In 2003, the Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee (AVCC) estimated that women comprised over half of the population of Australian academics employed at the base level, but males dominated above the base level, with only 15 percent of professors being women. Several studies have concluded that “more women in education tend to be concentrated in the lower ranks than men” (Toren, 2001; Noble and Mears, 2000; Halpin and Johnston, 2004). Furthermore, a study by Riley (1994, p. 88) highlights that “senior educational leaders are predominantly male” in European countries and that women are in fact internationally underrepresented at managerial levels. Noticeably, “the proportion of women employed in teaching declines as the age of the students rises”. “If there is anywhere women professionals should be successful it is in the universities, as teaching is seen as a woman’s forte and universities as meritocratic institutions” (Acker, 1980, p.81). However, Limerick (1991, in O’Leary, 1997) argues that women have been traditionally well represented as teachers, stating that teaching is “a woman’s job but a man’s career”. Thus, the glass ceiling is illustrated by the poor representation of women in the top academic jobs (AUT, 1999), and by the noticeable difference in salaries for academic women averaging one-fifth of academic men’s salaries. Studies carried out by Curtis, a director of research at the Association of American University Professors (AAUP) indicated that women faculty members earned significantly less than men. “At the rank of full professor, women’s average salaries were 88 percent of men’s; at the rank of associate professor, they are 93 percent, and at the rank of assistant professor, they are 92 percent”, averaging 80 percent of the salary of men. Despite the large number of women employed by the education industry, it seems that there are certain barriers that prevail and play key roles in preventing the promotion of women in educational institutions into higher administrative levels. As Hall (1999, p. 159) explains it, “analysts of education management acknowledge the disparity between women’s numbers in the teaching profession and their representation at senior levels. We have all become sophisticated in interpreting and explaining these figures. We are less proactive in rigorously thinking through the consequences of this disparity for the educational and employment opportunities of girls and boys, men and women.” What are the barriers that prevent women from reaching senior positions in education, in a so-called woman-dominated industry?
Barrier Theories in Education
The barriers for women to attain an educational managerial level have been discussed and categorized by numerous writers. As a result three main theories clarify the rationale for the underrepresentation of women in senior management positions. The first theory implicates socialization and stereotyping. Research has shown that in educational institutions lecturers mechanically stereotype managers in their discourse as males, which has a direct impact on the student’s learning, thus disseminating this stereotype later in their management application (Foster, 1994). Morgan (1981) discusses how conferences, seminars and scholarly journals demonstrate a competitive display of masculine skills, and refers to this as the “academic machismo”. One student’s experience, an example of this, states that “as the MBA course progressed, I became more aware of the absence of women. I never had a female lecturer and visiting speakers were always male. Gender issues were never mentioned in the sessions. If I asked questions relating to gender there were three reactions: genuine puzzlement – what did I mean; hostility – did I not understand that this was a business course which was therefore gender neutral; polite interest but no knowledge or suggestions of where I might find such knowledge” (Cole, 1998).
The second theory considers internal barriers comprising a women’s lack of confidence, lack of competitiveness and a fear of failure (Cubillo and Brown, 2003). The findings of Kruger (1996) confirm women, unlike men, successfully manage or avoid situations of conflict instead of competing with others. Cubillo (1999, p. 554) states that it is the unfamiliarity with the territory rather than the lack of faith in their abilities that results in women’s lack of confidence. Blackmore (1999, p. 107) labeled women as the “outsiders inside”, since even when they are part of a male dominated institution, they remain outside the “boys’ club”. Similarly, women’s fear of failure is significantly reduced once the “rules of the game” in the male-dominated field of educational management become clearer.
A third theory involves the culture and traditions as main factors that alter the way people operate within society. There are three levels that constitute this theory. The “macro” socio-political level consists of the deep-rooted dominating traditions and culture, often influenced by religious customs and beliefs, which under certain circumstances do not privilege women (Cubillo and Brown, 2003). In some countries, economic policies and liberating market forces that converge towards a productive economy are structurally unbeneficial to women (Ghosh, 1996, p. 116). The “meso” organizational level covers the power relations within organizations, namely the hierarchical and paternalistic nature of educational organizations (Cubillo and Brown, 2003). Numerous findings from Acker and Feuverger (1996, p. 417) identify the latter and describe universities as “patriarchal institutions inevitably favoring men”. Likewise, Garrett (1997, p. 43) reports a testimonial of a female head teacher highlighting the difficulty of her relationship as a woman in a “position of authority” with local authority officers. The “micro” level is a result of the weight of traditional male domination at the macro-level and the patriarchal culture at the meso-level, which specifically involves a woman’s lack of self-esteem perception (Gold, 1996). This might also be affected by certain situations where social duties are implicated. For example, as Brown and Ralph (1996, p.23) determined in their study of Ugandan women managers, men and women encounter diverse experiences in education bearing additional imperative social responsibilities for girls and women.
