Leadership Ambition: The Gendered and Racialized Differences of Leadership Representation in Public Organizations

Abstract

This study investigates leadership ambition and focuses this with a simple, yet necessary perspective, the focus of race/ethnicity and gender. Many public organizations may not consider how gendered and racialized aspects of organizations can influence leadership ambition for diverse individuals. We ask: (a) How is gender and race/ethnicity related to leadership ambition? and (b) Are social networks related to leadership ambition based on gender and racial/ethnic differences? Using a 2011 national survey of STEM faculty in U.S. research-based universities, we find significant leadership ambition differences for people of color and that social networks are beneficial for women’s leadership ambition.

Keywords

leadership ambition race gender social networks diversity

Introduction

Until women and people of color (POC) reach equitable representation within public organizations, organizational efforts will continue to fall short of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals in public organizations. Before focusing upon ways in which the public organizations can manage diversity or include diversified groups, representation of women and POC in public organizations must first occur so that there is diversity to manage. Women and POC have made gains across positions in the public sector, yet they remain underrepresented within leadership positions across all sectors (Riccucci, 2021).

The literature on representative bureaucracy has been a central argument within public administration and has focused on how representation of marginalized groups through active, passive, and symbolic ways is important for increasing visibility of marginalized individuals. While these approaches clarify ways in which people in leadership roles can advocate for or benefit from marginalized individuals, this study is focused on understanding if marginalized individuals within public organizations vary in leadership ambition based upon their representation or existence in the workplace. This study focuses on understanding what this aspect of representation for women and POC in public organizations looks like and what it means for organizational leadership ambition.

Leadership style differences based on demographic differences such as gender and race are often a key argument for identifying the type of people who choose to lead (Feeney & Langer, 2016), yet research finds that strategy for obtaining leadership may outweigh gendered or racialized expected differences (Funk, 2015). Career ambition or leadership ambition is one area that has been linked to organizational outcomes such as managerial behavior and organizational performance (Carroll, 2017; Hamidullah et al., 2009; Teodoro, 2011). Maranto et al. (2019) finds that leadership ambition is gendered and that biases in public administration careers are a product of ambition differences. Diversity and social equity research emphasizes the need to increase traditionally disadvantaged groups into leadership roles, yet research on leadership ambition argues that biases and motivations are engrained to influence these outcomes (Jost et al., 2004).

The organizational environment can shape an individual’s leadership ambition. Scholars find that the social environments of organizations play a significant role in how individuals’ shape their career interests and outcomes (Lent et al., 1994, 2002, Patton et al., 2004). Across many of the studies on leadership ambition, much of the focus looks primarily at an individual’s inherent ability (e.g., demographic attributes, personalities, etc.) to have leadership ambition. The literature does not consider how these social environments can influence leadership ambition when there may be gendered and racialized structures and social environments within organizations. A key aspect of gendered and racialized organizations are the power structures, where many marginalized voices encounter barriers based on institutions that are primarily designed and managed for and by White men. Differential power distribution based on gender and race across the organization develops stereotypes and biases, reinforces them, and institutionalizes both men and White led standards and norms (Martin, 1994; Ray, 2019). Physical and cognitive barriers shape recruitment, work distribution, and promotion of marginalized individuals which in turn lead to excluding them from core organizational processes and practices.

We analyze how leadership ambition of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in public universities, where many departments are highly White and male dominated, is related to their gender, race/ethnicity, and social networks. We ask the following research questions: How are gender and race/ethnicity related to leadership ambition in public organizations? Is the size of social networks related to leadership ambition based on gender and racial/ethnic differences? We use data from a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded study that looks at 213 public Very high and High research universities in the United States with an emphasis on faculty in four disciplines that are known to have historically low representation from marginalized groups. While some scholars find that there may be systemic biases based on leadership characteristics of an individual, we argue that an individual’s leadership ambition may be influenced by the social environment of an organization that they are a part of. We draw from literature on leadership ambition, gender and race literature, social cognitive career theory, and social network literature. We conclude with a discussion of differences in leadership ambition based on gender and racial/ethnic differences and how social networks may be more beneficial to some versus others.

Leadership Ambition in Public Organizations

While much of the leadership literature is focused on personality differences and leadership styles, a related aspect of leadership aspiration is also termed “ambition.” Bureaucratic ambition, or the desire for career advancement in public administration career systems, focuses on how institutional and behavioral patterns dictate the selection, retention, and promotion strategies within organizations, which in turn influence leadership ambition of individuals (Maranto et al., 2019; Teodoro, 2011). Teodoro (2011) and Maranto et al. (2019) find that systemic biases with career systems lead to variations in management behavior and leadership ambition. Following previous studies on leadership ambition in public administration (Maranto et al., 2019; Teodoro, 2011), we use the term leadership ambition narrowly as the desire for career advancement.

