CHAPTER 2 Problematizing Gender in Higher Education: Why Leaning In Isn’t Enough Pamela L. Eddy and Kelly Ward Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook, suggested in Lean In that women need to try harder and not hold back in their quest for success." Yet, the data in higher education—across the spectrum from students to faculty to leaders—runs counter to the narrative that women should just work harder to get ahead. Women are already working hard. They are enter- ing into the pipeline for college in greater numbers than men, but the exclusive comer office eludes them. Despite high levels of participation in college attendance, women do not pursue academic degrees that have his- torically been male dominated. For example, STEM majors (c.g., physical sciences, engineering, computer science, mathematics) all produce more male graduates.? When degrees become feminized over time, like educa- tion, nursing, social work, and others, salaries decrease, and fewer men pursue college majors in these areas.’ Pointedly, even in these feminized degree areas, men still hold top-level leadership positions, like in educa- tion, where 75% of school superintendent positions are held by men.* PLL. Eddy (22) College of William & Mary, School of Education, Williamsburg, VA, USA K. Ward Washington State University, College of Education, Pullman, WA, USA. © The Author(s) 2017 13 PLL. Eddy et al. (eds.), Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education, DO! 10.1057 /978-1-137-59285-9_214 PL. EDDYAND K WARD The type of degree programs female students complete influences the career options that women ultimately hold. If fewer women graduate with STEM degrees, high income careers in these fields are not available to them. But, even when more women are finishing college in greater num- bers, like in education, the top leadership position of superintendent or college president still remains out of reach. The data suggest that some- thing else is contributing to educational and career outcomes than mere individual agency. When looking at faculty ranks, a similar trend emerges. It is no surprise that fewer women faculty are teaching in the traditionally male-domi- nated areas of physical sciences (17%), engineering (8%), and mathematics (28%).5 More broadly, women also slip in advancement to full professor ross all fields. Even though women start out in equal numbers in tenure lines for academic positions, they often get stuck in associate professor ranks. The even playing field at the assistant professor level drops over time to only 31% of full professor positions held by women.’ Because top level faculty rank is often a pre-requisite for advancement into leadership, women are missing out on career opportunities. An often-used retort to these lower numbers of women in top positions is that this pipeline issue will resolve itself as more women are conferred PhD degrees—but this is not the case. Women earned 47% of all doctoral degrees in 2000, jumping to 53% of all doctoral degrees conferred in 2010. By some esti- mates, assuming no gender inequality, constant faculty size, and one-to- one replacement of tenure track faculty, given the current makeup of the faculty, it would take between 35 and 50 years for women to achieve parity at the higher academic ranks.” Something is happening to women on the way to promotion to full professor that goes beyond individual accomplishment. As leaders, women occupy scant numbers of senior level positions in colleges. Acker! defined gendered organizations as those in which top- level positions are held by white men, and positions at the lowest-level staff position are occupied by women. The gendered organizational struc- tures in place regulate women in staff positions onto sticky floors, and despite participation in development of their human capital, women find it hard to get out of these low-level positions.!! At the other end of the hierarchy, the phenomenon of the glass ceiling emerges. An article in the Wall Street Journal popularized the term “glass ceiling,”?? which reflects an invisible barrier to further advancement for women on the top rungs of leadership. A Glass Ceiling Commission operated from 1991 to 1996 aPROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANINGIN... 15 to study the issue.!? Despite the naming of the phenomenon, the issue of the glass ceiling remains. Sandberg" argues that one way to break through is for women to stay the course (i.c., lean in) and keep themselves mov- ing forward, to avoid holding back when it comes to advancement. The push-pull of individual efforts tells one side of the story of women’s lack of advancement, but misses placing attention on structural issues or biases that play a part in creating barriers in moving up the career ladder. ‘A mixed portrait of women in higher education is created when looking at the numbers. On the one hand, women are making strides in attending and graduating from college in greater numbers than men. On the other hand, what they study and what these early educational roots allow them to pursue for leadership positions results in different outcomes as men continue to dominate leadership roles. In this case, Sandberg would point out the ways in which women limit themselves and their advancement prospects by opting out of opportunities or by “taking their foot off the gas.”!8 Clearly, personal agency and the choices women make are central when considering Sandberg’s concept of Lean In."