Breaking the Glass Ceiling through Education
Hite and McDonalds (1995) believed that the result of this “low level of gender diversity awareness” among the professors and the students could negatively affect personal interactions leading to a certain discomfort and misunderstanding. Therefore, if this level of awareness is improved in educational institutions, considerable changes in the existence of the glass ceiling might arise within organizations (McKeen and Burke, 1991) and women will consequently be able to fulfill their professional and managerial capabilities (Simpson, 1995). McKeen and Burke (1991) propose that women should engage in open talks about their work and life experiences. Breaking the glass ceiling in educational institutions should start with a significant presence of academic women, the encouragement of women networks, the integration of women’s experiences in material courses and the support of research in their work environment. Marks et al. (1997) recommends that business and management schools should first reassess the content of their courses and ensure it includes balanced knowledge and skills essential for both men and women to be successful managers. Second, these academic institutions should re-examine whether the learning and teaching styles implemented are appropriate and adapted to the different learning styles of current and future students. Third, the respective establishments should check if they are offering the proper knowledge that will prepare the future working generations to revamp business environments through their acquired managerial skills. Schein and Davidson (1993) agree with Marks and propose that educational institutions should include training, development and teaching to fight stereotyping and changing attitudes towards “think manager – think qualified person” instead of qualified men. Findings have also proven that universities play an imperative role in supporting individuals and organizations in their critical thinking and decision-making. Bryans (et al., 1998) states that ignoring the role of universities will dangerously lead to “impoverished learning”. Moreover, studies have shown that business and management schools significantly reflect current patterns of the glass ceiling for woman in their work environment (Mavin and Bryans, 1999).
Breaking the glass ceiling in education
Hence, this need of a call for a change in the traditional structure theory necessitates a rethinking of that theory through a “gender lens” (T. Waring, 2004) by placing gender on the agenda and increasing the awareness of gender issues through these discussed initiatives. As De Matteo (1994) noted, a boundary-less organization compels new management styles like feminine and androgynous leadership styles with instrumental and expressive behaviors that comprise feelings, productivity, achievement, support and guidance, which will enable managers to eliminate stereotypical gender role expectations. As women are becoming more and more aware of their undesired classification and stereotyping for their career progression, certain measures are adopted to avoid these traditional roles and unlock the doors to the “masculine” world of managerialism and leadership (Coleman, 1996, p. 322). As a result, a transformational, empowering and collaborative style of leadership is given to women compared to a more directive and authoritarian style traditionally inclined to male leaders (Cubillo and Brown, 2003). However, Singleton (1993) argues that a good leader is an androgynous leader with both male and female attributes, which he/she would employ, given the circumstances. Hence, the real problem with women who are seeking to become leaders is not to justify their right to earn their position in managerial levels but rather to simply be allowed to reach them. Women have, therefore, now become viable and valuable contributors to the workforce, not only on the “sticky floors” doing low-paid, menial but often essential jobs, pushing through the “glass ceiling” and pushing aside “glass walls” to become leaders in their own right (Cubillo and Brown, 2003).
HEALTHCARE
According to the US Department of Labor, the healthcare industry, the largest industry in 2006, provided 14 million jobs—13.6 million jobs for wage and salary workers and approximately 438,000 jobs for the self-employed. Healthcare delivery systems are highly complex organizational structures and can be further defined as hospitals, academic health centers and research organizations (Barbara, Eiser et al., 2006). In most regions of the world, the healthcare industry faces a series of challenges related to access, quality, cost containment and infrastructure (Baker and Koplan, 2002). In order to guide the necessary transformations, there is an ever-present demand for significant change by means of strong leadership (Lantz and Maryland, 2008). It is in common agreement that the administrators in healthcare organizations, along with the nurses, physicians and scientists that comprise the industry, must reflect the “gender, racial, ethnic and cultural diversity of the communities they serve.” (Lantz, 2008)