As Teodoro (2011) highlights, “ambition is a continuous spectrum where all professionals are more or less desirous of career advancement within an opportunity structure,” (p. 72). This aspect of leadership ambition regardless of job type is important for the focus of our study which is based in a higher education environment in four academic disciplines. While faculty in public universities are at various ranks and levels of experience, all faculty members may aspire for different roles or responsibilities. For example, some faculty may aspire to hold more administrative positions, some may aspire to develop and lead research centers, and some may aspire to not hold any of these types of “leadership” roles. Based on Teodoro’s (2011) assessment of public administrative professionals, those that actively seek or express an interest in leadership positions are considered to have leadership ambition in their career.

We must also take into consideration how women and POC in the public sector aspire to become leaders. Leadership for both women and POC in public organizations emphasizes human, social, and financial capital differences to predict the predisposition to want to lead (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Camarena et al., 2021; Seibert et al., 2001). Additionally, many studies highlight the inequities and potentially high turnover that women and POC face once in these positions of leadership (Domingo et al., 2022; Kachchaf et al., 2015; Sabharwal, 2015). Because public organizations have been deeply gendered and racialized by having White men in most of the decision-making positions (Guy & Newman, 2004), it is not surprising to expect that women’s and POC’s leadership ambitions are shaped by White and masculine norms and cultures. Those cultures and norms that guide power and status relationships are internalized and reinforced by individuals enabling or limiting their career preferences and options (Bourdieu, 1986; Correll, 2001). The implicit yet prevalent beliefs on power and status can be reproduced as perceptual barriers for those who traditionally have been marginalized in organizations, while those traditional decision makers (White men) are given more opportunities to develop their interests and have been evaluated positively (Coffman et al., 2019; Webster & Foschi, 1988). Perceived barriers in decision making or promotion will discourage women and POC since they witness no role models in higher status positions and their demographic characteristics are negatively evaluated as leader-type (Bandura et al., 2001; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003). Hence, women and individuals of color could be often prevented from developing or exhibiting their interests in the workplace, including career advancement opportunities.

Gender, Race/ethnicity, and Public Organizations

Many gender and race scholars have identified that organizations are gendered and racialized (Acker, 1990; Ray, 2019). Professionalism across many public organizations is based on a leading gender and race norm—where White males (most frequently) make up much of the key professional identity. Public organizations have attempted to address these exclusionary stereotypes through policy and management practices such as diversity management strategies and affirmative actions. Yet, these policies and initiatives are often reaffirming the norms that highlight the inequities in public organizations. Ray (2019) argues that affirmative action policies are a credential of Whiteness within an organization and that these policies reaffirm Whiteness through hiring and admissions procedures. Diversity policies focused on requiring at least one woman or POC to sit on committees and boards, can also lead to issues of tokenism within the organization, where the presence of a numerical minority of underrepresented individuals provides limited to no influence on organizational outcomes (Kanter, 1977).

At the heart of these gendered and racialized organizations are the social structures, power dynamics, and stereotypes associated within organizations (Acker, 1990; Ray, 2019; Smith et al., 2021). Organizational decisions or processes can establish hierarchies based upon gender and racial differences and stereotypes that may control, segregate, or exclude individuals (Acker, 1992; Misra et al., 2021; Ray, 2019). Another internal aspect of gendered and racialized organizations is the distribution of power—where being masculine and White are power. In organizations’ internal processes, where individuals construct personas or beliefs based upon their gender result in power differentials, typically with feminine personas and identities having less power (Acker, 1992; Correll, 2001). Women and POC commonly hold fewer managerial roles within an organization and are over-represented in lower-level positions in organizations (Riccucci, 2021).

The reinforcement of feminine and masculine traits within job roles furthers stereotypes in the workplace (Acker, 1992; Guy & Newman, 2004). Maranto et al. (2019) argue that government agencies make hiring decisions based on the perceived gender differences in skills and abilities and it is expected that they believe gender-based traits are beneficial to the organization. In the theory of racial tasks, Whites are often the beneficiary of emotional expectations related to the racial system which reinforces a racialized organization by expecting POC to perform tasks associated with racial identity in organizations (Ioanide, 2015; Ray, 2019). Gendered and racialized decision-making structures, power differences, and stereotypes in organizations offer different social cues for individuals which in turn may encourage or discourage interests in holding leadership positions.