* Yet, the role of agency based on individual che is counterbalanced by choices limited by struc- tures and rules.!7 Tes s emerge when the dualism of individuals and organizations are brought together. Structures influence iduals and their exercise of agency. In the end, both the explicit and implicit rules of academe dictate how faculty members, leaders, and students, in particular women, are judged based on the structures in place.” ‘The situation of women in higher education is complicated. Presumably, if it was just a matter of professional development or increases in the num- bers of women, colleges and universities would not continue to face prob- Jems associated with underrepresentation. In this chapter, we use theory and, in particular, turn to Foucault” to better understand and problema- tize the role of power for individuals as they make choices and the sub- sequent influence these choices have on work. Foucault”! posited that technologies of power and practices of self guide action. Technologies of power come from outside the person and are typically beyond individual control, whereas practices of self are internal and driven by a person’s choices (agency). Relevant to conversations about agency is exploring how the practices of self (Sandberg’s? concept of leaning in) are experienced in light of outside structures (technologies of power). Critical conversa- tions about women traversing, the academic career ladder need to consider how individual choices are influenced by the context of higher education and how these choices intersect with decisions regarding work and fami16 PL. EDDY AND K. WARD. FOUNDATIONS OF LEAN IN ‘The emphasis of this volume is to identify and analyze critical issues facing women and conceptions of gender in higher education. Key to this work is considering how gender is constructed and how rhetoric reinforces nai row concepts for defining gender. To aid this process, in this chapter we use Sandberg’s** concept of lean in and her argument that by leaning in, women can balance the scales regarding their roles in leadership positions. At the heart ofthe conceptis the argument that ifwomen stay in the game and take professional leaps even when they do not feel ready, success will occur via promotion and career advancement. Yet, a close look at organi- zations highlights that barriers still exist for women as they move up the career ladd Joan Williams and Rachel Dempsey identified four patterns of prob- lems facing women in the workforce, These include “prove-it-again,” “the tightrope,” “the maternal wall,” and “the tug of war.” The need to con- tinue to prove individual competency requires women to expend energy and time in ways their male counterparts do not. Sandberg? would argue it is just this type of proving oneself that needs to occur—and that is part of the rules of the game for advancement, Instead of questioning the rules, it is assumed that one must play by them.2” The concept of the tightrope, instead, puts a spotlight on the balancing act of performing within the expectations of gender. Women are often penalized for acting outside of their gender when they take on more masculine orientations to leadership,2° whereas men often benefit when they are viewed as more collaborative (a disposition more often associated with women).” Choosing to become a parent presents women with other barriers not faced by men (or at least encountered differently than men).*" The problem exemplified in the con- cept of the tug-of-war occurs when women find themselves in conflict with other women and feel they have to work harder than others since there may be the perception that there is only space for one woman to succeed. Ideal worker norms! define what is considered the model for work—a per- son who is dedicated to work commitments above personal responsibilities. Ideal worker norms are particularly prevalent in higher education, Williams and Dempsey® offer women strategies for maneuvering through the land- mines found in the workplace, but like Sandberg," the authors take the perspective of the problem of workplace equity being placed squarely on individual women, Their focus is on providing women with strategies to change and adapt themselves versus the workplace changing,PROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDU 7 "ATION: WHY LEAN INGIN, Contemplating the role of agency for women requires attention to how women are socialized. The socialization of women to gendered roles * and the concept of the ideal worker" reinforce an unequal playing field of work. Women continue to lag in academic career progression and con- tinue to “leak” out of the pipeline.*° Even though the issues that lead to women’s career progression are complex, part of the puzzle that shapes women’s experiences and how they approach their careers is the integra- tion (or lack thereof) of work and family. Previous research on work-life roles in higher education®” point to some of the critical tensions that can inhibit women from “leaning in” to career advancement and leadership positions. Choices like opting out of full-time positions to care for children or choosing not to go up for promotion to full professor in the interest of maintaining greater balance between work and home can have long term consequences in terms of women traversing academic career advancement. Critically missing from these arguments is a broader definition of gender issues. On the one hand, the binary of advancement of women compared to men highlights several barriers to advancement that continue to exist. On the other hand, a focus on a binary versus a continuum or intersection of identity fails to include issues occurring due to a multifaceted definition of gender. What we argue is missing in Sandberg’s*® work is recognition of mas- culine communities of practice—group norms that define engagement based on male norms—that are in operation in higher education? In spite of progress, organizational norms and expectations remain built on ideal worker norms that posit a focus on work (a norm that has been associated with male perspectives) and the notion of a wife at home car- ing for personal needs. The public (men/work) and private (women/ home) dichotomy sets women up on an unequal playing field. When women exercise agency and make choices, those choices are not always real and free choices, but, instead, are choices that are made in light of organizational constraints. Pushing for change of the system solely on the role of individual agency leaves unquestioned the role of structures in reifying hegemonic norms based on a male ideal of work.