With very few exceptions worldwide, scholars have observed that patriarchal systems have influenced – and continue to influence – issues of access and equity in all spheres of life, including the workplace environment. Three decades ago, for example, Miller (1986) described societal problems rooted in perceptions of domination and subordination that are often gender‐related, noting: “At the level of humanity in general, we have seen massive problems around a great variety of differences. But the most basic difference is the one between women and men … in most instances of difference there is also a factor of inequality … fundamentally of status and power” (p. 3). More recently, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's (2014) book A Call for Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power summarized his reflections on the problems facing the world, having visited 145 countries. Identifying what he termed “the most serious and unaddressed worldwide challenge” (p. 3), President Carter described marginalization, injustice, and violence against women, often rooted in misinterpretations of the world's religions to represent maleness as being superior to femaleness.

In fact, the historic and cultural foundation of power or supremacy being legitimately the domain of men permeates all areas of life in all corners of the world. While cultural assumptions can be difficult to measure, the outworking of those assumptions is illustrated in the data emerging from the World Economic Forum's (2017) Gender Gap Index research. Since 2006, the Gender Gap Index has tracked the progress toward reaching gender parity across 144 countries within four categories: health outcomes, educational attainment, economic participation, and political empowerment. The categories are interconnected and build on one another, with health and education being foundational to a citizenry that contributes economically and engages politically. According to the 2017 report:

On current trends, the overall global gender gap can be closed in exactly 100 years across the 106 countries covered since the inception of the Report, compared to 83 years last year. The most challenging gender gaps remain in the economic and health spheres. Given the continued widening of the economic gender gap, it will now not be closed for another 217 years …. While all world regions record a narrower gender gap than they did 11 years ago, more efforts will continue to be needed to accelerate progress. At the current rate of progress, the overall global gender gap can be closed in 61 years in Western Europe, 62 years in South Asia, 79 years in Latin America and the Caribbean, 102 years in Sub‐Saharan Africa, 128 years in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 157 years in the Middle East and North Africa, [and] 161 years in East Asia and the Pacific

(World Economic Forum 2017, p. vii, emphasis added)

The 2017 report, building upon 11 years of data collection, demonstrates the need for ongoing efforts in working to achieve gender parity, particularly given that education is recognized as a key driver of economic growth (Carnevale et al. 2010; Williams 2013; World Economic Forum 2017). Yet even as educational access and attainment increase globally for girls and women, the cultural assumptions underlying inequities persist and impact the rate of the change. While several smaller Western European countries continue to rank at the top in terms of having the smallest gender gap, with three Nordic countries occupying the top three positions, the United States lags behind. Williams (2013) has pointed out that the inequalities that persist in the United States are particularly troubling given that the country has been cited as “one of the most diverse developed countries in the world” (p. 2) and is a nation that has “enshrined in its Constitution principles that uphold the value, legitimacy, and equity of ethnic and racially diverse people and women” (p. 2). The disconnect in the United States between stated values and current realities provides insight into the power of cultural norms and assumptions. Such disconnections may also be instructive as we examine the male‐normed structures of higher education throughout this chapter.

Given the need to work toward gender equity both nationally and internationally in terms of accessing and achieving educational opportunities, this chapter highlights the importance of developing and supporting diverse leadership in order to accelerate and sustain such change. Although numerous references throughout the chapter are made to international trends related to higher education, the context of the co‐authors is the United States, a country where it might be expected that issues of access and equity would have long since been addressed. Yet women who aspire to senior‐level leadership continue to find their professional journeys hindered by a variety of internal, organizational, and broader cultural barriers, as described in the pages that follow. Within the U.S. higher education context specifically, the underrepresentation of women in senior‐level leadership roles is particularly confounding given four specific factors that seem to signal progress in this area:

1. Reflecting a trend that has been escalating since the 1980s, the majority of degrees awarded in the United States – from associate degrees through doctorates – are now being earned by women (Johnson 2016).
2. Literally hundreds of leadership development programs, many of which target women and ethnic‐minority individuals, are available at the institutional, regional, and national level (Madsen et al. 2012; Teague and Bobby 2014; Kassotakis 2017).
3. The collaborative and empowering leadership style more typical of women has increasingly been recognized as valued (Eagly and Johannesen‐Schmidt 2001; Eagly and Carli 2007; Gerzema and D'Antonio 2013) and effective in higher education settings (Kezar 2014).
4. In a survey by the American Council on Education (ACE), the vast majority (89%) of 1,546 presidents, chancellors, and CEOs at public, private not‐for‐profit, and private for‐profit institutions affirmed the importance of “[undertaking] efforts to eliminate gender bias” (Gagliardi et al. 2017, p. ix).

These factors, along with the reportedly slow progress in the United States toward gender equity (World Economic Forum 2017), indicate the presence of strong cultural assumptions that perpetuate and support gender‐based power differences.

In addition to an expansive body of scholarly literature that is addressed throughout this volume, several books authored for the general reading public have heightened awareness of these gender‐based power differences, exploring cultural assumptions that impact leadership formation and practice. For example, Sandberg's (2013) best‐seller Lean In urges women to more be more courageous and proactive regarding their career advancement. Sandberg's advocacy has received wide support, including the creation of a worldwide movement involving 34 000 “Lean In Circles” spanning 150 countries; the Lean In Circles website (https://leanin.org/circles) indicates that 85% of these participants credit their circle with having contributed to a positive change in their life. Yet Sandberg's work has been criticized from various angles, in part for blaming the victim rather than addressing the perpetuation of hierarchical systems (hooks 2013; Wittenberg‐Cox 2013). Following the book's release, for example, a notable feminist scholar, hooks (2013), critiqued Sandberg for not addressing the underlying cultural assumptions that are central to feminist theory, noting that:

From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. And she makes it seem that privileged white men will eagerly choose to extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to white women who have the courage to “lean in.” It almost seems as if Sandberg sees women's lack of perseverance as more the problem than systemic inequality.

(hooks 2013, para 4)

While Sandberg's book may not have addressed the layers of systemic inequality, her work did prompt a global conversation about the realities many women experience in the workplace.

Similarly, Kay and Shipman's (2014) The Confidence Code emphasizes that although women typically bring great competence to the workplace, they often lack the confidence that conveys leadership capacity, thus hindering their advancement into broader levels of leadership. In contrast, the authors observe that men typically assert great confidence in their ability to handle challenging tasks, regardless of their actual competence to do so. Yet another recent publication that captured the public's attention is Cuddy's (2015) Presence: Bringing Your Boldest Self to your Biggest Challenges, which has relevance to how women represent themselves in workplace settings. Cuddy's research into the influence of body language on others and ourselves has been featured in the second most‐popular TED talk in history, with over 13 million views. Though all three books have been critiqued for a variety of reasons, their popularity with the reading public demonstrates the broad interest in exploring gender‐based leadership challenges and reveals important cultural assumptions that impact women's leadership.