Faculty in STEM Fields and Universities

We look at public universities, which is a unique environment of public administration. Universities are one of the largest types of public and nonprofit organizations in the United States. Public and nonprofit universities are subject to a variety of laws and policies aimed at fair hiring practices and increasing diversity and inclusion, making them an ideal setting for investigating questions related to identity and leadership ambition. Higher education institutions are gendered and racialized institutions (Hart, 2016; O’Meara et al., 2017; Ray, 2019), where universities are guided by White, masculine principles of competition, hierarchy, power, and control that often exclude women and POC and impede their success (Carrigan et al., 2011). Given that women and POC are underrepresented in STEM fields, and that many studies highlight the increasing demand for women and POC in these fields (Riccucci, 2021), we focus on the social networks and leadership ambition of these individuals.

When considering public universities today, female faculty and faculty of color in the STEM disciplines are the most underrepresented. White male faculty are often overrepresented among university decision makers who develop department and institutional policies and evaluate candidates for faculty recruitment, promotion, and tenure (Bird, 2011; Long & Fox, 1995). STEM disciplines and programs often instill the perception that they are and should be male dominated (Miner et al., 2019) and that women have weaker STEM skillsets compared to men (Banchefsky et al., 2016). Similarly, White faculty, who take up the majority of science faculty, have been attaching race- or ethnicity-based stereotypes and gatekeeping who can join the field and be trained (Settles et al., 2022; Vacha-Haase et al., 2004). These stereotypes are often reinforced by the historic low representation of women and POC in these fields.

Today, female STEM faculty constitute about 39% of all academically employed doctorate holders and STEM faculty of color who are underrepresented minorities¹ constitute only 9% in the higher education institutions in the United States (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). A common explanation for the lack of these individuals in STEM departments is based on gender and racial bias (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006; Turner et al., 2011) and prejudice based on capabilities in STEM (Eaton et al., 2020; Leslie et al., 2015; Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010). Another explanation is the higher turnover rates due to hostile departments and university climates (Xu, 2008). While there are many barriers and stereotypes on female faculty and faculty of color, it is worth understanding if this field dynamic influences leadership ambition.

Low representation in key leadership positions as well as systematic exclusion from major decision-making processes based on salient demographic characteristics construct negative social cues for diverse individuals that do not fit “stereotypical” leader types (Hogg & Van Knippenberg, 2003). Leadership is often socially constructed through having ideal prototypes. Because the leadership has been strongly associated with whiteness and masculinity, individuals of color or women are often hindered or discouraged from holding leadership as their traits do not match with prototypical leadership traits (Hogg & Van Knippenberg, 2003; Ospina & Su, 2009). White men, who fit as a better leadership type, have been more represented in leadership but also have been prevailing leadership selection and recruitment processes (Obenauer & Langer, 2019; Valverde, 2003). Low representation of women or individuals of color in leadership positions as well as historically gendered and racialized leadership selection process provide social cues that not only signify them lower likelihood of holding leadership but also discourage them to have interests in it (Bandura, 1986).

Based on previous studies on representation in management or leadership in various public organizations (Feeney & Camarena, 2019; Riccucci, 2021) and that leadership ambition may vary based on various social characteristics (Maranto et al., 2019; Teodoro, 2011), we hypothesize the following:

H1: Men are more likely to have leadership ambition than women in public organizations

H2: Individuals identifying as White are more likely to have leadership ambition than individuals of color in public organizations

H3: Race/ethnicity and gender will interact, and women of color are less likely to have leadership ambition than other social groups in public organizations

Support Networks and Leadership Ambition

Teodoro (2011) and Maranto et al. (2019) highlight that human motivation is not the only factor associated with career ambition. To understand how individuals develop their career interests and make and pursue career choices, we draw from social network literature and social cognitive career theory (SCCT). While social networks can provide physical and emotional resources (Adler & Kwon, 2002), SCCT focuses on how the social environment, comprised of diverse individuals, works as a contextual barrier, or assists in shaping individuals’ career interests and outcomes (Lent et al., 1994, 2002).

Information, validation, and encouragement in the workplace often come through interpersonal relationships and connections known as social networks (Benbow & Lee, 2019; Granovetter, 1973). Social networks are often described in two ways: formal and informal. Formal networks refer to formally structured relationships in an organization between members that establish clear hierarchies and roles (Ibarra, 1993b). Informal networks are relationships with individuals in a workplace that develop through either work-related means, socialization between people, or a combination (Ibarra, 1992; Xu & Martin, 2011). These informal networks in academia may be through organic conversations that occur amongst colleagues across social settings where there may not necessarily be a hierarchical difference between individuals.

