IDSL 825 Research Paper Final

Running Head: WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 1
Women’s Leadership Development in Higher Education
Brenda S. Sipe
Kendall College of Art and Design
of Ferris State University

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 2
Abstract
Women hold significantly fewer top administrative positions than men in higher
education today, limiting individuals and institutions from achieving their greatest potential. This
paper examines, from cultural, organizational, and gender-specific perspectives, some of the
reasons leadership development programs designed specifically for women in higher education
are needed. I build the case that gender-specific leadership development impacts women in both
reaching and succeeding in higher education leadership, and shapes more robust institutions by
equalizing the numbers of men and women in top leadership positions.
Keywords: women, leadership development, professional development, training

Although the number of women in leadership roles has increased dramatically in recent
decades, women still lag behind men in top level positions in both institutions of higher
education and elsewhere (Hoyt, 2013; Madsen, 2011; McKenna, 2007). When half of the
workforce is not equally represented at the highest levels of leadership, equity for women has not
been achieved, and organizations are not making the best use of their human resources. Having
highly qualified leadership is particularly important in today’s fast-paced, global environment. I
examine some of the reasons leadership development programs designed specifically for women
in higher education are needed, and how these programs can help to advance more women into
the highest ranks while preparing them for challenges of leadership.
Some progress has been made. However, according to The White House Project (as cited
in Madsen, 2011) women are 57 percent of the college graduates in the nation, but only 23
percent of the college and university presidents. Up from only 5 percent in 1975, the number is
still low compared with that of women college graduates, and women in the workforce. The
number of women presidents is even lower at doctoral degree-granting institutions, with only 14
percent of these presidencies being held by women (Madsen, 2011). Aside from presidencies,
women who do hold top college administrative positions are often in less influential areas like
student affairs (Madsen, 2011). Similar statistics are seen in the corporate sphere, where women
enter the professional pipeline at 45 percent of all employees, and yet, only 17 percent have
reached the C-suite (McKinsey&Company, 2015).
Research on gender and leadership has been scattered and sporadic, but has become an
increasingly common topic for scholars in recent years. Lipman-Blumen (1996) asserts that only
recently have the words woman and leader been used together without sounding like an

oxymoron, albeit many great women leaders have proven otherwise throughout the centuries
(McKenna, 2007).
One reason for renewed interest in gender and leadership among scholars is the interest in
whether gender influences leadership style. Variances in leadership styles or behaviors between
the genders also has important implications for leadership development programs. According to
Lipman-Blumen (1996), numerous studies have been unable to demonstrate consistent
significant differences between men and women in leadership style or effectiveness.
Other researchers find differences between the genders in leadership style, however. A
recent meta-analysis comparing men and women on transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles found that women’s typical leadership styles are more transformational
than men’s, and that women are more likely to use rewards to motivate their subordinates (Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, & Engen, 2003). Colleges and universities, therefore, should take into
account these findings, and consider the potential impact of training for women that reinforces
these styles.
Women encounter significant barriers along their way to becoming leaders. At the
individual level, a central problem for women is developmental, the way gender biases affect the
capacity for developing a woman’s leadership identity; at the organizational level the problem is
structural, the way unconscious biases and practices in the workplace limit both opportunities
and the effectiveness of women leaders. Development and training for women must address this
identity shift in a gender specific manner, both individually and organizationally (Ely & Rhode,
2010).
Another reason fewer women reach the highest levels of leadership, is that they have
different beliefs about career success. Vinnicombe and Singh (as cited in Hopkins, O'Neil,
Passarelli, & Bilimoria, 2008) reported that women have different value orientations, and