*! Like industry, institutions of higher education are gendered organizations® that include structures that challenge the myth of colleges being gender-neutral insti- tutions. It is necessary to look at agency and structure together to find ways to fully consider the roles and responsibilities of women in higher education.18 PL. EDDYAND K WARD Concertuat MopeL The role of agency based on individual choices is counterbalanced by choices limited by structures and rules.** Structuration theory* brings the tension and dualism of individuals and organizations together. The depen- dent relationship of individuals and created structures emphasizes how “structures exist only in and through the activities of human agents.” Likewise, structures influence individuals’ actions and their exercise of agency. In the end, the explicit and implicit rules of academe dictate how faculty members and leaders, in particular women, are judged. We also use the work of Michel Foucault*” to understand better the role of power for individuals as they make choices and the subsequent influence of these choices on work. Foucault questioned the role of power over individuals as they make choices and the subsequent influence of these ele- ments on identity. He posited that technologies of power and practices of self exist, and that these factors create tension. “Technologies of power are external to self, and exert pressure from the outside, while practices of self are operated by individuals themselves, who have the agency to utilize strat- egies of power to manage and affect their constitution as subjects through recognition of the possible subject positions available.” Relevant to con- versations about agency is exploring how the practices of self (Sandberg’s® concept of leaning in) are experienced in light of outside structures (tech- nologies of power). Critical conversations about women progressing on the academic career ladder need to consider how individual choices are influenced by the context and structures within higher education and how these choices intersect with decisions regarding work and family. Technologies of power are built on power structures within the orga- nization, determine the conduct of individuals, and provide a view of organizational members as mere objects of transactions. Technologies of power have increased in institutions of higher education as colleges and universities seek to meet the demands of the market place, resulting in greater pressure for faculty and leaders to increase performance. The neo- liberal slant in higher education® privileges. market outputs and relies on disembodied workers* and their focus on work versus family. As individu- als struggle to position themselves and to create their professional identity, they must navigate their own agency and sense of self relative to the norms of the profession and institutional environment. Leaning in is not just a matter of personal choice and fortitude, it is shaped by organizational fac- tors and external pressures.PROBLEMAT \ HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANING IN... 19 ING GENDER ID Communities of practice are also an important component to situate personal choice and perspectives, especially for women in higher educa- tion, Like technologies of power, communities of practice shape individ- ual action within a group context, which are typically based on masculine preferences and cultures.** A community of practice is a collective of people who connect around a particular set of norms, expectations, and ways of doing things. The norms that operate in a community of practice are shaped by history, purpose, and mission. Typically, many communities of practice are in place simultancously. Relevant to this dis- cussion, higher education institutions as workplaces and as a community of practice are based on a history of people participating in academic work in particular kinds of ways. Women’s full participation at all levels in academia has been stymied by history and gender norms that relegate them to outsider status in the community. Women are likely to encoun- ter a higher education institution as a workplace community of prac- tice where gender and ideal worker norms are reinforced.** Individual actions are exercised in light of the norms that can limit full and equal participation. Gendered expectations in institutions create the context from which a sense of self emerges. In gendered organizations*” clerical work is viewed as women’s work,** whereas management and leadership is viewed as a job for men.® Even though there has been an increase in women in fac ulty and administrative leadership over time," the underlying hierarchical and bureaucratic structures remain—keeping intact a male stronghold in organizations.*! The continued gender division of wor ing practices that privilege men® and reifies gendered socialization that support historic preferences for men.** Here, technologies of power are stronger than practices of self. As we transition to looking at different examples in this chapter and in the larger volume of how gender is fied and practiced at different levels of higher education, the conceptual model that situates individual action within group and organizational practices functions as a way to question and critically analyze the roles, representations, and gendered futures within institutions of higher education for women. Similar constraints exist for those on the gender continuum who do not exemplify the standards found in masculine com- munities of practice. reinforces hir-20 PL. EDDYAND K WARD EXAMPLES FROM PRACTICE To problematize the role of gender in higher education and to illustrate the tension between self and structure, we draw on three examples. First, we review the experiences of women faculty members in STEM degree programs. We discuss how the masculine communities of practice in these disciplines create structural power dynamics and “chilly” climates that make it more difficult for women to feel they have a place. Second, we discuss the preponderance of women stuck at the associate professor rank and mid-level leadership positions. Here, we review the cost of emotional labor for these women.