This study defines these informal networks as support networks which can influence how individuals develop leadership ambition. Embedded within these support networks for individuals in the workplace is social capital, which can be characterized as actual or potential resources such as information and support (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Bourdieu, 1986). For example, individuals can gather information of leadership opportunities through their network or obtain psychological support which would improve their self-efficacy (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Ibarra, 1993a).

The opportunity context, which enables or disables the interactions among individuals, shapes how social relationships develop (Blau, 1977). Prior studies show that demographic attributes, such as gender and race, are key factors of social interactions (Blau, 1977; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). For instance, women and POC often have been excluded in social networks in organizations as men and Whites are more likely to develop social relationships among themselves (Ibarra, 1993b; McDonald, 2011; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987; Xu & Martin, 2011). Women and POC often have been considered as less valuable ties or having less exchangeable resources leading to access to fewer network benefits (Woehler et al., 2021). Exclusion of women and POC in resource-rich networks affects career outcomes such as productivity and access to career-related resources.

While personal cognitive characteristics significantly affect career goals and outcomes, race and gender moderate their social interactions (Lent et al., 2002; Patton et al., 2004; Perrone et al., 2001). Individuals make sense of their work environment based on their demographic characteristics and social interactions. According to SCCT, individuals become more reluctant to pursue their goals or career decisions when they face contextual barriers. For example, Hackett et al. (1992) show that Caucasians and Latinx men in the United States are more likely to receive career related encouragement and support than women.

Previous work based on social networks based on gender and race in higher education find that support networks allow faculty to obtain information and resources that may not otherwise formally be given within departments (Camarena, 2020; Coleman, 1988; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Support networks can provide academics with a sense of inclusion and influence by providing access to information, providing opportunities to relationships outside of their workplace, allowing for reviewing of work, and offering advice on work-life balance (Feeney & Bernal, 2010; Gaughan et al., 2018; Jung & Welch, 2022). The advice provided within these support networks can reduce stress and increase confidence as it can allow for access to information or solutions for career advancement (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Welch & Jha, 2016). For example, women can obtain information or resources to tackle workplace barriers or to benefit their professional development and job performance from their support network (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Bowles et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2020). Similarly, having support network for POC offers psychological support as well as trustworthy information and resources, especially when they have similar others in their network (Ibarra, 1993a; James, 2000; Mollica, 2003). Based upon this, we hypothesize the following:

H4: Leadership ambition for women and people of color will depend on the size of the support network

Data

To examine the relationships between leadership ambition and social networks, we use a 2011 NSF-funded national survey of science faculty in four fields (biology, biochemistry, mathematics, and civil engineering) at research based higher education institutions that was collected at the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Studies at Arizona State University. The survey was particularly designed to examine career and work environment and professional networks of female and underrepresented minority faculty offering a rich set of information on their social networks and career outcomes. The research team drew a representative and stratified sample of 9,925 faculty of all ranks (assistant, associate, and full professors) in 521 higher education institutions from a population of 25,928 science faculty.

The survey was administered online using Sawtooth ® and took approximately 40 min to complete. The survey asked about individual-level characteristics of the respondents’ career and workplace environment, leadership as well as the characteristics of respondents’ professional networks. The research team collected a total of 4,196 valid responses resulting in 40.4% response rate.

For our study, a total of 3,153 responses were removed because (a) the respondents did not report about their networks, (b) their rank or fields were not in the original sample frame, and (c) their institutions were not in the original sample frame or not Very high research university or High research university. After the listwise deletion, the final sample includes 1,042 complete responses. Major reasons for the listwise deletion were that they did not complete questions about leadership, workplace, and professional experience.

Dependent Variable

Leadership ambition is a binary variable (1 = yes) that measures whether the respondent hopes to hold leadership positions in the future in the following leadership positions: a dean of a school or college, a department chair, or a head of research institute or center. Following Teodoro (2011), the measure of “leadership ambition” is measuring the indication of the desire for career advancement into a leadership role.

Independent Variables

Key independent variables in this study are gender, race/ethnicity, and support network. Female is a binary variable (1 = yes) that indicates that the respondent is a self-identified woman. To measure race/ethnicity, we use binary variables (1 = yes) to indicate that the respondent self-identified as either White, Black, Asian, Hispanic (non-White), or Other Race. Other race includes individuals who identified oneself as American Indian or Alaskan Native and as being included in more than one race or ethnic categories.