therefore require different leadership development contexts. Recent research has shown that
women have more life goals than men with leadership overall not being as high a priority as it is
for men (Gino, Wilmuth, & Brooks, 2015). Care must be taken to determine when women do
legitimately wish to advance in their careers, and when they do not. More research is needed into
why some women do not choose to advance. For those who aspire to leadership, strategic
development programs can help them to overcome the barriers they face.
As organizations recognize the limitations facing women, and encourage them to
participate in leadership development programs, networks, and work-life support, women will
make gains into top leadership positions. Understanding the individual, interpersonal,
organizational, and societal factors, that keep women from reaching their full potential, will
enable organizations and women to rise above inequity (Hoyt, 2013). Gender-specific leadership
training is needed for developing more women leaders to fill the gap in higher education.
Leadership training impacts women in both reaching and succeeding in positions of leadership,
and benefits the workforce and institutions by positioning the most talented individuals in
leadership, regardless of gender.
Gender Differences in Leadership Styles and Behaviors
Early research compared the leadership styles of men and women on the basis of task or
interpersonal orientation, and democratic or autocratic styles (Hoyt, 2013). Eagly and Johnson
(1990) found that despite popular opinion to the contrary, men and women showed no significant
difference in leadership style on the basis of task or interpersonal orientation.
Robinson & Lipman-Blumen (2003) assert that there is very little evidence to suggest
that there is a gender predisposition to a particular leadership style, and neither men nor women
can claim to be better leaders in today’s world. Robinson & Lipman-Blumen believe it is critical
for hiring, promotions, and admissions committees to consider people as individuals apart from

their gender, and they recommend that leadership development programs train leaders for the
rigors of leading in today’s fast-paced and globalized world (Robinson & Lipman-Blumen,
2003).
Conversely, in a recent study, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Engen (2003) found that
women use a transformational leadership style more readily than men. Transformational leaders
inspire and empower their followers to become leaders themselves, but don’t exhibit the
exploitative characteristics of charismatic leaders, who also inspire and motivate their followers,
while increasing their own power. Transformational leaders model leadership behavior to
develop their followers’ potential, and for the greater good of the organization. A large body of
evidence supports the effectiveness of this type of leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Since
today’s leaders are also facilitators of highly collaborative teams and workgroups (Sundberg),
leaders must possess transformational strengths. As the evidence suggests, women are more
naturally attuned to this style of leadership, and this can be reinforced in professional
development programs.
Consistent with stereotypes, Eagly & Johnson (1990) found that women were somewhat
more democratic and participative as leaders, while men exhibited more directive and autocratic
behaviors. This evidence was corroborated by van Engen & Willemsen (as cited in Hoyt, 2013).
Hoyt suggests that since women were disparaged when they led in a directive manner typically
attributed to men, they adapted a democratic behavior style to obtain approval. Consequently,
women may be somewhat better suited than men to middle management positions where
participative leadership is highly valued, as well as to careers in education, social services, and
government (Hoyt, 2013).
According to Goleman (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) other leadership behaviors
shown by women include empathy and emotion. Men, on the average, handle stress more

effectively, are more assertive, confident, and optimistic than women (Hopkins et al., 2008).
Women, then, would specifically benefit from leadership development that equips them with
confidence, assertiveness, and stress management skills.
Wielkiewicz, Fischer, Stelzner, Overland, & Sinner (2012) surveyed incoming first-year
college students regarding their beliefs about leadership and found overall that men believed in
hierarchical leadership, while women preferred a more ecological or collaborative approach. The
authors claim that balanced leadership is a combination of ecological and hierarchical styles.
Leadership development, then, should focus on blending varied styles and behaviors in a manner
comfortable for both genders. More long-term research is needed on gender differences in
leadership style and behaviors, but as the research so far demonstrates, there are some gender-
based characteristics that can be underscored in strategic leadership development programs.
Leadership Development Processes by Gender
From the research, leadership development processes are not the same for women and
men (Hopkins et al., 2008). Ely & Rhode (2010) find that as leaders develop they shift from a
focus on self to a more inclusive view of self and others, and from doing to being. Structural and
attitudinal barriers interfere with this process for women, e.g., women immediately have to
address the contradiction between their feminine self and the traditional masculine traits
associated with leadership. With little support and few role models, a woman needs to strike just
the right balance between the two, often finding that her peers and superiors are ambivalent
about her leadership anyway (Ely & Rhode, 2010).
Research (Ely & Rhode, 2010) suggests that the strategies women use to evolve from
follower to leader differ from those of men. In contrast to men, who rely on imitation strategies,
i.e., emulating mentors, women use true-to-self strategies, modeling their own successful past
behaviors. Men were also more assertive, exhibiting behaviors that fit with the expected

