minnesota Medical School. From their survey, of which they had a 57% response rate, the researchers found that women were less likely to be married or have partners, or were more likely to have partners who were employed, and also women faculty spent more time on household tasks than men faculty. Furthermore, their research showed that women faced more challenges in obtaining career success, were under greater pressure to prove their legitimacy in their roles, than the male faculty, and felt that there was a bias against women, when it came to promotion, salary and graduate student assignments (Shollen, Bland, Finstand & Taylor, 2009).
Expectation States Theory
Gender is considered to be a socially constructed system that constitutes that males and females are socially different. As such, people have learned cultural and social rules that constitute gender stereotypes and have derived ways to implement these differences and create inequality between males and females (Ridgeway, 2001). Expectation States Theory can be used to understand how gender can play such a significant role in biases that women face in their quest for leadership. Expectation States Theory seeks to explain why hierarchy exists in groups. The theory suggests that individuals use the criteria of skill, intelligence, and experience, as well as other factors such as gender, age or race, to rate superiority or competence within groups (Berger & Conner, 1969).
Ridgeway (2001) states that “Expectation States Theory argues that gender is deeply entwined with social hierarchy and leadership because the rules for the gender system that are encoded in gender stereotypes contain status beliefs at their core” (p.673). Status beliefs are shared perspectives about the social status of people based on factors such as race, gender, education or occupation. Correll and Ridgeway (2003), define status beliefs as “social representations that consensually evaluate one category as more status worthy and competent than another” (p.32).
As one of these status beliefs, gender is used to frame behavior and interactions among people in groups, especially within organizations (Ridgeway, 2007). Research done in Expectation States theory has shown that social hierarchies, based on status beliefs, often influence leadership decisions and choices, and often in the workplace, it is used to direct rewards or promotions to certain groups, deemed of higher status (Ridgeway, 2001). The theory suggests that when people come together to work on a collective goal, which is often seen in organizations, they begin to evaluate and judge each other in expected performance, based on criteria, and then judge their own competence as a comparison to these perceived criteria.
Ridgeway (2001) argues that sex categorization can quickly come into play when people make performance expectations, and along with sex categorization, comes socially constructed gender stereotypes. However, the influence of gender on performance varies, based on other attributes such as title, skill, and credentials, specifically in organizations. Therefore, gender influences judgments and expectations as a background identity, which can be linked to the idea of unconscious or implicit gender bias previously discussed. As such, gender creates these implicit performance expectations for men and women, and influence the confidence, abilities, and evaluations that the rest of the group attributes to them. Based on the stereotypes of gender, men then emerge as being confident, having the ability to speak up and make decisions and be more assertive, when compared to women, and as such, women do not emerge as leaders.
Research has shown that gender does not play a significant role in an individual’s ability to lead (Seo, Huang & Han, 2017), but rather gender is used to create hierarchies in leadership attainment and status, based on socially constructed status systems. In relation to this, gender is a diffuse status characteristic, which implies general expectations of higher competence. This means that men are expected to be more competent at tasks and are often looked to for leadership qualities (Auspurg, Hinz & Sauer, 2017). This competence is at the core of how Expectation States theory can be used to understand why women are typically not seen in leadership roles in higher education. In the workplace, the expectation for men to perform better than women lead to women having harsher evaluations, and results in men having more opportunities for advancement and better evaluations, in comparison (Seo, Huang & Han, 2017).
The ongoing idea of status is one of the most defining obstacles that women face in attaining leadership positions. The idea that women, who are considered of lower status, behave according to this assigned status, perpetuate the bias against women, as their successful performances are attributed to luck, rather than ability. Men, however, benefitting from the idea of advanced status, are seen to be successful because of their competence and ability and as such, receive greater support and evaluations, and are more considered for leadership positions. Women are then often discouraged from this ongoing lack of support and advancement, and lose confidence and motivation, and often accept these stereotypes as true (Seo, Huang & Han, 2017).
Women are often overlooked for leadership positions, especially male-dominated organizations, where leadership is traditionally patriarchal, as is the case with higher education executive positions. Women are seen as less competent, lacking the right personality and overall of less status for the position than men. This concept is even further exacerbated when a woman adds the title of “mother” to her role. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) suggest that women face even tougher disadvantages in their organizations when they are known to be mothers. The researchers argue that there is even lesser social status placed on women who are tasked with being a mother, when compared to women who are not mothers (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004).