“ Finally, we analyze the challenges faced by high- profile women leaders in higher education. A chilly climate for women in STEM Data about the representation of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields point to underrepresentation of women at all levels and throughout the pipeline. Women are underrepresented in undergraduate and graduate programs, are less likely than their male counterparts to pursue prestigious postdoctoral experiences, less likely to be hired in a tenure track position, and underrepresented at the highest ranks of the professoriate as well as at department chair and dean levels. To be sure, there is variation within STEM fields, with women faring better in life sciences than in physical sciences, yet their relative underrepresentation remains constant. Further, the low numbers of women faculty members from historically underrepre- sented minority groups is even greater. The experiences of women of color are often lumped with research findings when discussing women in STEM. as little disaggregation of data occurs, which prevents a full portrait of the chilly climate from emerging. At each stage of the pipeline, women in the STEM fields seem to “leak” out. Why the lack of women? Why the leaks? In part, the response to these questions is rooted in climate and cultural contexts that make women feel on the outside of core structures. The term “chilly climate” was first used by Roberta Hall and Bernice Sandler*” to describe women’s experi- ences with isolation and discrimination as undergraduate students in the classroom. The use of the concept has been extended into other areas of research related to faculty, staff, and graduate students (e.g., Elizabeth Litzler, Sheila Edwards Lange, and Suzanne Brainard’). The culture of scientific knowledge that permeates STEM fields has been describedPROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIG! “ATION: WHY LEAN 21 ER EDU INGIN as competitive, exclusive, and sexist, leaving women to feel unwelcome and like outsiders.” The chilly climate is, in part, tied to paradigmatic beliefs about knowledge creation. Scientific pursuits tend to be associated with the objective and can minimize the subjective. The chasm between the objective and subjective can be particularly troublesome for women because they are often associated with subjectivity, whereas men are associ- ated with objectivity.” Science, not just as a discipline, but also as a way of -ating and viewing knowledge, privileges the objective.”! Another element of the chilly climate is ways of viewing work and par- ticipating in disciplinary contexts. Science as a profession tends toward devotion and a complete dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. This level of commitment brings up two issues for consideration in discussions about women in STEM fields. One, STEM fields that are rooted in objec- tivism can exclude alternative ways of knowing and subjectivist orienta- tions that are associated with women’s ways of knowing.” To be sure, not all women are subjective and men objective, but scientific structures and organizational practices can create and essentialize gender binaries.” And second, the sole focus on science and research pursuits that can char- acterize research in STEM fields, to the exclusion of other interests, can leave women out. The call for sole dedication is particularly relevant for women with children (or those who want to have children) for the per- ceived incompatibility between being a “scientist” and being a mother. Science is “greedy” and focused dedication and devotion is privileged; having children and family responsibilities can conflict with work environ- ments that prioritize work over family. Despite work over the past 30 years to change the chilly climate, the root of the problem engrained in practice continues as implicit bias goes unexamined.’> Joan Williams”® concept of the ideal worker norm calls for total dedi- cation to the job to the exclusion of all else. Such a view is based on the assumption that people do not have outside pursuits or responsibilities and that science comes first. Given the biological realities associated with parenthood, the “either you have a career or you have children” mindset that is congruent with ideal worker norms has clearly impacted women to a greater extent than men, given the physical and biological aspects of maternity.” Ideal worker norms are part of the cultural milieu that perme- ates STEM fields, subtly or overtly, and can contribute to chilly climates. The chilly climate for women in STEM can contribute to women opting out of the STEM pipeline altogether, or to women opting in to parts of STEM that are viewed as more suitable to them (e.g.,as clinical faculty, lab22. [Link] K WARD managers).7* The net effect of this chilly climate in STEM fields, and other fields as well, is that it prevents the full participation of women at all lev Stuck in the middle as associate professors and midlevel managers Related to the chilly climate and how women progress in STEM is the career advancement of women into senior level positions in all areas of higher education. As indicated previously in this chapter, the representation of women lessens the higher the faculty or administrative rank. Women get “stuck in the middle” as middle managers and associate professors. In part, the pipeline for women into senior and administrative positions are limited and confounded by the individual choices women make related to family formation and responsibilities.” Longitudinal data from two recent studies suggest that women’s progression is shaped by individual choi (e.g., havin; ildren, choosing to take leave) as well as structural barri ers (¢.g., division of family labor, promotion rates).** Women’s progress to associate level faculty positions has been steady, which in part can be attributed to the requisite promotion when achieving tenure. That is, for tenure line faculty, the promotion from assistant to associate professor is on a timeline and mandatory to stay in the position. The promotion to full professor, however, is not on a strict timeline and the process is more subjective in terms of readiness for promotion. The promotion process to full professor, in particular, is fraught with ambiguity and lack of clari with women and underrepresented minority faculty not faring as well as men in review processes.