leadership norm, while women were protective, projecting more neutrality to avoid disapproval.
With clients, women sought to demonstrate technical mastery over a period of time, while men
focused on a positive first impression. These patterns helped men to develop more quickly as
mature leaders, and to experience more harmony between their identities and the type of leader
they wanted to become. The developmental process is more difficult for women (Ely & Rhode,
2010).
According to the research, having a mentor has been demonstrated to be a critical aspect
of the leadership development process. Leaders who have mentors are more highly paid, more
competent, and more satisfied (Hopkins et al., 2008). Surveys of upper-level managers have
found that a third of white women managers cite the lack of a mentor as a barrier to advancement
in their careers, and the number is even higher for women of color (Ely & Rhode, 2010).
Likewise, networking opportunities are part of the development process. Interpersonal
networks promote influence and power, access to job opportunities, and information (Hopkins et
al., 2008). A recent Catalyst survey (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) reported that 46 percent of
women managers named exclusion from informal networks as a career hurdle. According to
Brass (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) two distinct networks exist in organizations, one
predominantly male, which provides career benefits, and one predominantly female, which
provides emotional support and friendship. Women with career aspirations must navigate
between the two networks. This is an exhausting and time-consuming task.
Leadership development that recognizes the identity shift that women experience when
entering leadership roles will give women strategies for success. Many leadership development
programs also provide networking and mentoring opportunities, or at the very least, make
women aware of the need for both.

Other Challenges to Women in Leadership
Research shows that there are numerous reasons for the unequal proportion of women at
the highest levels of leadership. One challenge is the way women view themselves. Women are
brought up to think of themselves as nurturing, cooperative, and relationship-focused, while men
are encouraged to be task-oriented and competitive (Wielkiewicz et al., 2012). Yet women who
embody feminine stereotypes are often liked but not respected (Ely & Rhode, 2010). What we
read and see on a daily basis perpetuates these stereotypes. It has already been discussed that the
female identity conflicts with a woman’s leadership identity. Leadership development that
teaches ecosystem motivation, is beneficial for women struggling with stereotypes. It focuses on
teaching women to pursue collective goals rather than self-image goals (Ely & Rhode, 2010),
thereby projecting the authenticity needed in leaders.
Women’s careers are also segmented by life phases. O’Neil and Bilimoria (as cited in
Hopkins et al., 2008) reported the phases as: idealistic achievement phase, pragmatic endurance
phase, and the reinventive contribution phase. Women require differing leadership development
focuses during each of these phases. Since these phases are related to the biological function of
childbearing, women have differing needs at different times in their lives.
A recent study by Gino, Wilmuth, & Brooks (2015) found that women have more life
goals than men, making achieving top-level positions less important, although, according to the
study, women view these positions as equally attainable. It is difficult to say whether social
biases influenced these women’s perspectives, or whether their goals may change at a different
stage of life. More research is clearly needed to answer these questions.
Women of all ages with or without children consistently name stress or pressure as a
personal obstacle to a leadership position (McKinsey&Company, 2015). In a national sample of
1515 university administrators, Morris & Laipple (2015) found that women reported being more

