Assistant Professor of Political Science Sara Angevine specializes in American politics, women and politics, and comparative politics. Her research explores how gender (and identity, broadly speaking) affects democratic representation in the U.S.
Though women in the U.S. constitute roughly half of the population and workforce, and over 50 percent of college graduates, they are vastly underrepresented in positions of leadership in this country. The gender leadership gap applies across the fields of business, academia, politics, and the arts. U.S. labor statistics show that women make up 27 percent of all chief executives. On college campuses only 31 percent of tenured professors and 27 percent of college presidents are women, according to the American Council on Education. These numbers are even lower for women involved in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), reports Catalyst, a non-profit group dedicated to workforce equity. This is especially concerning as these are considered to be fast growing employment fields of the future. In politics, women are not making the gains in leadership that we have seen in other countries around the world. At the time of this writing, the U.S. ranks 98th in the world for gender parity in political leadership, behind countries such as Mexico, South Africa, Iraq, China, and the United Kingdom, according to the Inter- Parliamentary Union. Women make up roughly 20 percent of the U.S. Congress, 21 percent of all city mayors (of cities over 30,000 people), 26 percent of all state legislatures, and 33 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court.1
Turning to the arts, women again remain underrepresented in positions of power, and, in some cases, the numbers are declining. In 2016, women were 7 percent of all directors on the top 250 domestic grossing films in the U.S., a 2 percent drop from 2015.2
When one includes race in this analysis, the percentages decrease further as far fewer women of color are in positions of power and authority than white women.
Though women have made academic strides equal to or exceeding those of men since the mid-1980s and have been members of the U.S. workforce for even longer, these facts have not translated into women gaining positions of leadership. The enduring question remains: Why? Scholars in various fields have begun to explore this persistent gap. Drawing on their research, I’ll briefly delve into three of the central obstacles that constrain women’s leadership.
First, the Double Bind theory refers to the social expectation that women need to fit into feminine stereotypes of passive, nurturing, and motherly while meeting traditional expectations of leadership, which are molded along masculine expectations of toughness, decisiveness, and assertiveness. Research shows that women in positions of leadership are perceived as either too hard (and not feminine enough) or too soft (and not strong enough to be a leader). These negative perceptions affect how people assess female competence.3
The second barrier—(second generation) gender bias4—refers to explicit and implicit sexism, where people in decision-making positions hold beliefs that women are less capable of handling responsibility, authority, and power. An example of this could be passing a woman over for promotion because she is a mother of young children, assuming that her childcare responsibilities will inhibit her ability to lead and handle professional responsibility. This is particularly problematic for organizations when men in similar situations (fathers of young children) are not held to the same standards. Additionally, sexual harassment and sexual assault still occur with relative frequency in workplaces, mostly directed at women. These actions create working environments where women are marked as outsiders and sexually objectified, thus the ability to gain respect and authority from peers is more difficult.
Lastly, women need mentors and sponsors to advance to positions of leadership. Studies show that women who have been able to navigate the labyrinth of leadership5 have most often done so through strong mentors or sponsors.6 Females are uniquely helpful for women because they may provide useful tactics for negotiating social expectations and gender bias. Male mentors, more often in positions of power and authority, offer a unique influence, since they may be able to give a woman greater legitimacy in the eyes of colleagues who hold stronger gender bias.
In terms of progress, women are relatively new to the public arena and, prior to the early 1970s, very few women were in positions of power. From this perspective, women have made significant advancements over the last 50 years. However, as the statistics illustrate, gender parity in leadership is far from being reached in any field. Thus, I suggest that collegiate women’s leadership programs are a necessary ingredient to advance women’s leadership. College is an opportune time to help women develop their personal leadership identity, which may help them navigate and overcome adversity as women leaders.
Over the last 10 years, I have worked on numerous women’s leadership programs on college campuses. At Whittier College, I am helping others and working to continue the important contributions of past and current women leaders. Since arriving in 2015, I regularly teach a new course titled Women and Leadership, advise the new Women’s Leadership Association student group, and have put together a speaker series that highlights women scholars and leaders in the community. Over the last two years, I have met incredible people at Whittier dedicated to advancing women’s leadership and look forward to continuing to work with our amazing students, colleagues, community members, and alumnae towards this aim.
1 Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University
2 Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, San Diego State, 2017
3 Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, and Tamkins 2004, Rudman and Glick 2001
4 “Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women’s Leadership Development Programs,” Ely, Robin J., et al.
5 Eagly and Carli 2007
6 Catalyst 2017