*! Recent research that looks at women faculty at different career stages suggests that promotion to full professor or moving into more senior administrative positions is not seen as worth the emo- tional cost and investment involved.” Avoiding the promotion process or not secking advanced positions is one way that women faculty deal with the scrutiny involved in the whole process. Another aspect of being stuck in the middle is related to administra- tive positions and the type of positions that women are “tapped” to do. Women who have made the move to administration often get stuck in mid-level positions versus advancing to upper level leadership. For exam- ple, Kim VanDerlinden® found that women in community colleges were disproportionately represented in the middle level ranks, but that they were participating in professional development activities that contribute to human capital on par with men. The equity in development of leadership skills means that women are leaning in and preparing for advancement,PROBLEMATIZI DER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LE: but that other factors prevent their promotion. Vicki Rosser’s research on mid-level administrators found that the quality of work life of mid-level leaders influences their satisfaction, morale, and their desire to stay in their positions or leave. The front-line positions of department chair or assis- tant/associate dean often entail some teaching responsibilities, particularly at institutions lower in prestige or in Carnegie classification (c.g., commu- nity colleges, regional institutions).*> As a result, these initial leadership positions in many ways slow down advancement if too much time and attention is paid to management versus leadership functions and teaching versus administration. A prevalent finding in research related to faculty careers is that the various aspects of faculty work are rewarded differently. Service, in particular, can create problems when it comes to advancement to senior level faculty and administrative positions.** In research universi- ties, with the teaching, research, and service tripartite of faculty work, ser- vice work gets overlooked and often goes unrewarded. Research focused on associate professors suggests that part of the lag in women moving to full professor is related to disproportionate focus on service—a part of fac- ulty work that does not get rewarded at the same rate as research or even teaching.*” A major pathway to promotion to full professor is research, yet the focus on service can minimize the qualifications needed for promotion to full professor, which is also an antecedent to senior level administrative positions. Linked to service work is the emotional labor women engage in as fac- ulty members. Bill Tierney and Estela Bensimon labeled this the “smile” work of academics," which falls upon women in advising or in taking on a mother-type role in departmental work. Managing emotions in the work- place often falls upon women, which causes added stress post-tenure for women relative to their male counterparts, as women take up even more service work.*? This added labor emerges due to a focus on relationships and emotions within the workplace, and often goes unrecognized. Further, when the time comes for promotion, this type of emotional labor is not as highly valued as work associated with finance and strategic vision.” Yet, Leslie Gonzales and Rodolfo Rincones” argued that it is important to. understand how emotional labor is induced by organizational norms and structures.”? Gendered structures serve to reify the emotional labor of the academy, which falls heavily on women in mid-level positions. Another aspect of women moving to senior positions is the type of pre- paredness they have, or the professional development opportunities they use to pursue positions when available. Even though it is important to24 PL. EDDYAND K. WARD. have people skills and “dress for success” to become a senior leader, these are not enough to move to the most senior levels of organizational leader- ship’’ Part of the focus of women in mid-level management positions is the perceived lack of preparedness they have for the rigors of senior level leadership positions. True, service work and mid-level management help develop people skills and problem solving, but they do not focus on strat- egy and big picture thinking related to finance, which are the types of skills needed to be recognized by search committees for the most senior aca- demic administrative positions, especially in tough fiscal times.** Women have been successful in getting to administrative positions where soft skills are recognized and rewarded, but in the front line, administrative posi- tions are often relegated to men due to the perception of them being more suited for the rigors of work that is strategic and externally oriented. Combined with the need to gain leadership skills and more strategic views of organizations, those academics seeking upper level positions are also often confronted by the need to relocate. Most institutions have lim- ited senior level positions, so if a woman is poised and ready to move into one, it may be at a different institution. Mid-level women leaders, in particular, often delay consideration of advancement based on family con- siderations and the challenge a move might create for families.”* Further, women frequently sequence careers to accommodate family needs and wait until these variables are in place so job needs can be accommodated ”° Sandberg” might argue making choices to put family before career are the types of behaviors that must be avoided for women to succeed in senior leadership positions. The double bind here is that mid-level women lead- ers may be constrained in their choices to move compared to their male colleagues, and they may not be gaining the type of leadership experiences needed for upper level positions when they choose to stay in their mid- level positions, Mid-level leaders are crucial to effectively managing orga- nizations, but they are not always recognized as strategic thinkers who can lead macro level change. Grabbing the brass ring of leadership For those women who make it to the top rank of faculty positions, or to positions of administrative leadership, tradeoffs and tensions continue. Women faculty face a tradeoff between rank and institutional prestige as promotion is more likely at non-elite or less prestigious institutions.”