Again, reiterating the concept of categorical distinctions in society that are associated with competence and worthiness, Ridgeway and Correll (2004) use Expectation States theory to understand the distinction of the category of “mother” in the workplace. The researchers suggest that motherhood in itself can be a worse status characteristic in the workplace than gender alone. The bias, in the workplace, against women who are mothers will be seen in using this status to evaluate work performance and suitability for a leadership position, regardless of the individual’s qualifications and capabilities, and more so than the bias put forth by gender alone (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). With regard to the status of “caregiver” associated with a mother, but combined with gender, the implications are different for men. Men in the workplace who are deemed as a parent or caregiver will suffer the categorization into that lower status, but will not suffer the expectation of lower performance in the workplace, because of the already higher existing status of the male gender (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
Expectation States theory is a useful concept to apply in the understanding of how gender stereotypes, created through status characteristic beliefs, can perpetuate bias against women in the workplace. The idea that status beliefs of competence and task performance, based on being male or female, can influence decisions for hiring women into leadership positions, is an issue that more and more organizations are trying to combat. However, even though there are ongoing measures to keep discrimination at a minimum, most of these measures are only seen in written policy, but not actually practiced, and as such, implicit gender bias exists across many organizations in higher education leadership hiring, as some sort of indirect way to maintain an old boys club and continue the patriarchy of leadership in higher education.
Social Identity Theory
Tajfel (1972) defined social identity as “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (p.292). Furthermore, Tajfel (1972) suggests that social identity is part of a social categorizing system that individuals use to define themselves within and among social groups. Social Identity Theory proposes that an individual forges their identity based on groups in society that they perceive a belonging to (Tajfel, 1972).
Additionally, social identity is self-evaluated and often stems from criteria in groups that an individual uses to identify his or herself, for example, as a woman, mother, doctor, researcher (Hogg, 2001). This social categorization that social identity creates, divides society into groups, which people consider either belonging to (ingroups) or not belonging to (outgroups). Stryker and Burke (2000) argue that identities are internalized role expectations that people adopt to be able to meet and manage the expectations that social groups, and positions within such groups, demand. Based on this, individuals strive for positive identification within their ingroups and in comparison, to other groups. Within groups, there are specific and defined behaviors, attitudes and feelings, that differentiate it from another group, and persons within the group are no longer seen as unique individuals, but rather as a representation of the group itself (Hogg, 2001).
Following this, is the idea of salience. Merolla, Serpe, and Stryker (2012) talk about identity salience in relation to identity theory. They state that individuals have multiple identities based on different groups and social aspects in their lives, including skills, abilities, and intellect. The researchers suggest that people order these identities based on hierarchal importance. The researchers then define identity salience as “the relative positioning of particular identity in this identity hierarchy” (Merolla, Serpe & Stryker, 2012, p.151). Research has suggested that this concept is in part due to the concept of self-esteem and reduction in uncertainty of the situation (Hogg, 2001). Furthermore, Stryker and Burke (2000) suggest that within identity theory, there is the concept of commitment, which refers to the “degree to which persons’ relationships to others in their networks depend on possessing a particular identity and role” (p.286).
Hogg (2001) suggests that the processes of social identity can influence leadership, in that the identity of ‘leader’ comes with the concept of power, behaviors, and attitudes that can shape large social groups, and influence or discourage many other’s identities belonging within certain groups. Hogg, van Knippenberg and Rast (2012) suggest that leaders in a group tend to be more prototypical of that group, and as such are perceived as more effective and better equipped to become leaders. Hogg et al. (2005) argue that the stronger people’s beliefs are in a particular group, and the more salient people’s identity is with that particular group, then factors such as perceived effectiveness and endorsement of leadership will be more influenced by a very prototypical leader. In other words, the more a leader fits the “criteria” of that group, the more people will be influenced by him or her.
Based on these concepts, social identity can be applied to the gender bias that exists in leadership in higher education and other organizations. With specific regard to mentorship, and to work-family balance, Social Identity theory can be used to understand why some groups are better mentored than others, and why women are perceived to be struggling to achieve work-life balance, and also why women sometimes choose family over career advancement.