Support network is measured by size of support network, which is a count variable that measures the total number of individuals the respondent named as their research collaborator, mentors, and individuals they talk about teaching and regular work issues. Following prior social network studies (Marsden, 1990; Merluzzi & Burt, 2013), the survey asked respondents to name up to five individuals in seven different types of social networks: people they collaborate with inside and outside the department, people they discuss about teaching inside and outside of the department, people they discuss about professional development, people they discuss department or university issues, and mentors. Although our study focuses informal networks by looking at support networks, we acknowledge that it is possible that informal networks may include ties that are formed from organizational roles and hierarchies as we include support networks formed at workplace. The average size of the support network is about 9 and ranges from 1 to 25.

Control Variables

Individuals’ prior experience and productivity can affect how individuals aspire to be leaders (Teodoro, 2011). First, leadership experience is a binary variable (1 = yes) that shows whether the respondent is currently holding or has held leadership position as a dean of a school or college, a department chair, or a head of research institute or center. Second, committee experience is a binary variable (1 = yes) that indicates service experience of the respondents in their department or college in the past academic year as faculty search committee, other department committee, and/or university or college committee. Third, award experience is a count variable that measures the total number of awards the respondents received. Received awards include Best dissertation award, Best book or paper award, Teaching award, Minority/Gender targeted award, etc. Moreover, publication is a continuous variable which indicate self-reported annual average of publications over the past five academic years. Since the distribution of the variable is skewed (mean = 3.35, SD = 4.85, min = 0, max = 53), we log-transformed it in our analyses.

We also control individual’s perceptions about their workplace as organizational culture and individual’s perception of organizations can shape their leadership ambitions (Faniko et al., 2022; Maranto et al., 2019). Prior studies show that chilly climates, in which individuals perceive exclusion in mentoring, social networks, and resources, affect women’s career paths, while it does not affect their male counterparts (Biggs et al., 2018; Britton, 2017; Burke, 2007). Similarly, the extent to which the organization can offer equitable opportunities and equal treatment across all organizational members influences the organizational culture (Griffith & Dasgupta, 2018). First, perceived chilly climate is an average of eight items that use a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). The items include their level of agreement on the following statements: (1) Faculty care about each other, (2) Faculty know each other well, (3) Faculty have little contact with each other (reverse coded), (4) Faculty don’t really know much about each other’s research projects (reverse coded), etc. The variable can range from 1 to 4, where a higher score suggests a less amicable work environment. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.86. Second, perceived workplace inequity measures the perceived level of inequity in the department using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). It is an average of seven items that include: (1) My department or unit actively recruits female faculty members, (2) My department or unit treats minority and non-minority faculty equally, (3) My department or unit treats male and female faculty equally, (4) My department or unit makes an effort to promote underrepresented faculty into leadership positions, etc. It can range from 1 to 4 where a higher score indicates that individuals perceive that their department or unit is inequitable in terms of recruitment of women and minority students as well as hiring and promotion of women and minority faculty. The Cronbach’s alpha is .87.

In addition, we include variables to account for different aspects of work and life that could affect one’s inclination to hold leadership positions (Acker, 1990; Ray, 2019). First, work-life balance is measured with five items adopted from (Netemeyer et al., 1996) that use a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). It is an average score of the following items: (1) The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life, (2) The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities, (3) Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me, (4) My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties, and (5) Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. Work-life balance ranges from 1 to 4, where a higher score indicates better balance in work and personal life domain. The Cronbach’s alpha is .93. Moreover, we use family care to measure childcare and family care responsibilities. It is a binary variable (1 = yes) which indicates that the respondents have either cared for dependent children or provided care for aging parent or relative since they have become a faculty member in their institution.

We also include control variables for individual’s position and time spent in current institution. First, we use three binary variables (1 = yes) to control for rank in universities—Assistant professor, Associate professor, and Full professor. Second, years in current institution is a continuous variable that measures amount of time the respondents spent in their current institutions. To account for the skewness (mean = 10.74, SD = 9.48, min = 0, max = 45), we log-transformed it in our regression analyses.

Lastly, we account for the field and institutional characteristics in our analyses. First, we use four binary variables for the four STEM fields in our sample: biology, biochemistry, mathematics, and civil engineering (1 = yes). Second, institutional types are binary variables (1 = yes) which indicate whether the institution is a Very high research university or High research university based on Carnegie Classification.

We present descriptive statistics in Table 1. Approximately 30% of the respondents identify that they hope to hold leadership position in the future. Slightly less than 50% identify as women (48%) and majority of the respondents identify as White (71%) followed by Asians (22%), Hispanic (non-White) (6%), and Black (4%). On average, the respondents have about nine individuals in their whole support network. Approximately 23% of the respondents hold leadership positions or have held it in the past. More than half of the respondents (57%) are in Very high research universities. The correlation among key variables can be found in the Appendix A.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary of Variables.