Since the 1972 passage of ‘Title IX of the Higher Education Act’, a legislation that prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools, women have advanced significantly in the medical field (AMA; Joy, 2008). According to National Science Foundation in 2006, the percentage of women with a doctoral degree in science and engineering fields has experienced an overall growth of 27.2 percent between 1996 and 2005 (Joy, 2006). Despite the existence of this legislation, gender differences still exist in academic specializations, in behaviors in the workplace and in opportunities for advancement in the medical field. The realization of women’s full leadership potential in healthcare has occurred only to a very limited extent (Barbara, Eiser et al. 2006). Progress in rectifying the inequity between women and men in healthcare leadership ranks has been slow. It is estimated that although women make up more than 50 percent of the healthcare workforce, they hold about only 5 percent of executive positions, such as CEO, Chair, and Executive Vice President. Furthermore, top executive women continue to earn considerably less than their male counterparts in comparable positions, even though women have long outpaced men in the percentage of bachelor’s degrees earned from colleges (Lantz, 2008). Data collected throughout the past several years has indicated that despite the increase in the number of leadership roles for women in healthcare, they remain strongly underrepresented. In 2005, the University of Michigan conducted a study that was aimed at identifying the gender of chief hospital administrators in “high-quality, leading institutions in the US (Solucient Top 100 Hospitals in 2005).” The results indicated that a mere 24% of chief administrators were women (Dunham and Yhouse 2007). In conclusion, the study stated that “so little progress has been made to narrow the gender gap in healthcare leadership. The nation’s top hospitals should be leaders in the effort to remove gender bias in the selection of chief administrators.” Throughout the past decade, several studies have indicated that salary disparity between both sexes in healthcare continues to prevail (Lantz and Maryland, 2008). Women healthcare executives earn significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts. In fact, the female-male salary gap has been stable over time, “with men earning eighteen percent more in 1990, 17% more in 1995, 19% more in 2000 and 18% more in 2006” (Lantz, 2008). Due to gender discrimination, almost one third of the women workforce in healthcare in 2006 strongly believed that they did not receive fair compensation. Both the trends in salaries and the “scarcity of their presence suggests that their summits were never attained. “More likely, few women have made it to the top” (Appelbaum, 2003). By formally recognizing the glass ceiling phenomenon for women in healthcare, and by addressing both organizational and personal factors that are involved in this imbalance, recommendations can be made that could encourage organizations to develop the leadership needed to achieve both gender equity and increased organizational effectiveness (Eiser, 2006).
Despite being underrepresented in certain specializations, there are several fields of specialty in which women represent more than 50% of residents such as obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics, medical genetics and dermatology (AMA, Joy, 2006). Between 1996 and 2005, the American market experienced a large scale in growth of women in surgical specialties. “This gender division of labor” is primarily due to vertical and horizontal segregation (Dumelow C. and Griffiths S., 1995). The former is described as the obstruction of women moving upwards, despite the fact that both genders are recruited at similar initial levels. The latter is best explained by the fact that women predominate in specific specialties. According to the British Medical Association (BMA) researches (2004), the causes for these segregations in medical institutions include difficulties in balancing career and family and the prevalence of sexist attitudes (Miller and Clark, 2008). Different facets of the glass ceiling have been explored in the literature including employer biases, the limited training and development opportunities, stereotypical attitudes (Jamali, 2006), the lack of mentoring, organizational culture (Dumelow C. and Griffiths S., 1995), negative perceptions of women’s professional capabilities, the exclusion of women from informal networking processes and the absence of family-friendly programs and flexible working hours to help women better manage their dual roles (Metz, 2003; Cordano et al., 2002; Lahtinen and Wilson, 1994; Adebowale, 1994).
Barriers in Healthcare
The main barrier for women’s medical career advancement is the role conflict they encounter, which includes career breaks, child-care and difficulties in combining professional and family demands (Dumelow C. and Griffiths S., 1995; Miller and Clark, 2008). The BMA states that the most frequently-cited reason for female doctors (76%) to leave general practice is due to family responsibilities (Miller and Clark, 2008). Another study indicates that women are significantly more likely to believe that they hold a disproportionate burden of family and home responsibilities (Lantz and Maryland, 2008). Having a family, or other domestic commitments, were regarded as a disruption of daily working life (Dumelow C. and Griffiths S., 1995) and accordingly, most women who reached a senior grade in their profession were likely to be childless and were even less likely to be married than men (Miller and Clark, 2008). According to a female respondent in the Dumelow and Griffiths (1995) study, “the route (medical consultant career) is structured in a way that favors men and male attitudes. You need a good wife to support you, which most women don’t have.” (Miller and Clark, 2008). A study in 2004, by Arnetz and von Vultee, indicated that the higher rates of absenteeism observed in female physicians were not only because of family-related incidents, but also because of higher occupational stress. Low influence and authority capabilities at work, due to gender discrimination and ongoing restructuring of the healthcare sector, were reported as important factors that fostered an unhealthy work environment, consequently increasing the rate of absenteeism for female physicians.
Men are more prone to become chemists, physicians and computer scientists and women are more likely to be employed as biologists, technicians, pharmacists or nurses (Joy, 2006). This is mainly due to the gender attributes that are associated with these fields.