Certain groups are more dominant in US society, for example, white middle to upper-class males, and as such within organizations, this group is perceived as being the domineering group to lead. Social Identity theory suggests that groups are more welcoming to members whose identity best fits the prototype of the group. Many leaders in organizations, who are typically white male will mentor younger white male members, who they perceive as belonging to their salient identity group.
Tran (2016) suggests that mentoring has two branches that organizations believe are quite effective in training and career development. These branches include the transferring of skills, behaviors, and knowledge to up and coming proteges, as well as, the social and emotional skills of interaction and communication that it takes to be a great leader. Informing an ideal mentor relationship, Tran (2016) states that effortless, informal mentor pairing is usually more successful, as both persons involved in the relationship have common ground, and a shared set of assumptions and interests, that allows the relationship to naturally occur.
In organizations, the concept of social identity and group belonging enforces existing gender roles, and this bleeds into the mentoring relationships developed. Women are then often disadvantaged, as assumptions and expectations regarding gender are used in part to determine mentor relationships. Relating back to the desire to reduce uncertainty and anxiety, people then align to what is most familiar to their identity, and as such, male mentors tend to gravitate toward mentoring male employees. Because there is a considerable lack of female leaders, female employees are often left without much choice but to have a male mentor or no mentor at all, thus further stifling their advancement to leadership. Additionally, when relying on gender as the salient identity in a mentor relationship, men who are mentored by women are often off-put by “being told what to do” by a woman, as traditional stereotypes do not demonstrate women as assertive leaders (Tran, 2016).
According to research, women often also grapple with societal gender stereotypes that result in identity conflict. As previously discussed, people have multiple identities, and certain identities are salient depending on their social situation. Women sometimes have a conflict with the identity of the leader and the identity of woman, as stereotypes have insisted that women do not have leadership qualities or behaviors (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014). In fact, the stereotypes that are most associated with women are nurturing, caring, emotional and selfless, while leaders are expected to have agentic qualities such as assertiveness, decision making, and competitiveness. These agentic qualities are typically associated with men; however, women in leadership positions have to display some of these qualities, which are not associated with the social identity of “woman” (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014).
One of the identities that most women will adopt is that of a mother, and there are a number of stereotypes, linked to gender that goes along with identity, that often makes it difficult for women to continue in their career. Laney, Hall, Anderson, and Willingham (2015) state that motherhood has a significant impact on a woman’s identity and the need to reevaluate and modify their identity. Additionally, the identity hierarchy becomes a major factor in motherhood, as women often see being a mother as their salient identity. This is further complicated when mothers are also employees in an organization and are seeking advancement in their careers. Research shows that women are seen as less competent and committed to their jobs after becoming mothers. Societal traditional gender roles dictate that women are expected to be the primary caregivers to their children, and this should be their main priority, and by extension, their salient identity (Hennekam, Syed, Ali & Dumazert, 2019).
The path to career leadership for women who are mothers is plagued with an identity crisis and the extra pressure to prove themselves in their organizations. In having a salient work/leader identity, women are expected to perform as though they do not have children, and some women think that this can be too challenging and that their motherhood identity takes precedence. Mirick and Wladkowski (2018) state that these women experience even more identity conflict, among their identities of student, woman, mother, and employee. These women have to maneuver these identities and fulfill these roles successfully, as expected by society.
In a study conducted by Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2016), where women in academia who were in positions to apply for leadership advancement were interviewed, the overall findings showed that those women were not motivated to do so. The researchers found that women chose to have a healthier work-life balance, and not putting their work identity as salient, as such believed that striving to advance in their career was not worth the investment it would require (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2016). Many of the women felt that going up for leadership positions was a political process within their organization that was based on gender biases.
Young and Wright’s (2001) qualitative study, in which academic mothers were interviewed (N=22), it was reported that the women felt overwhelmed and exhausted. These women, however, did not feel comfortable speaking up about their challenges, because mothers or mothers too often hide this part of their identity in the workplace, for fear of stigma or discrimination. Similarly, Wilton and Ross (2017), in their qualitative study, interviewing faculty members who were also parents (N=21), found that even though both the male and female faculty reported difficulty in managing a balance between work and family, the female faculty reported feeling more stressed and more pressure than the male faculty.