overwhelmed by their careers and less well compensated than men. Women also reported more
role interference than men, i.e., the extent to which their role interfered with their daily life,
including family and social relationships, health and wellness practices, and sleep (Morris &
Laipple, 2015). Women and men who are mid-level managers have been found to aspire to
promotions equally, yet senior-level women are less likely to want to advance than senior-level
men, and stress is most frequently cited as the reason (McKinsey&Company, 2015).
A common perception is that women leave their careers to raise children. However, today
women on average are leaving their organizations at the same or lower rates than men. In fact,
women in leadership are more likely to stay in their roles than males in similar positions
(McKinsey&Company, 2015). The reason some women do leave the leadership track is due to
excessive hours: the increasing pace of the workplace, combined with technological advances
that virtually demand working from home at all hours (Ely & Rhode, 2010).
Domestic and child-rearing responsibilities have traditionally been culturally assigned
primarily to women. There has undoubtedly been a shift, with more men taking a greater role in
these duties, however many women still struggle with finding balance. Another issue that
particularly impacts women is relocation to another city for a promotion. According to Eddy (as
cited in Eddy & Ward, 2015) women often structure their careers around the careers of their
husbands or needs of their children. Leadership development for women must carefully consider
all of these challenges, and provide a blend of education and support that will enhance leadership
opportunities for women who choose to take advantage of them.
Challenging Environments
In addition to the personal challenges women face along their road to leadership, the
environments or structures in which they function also may prove difficult to navigate. The
relative lack of mentoring and networking opportunities for women has already been discussed,

and is a byproduct of organizational structure and cultural bias. According to Ruderman and
Ohlott (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) many organizations, even progressive ones, were created
by men, and have policies, systems and structures that favor men. Hogue and Lord (as cited in
Ely & Rhode, 2010) found that gender biases play out in the way organizations structure
leadership paths and positions, in the way people perceive women leaders, and what women
must do to succeed.
Workplace biases, like those found by Pratch and Jacobowitz (as cited in Hopkins et al.,
2008), for example, are seen in negative evaluations received by women who are assertive and
directive, although men who demonstrate participative or collaborative behaviors are not
negatively evaluated. In another example, white male managers gave feedback to both male and
female direct reports, but spent time discussing career opportunities only with the male
employees, according to a global study by Catalyst (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008). These
biases are more likely in institutions where there is strong male representation, and for women
who are at higher levels in the organization (Hopkins et al., 2008).
A recent comprehensive study of women in corporate America (McKinsey&Company,
2015) reports that women are four times more likely than men to believe they have fewer
opportunities because of their gender, and twice as likely to think they will not be able to
advance in the future because of their gender. Women also report they are not consulted on
important decisions because of their gender, with senior level women viewing their gender as a
bigger disadvantage than entry-level women (McKinsey&Company, 2015).
Women also receive fewer high-risk job assignments than men, thus missing an
important part of on-the-job leadership training, i.e., experiential learning. These high-risk
assignments often lead to networking opportunities, higher visibility, and recognition (Hopkins
et al., 2008). Further, most managerial-level women hold line roles, i.e., they have responsibility

for profit and loss, and are focused on core operations. At the vice-presidential level, however,
more than half of women hold lower visibility staff roles, i.e., positions of support, like IT,
human resources, and legal services. Men hold line roles at every level, i.e., roles which are
closer to the company’s core operations, and provide needed preparation for top roles. CEOs are
promoted more often from line roles than staff roles. However, women, often in line role silos,
have lower odds of reaching top spots than women in staff roles (Hopkins et al., 2008;
McKinsey&Company, 2015).
Many women are not gaining appropriate training or opportunities for reaching top
leadership positions. Women’s leadership development programs must take this important
context into account, and tailor a learning curriculum that instills strategies women can use to
succeed in male-dominated environments.
Leadership Development for Women
Characteristics and Components
Leadership development strategies for women must consider the contexts and challenges
discussed above. Kanter’s theory of tokenism (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008), i.e., that under-
represented people need unique strategies in order to succeed because they must respond to
different expectations and have different resources, applies to women in leadership. Gender-
specific leadership development will provide strategies.
A leadership development curriculum for women in higher education should focus on
several key areas like external relationships and connections, instruction related to financial
analysis and budgeting, encouraging risk-taking, and providing explicit gender analysis of
academic politics and challenges, according to Higher Education Resource Services (HERS)
Institutes (as cited in Madsen, Longman, & Daniels, 2012). Sandberg (as cited in Eddy & Ward,