A study conducted by the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) interviewed 743 respondents of both genders, asking them to describe the positive attributes that played a key role in career advancement (Weil and Mattis, 2003). Interestingly, both genders were in accordance that traditionally-male attributes were critical in determining career success. Consequently, it was determined that both sexes favored male superiors. A possible underlying cause of this apparent lack of self-confidence may be due to the fact that “women have internalized a second-class attitude that they have been encouraged to assume” (Appelbaum, 2003). Women’s attitude towards leadership plays a key role in predicting “group assessed leader emergence” (Appelbaum, 2003). Leadership styles are especially important in influencing promotion to executive positions (Lantz and Maryland, 2008). Women’s leadership style is often categorized as transformational and charismatic, motivating and inspiring workers to contribute towards organizational goals. Conversely, men’s leadership approach is often classified as transactional, allowing for the monitoring of employee performance, intervening when necessary and rewarding solid performance. People are generally less threatened by a leader who is emotive, personable and an inspiration towards others. While some typical female attributes include modesty, cooperation and emotiveness, the male characteristics embrace assertiveness, stability and independence. Previous researches have shown mounting evidence of gender differences in the physicians’ practices and behaviors (Francescutti and Rondeau, 2006). Their research consisted of surveying over 400 Canadian emergency physicians and found that female physicians engage in a more counseling behavior with their patients than their male counterparts. In 1990, Cann and Siegfried determined that effective leaders should have the flexibility to engage in both stereotypical masculine and feminine associated behaviors: most optimal models of leadership assume a need for both employee-oriented and task-oriented behavior (Hopkins, O’Neil at el., 2006). However, most leadership models assume masculine-dominant characteristics (Fernandes and Cabral-Cardoso, 2003). In order for them to be successful and to “escalate the ranks”, it is implied that women should adopt these leadership styles (Rigg and Sparrow, 1994; Trinidad and Normore, 2004).
Another significant barrier was identified in a study that examined the findings of a national survey of healthcare executives (Weil, 2003); the (short) amount of time women spent within the organization. Results indicated that a longer time spent in the company should be sufficient to induce several cracks in the healthcare’s glass ceiling. However, CEOs that responded to that same survey indicated that in fact, the time factor played a limited role in establishing women’s advancement; time cannot be an accurate remedy when the main barrier for career advancement was due to a lack of “line experience and significant management.” In their surveys of 140 women in the healthcare field, Hopkins, O’Neil and Bilimoria discovered that women’s individual strategies for success in this field are related to access and competence. These women have been excluded from the networks and work experiences that would enhance their possibility for advancement, and consequently, they try to compensate by demonstrating their qualifications of competence and exceptional abilities of performance. However, these circumstances will not change until “the doors of accessibilities and the structure of opportunities for organizational advancement will open for women in the healthcare industry” (Hopkins, O’neil and Bilimoria, 2006).
Many studies have suggested that there is a lack of female mentors and that the importance of a mentoring relationship has been neglected, as critical as it is (Lantz and Maryland, 2008). Women at senior hospital and consultants grades can be great role models for the rest of the women in the medical profession (Williams and Cantillon, 2000; Joy, 2006). William and Cantillion’s (2000) research also states that it is important for female students to work and meet with female surgical specialists and consultants because 70% of female students were reluctant to pursue a surgical specialty since surgery is considered a male dominant area. Despite the fact that this classical vertical hierarchal model still exists between physicians, nursing itself does not have a defined hierarchical power. Even top-level nurses have narrowly defined authority restricted to nursing issues (Weil and Mattis, 2003). The glass ceiling that exists is not only present due to the influence of general management, which has successfully sought to establish itself and continues to do so by dominating and controlling nursing, but also due to nursing’s attempt to move away from its “assistantship” to medicine and physicians (Tracey, 2006). Following the conduction of semi-structured interviews with 50 directors of nursing, it was concluded that nursing needed to confront the power imbalance by examining its own behaviors; “the reality is neither medicine nor general management, individually or collectively, are going to share or devolve power and influence nursing” (Tracey, 2006).
Breaking the Glass Ceiling in Healthcare
Despite widespread awareness of the existence of the glass ceiling in healthcare, current action and policy recommendations are severely lacking. Witt and Keiffer reported (2002) a set of recommendations for enhancing diversity in the talent pool of future leaders. Weil and Mattis (2001) developed a detailed focused set of recommendations, including “avoiding career interruptions of six months or more”, all reinforcing the notion that women must make more sacrifices in order to attain top leadership. Yet the majority of today’s recommendations put forth do not sound like concrete strategies: they are unrealistic and simplistic. Another approach that has been implemented in healthcare is affirmative action, which involves proactive employment practices whose object is to prevent discrimination. (Weil and Mattis, 2003) Research studies in the US have recently shown that 45% of men said that affirmative action was no longer needed, as opposed to the 55% of women that believed it was crucial in breaking the glass ceiling (Weil, 2003). Although considered fair when designed to identify and eliminate barriers hidden in employment systems, it can also be viewed as “unfair when candidates are given preference over others with similar qualifications”, consequently making it unpopular with a majority of healthcare professionals (Weil, 2003).