These beliefs and struggles with identity salience are also seen among female doctoral students, who are contemplating academic and research careers. In their qualitative study which surveyed over 4000 doctoral students, Golde and Dore (2001) found that nearly 1/3 of the students had less interest in academic careers because of their concern in maintaining a work-life-family balance. Mirick and Wladkowski’s (2018) qualitative study sample included female doctoral students and already earned female doctorates, who experienced pregnancy during their doctoral program. The researchers interviewed the participants to understand their experiences and perceptions of motherhood’s impact on their careers. Their findings included reports by the women that they had lost many opportunities such as teaching, professional development, and publications, due to their pregnancies during their doctoral program. The researchers state that doctoral students who are mothers are heavily underrepresented in tenure track positions in higher education. Furthermore, mothers who do make it to tenure track positions are usually at community colleges and less prestigious universities.
Most women who have made progress in leadership positions, in academic settings usually do so much later in their careers, when their children are grown (Hertnecky, 2010). Research also shows that women tend to choose typically feminine careers, that can allow for better childcaring and has fewer professional demands (Hoffnung, 2004). This pattern highlights the concept that women in academia put their motherhood identity first, as the most salient identity, and “sacrifice” their leadership or work identity (Bagger, Li & Gutek, 2008). On the other hand, when women choose to put off childbearing and marriage to further their careers, they are making their work identity salient, but much to the implicit disapproval of society (Hoffnung, 2004).
As the literature shows, women face many obstacles on their path toward obtaining leadership positions, especially in male-dominated career fields such as academia and higher education. Facing societal stereotypes of gender roles, that create gender bias in the workplace can be one of the main obstacles that women face when trying to advance their careers.
Coupled with this, is the idea that a woman’s role, status, and identity in society should be that of nurturer and caregiver, taking care of children and the family, and as such women struggle with their identity salience when having to decide between mother or leader. Society has been set up in a way that is not accepting of two salient identities such as these, and women often find themselves in the conflict of being a mother and wanting to be a leader in their organizations.
Auspurg, K., Hinz, T. and Sauer, C. (2017). Why Should Women Get Less? Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap from Multifactorial Survey Experiments. American Sociological Review, 82(1), pp.179-210.BlackChen, M. (2015). To Lead or Not to Lead: Women Achieving Leadership Status in Higher Education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 153-159.
Bagger, J., Li, A., & Gutek, B. (2008). How much do you value your family and does it matter? The joint effects of family identity salience, family-interference-with-work, and gender. Human Relations, 61(2), 187-211. doi: 10.1177/0018726707087784
Berger, J. and Conner, T. (1969). Performance Expectations and Behavior in Small Groups. Acta Sociologica, 12(4), pp.186-198.
Brown, T. (2005). Mentorship and the Female College President. Sex Roles, 52(9-10), 659-666. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3733-7
Correll, S. J., Ridgeway, C. L. (2003) Expectations States Theory. Theory in J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 29-51). Springer Press
Darouei, M., & Pluut, H. (2018). The paradox of being on the glass cliff: why do women accept risky leadership positions? Career Development International, 23(4), 397-426. doi: 10.1108/cdi-01-2018-0024
Dunbar, D., & Kinnersley, R. (2011). Mentoring female administrators toward leadership success. Delta Kappa Bulletin, 77(3), 17-24.
Elsaid, E., & Ursel, N. (2017). Re-examining the Glass Cliff Hypothesis using Survival Analysis: The Case of Female CEO Tenure. British Journal Of Management, 29(1), 156-170. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12241
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education (www.phd-survey.org). Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts
Hennekam, S., Syed, J., Ali, F., & Dumazert, J. (2019). A multilevel perspective of the identity transition to motherhood. Gender, Work & Organization. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12334
Hertnecky, R. (2010). The Role of Balance in Women’s Leadership Self-Identity. Advancing Women In Leadership Journal, 30(14).
Hill, L., & Wheat, C. (2017). The Influence of Mentorship and Role Models on University Women Leaders’ Career Paths to University Presidency. The Qualitative Report, 22(8), 2090-2111.