* Pointedly, lower prestige institutions, like community colleges, are more likely to have women presidents (33%) compared to high-research universities (22%).°” Alexander Haslam andPROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANING IN... 25 Michelle Ryan! coined the concept of the glass cliff to illustrate how women more often than men were chosen to lead institutions in crisis and at risk of failure. Women in leadership operate at the margins—at less prestigious institutions, at institutions in crisis, and at rural and smaller institutions. The intersection of work and family with ideal worker norms impacts women’s career trajectories to leadership positions" When women opt-out for family reasons, they do not keep pace with men in terms of advancement. Even when equal opportunity policies are in place, like in Australia, women still do not achieve equity in senior academic positions. For example, Joanne Pyke! found that women face conditions that slow them down in ways that men do not, such as bullying by senior leaders, a meandering career path due to family responsibilities, and perception that moving to leadership would prevent them from working with students. As illustrated, simply having the opportunity to advance is not enough to overcome contextual and cultural barriers that impede women’s advance- ment to full professor, or to top level leadership positions. Success can be achieved, however, when certain conditions are present. An example from ‘one European university illustrated that key factors for a gendered change in the professoriate involved a transition within the context and structure of how the organization supported and promoted women’s work. In this case, building on informal leadership and creating prioritization within disciplines with high numbers of full professor openings helped support the appointment of women, particularly in areas where it was more likely, given that the fact that the unit had more women in the pipeline. When technologies of power are shifted in ways that also favor women’s advance- ment, more women are likely to become full professors—the launching point for administrative leadership. Louise Morley and Barbara Crossouard!™ argued that as institutions of higher education are becoming increasingly performance-based due to a pervasive neoliberal agenda, leadership becomes more competitive and aggressive. Competitive workplaces are ones that women are increasingly rejecting or resisting. Sandberg!”> would argue that women opting out of workplaces they perceive as unhealthy are taking themselves out of the game instead of persevering. Combined with managerial dominance is “disengagement with the dominant values, practices and images of univer- sity leadership.” When women do not see themselves in leadership posi- tions, and when they face increasing corporatization of academia that does26 PL. EDDY AND K WARD not align with their practices of self, they do in fact lean out.""” Indeed, the espoused rules of leading and the rules in practice often collude to make women feel unwelcome in leadership ranks.'’ When constructions of leadership rely on hegemonic norms based on white, heterosexual men, any other leader comes up short. ‘At work here is second generation gender discrimination. Differing from first generation bias, which was intentional in discriminating against women, second generation gender discrimination is bias that results from “patterns of interaction, informal norms, networking, mentoring, and evaluation.”!"” The existence of these subtle and invisible forms of bias creates barriers for women, which are difficult to address by merely “trying harder.” Susan Treafalt and her colleagues!!! found that moving the needle on gender equity has been modest due to the lack of attention paid to the deeply embedded second generation biases found in organi- zational cultures, Their survey of 305 women professionals attending the Simmons College Women’s Leadership Conference found women were asked to put work ahead of all else (89%) and that they engaged in high levels of invisible work (86%). Despite facing judgment on ideal worker norm and doing more unrewarded work than men, the major- ity of respondents (59%) “did not opt out of leadership opportuniti due to feeling they did not fit their organization’s model of effective leadership.” Critical to supporting women in gendered organizations is making them aware of this form of subtle bias. Next, it is important to have senior men take an active interest in supporting and sponsor- ing women’s advancement.!"* Types of support from peers, family, and through leadership development all contribute to addressing second generation bias.""* When second generation bias is not addressed, women lose out on learning how to become leaders. “People become leaders by internalizing a leadership identity and developing a sense of purpose.” Acquiring the space to develop an identity that is viewed “leadership-like” and aligning, individually valued purposes with those of the institution often assume male norms. Herminia Ibarra, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb suggest three actions to support women’s access to leadership positions: “(1) educate women and men about second-generation gender bias, (2) create safe ‘identity workspaces’ to support transitions to bigger roles; and (3) anchor women’s development efforts in a sense of leadership purpose rather than in how women are perceived.”!"