Numerous women attempt to balance the busy demands of work and family constraints (Lantz and Maryland, 2008) with the career structure of the medical profession, that expects long working hours and defines career success and achievement as being stereotypically masculine (Miller and Clark,2008). Some research state that there is a need for more part-time, flexible training and working schemes to help women overcome the difficulties of combining a medical career with family life (Williams and Cantillion, 2000). Yet in order to be treated as equals to men, should women expect an organization to be accommodating to their needs? “And, what can be done to address discrimination, segregation and barriers to female career progression within the medical profession?” (Miller and Clark, 2008). In their analysis of longitudinal data (1963-1996) of female hospital doctors, McManus and Sporston (2000) concluded that there is no glass ceiling for female medical practitioners and state that in general, there is no overall disproportionate promotion of women. Their analysis of data show that the recruitment patterns are related to the low proportion of women in senior hospital levels. There are three main obstacles that have been successful in preventing women from gaining recognition from upper-hand management: CEOs, boards, recruiters. Therefore, a good recruitment model is needed. In a study where he examined the relationship between 108 senior leaders and 325 of their subordinates in a diverse number of organizations, Groves (2005) suggests that organizations shouldn’t rely solely on interviews to select or promote senior managers but rather utilize social and emotional skill levels as selection criteria. Moreover, it is clearly evident that the optimal approach in organizations should include a transformational approach underpinned by a transactional philosophy. Yet several studies have suggested that when women do display some male attributes, they are looked upon in a negative light, due to the fact that they have “stepped outside their roles” (Arnetz, 2004). In fact, Neubert and Palmer correctly warned against this “strategy of proclaiming the virtues of competitive advantage of ‘feminine management’ as it may reinforce gender stereotypes.” Although barriers must be moved in order to break the glass ceiling, women as a minority must not be promoted as the “reverse discrimination” suggests (Weil and Mattis, 2003). The answer to the above questions might lie in the rapid growth in the last decade of female medical students (McManus and Sporston, 2000) and in the increased rate of female medical graduates (Miller and Clark, 2008). With the feminization of the medical field, these issues will have to be addressed thoroughly (Miller and Clark, 2008) and will be reflected in the future as more women progress in hospital and surgical specialties (McManus and Sporston, 2000).
CONCLUSION
Throughout the past several years, women have been able to gain entry into almost every field dominated by men. Recent statistics portray that women remain underrepresented in senior management positions in academia and healthcare, despite them constituting a large percentage in both fields. Having ‘knocked up against the glass ceiling’ for numerous years, yet not having been able to break it implies that there still remain a series of obstinate barriers preventing the advancement of women’s careers. Previous research has shown that transformational and charismatic leadership associated with females “positively affects net profit margin, stock value, top management team motivation and cohesion, and follower perceptions of leadership effectiveness” (Groves, 2005). The real issue in leadership lies in selecting the right person with the appropriate skills and qualities to ensure effectiveness and success within the institutes. “The integration of women in leadership roles is not a matter of ‘fitting in’ the traditional models, but ‘giving in’ the opportunities for them to practice their own leadership styles.” (Trinidad and Normore, 2005). Some women “dared to break the mold” by utilizing feminine leadership behaviors and styles “as silent cries for social justice and a place of their own in organizations.” (Trinidad and Normore, 2005).
In reality, behaviors and styles associated with female attributes are not as socially accepted as we would like to believe due to the fact that most organizations primarily comprise of men. Consequently, most women choose to adopt the styles of successful male leaders (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 1993). Conversely, instead of being acknowledged as good managers when using this particular style, women are labeled as “bossy” and “pushy” (Davidson and Cooper, 1992). On the other hand, when women embrace a “female-oriented” management style, they are perceived as being ineffective (Ragins et al., 1998). Due to this “lose-lose situation” in male-oriented organizations, women cannot become “one of the boys” (Rosener, 1990) and are often excluded from decision meetings as well as assigned to lower levels projects with restricted visibility, thus creating the “invisible-woman syndrome” (Janet Cooper Jackson, 2001). Although some women have “made it” to a certain extent in their career, it cannot be disregarded that they face wage gap due to gender discrimination. A new trend in leadership has emerged over the past several years; it is described as being genderless, incorporating attributes from both sexes. This current movement is derived from “the fact that women’s styles are not at all likely to be less effective” (Appelbaum, 2003). Rather, a successful leader is one that adopts the interpersonal attributes of females with the task oriented characteristics of males.