Hoffnung, M. (2004). Wanting It All: Career, Marriage, and Motherhood During College-Educated Women’s 20s. Sex Roles, 50(9/10), 711-723. doi: 10.1023/b:sers.0000027572.57049.ff
Hogg, M. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1
Hogg, M., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-Member Exchange Theory From the Perspective of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 991-1004. doi: 10.1177/0146167204273098
Hogg, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review Of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258-304. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
Karelaia, N., & Guillén, L. (2014). Me, a woman and a leader: Positive social identity and identity conflict. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 125(2), 204-219. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.08.002
Kossek, E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2016). “Opting Out” or “Pushed Out”? Integrating Perspectives on Women’s Career Equality for Gender Inclusion and Interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1), 228-254. doi: 10.1177/0149206316671582
Laney, E., Hall, M., Anderson, T., & Willingham, M. (2015). Becoming a Mother: The Influence of Motherhood on Women’s Identity Development. Identity, 15(2), 126-145. doi: 10.1080/15283488.2015.1023440
Levine, R., Mechaber, H., Reddy, S., Cayea, D., & Harrison, R. (2013). “A Good Career Choice for Women”. Academic Medicine, 88(4), 527-534. doi: 10.1097/acm.0b013e31828578bb
Linková, M. (2017). Academic Excellence and Gender Bias in the Practices and Perceptions of Scientists in Leadership and Decision-making Positions. Gender A Výzkum / Gender and Research, 18(1), 42-66. doi: 10.13060/25706578.2017.18.1.349
Madsen, S. (2008). On becoming a woman leader. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Madsen, S. (2012). Women and Leadership in Higher Education. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 131-139. doi: 10.1177/1523422311436299
Madsen, S., & Andrade, M. (2018). Unconscious Gender Bias: Implications for Women’s Leadership Development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 62-67. doi: 10.1002/jls.21566
Merolla, D., Serpe, R., Stryker, S., & Schultz, P. (2012). Structural Precursors to Identity Processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(2), 149-172. doi: 10.1177/0190272511436352
Meschitti, V., & Smith, H. (2017). DOES MENTORING MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR WOMEN ACADEMICS? EVIDENCE FROM THE LITERATURE AND A GUIDE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. Journal Of Research In Gender Studies, 7(1), 166-199. doi: 10.22381/jrgs7120176
Mirick, R., & Wladkowski, S. (2018). Pregnancy, Motherhood, and Academic Career Goals. Affilia, 33(2), 253-269. doi: 10.1177/0886109917753835
Mitchell, A. (2018). Woman-to-woman mentorship: Exploring the components of effective mentoring relationships to promote and increase women’s representation in top leadership roles. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 79(9).
Moody, J. (2018). Where Are All the Female College Presidents? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshmoody/2018/07/05/where-are-all-the-female-college-presidents/#955fd5b4ae2e
Mulcahy, M., & Linehan, C. (2013). Females and Precarious Board Positions: Further Evidence of the Glass Cliff. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 425-438. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12046
Nakitende, M. (2019). Motivation and perseverance of women in education leadership in the United States of America. Journal of Science & Sustainable Develo, 6(2), 75-101. doi: 10.4314/jssd.v6i2.5
Ng, T., & Feldman, D. (2008). Long work hours: a social identity perspective on meta-analysis data. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 853-880. doi: 10.1002/job.536
Peterson, H. (2015). Is managing academics “women’s work”? Exploring the glass cliff in higher education management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 112-127. doi: 10.1177/1741143214563897
Ridgeway, C. (2001). Gender, Status, and Leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), pp.637-655.
Ridgeway, C. and Correll, S. (2004). Motherhood as a Status Characteristic. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), pp.683-700.
Ridgeway, C. (2007). Framed Before We Know It. Gender & Society, 23(2), pp.145-160.
Seo, G., Huang, W. and Han, S. (2017). Conceptual Review of Underrepresentation of Women in Senior Leadership Positions from a Perspective of Gendered Social Status in the Workplace. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), pp.35-59.
Smith, A. (2015). ON THE EDGE OF A GLASS CLIFF: WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 484-517.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. (2000). The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284. doi: 10.2307/2695840
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale.’ In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.
Tran, B. (2016). Gendered Social-Networking Organizations. International Journal Of Organizational And Collective Intelligence, 6(2), 26-49. doi: 10.4018/ijoci.2016040103
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2016). Academic Motherhood: Mid-Career Perspectives and the Ideal Worker Norm. New Directions For Higher Education, 2016(176), 11-23. doi: 10.1002/he.20206
Wilton, S., & Ross, L. (2017). Flexibility, sacrifice, and insecurity: A Canadian study assessing the challenges of balancing work and family in academia. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 29, 1–2, 66–87.doi:10.1080/09852833.2016.1272663
Young, D. S., & Wright, E. M. (2001). Mothers making tenure. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 555–568