° Merely learning skills is not enough to develop as leaders; instead, it is through the creation of a leadership iden-PROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANING IN... 27 tity that women can advance. The practices of self that are required for this type of identity development require attention to the technologies of power in place,!"” particularly in addressing the invisible forms of bias present in institutional cultures and norms. Yet, even when they do make it to leadership positions, such as deans and directors, women report feeling more overwhelmed and less compensated relative to men—even when they are more skilled at building relationships and working with people." Contributing to this feeling of dissatisfaction is perceptions of roles. Role congruity theory prejudice emerges when there is incongruity between expected female gender roles and leader- ship.” At the root of this type of prejudice is judging women less favor- ably than men in leadership roles and evaluating women’s leadership less favorably. When leadership roles are conceived of as being best filled by men, even when equity is espoused, women cannot win. Consider too how discourse serves to reinforce these norms, Susan Griggs'?! used femi- nist discourse analysis to evaluate a common leadership text in use for an educational leadership program and found that here too, it reinforced the notion of male dominance in senior level leadership positions. Likewise, Kristin Wilson and Elizabeth Cox!?? found a masculine hero model was in place in discourse on community college leaders in articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education. These male models of leadership reify a singular view of what it takes to be a leader in higher education, which means that those who do not fit within this narrow discourse—women, leaders of color, leaders across the gender continuum—are always outsiders in masculine communities of practice. As leaders, women must figure out the rules of the game and then decide if they want to play by them, “The rules are seldom devised by women but they must learn them in order to survive in academia.”"?* When women resist these rules, they are often penalized.”* Sandberg! would argue that by leaning in, women can work to effect change. Yet, this perspective continues to view the issue of women’s equity as an individual concern versus a collective, organizational issue, As Tanya Fitzgerald aptly summarized, “the problem of low numbers of women in senior manage- ment is an organizational problem, yct it is rarely cast as such.”!2° Women seeking the brass ring of college and university leadership positions face barriers due to embedded, structural discrimination practices that favor men, harsh evaluation when they act “too much like” a woman or “too much like” a man, and personal costs associated with navigating tight- ropes and tugs of war,”28 PL. EDDYAND K WARD Dis The review of the examples above highlights how context, structures, and norms stack against women as leaders. Despite individual agency and ac lades accumulated over a career, these examples point to how technologies of power are often beyond individual control."* These issues include the timing of tenure, the emotional labor of service, promotion criteria and expectations, and the nature of decision making in professional bureau- cracies. The rejection of an incre women represents, on the one hand, choice that supports practices of self.2° Qn the other hand, this “choice” is often a false one as organi- zational structures and norms that favor men are not accounted for or considered. At the beginning of the faculty pipeline, some hope for equity emerges since women represent half of beginning faculty members, but this pipeline begins to leak as the number of women associate professors dips to 42% before arriving, at the lower representation of women holding only 31% of full professorships.!"! A similar portrait holds true on the administrative career ladder. Half of the Chief Academic Officers (CAO) at community colleges are women and approximately one-third of four-year colleges boast a woman CAO,!” giving rise to hope of increasing the number of women in presidencies. But 65% of current CAOs do not want or are not sure about seeking a presidency and the predominant reason they give is that the nature of the work is unappealing.'** One explanation for this can be gender performance expectations that penalize women who act outside of ideal worker norms, or who opt out,!* The lean in concept of women trying harder to have it all, par larly when balancing family, work, and tenure and promotion requir ments, often results in their working harder and sleeping less.!"> Here, the practices of self are a reaction to the technologies of power!® found in academic organizational structures. Chantell LaPan, Camilla Hodge, Deidre Peroft, and Karla Henderson!*” identified three types of politics that women face in academic advancement—the polities of higher educa- tion in charting a career, the politics of gender in dealing with workforce dynamics, and the politics of caring in desiring both work and family. As women gain social capital, they navigate the range of academic politi better. Here, by leaning in, they gain power to help address some of the structural aspects of the job. Yet, it was the women that were changing and not the structures or context.!** SUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ly toxic organizational climate byPROBLI NDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANINGIN... 29 ATI Mentoring and increased numbers of women in leadership can begin to create a tipping point for women in college settings 1"? Equality in rank or leadership in higher education, however, remains elusive for women. What does this say about the way leadership, for administrators and faculty, is cur- rently structured? Sandberg!" argues that women serve to put limitations on themselves. Here, notions of individual agency are pervasive. Thus, if women can increase their agency through their selection of particular actions, changes will result. Pointedly, the World Bank recently released a report regarding gender equity and development, the findings of which highlight the role of women’s agency in improving equity and ultimately development in third world countries."