In seeking deeper understanding of the dynamics related to gender and leadership, the list of scholars who have examined the challenges and barriers faced by women aspiring to or advancing into leadership across various sectors is lengthy. A helpful starting point is Diehl and Dzubinski's (2016) synthesis of 27 types of barriers that impact women vis‐à‐vis leadership, clustered according to the level at which they generally operate most strongly: macro (societal), meso (organizational), and micro (individual). At the macro level, for example, identified barriers include gender stereotypes, cultural constraints on women's own choices, and leadership perceptions. At the meso level, examples include a lack of mentoring, male gatekeeping, and tokenism. At the micro level, barriers include communication‐style constraints, the psychological glass ceiling, and work–life conflict.

Utilizing the structure provided by Diehl and Dzubinski (2016), the sections that follow present several of the macro‐, miso‐, and micro‐barriers related to women and leadership. Recognizing and constructively addressing such barriers can have powerful implications for encouraging and sustaining women's leadership in higher education settings around the world. To provide foundational understanding regarding how and why gender disparities continue to shape the workplace environment, we also examine various theories that contribute to these barriers. It should be noted that although the majority of the theories were developed within the U.S. context, their applicability in other cultural settings has been supported by research (e.g. Broughton and Miller 2009), given the global predominance of male‐supremacy cultural assumptions.

In addition to examining the broader cultural implications that influence women's leadership aspirations and advancement, research specific to the context of higher education will help us identify an additional layer of barriers that women leaders must navigate (Boatwright and Egidio 2003; Seierstad and Healy 2012; Kellerman and Rhode 2014; Keohane 2014; Gangone 2016; Aiston and Yang 2017). We conclude the chapter with a discussion of the self‐imposed micro‐barriers at the internal/individual level that limit women's leadership opportunities, with recommendations for policy‐related work. Each layer contributes to understanding how current culture and practices have hindered the advancement of women into senior‐level positional leadership within higher education.

Macro‐Level Barriers: Societal Gender Inequity

To understand how gender‐related issues reverberate and impact current postsecondary leadership, it is helpful to recognize the historical context, framing gender within the broader culture and connecting it to gendered patterns in organizations worldwide. In the introduction to de Beauvoir's (2009) ground‐breaking The Second Sex, first published in 1949, she articulated a compelling case regarding the cultural male supremacy that continues to this day. de Beauvoir described the state of woman: “She is determined and differentiated in relation to man, while he is not in relation to her; she is the inessential in front of the essential. He is the subject; he is the Absolute. She is the Other” (p. 6).

Shifting from the European perspective to that of the United States, Miller (1986) in A New Psychology of Women observed the price that is paid individually and societally when half the population is considered dominant and the other half subordinate. Miller described the common perceptions of women as having a different set of organizing principles “around which their psyches are structured. One of these principles is that they exist to serve other people's needs” (p. 62). As subordinates, Miller contented, women historically have been “encouraged to develop personal psychological characteristics that are pleasing to the dominant group” (p. 7) such as docility and dependency.

More recently, also from the U.S. context, Johnson (2001), in Privilege, Power, and Difference, identified the same historical pattern: “[M]en are the cultural standard for humanity; women are just women” (p. 99). Similarly, Collins (2009) described the notion of men superseding women as being “as old as Western civilization” (p. 4). According to Collins, this historic viewpoint was based on the understanding “that a woman's place was in the home, leaving men to run everything that went on outside the front door. Men provided and protected; women served and deferred” (p. 5). She traced this understanding back to Judeo‐Christian tradition, specifically a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Collins' text reviewed landmark moments in the feminist movement from colonial times to Hilary Clinton's first run for the presidency, tracing the impact of this underlying message of gender differences and the existence of a gender hierarchy embedded within U.S. culture.

While Collins (2009) focused on the assumptions that have influenced the development of the United States, similar assumptions about the appropriate roles for men and women have been evident across cultures. The research of Hofstede et al. (2010) on cultural standards documented the currency of these deeply embedded assumptions worldwide. Despite noting some cultural variations regarding what is deemed to be acceptable masculine or feminine behavior, these scholars observed:

there is a common trend among most societies, both traditional and modern, as to the distribution of social sex roles …. Men are supposed to be more concerned with achievements outside the home … [and] are supposed to be assertive, competitive, and tough. Women are supposed to be more concerned with taking care of the home, of the children, and of people in general – to take the tender roles.

(Hofstede et al. 2010, pp. 137–138)

Research conducted in a variety of cultural contexts bears out Hofstede et al.'s (2010) findings. In Western societies such as Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, assumptions regarding male superiority and female subordination prevail (White and Bagilhole 2012; Wallace and Wallin 2015; Burkinshaw and White 2017). Within most African countries and territories, women's roles have historically been confined to the familial (see, for example, Odhiambo 2011 regarding the Kenyan context and Nyoni et al. 2017 for the Tanzanian). The societal‐level culture of Papua New Guinea (McNae and Vali 2015) reflects a comparable gender narrative. And gender researchers of Chinese (Zhao and Jones 2017) and Vietnamese (ThiDo and Brennan 2015) cultures similarly observe congruence with a male‐dominated society.

The Gender Equality and Development Report (World Bank 2011) provides yet another analysis of broad gender disparity worldwide. This report highlights female mortality rates and “segregation in economic activity, gender gaps in earnings, male–female differences in responsibilities for house and care work, gaps in asset ownership, and constraints to women's agency in both the private and public spheres” (p. 13) as examples of pervasive global gender inequalities. Although women in these contexts are making progress with regard to educational attainment, women living in poverty continue to lag due to “remoteness, ethnicity, caste, race or disability” (p. 26), all of which have a clear impact on the macro‐leadership pipeline. Simply stated, if women are not represented in educational attainment, they cannot even begin to be represented in positions of leadership. Additionally, caretaking expectations that are deeply embedded in cultural norms continue to prevent many women from pursuing education, even when opportunities appear to exist. For example, a comparison of time spent on housework and childcare between men and women living in Pakistan, Cambodia, South Africa, Bulgaria, Sweden, and Italy concluded that women invest significantly more hours per day than men in each of these contexts. Similarly, studies support the existence of a second shift that impacts women's leadership across multiple sectors (Blair‐Loy et al. 2015).