Variables	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Dependent variable
Leadership ambition	1,042	0.30	0.46	0	1
Independent variables
Female	1,042	0.48	0.50	0	1
White	1,042	0.71	0.46	0	1
Black	1,042	0.04	0.19	0	1
Asian	1,042	0.22	0.41	0	1
Hispanic (non-white)	1,042	0.06	0.23	0	1
Other race/ethnicity	1,042	0.03	0.16	0	1
Whole support network	1,042	9.37	3.96	1	25
Control variables
Leadership experience	1,042	0.23	0.42	0	1
Committee experience	1,042	0.69	0.46	0	1
Award experience	1,042	1.35	1.35	0	8
Publication	1,042	3.35	4.85	0	53
Perceived chilly climate	1,042	2.4	0.50	1	4
Perceived workplace inequity	1,042	2.26	0.59	1	4
Work-life balance	1,042	2.22	0.70	1	4
Family care	1,042	0.61	0.49	0	1
Assistant professor	1,042	0.26	0.44	0	1
Associate professor	1,042	0.34	0.47	0	1
Full professor	1,042	0.40	0.49	0	1
Years in current institution	1,042	10.74	9.48	0	45
Biology	1,042	0.34	0.47	0	1
Biochemistry	1,042	0.21	0.41	0	1
Civil engineering	1,042	0.27	0.44	0	1
Math	1,042	0.19	0.39	0	1
Very high research university	1,042	0.57	0.49	0	1
High research university	1,042	0.43	0.49	0	1

Results

Respondent Description

We first describe the demographic make-up of our sample in this study (see the Appendix B). By looking at the self-identified gender, more than half of biologists (55%), about 40% of biochemists, approximately about 45% of civil engineers, and slightly less than half of mathematicians (49%) are women. When looking at race distribution across different fields, the majority of biologists, biochemists, civil engineers and mathematicians are White, followed by Asians. Among respondents, there is an underrepresentation of POC across all the STEM fields in our study.

Model Results

We use logistic regression to investigate the relationship between leadership ambition and demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity) as well as support network. Given that our variable of interest, leadership ambition, is a binary variable, using logistic regression is appropriate. Because individuals in our sample are nested in their disciplinary department, we cluster robust standard errors and adjust them for clusters at the department level (Cameron & Miller, 2015).

We present our regression results in Tables 2 to 4. Table 2 shows the logistic regression analysis results where we predict leadership ambition with demographic attributes. We do not find support for Hypothesis 1 that men are more likely to have leadership ambition than women. The result in Table 2 suggest that women are less likely to have leadership ambition than men, but it was not significant (p > .10). We find that individuals of color are more likely to exhibit leadership ambitions. Asian faculty (p < .01) and Hispanic (non-White) faculty (p < .05) are significantly more likely to have leadership ambitions than their White colleagues. These findings are the opposite of our expectation in Hypothesis 2 where we hypothesized that individuals that identify as White are more likely to have leadership ambitions compared to POC. The results for Blacks and Other Race suggest that they are more likely to have leadership ambitions, but the results are not significant (p > .10).

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Results.

Dependent variable: Leadership ambition
	Estimate	Std. Error	p-Value
(Intercept)	−1.20	0.51	.02**
Female	−0.01	0.02	.73
Asian	0.34	0.11	.00***
Black	0.68	0.43	.11
Hispanic (non-white)	0.32	0.14	.02**
Other race	0.29	0.49	.56
Leadership experience	−0.56	0.22	.01***
Committee experience	−0.09	0.12	.44
Award experience	0.16	0.07	.03**
log(Publication)	0.27	0.06	.00***
Associate professor	0.32	0.12	.01***
Full professor	0.02	0.32	.95
log(Years in current institution)	−0.38	0.11	.00***
Perceived chilly climate	0.06	0.19	.77
Perceived workplace inequity	0.03	0.07	.65
Work-life balance	−0.16	0.04	.00***
Family care	0.22	0.06	.00***
Biochemistry	0.64	0.02	.00***
Civil engineering	0.60	0.04	.00***
Math	0.20	0.04	.00***
High research university	0.45	0.23	.05**
N	1,042
Log Likelihood	−591.23
Akaike Inf. Crit.	1,224.45

Note. Reference groups: Men, White, Assistant professor, Biology, Very high research university.

***

p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .10.

Table 3.

Sub-group Logistic Regression Results by Gender.