2015) agrees women should be encouraged to consider opportunities even when they don’t feel
adequately prepared, since women often hold back from pursuing opportunities.
Hopkins et al. (2008) propose a framework consisting of the following seven leadership
development categories: assessment, training, coaching, mentoring, networking, experiential
learning, and career planning. Sessions addressing self-confidence, life balance, and academic
politics should be included, according to Madsen et al. (2012). Women need to see that there are
multiple ways for them to advance in academic careers, not just one prescribed pathway to
leadership. Presenting varied models and real-life examples is one way of encouraging women to
reframe their own opportunities (Eddy & Ward, 2015).
Research shows that two components of a leadership development program needed for
success are: procedures to insure quality and sustainability of curriculum and activities, and
assessment tools and strategies for rigorous evaluation and continuous improvement (Baltodano,
Carlson, Jackson, & Mitchell, 2012). Studies and documentation of results are necessary to serve
as a model for other initiatives and practices.
According to a national survey of 1515 university administrators (Morris & Laipple,
2015), women felt less prepared and less skilled in several business management aspects of their
jobs, like managing finances, allocating resources, and generating revenue. Whether this lack of
confidence is based on opportunity, reality, or perception, should be studied further (Morris &
Laipple, 2015). Nonetheless this suggests that some women will benefit from business
management skill training in professional development.
Another approach is to train women in transformational leadership, since this style of
leadership may be more comfortable for women and is highly effective (Hoyt, 2013). Ely &
Rhode (2010) recommend an ecosystem framework for women’s leadership development
training, which may reduce difficulty with developing leadership identity by focusing on

collectively-oriented goals. The clear directive of all leadership development for women,
however, should be to help women to acquire a broad repertoire of leadership behaviors and
styles, in the context of higher education where women are under-represented at the highest
levels.
Leadership programs should closely align with an institution’s objectives and mission.
With diversity being a core value at many educational institutions, the inclusion of more women
into the top leadership ranks should be a high priority. According to Eddy & Ward (2015) higher
education maintains a bureaucratic structure and is male-dominated. Women, who represent
more than half the undergraduate students in the country, and most of the graduates, are
unfortunately over-represented in low-paying careers like education and nursing, and under-
represented in the sciences and engineering (Eddy & Ward, 2015), and at the highest levels of
academic leadership. The development of more top female administrators in higher education
will guarantee positive role models for these younger women.
According to some reports, such as the recent Higher Education Resource Services
alumni survey, women experience more hostility in higher education jobs than ever before
(Madsen et al., 2012). Women faculty members at four year institutions also find their
advancement opportunities limited after the associate-professor level (Eddy & Ward, 2015).
Particularly in education, women leaders can make a difference. They can create new standards
for women in leadership, and influence thinking and learning about gender and power
(McKenna, 2007).
Leadership development for both genders is also particularly important in an educational
setting because it is lacking as a prerequisite for administrators in higher education. The
corporate sector, on the other hand, spent more than 15 billion dollars nationally in 2013 alone