In a review of the ongoing research stemming from Hochschild's (2003) seminal The Second Shift, Blair‐Loy et al. (2015) called for further studies to examine how changes in the workplace and within family structures impact role expectations. According to these scholars, reinterpreting The Second Shift for a new generation would require exploring the (i) experiences of LGBTQ family systems and low‐income families, (ii) the “flexibilazation” (p. 446) of workplaces, and (iii) changing the U.S. economy to include a greater number of self‐employed and contract‐based workers. Applying seminal paradigms such as the second shift to current realities could also help to inform future pathways toward greater gender equity. The tension between public and private spheres of women's lives crosses geographic boundaries, although both spheres are nuanced based on the macro‐cultural context (The World Bank 2011; Blair‐Loy et al. 2015).

Despite some variation across cultures, aspects of women's experiences thus appear to be universal and rooted in systemic male privilege (Johnson 2001). It is within this globally male‐normed context that institutions and systems of higher education function. Given the macro‐level barriers to women's leadership, the following section reviews explanatory theories for the limited and slow progress of women toward gender parity in education and in higher education leadership. More fully understanding the roots of macro‐level realities can provide helpful language and insights that can be applied to the dynamics and barriers experienced by women at the meso‐ and individual levels.

Meso‐Level Barriers: Higher Education and Women's Leadership

In response to concerns about the paucity of women leaders in the field of higher education in the United States, the American Council on Education in 2010 called together 26 presidents and higher education executives to launch an initiative titled “Moving the Needle: Developing a 21st Century Agenda for Women's Leadership” (Teague and Bobby 2014). Previous research reported in the 2009 White House Project Report indicated that women at that time held only approximately 18% of top leadership posts nationally across 10 economic sectors, including higher education (Gangone and Lennon 2014). As of 2010, within the academe, only 23% of CEOs, 38% of chief academic officers, and 36% of academic deans were women (Teague and Bobby 2014). The latest report issued by ACE (of eight since 1986) has updated the profile of those holding the senior‐most administrative post in the nation's colleges and universities as being 30.1% female, compared to 26.4% in 2011 (Gagliardi et al. 2017).

The underrepresentation of women in leadership across U.S. postsecondary institutions is paralleled around the globe. These patterns were documented in a comprehensive literature review by Gomez Cama et al. (2016), who reported that women made up 19.8% of full professors in Australia, 16.9% in New Zealand, and less than 20% within the European Union. This picture is troubling, given that the pathway to higher education leadership often begins with attaining full professor status. Similar statistics have been reported by Catalyst (2016), reflecting the ongoing disparity in women's leadership achievements within higher education:

• In Australia, women earned 44.7% of senior lecturer faculty positions and 31.7% of positions ranked higher than senior lecturer.
• In Canada, women represented 40.2% of all full‐time university teaching positions – an increase from 37.6% in 2010–2011.
• In the European Union in 2013, women earned 40.6% of academic positions; the higher the faculty rank, the greater the gap between men and women holding the role.
• In India, 25.8% of professors, 34.8% of associate professors, and 39.3% of lecturer/assistant professors were women.
• In Japan, gender parity was reached within junior college faculty ranks, but less than a quarter (23.7%) of full‐time university faculty were women.
• In the United States as of 2015, gender parity (48.9%) existed with tenure‐track positions, but only 38.4% of women had achieved tenure and women were overrepresented (at 57%) among instructors, the lowest faculty rank.

Thus, data reported by both Catalyst (2016) and Gomez Cama et al. (2016) demonstrate that women lag behind their male colleagues in achieving higher levels of faculty rank and status that would position them for academic leadership positions.

Kellerman and Rhode (2014) have observed the ineffectiveness of the primary strategy deployed over the past 30 years to address the gendered leadership disparities in higher education and beyond – filling “the pipeline” (p. 24). The pipeline approach to gender equity assumes that as more women attain an education, more will advance in their careers and inevitably move into top‐level leadership roles. Disputing these foundational assumptions, Kellerman and Rhode have labeled the pipeline theory a “pipe dream” (p. 24), in that it reflects a male‐normed perspective on what motivates individuals to consider and move into leadership. Summarizing the state of affairs in U.S. higher education and beyond, Kellerman and Rhode (2014) write, “the number of women at the top of their professions, the number of women in high positions of leadership and management, has remained dauntingly, depressingly low” (p. 24).

Rather than depending upon a male‐normed pipeline theory to correct the unsatisfactory status quo, developing a more nuanced understanding of what motivates women to step into leadership may offer clues and strategies that lead toward gender parity. For example, Ibarra et al. (2013) have emphasized that women assume leadership in order to accomplish shared goals and advance purposes that are important to them. Similarly, Keohane (2014) found that women accepted leadership roles not because they sought status or power, but because they desired to make a difference for a cause that was important to them. Recognizing the need for diverse perspectives in leadership, bringing relational skills to leadership, and desiring to serve as a role model for both male and female students are all worthy aspirations that can be tapped to enhance the leadership dreams and preparations of greater numbers of women.

As referenced previously when describing macro‐level barriers to women's leadership, higher education has perpetuated a male‐normed culture in structure and practice (Bornstein 2008; Sullivan 2009; Wood 2009; Kezar 2014). In a discussion on authenticity within higher education leadership, Dean et al. (2009) describe the impact of this influence on the postsecondary sector:

The behavioral attitudes of individualism, competition, and transactional relationships permeate the way in which individual faculty conduct their work; pervade the dynamics through which academic units vie within their organization for the resources necessary to their survival; and shape the way in which colleges and universities compete with each other for prestige, rankings, resources, and enrollments. (p. 240)

These authors argue that women leaders within higher education must assimilate to a male‐normed culture for their leadership to resonate within the institution. Kezar (2014) puts it another way: “For many decades women have had to negotiate their more collaborative and nonhierarchical beliefs and values with the reality of their organizations” (p. 118). The difficulties women face as they enter leadership may not be based on individual strengths or weaknesses, but rather lie within the structure and norms of the institution itself. In describing higher education's organizational culture, Sullivan (2009) highlights the interactive nature of leadership and culture by asserting, “… this influence is bidirectional; while the leader attempts to affect the culture and bring about change, the culture exerts its own influence on the leader and may assist or hinder that leader's ability to succeed” (p. 99).