The healthcare and education industries need to recognize the importance of the presence of women in their institutions. This should start in teachings in educational institutes and will only be possible if affluent males in those fields start taking steps towards the elimination of this gender gap. Male-dominated hospital boards should be required to recognize obstacles that deter them from passing high level responsibilities on to their female counterparts. Simultaneously, females should take proactive action by attempting to gain further experience, expanding their networks and becoming more visible outside their institutions.
Despite the numerous studies that have been conducted over the past several years, there have been varying results in the leader succession literature. This is due to the fact that several studies have utilized only short-term performance measures and have not examined long-term performance effects on succession. Furthermore, the majority of the data in the studies mentioned was collected prior to 2005. It is imperative that new data be studied in order to reassess the developments that have taken place in regards to the glass ceiling. Moreover, most of the collected data are from self-selected samples, where it is highly likely that respondents’ answers may be skewed as a result of personal motives. In addition, a women-only sample provides no other points to compare with.
Many have questioned whether more of an effort should be made in order to increase the number of women in senior management positions. This decision has a crucial and direct impact on our society; “should senior executives embrace the liberal idea of individual achievement and freedom to act according to one’s individual conscience or should they pursue a strategy that corrects the injustices of the past?”(Powers 2001, as quoted by Weil) “While it is true that more women now than ever before are slowly chiseling through the glass barrier to take on leadership positions, one can hardly claim to hear glass ceilings shattering around us” (Cubillo and Brown, 2003).
References:
(AAUP), A. o. A. U. P. (2004). "Research director on gender gap." Academe 90(3): 26-27.
(The) Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee (AVCC) (1999). "Resource analysis - statistics." http://www.avcc.edu.au/policies_activities/resource_analysis/key_stats/index.htm.
Acker, S. (1980). "Women, the other academics." The British Journal of Sociology of Education 1(1): 81-91.
Adebowale, A. (1994). "The glass ceiling: women and mentoring in management and business." Employee Counseling Today 6(1): 21-25.
American Medical Association Women Physicians Congress and AMA Archives (2007). "Women in Medicine: An AMA Timeline."
Appelbaum, S. H., L. Audet, et al. (2003). "Gender and Leadership? Leadership and Gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. ." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 24(1): 43-51.
Appelbaum, S. H. and B. T. Shapiro (1993). "Why can't men lead like women?" Leadership & Organization Development Journal 14(7): 28-34.
Arnetz, B. and P. Vultee (2004). "The impact of management programs on physicians' work environment and health." Journal of Health Organizations and Managements 18(1): 25-37.
Association of University Teachers (AUT) (1999). "First steps towards gender audit." AUT Woman 47.
Baker, E. L. and J. P. Koplan (2002). "Strenghtening the nation’s public health infrastructure: hoistoric challenge, unprecedented opportunity." HEALTH affairs 21: 15-27.
BBC NEWS (2004). "Glass ceiling traps academics: women academics are being discriminated against in terms of money and promotion, lecturers claim." http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/3706852.
Black, A. E. and S. Rothman (1998). "Have you really come a long way? Women's access to power in the United States." Gender Issues 16(1/2): 107-134.
Bryans, P., N. Gormley, et al. (1998). "From collusion to dialogue: universities and continuing professional development." Continuing Professional Development 1(4).
Burke, R. and D. Nelson (2002). "Advancing women in management: progress and prospects." Advancing Women’s Careers.
Campbell, D. J., W. Bommer, et al. (1993). "Perceptions of appropriate leadership style: participation versus consultation across two cultures." Asia Pacific Journal of Management 10(1): 1-19.
Carli, L. L. and A. H. Eagly (2001). "Sex, hierarchy, and leadership: an introduction." Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 629-636.
Catalyst (2003b). "Despite women's gains in business, their representation on America's corporate boards barely improves." http://catalystwomen.org/press_room/pressreleases.htm.
Catalyst (2003a). "Fact sheet: women CEOs." http://catalystwomen.org/press_room/factsheets/factwicl.htm.
Cohen, M. (1997). "Cracking the glass ceiling." Canadian Medical Association 157(12): 1713-1714.
Cole, P. (1998). "It does not figure in the plans. The Vice Chancellor signed up to Opportunity 2000 but what effect did this have on the business studies department?" Employement Research Unit Conference.
Cordano, M., R. Scherer, et al. (2002). "Attitudes toward women as managers: sex versus
culture." Women in Management Review 17(2): 51-60.
Davidson, M. J. and C. L. Cooper (1992). "Shattering The Glass Ceiling: The Women Manager."
Dawley, D., J. Hoffman, et al. (2004). "Leader succession: does gender matter?" The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(8): 678-690.
DeMatteo, L. A. (1994). "From hierarchy to unity between men and women managers (towards an androgynous style of managment." Women in Management Review 9(7): 21-28.
Dix, C. (1990). "A Chance for the Top - The Lives of Women Business Graduates." Bantam Press.