on leadership training (Morris & Laipple, 2015). Since the typical longevity of an academic dean
is only six years (Morris & Laipple, 2015), and good leaders are an asset to the institution,
colleges cannot afford to overlook leadership training for both genders. Resources, however, are
often limited. Networking with other organizations at the state and national level can reduce cost
and increase the impact of each college’s programs, while producing significant results.
In a survey of 1515 college administrations, Morris & Laipple (2015) found that women
are more likely to engage in professional development programs than men. More research can
determine whether this is a result of women having less confidence in their abilities, being more
proactive, or being offered more opportunities for leadership development. In any case, higher
education settings are the logical place to hold leadership training programs, and women, in
particular, can benefit from these offerings.
Effective Leadership Development Programs
A recent meta-analysis by Collins & Holton (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) found that
professional development training is highly effective for increasing knowledge, highly to
moderately effective for altering behaviors as measured objectively, and moderately effective for
influencing subjective behavior and system-wide outcomes. The more closely a training program
is aligned with the institution, the more effective it becomes. Contextual training is particularly
beneficial (Hopkins et al., 2008).
Adler, Brody, and Osland (as cited in Hopkins et al., 2008) reported that one
organization’s global women’s leadership forum was championed by the CEO, signaling a
commitment to gender equity, and effectively developing the talent of women across the
organization. Maryland’s Community College system, which features women presidents in 56
percent of its colleges, has been aggressive in recruiting female leaders for its leadership
development program. Support from the state board was critical to the success of this initiative,

which demonstrated that a tipping point was reached when 40 percent of the presidents were
women (Eddy & Ward, 2015).
Colleges can take advantage of the American Council on Education (ACE)’s Office of
Women in Higher Education (OWHE) (Baltodano et al., 2012) for professional development
opportunities for their women employees. At these meetings, women develop networking, and
mentoring relationships, and learn best practices for advancement (Eddy & Ward, 2015). In
Michigan the ACE network is partially funded by the Michigan Department of Labor, and in
efforts to recruit young women, coordinates three annual leadership workshops for women
college students on their campuses at no charge (Baltodano et al., 2012).
Analysis of the Scope and Limitations of this Topic
Leadership development for women is underrepresented in the literature but is a growing
trend, as are leadership development programs in general. Since 2000, leadership development is
considered a central area of inquiry within human resource development, and could even be
considered one of the most important areas (Madsen, 2011). The topic of women’s leadership
development is represented in scholarly articles and dissertations, but very few books. There is
an abundance of research on a small scale, with many varied aspects of leadership being tested,
and discussed. There is, however, a lack of long-term definitive studies on the topic, and an even
greater shortage of research on program outcomes and assessments.
Until 2000, women were visibly making progress in the workforce, gaining in numbers of
positions in management and leadership. However, that progress has stalled (Hoyt, 2013;
Madsen, 2011), and only recently have scholars begun to research why this happened, and how
women can reach the highest ranks and their full potential. In tough budgetary times, money has
not been spent on human resource efforts to correct gender inequity (Baltodano et al., 2012).
According to The White House Project (as cited in Baltodano et al., 2012) the American public is

now comfortable with the idea of women in leadership and rated women above men in five of
eight traits they value highly in leaders. I believe the public is just now becoming aware that full
equality has not already been achieved, hence the heightened interest in gender and leadership at
this time.
In addition to the long-term studies that are needed, particular attention needs to be
focused on unbiased assessment of women leaders. Women may not seek out evaluation due to
lack of confidence about the results or their unwillingness to ask others for their time (Hopkins et
al., 2008). This results in a lack of assessment of women’s leadership which could shore up even
more belief in the abilities of women as leaders.
Conclusion
Jane Addams once said: “I do not believe that women are better than men. We have not
wrecked railroads, nor corrupted legislature, nor done many unholy things that men have done;
but then we must remember that we have not had the chance” (Lewis, 2015). Today’s women
academic leaders deserve the chance to lead institutions with a balance of skill, creativity, and
compassion.
Barriers to women’s advancement undermine organizations and individuals, and
compromise principles of equal opportunity and social justice. Some research has demonstrated
that in weak corporate governance firms, boards with less women performed more poorly than
those with more women (Ely & Rhode, 2010). In light of globalization, and our nation’s
challenges, it is economically damaging not to have an equal number of women in top leadership
roles. The need for effective leaders, in higher education and elsewhere, has never been greater.
We need the contributions of women.
To the extent that women differ from men in outlook, personality, and behavior, their
absence from the highest ranks limits an organization’s potential to reach a body of clients or