The gender‐related patterns seen within the leadership of U.S. higher education appear to have parallels elsewhere in the world. Within Kenyan higher education, for example, Odhiambo (2011) describes an organizational culture that restricts women's access to leadership through “subtle discrimination disguised in the requirements for promotion and appoints” (p. 672). The cultural housework and caregiving expectations within the macro‐Kenyan cultural context limit the number of female PhDs, and hence the availability of credentialed women as future higher education leaders. In addition to these challenges, the system of Kenyan higher education offers barriers such as (i) job descriptions requiring both a PhD and teaching experience, (ii) hiring committees dominated by men, and (iii) an unfriendly work environment that impedes the effectiveness of women entering leadership. Odhiambo's findings are consistent with those of Nyoni et al. (2017) about women leading in Tanzanian postsecondary education; male‐normed higher education systems in both countries limit women's leadership through societal expectations and organizational policy constraints.

While African and U.S. cultures differ in significant ways, in each case the care‐taking expectations embedded within them may explain some gender disparities in higher education leadership. According to data referenced in the ACE’s report titled Pipelines, Pathways, and Institutional Leadership, 27% of college presidents are women, and woman presidents are “less likely to be married, less likely to have children, and more likely to have altered their career for family” (Johnson 2016, p. 11). Consistent with the ACE data, Wolfinger et al. (2008) cite marriage and children as factoring into the extent to which women in the United States progress into higher education leadership. Family responsibilities often interrupt the tenure process for female academics, placing them further behind their male counterparts in the progression toward advanced leadership.

Even in postsecondary institutions in Scandinavia – a region widely recognized as an exemplar in regard to gender equity (e.g. World Economic Forum 2017) – research conducted by Seierstad and Healy (2012) concludes that “vertical sex segregation … remains resilient with men dominating the upper levels of organizational hierarchies” (p. 296). Though policies in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have been designed to support women's choices (e.g. affordable day care, paid maternity and parentity leave, the right to leave work to care for ill children), data gathered from a survey of 215 academics across the three countries about their perceptions and experiences related to sex equality in universities reflect what Seierstad and Healy describe as the “resilience of inequality” (p. 296). According to these researchers, 94% of the respondents from Sweden “stated that there was no sex equality in their universities” (p. 301); similar responses were received from 83% of the Danish respondents and 70% of the Norwegians. The brightest picture came from Norway, where women were more likely to aspire to the top‐most academic positions, and where “women with children [were] as likely to be aiming for top positions as women without children” (p. 306). Still, the perceptions among a large majority of respondents across all three countries of continued bias and gender discrimination appear to be perpetuated by macro‐cultural forces, hence the importance of further study at the organizational level to understand particular barriers to women's advancement.

In a comparative case study of women leading within U.K. and Australian higher education, Burkinshaw and White (2017) describe environmental cues that impede women's experiences, observing: “These women perceived themselves to be outsiders in the masculinist HE [higher education] culture” (p. 8). Unlike in Kenya and Tanzania, women do achieve academic leadership roles in the United Kingdom and Australia, but have to accommodate masculine “communities of practice” (p. 11) to advance in their careers. Most participants in Burkinshaw and White's study did not think it was possible to change the organizational culture, “arguably choosing to fix themselves and adapt to an entrenched masculine culture rather than fixing universities” (p. 11). Similarly, research by White and Bagilhole (2012) in the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Australia found that the top academic leadership position (Vice Chancellor, VC) exerted great influence over who advanced to leadership. In the United Kingdom and South Africa, this male‐normed leader position often utilized informal, relational networks (to which women typically had limited access) to cultivate future leaders; in contrast, the VC role in Australia was not perceived as male‐normed and women were supported in exerting executive‐level leadership. The findings reported by White and Bagilhole (2012) provide hope that as more women attain leadership positions, the cultural norms may shift to value the perspectives and experiences of women through their inclusion in senior‐level leadership.

In each of the examples of barriers to women's leadership advancement in higher education highlighted thus far, the interplay between all three cultural layers (macro, meso, and micro) is evident. The extent to which societies at large (macro‐level) perpetuate gender stereotypes impacts how organizations (meso‐level) enact gender norms, and ultimately shapes the ways women envision themselves as leaders (micro‐level).

Micro‐Level Barriers: The Complexities of Leader Identity Development

A variety of barriers at the macro‐ and meso‐levels negatively impact women's leadership aspirations and experiences, including the extent to which they are supported in viewing themselves as leaders. As an overarching theme in the literature, Zhao and Jones (2017) aptly summarize the challenges faced by women who work in male‐normed organizational cultures: “Navigating and negotiating inhospitable cultures can be exhausting work” (p. 4). Evidence of these dynamics emerges in the findings of Bornstein's (2008) survey of female postsecondary presidents, indicating that the male‐normed hierarchical culture of academe inhibits women from considering leadership positions.

Notably, it is at the micro (individual) level that fresh and compelling work is bringing a clearer understanding of the internal dynamics that often hinder women from considering leadership or from engaging more senior‐level leadership (Helgesen and Johnson 2010; Ibarra et al. 2013; Kellerman and Rhode 2014). Researchers have suggested that a process of social validation increases leadership confidence, which in turn leads to increased motivation to assume broader roles of leadership (Kark and Van Dijk 2007; DeRue and Ashford 2010). Ibarra (2015) presents the aspect of “internalization” (p. 173) during transition processes in which “becoming the person you aspire to be is the most powerful motivator of all” (p. 174). Even in the process of considering leadership opportunities, Hewlett (2014) observes that women more frequently view the costs of leadership achievement as outweighing the benefits. At issue is the process of leader development – defined as focusing on the skills and self‐awareness of the individual leader – as contrasted with leadership development, which focuses on the collective leadership capacity of an organization (Day and Harrison 2007; Riggio 2008).

Related to the work of Day and Harrison (2007) and other scholars (DeRue and Ashford 2010; Ibarra et al. 2013; Marchiondo et al. 2015; Miscenko et al. 2015) is recent scholarly attention to the process by which individuals adopt a leadership identity. Early contributors to this growing body of research (e.g. Day and Harrison 2007; DeRue and Ashford 2010) have explored “the relational and social processes involved in coming to see oneself, and being seen by others, as a leader or as a follower” (DeRue and Ashford 2010, p. 627). DeRue and Ashford (2010) explain the process of “claiming” (p. 627) a leader identity by the individual and being “granted” that identity by others as key. The interplay between an individual's willingness to claim and an organization's willingness to grant describes the symbiotic relationship between cultural layers. Both claiming and granting are important in order for leadership identity to flourish.