Dumelow, C. and S. Griffiths (1995). "We all need a good wife to support us." Journal of Management in Medicine 9(1): 50-57.
Dumelow, C., P. Littlejohns, et al. (2000). "Relation between a career and family life for English hospital consultants: qualitative, semistructured interview study." British Medical Journal 320: 1437-1440.
Dunham, N. and J. YHouse (2007). "Census of Women Chief administrators of the solucient 100 top hospitals." Unpublished paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). "Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretatio."
Eagly, A. H., M. C. Johannsesen-Schmidt, et al. (2003). "Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men." Psychological Bulletin 129(4): 569-91.
Eggins, H. (1997). "Women as Leaders and Managers in Higher Education." SRHE and Open University Press.
Eiser, B. and P. Morahan (2006). "Fixing The System: breaking the glass ceiling in health care LIA." 26(4): 8-13.
Fastenau, M. (1994). "Business schools ignore the need to imagine being a women manager." HR Monthly.
Fernandes, E. and C. Cabral-Cardoso (2006). "The social stereotypes of the Portuguese female and male manager." Women in Management Review 21(2).
Foster, F. (1994). "Managerial sex role stereotyping among academic staff within UK business schools." Women in Management Review 9(3): 17-22.
Groves, K. (2005). "Gender Differences in Social and Emotional Skills and Charismatic Leadership." Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 11(3): 30-43.
Halpin, T. and C. Johnston (2004). "Academia has a lot to learn on pay equality." The Times: 13.
Hansen, W. and B. Weyer (2007). "Twenty years later: explaining the persistence of the glass ceiling for women leaders." Women in Management Review 22(6): 482-496.
Hopkins, M., D. O'Neil, et al. (2006). "Effective leadership and successful career advancement: perspectives from women in health care." Equal Opportunities International 25(4): 251-271.
Hopkins, M., D. O'Neil, et al. (2006). "Effective leadership and successful career advancement: perspectives from women in health care." Equal Opportunities International 25(4): 251-271.
Hymowitz, C. and T. D. Schellhardt (1986). "The glass ceiling: why women can't seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs." The Wall Street Journal.
Jackson, C. and W. Hirsh (1991). "Women managers and career progression: the British experience." Women in Management Review and Abstracts 6(2): 10-16.
Jackson, J. (2001). "Women middle managers' perception of the glass ceiling." Women in Management Review 16(1): 30-41.
Jamali, D., A. Safieddine, et al. (2006). "The glass ceiling: some positive trends from the Lebanese banking sector." Women in Management Review 21(8).
Joy, L. (2008). "Glass Ceilings or Sticky Floors?" Women in Health Care & Bioscience Leadership State of the Knowledge Report: Bioscience, Academic Medicine, and Nursing.
Kelly, R. and A. Martin (1998). "Position power and women's career advancement." Women in Management Review 13(2): 53-66.
Klagge, J. (1996). "Defining, discovering and developing personal leadership in organizations." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17(5).
Klenke, K. (1996). "Women and Leadership: A Contextual Perspective."
Knights, D. and W. Richards (2001). "Sex discrimination in UK academia." Work and Organization Conference.
Kolb, J. A. (1999). "The effect of gender role, attitude towards leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: implications for leadership development." Human Resource Development Quarterly 10(4): 305-320.
Korac-Kakabadse, N. and A. Kouzmin (1997). "Maintaining the rage: from glass concrete ceilings and metaphorical sex changes to psyschological audits and renegotiating organisation scripts." Women in Management Review 12(5): 182-221.
Lahtinen, H. and F. Wilson (1994). "Women and power in organizations." Executive Development 7(3): 16-23.
Lantz, P. and P. Maryland (2008). "Gender and Leadership in Healthcare Administration: 21st Century Progress and Challenges." Journal of Health Organization and Management 53(5): 291-303.
Luthar, H. K. (1996). "Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: autocratic versus democratic managers." SEX ROLES 35(5/6): 337-361.
Maier, M. (1997). "Invisible privilege: what white men don't see." 28-33.
Marks, R. and M. K. D. Payn (1997). "Why women drop out of graduate management education: answers from GMAC Data." Graduate Management Admission Council: 6-17.
Marvin, S. (2001). "The gender culture kaleidoscope: images of women's identity and place in organisation PhD thesis University of Northumbria at Newcastle."
Mavin, S. (1998a). "Is gender culture the barrier to women's career advancement?" First Conference of Gender, Work and Organization.
Mavin, S. and P. Bryans (1999). "Gender on the agenda in management education?" Women in Management Review 14(3): 99-104.
Mavin, S. and P. Bryans (2002). "Academic women in the UK: mainstreaming our experiences and networking for actions." Gender and Education 14(3): 235-250.