students with similar outlooks, and behaviors. The value of women’s relational skills should not
be underestimated. According to The White House Project (as cited in Madsen, 2011) the
absence, or lack, of female academic leaders has far-reaching influences on institutions, and all
of us are missing the scope of research and knowledge they possess. Women also serve as
influential mentors to female students.
The repertoire of skills needed by a leader to successfully navigate today’s challenges
needs to be taught in leadership development programs. All leadership research should relate to
gender, since gender affects leadership development and behaviors. We need to understand more
about gender and leadership so that leadership development can be customized to the needs of
both women and men. Institutions can then share their research with other institutions, and make
adjustments to their leadership programs. Women, who are under-represented at the highest
levels of academic leadership, face internal and external challenges that particularly compromise
their leadership development, and they have styles and behaviors that are distinct to women.
Therefore, gender-specific leadership development programs serve their needs by offering a
combination of teaching, assessment, mentoring, work-life balance, and support.
An organizational commitment to gender equity as evidenced by gender-specific
leadership development for under-represented women will encourage all female employees
through the ranks to be more committed to their jobs and their institutions. It will signal to both
genders that what has already been accomplished is not enough, and that colleges and
universities are taking the lead in pursuit of equity.

References
Baltodano, J. C., Carlson, S., Jackson, L. W., & Mitchell, W. (2012). Networking to leadership
in higher education: National and state-based programs and networks for developing
women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(1), 62-78.
doi:10.1177/1523422311428926
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). The transformational model of leadership Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Engen, M. L. v. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.
Eddy, P. L., & Ward, K. (2015). Lean in or opt out: Career pathways of academic women.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(2), 6-13.
doi:10.1080/00091383.2015.1018082
Ely, R. J., & Rhode, D. L. (2010). Women and leadership. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.),
Handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard business school centennial
colloquium on advancing leadership (pp. 377-410). Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Gino, F., Wilmuth, C. A., & Brooks, A. W. (2015). Compared to men, women view professional
advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. Retrieved from Boston, MA:
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502567112

Hopkins, M. M., O'Neil, D. A., Passarelli, A., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Women's leadership
development strategic practices for women and organizations. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 348-365. doi:10.1037/a0014093
Hoyt, C. L. (2013). Women and leadership. In P. G. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and
practice, 6th ed. (pp. 349-382): SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lewis, J. J. (2015). Jane Addams Quotes Retrieved from
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/jane_addams.htm. Retrieved October 9,
2015, from About.com http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/jane_addams.htm
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective Leadership: Managing in a Changing World. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Madsen, S. R. (2011). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities, challenges,
and future directions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 131-139.
doi:10.1177/1523422311436299
Madsen, S. R., Longman, K. A., & 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. doi:10.1177/1523422311429734
McKenna, M. A. (2007). Women in power. New England Journal of Public Policy, 22(1).
Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol22/iss1/4
McKinsey&Company. (2015). Women in the workplace 2015. Retrieved from
http://womenintheworkplace.com/?kui=F_uo-KytqxVNS0kfU682fA
Morris, T. L., & Laipple, J. S. (2015). How prepared are academic administrators? Leadership
and job satisfaction within US research universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 37(2), 241-251. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019125

Robinson, J. L., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2003). Leadership behavior of male and female
managers, 1984-2002. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 28-33.
Sundberg, L. L.). Leadership today: Is gender still an issue?
Wielkiewicz, R. M., Fischer, D. V., Stelzner, S. P., Overland, M., & Sinner, A. M. (2012).
Leadership attitudes and beliefs of incoming first-year college students: A multi-
institutional study of gender differences. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(2), 1-25.

IDSL 825 Research Paper Final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à IDSL 825 Research Paper Final

Similaire à IDSL 825 Research Paper Final (20)

IDSL 825 Research Paper Final