As research related to identity development processes has increasingly been applied to leadership, new theoretical models have been established (Egan et al. 2017; Storberg‐Walker and Haber‐Curran 2017) and fresh insights about the motivators for women to step into leadership have been identified. For example, a group of researchers conducted a mixed‐methods examination of student leadership at Princeton University over a 10‐year period (Keohane 2014). In reporting the findings, Keohane (2014) describes female students as seeking “high‐impact rather than high‐profile” leadership roles (p. 47), suggesting differing motivations between undergraduate men and women. Consistent with these findings, Dahlvig and Longman (2014) propose a theory of women's leadership development based on a study of women identified as emerging leaders within U.S. Christian colleges and universities; they find women's motivation for leadership to have stemmed from relational responsibility (duty to and care for followers), awareness of giftedness and calling (recognition of leadership gifts and discernment of vocational direction), and the presence of a role model or mentor speaking into the individual's life (e.g. others' encouragement or affirmation of potential). The findings of both of these studies suggest that women tend not to engage leadership positions primarily for the prestige that accompanies positional authority. Related studies (e.g. Bornstein 2008; Sullivan 2009) have also observed discrepancies between the values and priorities of male‐normed organizational cultures (Dean et al. 2009; Kezar 2014) and women's motivations for considering or stepping into leadership roles.

Informing women's motivation to lead and identity formation, Mavin et al. (2017) explore the negative role that relationships with other women can play in the leadership experience. Given that the cultures where women lead are often male‐normed, the “ambiguity, ambivalence, and struggle women leaders experience” (p. 339) impact intra‐gender interactions. Mavin et al. explore homophily, homosociality, intra‐gender competition, and female misogyny, highlighting the complexity of gendered contexts and their influence on leaders' relationships. They push theorizing into new terrain with fresh insights and perspectives that could shape leader development at the micro level. Additionally, Baxter (2017) provides an examination of the application of sociolinguistic theories to women's leadership. The power of delivering words and the extent to which the “performance” (p. 125) of language through speech or discourse communicates leadership can be particularly helpful in women's leadership development. The works of Mavin et al. (2017) and Baxter (2017) are two examples of leadership theorizing that furthers our understanding of leadership identity development.

As noted previously, women's self‐perceptions of their leadership ability and potential have been shaped by cultural norms that historically have equated leadership with maleness (Schein et al. 1996; Carter 2014). Accordingly, many women have not perceived themselves as leaders, nor have others seen them in that light. This phenomenon appears to be evident across cultures. For example, in the context of Chinese higher education, Zhao and Jones (2017) report the findings of a qualitative study of women leaders who were observed to “discursively distance themselves from leadership as a professional identity” (p. 9). While Zhao and Jones (2017) do not reference DeRue and Ashford (2010) explicitly, their conclusions suggest that an unwillingness to claim leadership or embrace a leader identity when it is granted may perpetuate stereotypes that leadership is inherently male‐normed.

According to Ibarra et al. (2013), the subtle gender bias that persists in organizations “disrupts the learning cycle at the heart of becoming a leader” (p. 62). For example, evidence exists that persistent gender stereotypes – and the related “second‐generation gender bias” (p. 64) – influence the experiences of women considering or moving into leadership roles. Consistent with Ibarra et al.'s conclusions, a meta‐analysis reported by Koenig et al. (2011) demonstrates that leadership stereotypes, particularly those involving higher‐status roles, are primarily male‐oriented, and thus potentially undermine women's self‐perceptions of their own leadership potential. Such self‐perceptions appear to be formed fairly early in life; research by Lips (2004), for example, indicates that female students in high school and college are less likely to envision themselves in positions of power. As Keohane (2014) explains: “[W]omen internalize stereotypes, which leads them to question their own abilities” (p. 44), thus dampening their confidence and willingness to lead.

The combined influence of role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau 2002), stereotype threat (Steele 1997), and other factors related to both “claiming and granting” (DeRue and Ashford 2010, p. 627) a leader identity all serve as deterrents to women seeing themselves – and being seen by others – as leaders. And even in the process of considering leadership opportunities, Hewlett (2014) has observed that women more frequently view the costs of leadership achievement as outweighing the benefits.

Despite multiple reasons for concern regarding the entrenched macro‐, meso‐, and micro‐level barriers that continue to hold women back, the research results reported in this chapter provide ground for encouragement and constructive action. For example, awareness by both organizational leaders and emerging women leaders of the assumptions and dynamics of male‐normed culture can counter the damaging impact of second‐generation gender bias, as advocated by Ibarra et al. (2013). Similarly, researchers have confirmed that a process of social validation increases leadership confidence, which, in turn, leads to increased motivation to assume broader roles of leadership (Kark and Van Dijk 2007; DeRue and Ashford 2010). Thus, steps can be taken at all three levels of leader identity development individual internalization, relational recognition, and collective endorsement ‐ to encourage both “claiming” and “granting” (DeRue and Ashford 2010, p. 629) in ways that enhance the leader self‐confidence and affirmation of more women. Ibarra et al. (2013) specifically challenge organizations to create safe “identity workspaces” (p. 65) and to provide “a coaching relationship, a women's leadership program, a support group of peers” (p. 65), as well as a clear sense of “leadership purpose” (p. 66), in order to support more women to contribute their gifts in senior‐level roles. The benefits of having greater diversity around the leadership table are many (Catalyst 2013; Gerzema and D'Antonio 2013; Williams 2013; Goryunova et al. 2017), and such diversity of perspective is particularly needed within the field of higher education (Kezar 2014; Madsen 2015), where the future leaders of almost all other sectors are shaped and molded.

Implications for the Future of Higher Education

In a time characterized by change in higher education, it is important to examine the privileges that may be subtly perpetuated by certain structures, policies, and leadership assumptions that have long been characteristic of our field. Thoughtful reflection about the gendered realities on our campuses may inform how we approach change to better meet the needs of both students and colleagues. More than a decade ago, Bornstein (2008) summarized the urgency of accepting this challenge well:

As we move through this rapidly changing, diverse, global, market‐driven, high technology era, traditional hierarchical, bureaucratic, and segmented organizations are increasingly obsolete. Those using old management models are under pressure to become more flexible, nimble, responsive, and innovative. The global competition for new ideas, new products, new markets, new technologies, and new capital requires new types of organizations characterized by a high level of trust and reciprocity within the workforce: collaborative, team‐centered, with permeable boundaries. (p. 162)

Bornstein's vision for higher education emphasizes the leadership abilities often associated with women (Gerzema and D'Antonio 2013, Kezar 2014; Eagly 2015). Given the macro‐, meso‐, and micro‐barriers to women's advancement described in this chapter and the significant advantages associated with diverse leadership, promoting a brighter future for women in higher education requires focused attention and action.