Mavin, S., P. Bryans, et al. (2004). "Unlearning gender blindness: new directions in management education." Management Decision 42(3/4): 565-578.
McAlearney, A. (2005). "Exploring mentoring and leadership development in health care organizations." Career Development International 10(6/7): 493-511.
McDonalds, K. S. and L. M. Hite (1995). "Gender issues in management development: implications and research agenda." Journal of Management Development 14(4): 5-15.
McKeen, C. A. and R. J. Burke (1991). "University initiatives for preparing managerial and professional women for work." Women in Management Review and Abstracts 6(3): 11-15.
McManus, I. C. and K. A. Sproston (2000). "Women in hospital medicine in the United Kingdom:glass ceiling, preference, prejudice or cohort effect?" Journal of Epidemiol CommunityHealth 54: 10-16.
Mears, J. and C. Noble (2000). "The impact of affirmative action legislation on women working in higher education in Australia:progress or procrastination?" Women in Management Review Bradford 15(8): 404.
Metz, I. (2003). "Organizational links to women’s advancement in management in banks." Women in Management Review 18(5): 236-251.
Miller, K. and D. Clark (2008). ""Knife before wife": an exploratory study of gender and the UK medical profession." Journal of Health Organization and Management 22(3): 238-253.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisations.
Moss, G. and L. Daunton (2006). "The discriminatory impact of non-adherence to leadership selection criteria." Career Development International 11(6): 504-521.
National Science Foundation (2005). "Division of Science Resource Statistics." Tables 1 and 2, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). "Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs." Journal of Business Ethics 27(2): 321-335.
Okpara, J. (2005). "Gender differences and job satisfaction: a study of university teachers in the United States." Women in Management Review 20(3): 177-190.
Park, D. (1996). "Gender role, decision style and leadership style." Women in Management Review 11(8).
Pounder, J. and M. Coleman (2002). "Women - better leaders than men? In general and educational management it still "all depends"." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23(3): 122-133.
Powell, D. and D. Butterfield (1981). "Sex effects in evaluating leaders." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28: 129-141.
Ragins, B. R., B. Townsend, et al. (1998). "Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling." Academy of Management Executive 12(1): 28-42.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). "Sex, status, and leadership." Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 637-655.
Rondeau, K. and L. Francescutti (2006). "Health promoting attitudes and behaviors of emergency physicians." Journal of Health Organization and Management 20(4): 269-284.
Ronk, L. A. (1993). "Gender gaps with management." Nursing Management: 65-67.
Schein, V. E. and M. J. Davidson (1993). "Think manager, think male." Management Development Review 6(3): 24-28.
Sheard, A. G. and A. P. Kakabadse (2007). "A role-based perspective on leadership decision taking." Journal of Management Development 26(6).
Simpson, R. (1995). "Is management education on the right track for women?" Women in Management Review 10(6): 3-8.
Smith, C. R. (1997). "Gender issues in management education: a new teaching resource." Women in Management Review 12(3): 100-104.
Smith, M. and C. Cooper (1994). "Leadership and Stress." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 15(2).
Stelter, N. Z. (2002). "Gender differences in leadership: current social issues and future organizational implications." Journal of Leadership Studies 8(4): 88-100.
Tan, J. (2008). "Breaking the "Bamboo Curtain" and the "Glass Ceiling": The Experience of Women Entepreneurs in High-Tech Industries in an Emerging Market." Journal of Business Ethics 80: 547-564.
Toren, N. (2001). "Women in academe: the Israeli case." The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21(50).
Townsend, B. (1997). "Breaking through: the glas ceiling revisited." Equal Opportunities International 16(5): 4-14.
Tracey, C. (2006). "The glass ceiling in Irish healthcare: a nursing perspective." Journal of Health Organization and Management 20(6): 502-511.
Trinidad, C. and A. Normore (2005). "Leadership and gender: dangerous liaison?" Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26(7): 574-590.
US Department of Labor (1995a). "Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital." Glass Ceiling Commission.
US Department of Labor (1995b). "A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital." Glass Ceiling Commission.
US Department of Labor, W. s. B. (1997). "Facts on working women." http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/wmgt97.htm 97(3).
Weil, P. and M. Mattis (2003). "To shatter the glass ceiling in healthcare management: who supports affirmative action and why?" Health Services Management Research 16(4): 224-233.
Wiggins, C. and T. Peterson (2004). "Gender interactions and success." Journal of Health Organization and Management 18(2): 82-91.
Williams, C. and P. Cantillon (2000). "A surgical career? The views of junior women doctors." Medical Education 34(602-607).
Wit and Kieffer (2002). "Preparing future leaders in health care: a confidential witt/kieffer survey of healthcare chief executive officers."
Wood, G. and M. Lindorff (2001). "Sex differences in explanations for carer progress." Women in Management Review 16(4): 152-162.