! However, history shows that despite the “choices” women have made, even when they prefer work and operate as ideal workers, equity in the top echelons of higher education has not occurred.! The question remains, is it merely a matter of women trying harder and making choices that support work, or is there a problem inherent in the underlying structure and assumptions of academic work? On the one hand, women can play the gendered games in academic lead- ership.'* Acker’s case studies illustrate how some women are able to be suc- cessful at the game when they play by the organizational rules. On the other hand, when women do not play these games and exit these roles, they end their leadership ambitions. At work here are the gendered expectations for academic work." But, as noted above, the type of emotional labor done by many women faculty is not what gains promotion and status.!4° It is timely to consider the “women” question in higher education as opportunities are emerging due to anticipated retirements in leadership and faculty ranks, Currently, 53% of sitting presidents are 61 or older and 80% of Chief Academic Officers are over 50.!° Leadership vacan- cies will be on the increase given the aging of current leaders and their pending retirement. This anticipation of future openings provides an ideal time for women to look for advancement in higher education, We know, however, that increasing women in top faculty ranks or in col- lege leadership is more than a pipeline issue."7 Is the lack of progress of academic women simply due to the fact that they have not leaned in, or are structural issues of college organization preventing women from seeking advancement? Personal choices are used to explain and pardon exclusive masculine communities of practice. We argue that the technol- ogies of power" and the firm roots of gendered organizations that favor men both create structures and norms that preclude equity.” Instead, women are often blamed for opting out and not trying hard enough.30 PL. EDDY AND K WARD Conversations about women in leadership need reframing. The advan- tage of the popularity of Sandberg’s 2013 book is the level of dialogue that resulted. Sandberg’s work and offshoot initiatives like lean in circles have raised questions about double standards that confront women, how buying into these conceptions and expectations creates a different set of options for them, and how narrowly defined the notion of leadership advancement becomes when based on a singular white male norm. By questioning assumptions and asking different questions, the problem of gendered leadership in higher education can be investigated from new vantage points that consider personal choices in light of organizational practices. CONCLUSION ‘The conversations begun as a result of the focus on Lean In'* provide leverage in the ongoing dialogue on the role of second generation bias and corresponding structural barriers to the advancement of women in higher education.'*! Though this outcome may not have been intentional, the critique of Sandberg’s writing provided feminist writers a space in which to respond. For example, bell hooks was quick to point out that “Sandberg’s refusal to do anything but give slight mention to racialized class differences undercuts the notion that she has a program that speaks to and for all women.”' hooks identified the lack of attention to interse tions for women in general and pointed out the risk inherent when white women serve as the model for all women’s issues. As scholars, we need to leverage the attention generated by the enterprise of Lean In to actu- ally offer change. Change begins with acknowledgement of the invisible organizational biases present and altering structures currently in place for all women.** Asa way to think critically about women’s career advancement in higher education, our discussion relies on the conceptual model that situates the personal within organizational boundaries. In particular, structuration,'** technologies of power,!** and masculine communities of practice!™* pro- vide ways to identify points of intersection between individual responses to existing organizational structures and the inverse—the influence of indi- viduals on organizations. By problematizing the notion that individual agency alone can help overcome the lack of gender equity in leadershipPROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANINGIN.... 31 positions, we found that insidious, embedded cultural norms that penal- ize women continue to serve as a major barrier to their advancement in higher education. There is a lack ofa feminist influence on organizational norms. Investigating the structural impediments to advancement and the role gendered organizations'play in the lack of women’s advancement will stimulate deeper dialogue on the issue of gender equity for academic women. The motivation to pursue this volume was to contribute to ongo- ing research, theory, policy, and practice related to how different groups of women in higher education stand at the critical intersection of per- sonal agency and organizational structures. Without critical perspectives on adopted gendered organization perspectives, progress to close gender gaps will remain sluggish. The slow advancement of women at upper levels of higher education continues to stymie colleges and universities wanting to diversify their fa ulty and administrative ranks. To be sure, there has been progress with regard to greater levels of participation in senior academic and leader- ship ranks, yet true equity and parity have been elusive. The hope for this chapter and the larger volume is to examine how the individual, including the inclination to /ean in (or not), and the organization interact to create opportunity and desire for the career advancement of women in higher education. It is critical to question long-held cultural norms in higher education, the assumptions of who can and cannot lead, and how leaders are developed and judged. Without these changes, institutions of higher education will continue to miss out on the talents of all women, leaders of color, and others who do not fit the narrowly defined conceptions of success. NorTeEs