While there are multiple pathways to addressing gender inequities, we have chosen to focus these concluding comments on policy formation in targeted areas in order to impact the macro‐, meso‐, and micro‐cultural layers in strategic ways. Adopting policies to address care‐taking responsibilities (e.g. family leave) and establishing gender leadership quotas have a beneficial impact at the government and organization level, as well as significant implications for individuals (Goryunova et al. 2017; Rhode 2017; Smith and Hatmaker 2017). A focus on policy formation is also cross‐culturally relevant and can be interpreted depending on the specific macro‐context. For example, Aiston and Yang's (2017) evaluation of East Asian education policies proposes the collection and publication of data related to women's advancement within academic leadership – a necessary first step in promoting greater equity is to have accurate and accessible data. In other macro‐contexts such as the United States, the data are accessible but little political will has been exerted to enact national policies; therefore, the next step necessitates researchers engaging the policy development process (e.g. politics at the government and organization level). For each context and level, actions that advance women's leadership may be as diverse as the contexts themselves. What is essential and common regardless of the social context is the identification and addressing of barriers through the development of policies that advance gender equity for everyone's benefit.

Providing an example of research informing policy, Mastracci (2017) conducted a hedonic regression analysis study utilizing the World Economic Forum data. This research concluded that women's representation in government and public‐sector management positions “mitigate[s] inequality as gauged by the Gender Gap Index” (p. 241), providing evidence to support electoral and management quotas. These findings indicate that women's political representation is more influential than educational attainment, health outcomes, and economic participation in closing the gender gap globally. Relatedly, Goryunova et al. (2017) reported that 17 countries have established “legislative candidate quotas” (p. 13), which has increased women's representation within government globally. Given the effectiveness of quota policies and the benefits of women's participation in achieving gender equity, focusing our collective energy on government and public‐sector leadership – including public university leadership – provides a strategic focus by which to advance gender equity within higher education. In addition, our universities will influence the leadership identities of future generations and have the potential to inspire participation in the political process. Higher education leaders' intentional efforts to grant leadership to women (employees and students), along with embedded systems that support their claiming of leadership, could have beneficial, long‐lasting beneficial outcomes (DeRue and Ashford 2010).

While increasing women's representation within government is important, expanding the representation of women in leadership is necessary across all sectors, and quota policies are a pathway to achieve numerical parity. We advocate therefore that quotas should be considered to address gender inequities within higher education boards and senior leadership teams. Considering the increasing number of women students enrolled within global higher education (Goryunova et al. 2017), a logical target would be for the leadership of higher education institutions to reflect student demographics. Given the documented effectiveness and economic gains associated with diverse leadership (Catalyst 2013; Goryunova et al. 2017; Madsen 2015), higher education has ample evidence to justify policies that will further gender equity.

Although implementing quota policies may not eradicate gender equity concerns within higher education given deeply embedded cultural norms (Seierstad and Healy 2012), research by Brandth and Bjørkhaug (2015) suggests that quotas might foster broad‐reaching change at the meso and individual levels. Within the context of Norway's 40% gender representation law, for example, Brandth and Bjørkhaug found that voluntarily adopting a gender‐equity quota policy transformed a historically male‐dominated culture into one that values gender equity and diversity. As just one exemplary case study, board representation by women in the Federation of Norwegian Agricultural Co‐operatives (FNAC) improved from 17 to 39% in the years between 2004 and 2009. By 2009, gender parity was qualitatively described as essential to the economic success of the organization, demonstrating the powerful influence of quotas in transforming cultural gender norms. Within the qualitative data, a distinctly female way of leading was not described – there was no magic formula or style; however, the inclusion of diverse thinking and experiences appears to have contributed to the organization's success.

While gender quotas can have an impact at the macro level, transformational power within a male‐normed culture must also occur at the meso and micro levels (Brandth and Bjørkhaug 2015). Therefore, even when a nation has adopted expansive policies (as in the case of Norway), institutions and organizations must take up localized efforts to bolster culture change (Seierstad and Healy 2012) in order to address the deeply embedded “resilience of inequality” (p. 296) that is observed by academics in Scandinavian universities.

Supporting the idea of localized efforts, Østebo and Haukenes (2016) highlight the importance of grassroots interpretations of macro‐level policies in their comparative study of gender meaning‐making in Norway and Ethiopia. In particular, they recognize the World Bank's and United Nations' published documents as influential in normalizing gender equity as a global economic priority. While national quota policies have advanced gender equity in the public sphere (Brandth and Bjørkhaug 2015; Goryunova et al. 2017), the dominant policy discourse centers solely on the economic benefits of women's equal participation in the workforce. Through both countries prioritized gender equity in order to boost economic gains, the individual‐level Ethiopian culture had difficulty making sense of the macro‐oriented gender equity policy. Within the Ethiopian farming context, policies suggesting women contribute economically equally to men seemed unreasonable given women's care‐taking responsibilities; women were asked to work the same as men in the public sphere, but men were not prompted to work the same as women in the private. The substantive human welfare policies already established in Norway allowed an economic focus without endangering other aspects of gender equality.

Echoing Eagly's (2015) concern that “western feminist ideology” (p. x) not be held up as the universal norm, Østebo and Haukenes (2016) note that the “universalizing language” (p. 49) of global policies popularized terms, but express concern that the “one‐sided focus on the power of global policies is flawed” (p. 49). Accordingly, to a certain extent, gender equity must be interpreted and activated with respect to a particular context. While quota and other gender equity‐oriented policies have proven effective in Scandinavia and the European Union (Seierstad and Healy 2012; Brandth and Bjørkhaug 2015; Goryunova et al. 2017), one‐size‐fits‐all solutions should not be assumed.

In fact, being sensitive to the macro‐level realities of different cultures may disrupt the linear‐progress narrative that is prominent in developed countries. As researchers and policy advocates, being explicit and transparent about our assumptions as we interpret data and propose solutions is essential. For example, the United States does not have the comprehensive social‐welfare policies of Scandinavian countries that support career pauses associated with childbirth (Smith and Hatmaker 2017); without such policies and public support, do macro‐level assumptions and stereotypes persist unchallenged at a large scale? Assessing the interplay between macro‐, meso‐, and micro‐barriers is essential in order to determine appropriate, layered policy solutions.