Dependent variable: leadership ambition
	Men			Women
	Estimate	SE	p-Value	Estimate	SE	p-Value
(Intercept)	−0.69	0.60	.25	−1.84	0.66	.01***
Asian	0.50	0.17	.00***	0.17	0.05	.00***
Black	1.32	0.63	.04**	−0.34	0.48	.48
Hispanic (non-white)	0.61	0.21	.00***	0.05	0.38	.90
Other Race	−0.31	0.70	0.66	1.01	0.31	.00***
Leadership experience	−0.39	0.32	0.22	−0.65	0.27	.02**
Committee experience	−0.20	0.10	.06*	0.00	0.18	1.00
Award experience	0.13	0.10	.19	0.17	0.05	.00***
log(Publication)	0.25	0.12	.04**	0.26	0.24	.28
Associate professor	0.37	0.28	.18	0.21	0.26	.42
Full professor	−0.25	0.41	.55	0.32	0.38	.40
log(Years in current institution)	−0.44	0.15	.00***	−0.30	0.24	.21
Perceived chilly climate	0.07	0.23	.75	0.09	0.21	.68
Perceived workplace inequity	−0.10	0.11	.39	0.12	0.05	.03**
Work-life balance	−0.13	0.11	.21	−0.12	0.15	.41
Family care	0.18	0.06	.00***	0.19	0.08	.01***
Biochemistry	0.59	0.06	.00***	0.72	0.08	.00***
Civil engineering	0.53	0.06	.00***	0.69	0.09	.00***
Math	−0.04	0.11	.74	0.39	0.05	.00***
High research university	0.44	0.25	.08*	0.47	0.33	.16
N	542			500
Log likelihood	−293.87			−289.33
Akaike Inf. Crit.	627.74			618.65

Note. Reference groups: Men, White, Assistant professor, Biology, Very high research university.

***

p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .10.

Table 4.

Sub-group Logistic Regression Results With Interactions by Gender.

Dependent variable: leadership ambition
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
	Men			Women			Men			Women
	Estimate	SE	p-Value	Estimate	SE	p-Value	Estimate	SE	p-Value	Estimate	SE	p-Value
(Intercept)	−0.96	0.64	.14	−2.33	0.60	.00***	−1.22	0.51	.02**	−2.42	0.64	.00***
Asian	0.53	0.17	.00***	0.25	0.03	.00***	0.58	0.60	.34	0.40	0.46	.37
Black	1.32	0.63	.04**	−0.30	0.49	.53	4.35	2.23	.05*	−1.52	2.76	.58
Hispanic^a	0.62	0.22	.00***	0.09	0.38	.81	2.33	1.09	.03**	−0.20	0.74	.79
Other race	−0.35	0.72	.63	0.98	0.30	.00***	2.52	3.40	.46	2.20	0.76	.00***
Support network	0.02	0.01	.15	0.05	0.02	.03**	0.05	0.03	.06*	0.05	0.04	.21
Support network:Asian							0.00	0.07	1.00	−0.02	0.05	.70
Support network:Black							−0.32	0.18	.07*	0.12	0.23	.61
Support network:Hispanic^a							−0.19	0.11	.09*	0.03	0.05	.54
Support network:Other Race							−0.30	0.30	.31	−0.11	0.05	.04**
Leadership experience	−0.39	0.32	.22	−0.67	0.29	.02**	−0.39	0.30	.20	−0.68	0.30	.02**
Committee experience	−0.19	0.10	.06*	−0.01	0.20	.96	−0.17	0.10	.10	0.00	0.21	.98
Award experience	0.12	0.09	.20	0.15	0.05	.01***	0.12	0.10	.22	0.14	0.06	.01***
log(Publication)	0.24	0.13	.06*	0.25	0.24	.29	0.25	0.14	.07*	0.27	0.25	.29
Associate professor	0.35	0.28	.21	0.16	0.24	.51	0.27	0.28	.33	0.13	0.23	.57
Full professor	−0.26	0.42	.54	0.29	0.38	.45	−0.37	0.46	.42	0.26	0.39	.49
log(Years in current institution)	−0.44	0.15	.00***	−0.30	0.23	.19	−0.44	0.14	.00**	−0.29	0.25	.24
Perceived chilly climate	0.10	0.25	.67	0.12	0.21	.56	0.08	0.25	.74	0.12	0.20	.54
Perceived workplace inequity	−0.10	0.11	.36	0.12	0.03	.00***	−0.09	0.12	.47	0.11	0.05	.02**
Work-life balance	−0.12	0.11	.27	−0.13	0.14	.36	−0.11	0.14	.46	−0.13	0.14	.37
Family Care	0.19	0.06	.00***	0.20	0.08	.02**	0.19	0.10	.05**	0.22	0.09	.02**
Biochemistry	0.59	0.06	.00***	0.71	0.08	.00***	0.58	0.05	.00***	0.72	0.07	.00***
Civil engineering	0.55	0.06	.00***	0.76	0.11	.00***	0.57	0.08	.00***	0.77	0.10	.00***
Math	−0.01	0.11	.90	0.45	0.07	.00***	0.00	0.10	.99	0.45	0.06	.00***
High research university	0.44	0.25	.08*	0.48	0.31	.12	0.42	0.25	.10*	0.51	0.30	.09*
N	542			500			542			500
Log likelihood	−293.65			−287.77			−288.28			−287.17
Akaike Inf. Crit.	629.31			617.55			626.56			624.33

