Women's Leadership in Male-Centric Academic Environments: An Analysis of the "Mismatch Model" and the "Queen Bee" Phenomenon
Authors
Ulkar Allahverdiyeva Yashar
Share
Annotation
This study examines women’s leadership in male-centred academic environments through the mismatch model and the Queen Bee phenomenon. It investigates how gendered expectations of leadership, care responsibilities, appointment practices, and relationships among women shape perceptions of women’s access to leadership positions in higher education. A mixed-methods design was employed, combining an anonymous online survey of 21 higher-education employees with descriptive analysis of eight five-point Likert items and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. The findings show that 71.4% of respondents perceived assertiveness, competitiveness, and dominance as important for advancement to leadership positions, while 57.1% identified family and care responsibilities as an informal barrier to women’s progression. Gender-stratified exploratory analysis indicated that women, compared with men, reported significantly greater doubt toward formally qualified female candidates and a stronger perceived need to distance themselves from women’s solidarity in order to succeed in male-centred academic hierarchies. Qualitative evidence further highlighted care responsibilities, gender stereotypes, unequal selection practices, and informal networks as relevant mechanisms. Importantly, reports of competition, distance, and gatekeeping among women leaders coexisted with reports of mentoring and active career support. The findings therefore do not support a deterministic interpretation of the Queen Bee phenomenon; rather, they suggest that women-to-women leadership relations are heterogeneous and shaped by organisational conditions. The study underscores the need for transparent appointment criteria, formal mentoring and sponsorship structures, and institutional policies that reduce the career penalties associated with care responsibilities. Given the small, non-probability sample, the results should be interpreted as exploratory and warrant replication in larger, institutionally diverse studies.
Keywords
Authors
Ulkar Allahverdiyeva Yashar
Share
References:
Abbas, N., Abbas, F., & Ashiq, U. (2021). Glass ceiling effect and women career: Determining factors in higher education institutions. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 4(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.36902/sjesr-vol4-iss1-2021(1-8)
Baykal, E., Soyalp, E., & Yeşil, R. (2020). Queen bee syndrome: A modern dilemma of working women and its effects on turnover intentions. In Gender and organizational diversity (pp. 165–178). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50131-0_9
Black, S. A. (2015). Qualities of effective leadership in higher education. Open Journal of Leadership, 4(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2015.42006
Bush, T. (2021). Gender and school leadership: Are women still under-represented as school principals? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(6), 861–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211050965
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280
Dunn, D., Gerlach, J. M., & Hyle, A. E. (2014). Gender and leadership: Reflections of women in higher education administration. International Journal of Leadership and Change, 2(1), 10–18. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijlc/vol2/iss1/2
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00241
Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.003
Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., Derks, B., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2017). Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695551
Harvey, C. (2018). When queen bees attack women stop advancing: Recognising and addressing female bullying in the workplace. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 32(5), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-04-2018-0048
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
Hyde, J. S. (2013). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & Van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307
Money, J. (2016). Gender maps: Social constructionism, feminism, and sexosophical history. Bloomsbury Academic.
Mollayeva, E. Ə. (2024). Pedaqoji menecment və təhsilin idarə edilməsində onun rolu [Pedagogical management and its role in educational administration]. Kurikulum, 17(1), 11–17.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7(8), 55–60.
Wuertele, R. (2017). The influence of the Queen Bee syndrome on the attitudes, behaviors and emerging leadership styles of the millennials [Master's thesis, Linnaeus University]. DiVA. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1104035
Other articles of the issue