Individuals representing all genders have the capacity to lead, and lead well. The more we can normalize multiple ways of understanding gender and lessen rigid, gendered expectations, the more leadership will become open to multiple expressions and people. The question is: Will higher education model the way forward by welcoming diverse leadership that has the potential for moving our institutions through these tumultuous times? Or will our strict adherence to traditional gender roles, expectations, and expressions limit our capacity for creativity, problem solving, and collaboration?

In order to resolve gender inequities within higher education, we need a robust investment in (a) women‐specific leadership theory development that addresses the nuances of male‐normed organizational contexts, like higher education; (b) evidence‐based research on women leaders' impact on valued higher education outcomes (e.g. student persistence and educational attainment, cost per student, alumni satisfaction with education received, research innovation); and (c) research‐informed policies that support gender equity and diverse leaders' advancement. It is clearly time to focus our attention and collective will toward the goal of ensuring that higher education models proactive inclusivity of women's leadership; therefore, action is essential on multiple fronts. Researchers, faculty, administrators, and students must keep gender equity at the forefront – addressing barriers at the macro, meso, and micro levels – if parity is to be achieved.

References

1. Aiston, S.J. and Yang, Z. (2017). “Absent data, absent women”: gender and higher education leadership. Policy Futures in Education 15 (3): 262–274.
2. Baxter, J. (2017). Socioliguistic approaches to gender and leadership theory. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 113–126. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
3. Blair‐Loy, M., Hoschschild, A., Pugh, A.J. et al. (2015). Stability and transformation in gender, work, and family: insights and the second shift for the next quarter century. Community, Work & Family 18 (4): 435–454.
4. Boatwright, K.J. and Egidio, R.K. (2003). Psychological predictors of college women's leadership aspirations. Journal of College Student Development 44 (5): 653–669.
5. Bornstein, A. (2008). Women and the college presidency. In: Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender Challenges in Higher Education (ed. J. Glazer‐Raymo), 162–184. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6. Brandth, B. and Bjørkhaug, H. (2015). Gender quotas for agricultural boards: changing constructions of gender? Gender, Work and Organization 22 (6): 614–628.
7. Broughton, A. and Miller, L. (2009). Women in senior management: is the glass ceiling still intact? Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal 11 (5): 7–24.
8. Burkinshaw, P. and White, K. (2017). Fixing the women or fixing the universities: women in HE leadership. Administrative Sciences 7 (30): 1–11.
9. Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N., and Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Educational Requirements through 2018. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
10. Carter, J. (2014). A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
11. Catalyst (2007). The double‐bind dilemma: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Available from https://web.archive.org/web/20071018015041/http://www.catalyst.org/files/full/2007%20Double%20Bind.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
12. Catalyst (2013). Why diversity matters. Available from https://www.bricker.com/Documents/Events/why‐diversity‐matters‐catalyst.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
13. Catalyst (2016). Quick take: women in academia. Available from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women‐in‐academia/ (accessed January 28, 2020).
14. Catalyst (2017). Pyramid: women in S&P 500 companies. Available from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women‐in‐sp‐500‐companies/ (accessed January 28, 2020).
15. Collins, G. (2009). When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
16. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–168.
17. Cuddy, A. (2015). Presence: Bringing Your Biggest Self to Your Boldest Challenges. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
18. Dahlvig, J.E. and Longman, K.A. (2014). Contributions to women's leadership development in Christian higher education: a model and emerging theory. Journal of Research on Christian Education 23 (1): 1–23.
19. Day, D.V. and Harrison, M.M. (2007). A multilevel, identity‐based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review 17: 360–373.
20. De Beauvoir, S. (2009). The Second Sex (trans. C. Borde & S. Malovany‐Chevallier). New York, NY: Random House.
21. Dean, D.R., Bracken, S.J., and Allen, J.K. (2009). Assimilation, authenticity, and advancement: crafting integrated identities as academic leaders. In: Women in Academic Leadership: Professional Strategies, Personal Choices (eds. D.R. Dean, S.J. Bracken and J.K. Allen), 238–252. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
22. DeRue, D.S. and Ashford, S.J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review 35 (4): 627–647.
23. Diehl, A.B. and Dzubinski, L.M. (2016). Making the invisible visible: a cross‐sector analysis of gender‐based leadership barriers. Human Resource Development Quarterly 27 (2): 181–206.
24. Eagly, A.H. (2015). Foreword. In: Women and Leadership Around the World (eds. S.R. Madsen, F.W. Ngunjiri, K.A. Longman and C. Cherrey), ix–xiii. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
25. Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
26. Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen‐Schmidt, M.M. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues 57: 781–797.
27. Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Bulletin 109: 573–598.
28. Eddy, P.L. and Cox, E.M. (2008). Gendered leadership: an organizational perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges 142: 69–79.
29. Egan, C., Shollen, L., Campbell, C. et al. (2017). Capacious model of leadership identities construction. In: Theorizing Women and Leadership: New Insights and Contributions from Multiple Perspectives (eds. J. Storberg‐Walker and P. Haber‐Curran), 121–140. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
30. Gagliardi, J.S., Espinosa, L.L., Turk, J.M., and Taylor, M. (2017). American College President Study 2017. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
31. Gangone, L.M. (2016). Is it really my fault? Confronting the myths surrounding women's advancement. Liberal Studies 102 (3): 22–27.
32. Gangone, L.M. and Lennon, T. (2014). Benchmarking women's leadership in academia beyond. In: Women and Leadership in Higher Education (eds. K.A. Longman and S.R. Madsen), 3–22. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
33. Gerzema, J. and D'Antonio, M. (2013). The Athena Doctrine: How Women (and the Men Who Think Like Them) Will Rule the Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
34. Gomez Cama, M., Jorge, M.L., and Pena, F.J.A. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: a literature review of selected higher education journals. Educational Research Review 18: 58–69.
35. Goryunova, E., Scribner, R.T., and Madsen, S.R. (2017). The current status of women leaders worldwide. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 3–23. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
36. Heilman, M.E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior 32: 133–135.
37. Helgesen, S. and Johnson, J. (2010). The Female Vision. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
38. Henrich, J., Heine, S., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 61–83.
39. Herrera, R., Duncan, P.A., Green, M.T., and Skaggs, S.L. (2012). The effect of gender on leadership and culture. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 31 (2): 37–48.
40. Hewlett (2014). Executive Presence: The Missing Link Between Merit and Success. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
41. Hochschild, A.R. (2003). The Second Shift. New York, NY: Penguin.
42. Hofstede, G., Hoftede, G.J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
43. hooks, b. (2013). Dig deep: beyond Lean In. The Feminist Wire. Available from http://www.thefeministwire.com/2013/10/17973 (accessed January 28, 2020).
44. Hoyt, C.L. and Burnette, J.L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: merging implicit theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39 (10): 1306–1319.
45. Ibarra, H. (2015). Act Like a Leader, Think Like a Leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
46. Ibarra, H., Ely, R., and Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: the unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review 91 (9): 60–66.
47. Johnson, A.G. (2001). Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
48. Johnson, H.L. (2016). Pipelines, Pathways, and Institutional Leadership: An Update on the Status of Women in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
49. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 965–990.
50. Kark, R. and Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: the role of the self‐regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 500–528.
51. Kassotakis, M.E. (2017). Women‐only leadership programs: a deeper look. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 395–408. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
52. Kay, K. and Shipman, C. (2014). The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self‐Assurance. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
53. Kellerman, B. and Rhode, D.L. (2014). Women at the top: the pipeline reconsidered. In: Women and Leadership in Higher Education (eds. K.A. Longman and S.R. Madsen), 24–39. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
54. Keohane, N.O. (2014). Leadership out front and behind the scenes: young women's ambitions for leadership today. In: Women and Leadership in Higher Education (eds. K.A. Longman and S.R. Madsen), 41–55. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
55. Kezar, A. (2014). Women's contributions to higher education leadership and the road ahead. In: Women and Leadership in Higher Education (eds. K.A. Longman and S.R. Madsen), 117–134. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
56. Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A.H., Mitchell, A.A., and Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta‐analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137 (4): 616–642.
57. Lewis, P. and Simpson, R. (2012). Kanter revisited: gender, power and (in)visibility. International Journal of Management Reviews 14: 141–158.
58. Lips, H.M. (2004). The gender gap in possible selves: divergence of academic self‐views among high school and university students. Sex Roles 50: 357–371.
59. Madsen, S.R. (2015). Why do we need more women leaders in higher education? HERS Research Brief, No. 1.
60. Madsen, S.R., Longman, K.A., and Daniels, J.R. (2012). Women's leadership development in higher education: conclusion and implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources 14 (1): 113–128.
61. Marchiondo, L.A., Myers, C.G., and Kopelman, S. (2015). The relational nature of leadership identity construction: how and when it influences perceived leadership and decision‐making. Leadership Quarterly 26: 892–908.
62. Mastracci, S. (2017). The effect of women's representation on the global gender gap index. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30 (3): 241–254.
63. Mavin, S., Grandy, G., and Williams, J. (2017). Theorizing women leaders' negative relations with other women. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 328–343. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
64. McNae, R. and Vali, K. (2015). Diverse experiences of women leading in higher education: locating networks and agency for leadership within a university context in Papua New Guinea. Gender and Education 27 (3): 288–303.
65. Miller, J.B. (1986). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
66. Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., and Day, D.V. (2015). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. Leadership Quarterly 28: 605–620.
67. Nyoni, W.P., He, C., and Yusuph, M.L. (2017). Sustainable interventions in enhancing gender parity in senior leadership positions in higher education in Tanzania. Journal of Education and Practice 8 (13): 44–54.
68. Odhiambo, G. (2011). Women and higher education leadership in Kenya: a critical analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33 (6): 667–678.
69. Østebo, M.T. and Haukenes, H. (2016). Shifting meanings of gender equality in development: perspectives from Norway and Ethiopia. Progress in Development Studies 16 (1): 39–51.
70. Paris, L.D., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., and Hanges, P.J. (2009). Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female leaders in 27 countries. Journal of International Business Studies 40: 1396–1425.
71. Powell, G.N. (2011). The gender and leadership wars. Organizational Dynamics 40: 1–9.
72. Rhode, D.L. (2017). Gender stereotypes and unconscious bias. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 316–327. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
73. Riggio, R.E. (2008). Leadership development: the current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 60 (4): 338–392.
74. Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
75. Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., and Liu, J. (1996). Think manager – think male: a global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 33–41.
76. Seierstad, C. and Healy, G. (2012). Women's equality in the Scandinavian academy: a distant dream? Work, Employment and Society 26 (2): 296–313.
77. Smith, A.E. and Hatmaker, D.M. (2017). Individual stresses and strains in the ascent to leadership: gender, work, and family. In: Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership (ed. S.R. Madsen), 304–315. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
78. Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist 52 (6): 613–629.
79. Storberg‐Walker, J. and Haber‐Curran, P. (eds.) (2017). Theorizing Women & Leadership: New Insights & Contributions from Multiple Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
80. Sullivan, L.G. (2009). Informal learning among women community college presidents. In: Women in Academic Leadership: Professional Strategies, Personal Choices (eds. D.R. Dean, S.J. Bracken and J.K. Allen), 95–127. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
81. Teague, L.W.J. and Bobby, K. (2014). American Council on Education's IDEALS for women leaders. In: Women and Leadership in Higher Education (eds. K.A. Longman and S.R. Madsen), 59–76. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
82. The World Bank (2011). World Development Report: Gender Equality and Development. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
83. ThiDo, V.H. and Brennan, M. (2015). Complexities of Vietnamese femininities: a resource for rethinking women's university leadership practices. Gender and Education 27 (3): 273–287.
84. Wallace, J. and Wallin, D. (2015). “The voice inside herself”: transforming gendered academic identities in educational administration. Gender and Education 27 (4): 412–429.
85. White, K. and Bagilhole, B. (2012). The gendered shaping of university leadership in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Higher Education Quarterly 66 (3): 293–307.
86. Williams, D.A. (2013). Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
87. Wittenberg‐Cox, A. (2013). Women don't need to “lean in” more; powerful men need to reach out. Available from https://hbr.org/2013/01/women‐dont‐need‐to‐lean‐in (accessed January 28, 2020).
88. Wolfinger, N.H., Mason, M.A., and Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: gender, marriage and fertility in the ivory tower. Journal of Higher Education 79 (4): 388–405.
89. Wood, D.F. (2009). Barriers to women's leadership in faith‐based colleges and universities: strategies for change. In: Women in Academic Leadership: Professional Strategies, Personal Choices (eds. D.R. Dean, S.J. Bracken and J.K. Allen), 74–94. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
90. Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A. et al. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330: 686–687.
91. World Economic Forum (2017). The global gender gap report. Available from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
92. Zhao, J. and Jones, K. (2017). Women and leadership in higher education in Chinese discourse and the discursive construction of identity. Administrative Sciences 7 (21): 1–17.