Note. Reference groups: Men, White, Assistant professor, Biology, Very high research university.

Hispanic includes non-white.

***

p < .01. **p < .05. *p < .10.

Moreover, we find that individuals who have held or currently are holding leadership positions are significantly less likely to have leadership ambitions (p < .01). Faculty with higher work-life balance are significantly less likely to have leadership ambitions (p < .01), while faculty who are responsible for their child and family care are significantly more likely to have leadership ambitions (p < .01).

To understand how demographic characteristics shape leadership ambition, we split our sample by self-identified gender and present logistic regression results for sub-group analysis in Table 3. We find that men of color are significantly more likely to exhibit leadership ambitions when they are Black (p < .05), Asian (p < .01), and Hispanic (non-White; p < .01), when compared to White men. On the other hand, we find that women of color are significantly more likely to have leadership ambitions only when they are Asian (p < .01) or identify as Other race (p < .01). Black female faculty are less likely to have leadership ambitions; yet the coefficient is not statistically significant. Hence, we do not find support for Hypothesis 3 that women of color will have less leadership ambition than other social groups; instead, we find the opposite of our expectations. In addition, we find that while committee experience reduces the chance of having leadership ambition for men (p < .10), women are less likely to have leadership ambition when they currently are holding or have held leadership positions in the past (p<0.05).

We present the results of logistic regressions where we predict leadership ambition with demographic attributes, social networks and interaction between demographic attributes and social network in Table 4. Models 1 and 2 in Table 4 show the results for baseline logistic regression model where we predict leadership ambition with demographic attributes and size of support network by gender and Models 3 and 4 show the regression results where we use the interaction between race/ethnicity and size of support network to predict leadership ambition by gender. We find that women with larger size of support network are significantly more likely to have leadership ambition (p < .05), partially supporting our Hypothesis 4 that leadership ambition will matter for women based on the size of the network. However, for POC, we find the opposite. The regression results show that Black and Hispanic (non-White) men with larger support network are significantly less likely to have leadership ambition (p < .10; p < .10). We also find that women of other race are significantly less likely to have leadership ambition (p < .05) when they have larger support networks. This is noticeable since we find that women of other race are significantly more likely to have leadership ambition (p < .01) in Model 2 and in Table 4. Moreover, like the results presented above, we continue to find that women are significantly more likely to have leadership ambition when they perceive that their department or unit is inequitably treating women and underrepresented minorities (p < .01 in Model 2; p < .05 in Model 4). We discuss our findings further in the next section.

Discussion

Prior to discussing our results, it is important to highlight the limitations of this study. First, we cannot make causal claims based on the study as we use cross-sectional data. Second, because of the limited number of racial and ethnic groups in STEM, we focus only on four main racial and ethnic groups. Third, we focus our study only on two Carnegie classifications (Very high research and High research universities). It is possible that other Carnegie classification types may provide other results for how ambition differs for women of color (e.g., liberal arts colleges, women’s colleges, etc.). A respondent’s perception of their leadership ambition could change overtime. Additionally, department and organizational culture as well as one’s social networks can change over time. However, we argue that perceptions are important in understanding social environments within organizations, as they exemplify the lived realities where the individual perceptions mediate relationships between the characteristics of the work environments and the individual responses (Yang & Pandey, 2009). Despite these limitations, the data have the advantage of purposefully oversampling a historically challenging group to acquire enough responses from in research (i.e., women and marginalized individuals) within some of the largest public organizations in the U.S.

Our study shows that POC report a higher likelihood of having leadership ambition, but that this can vary based on race and ethnicity differences. One possible explanation could be that they develop their expectations to become a leader based on their level of productivity and service. For example, faculty of color in research universities are often expected to be as productive with research as their White colleagues with the added expectation that they will contribute more time to service and are expected to provide support to students of color (Baez, 2000; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Evidence also suggests that faculty of color may also choose to engage in added service work when it comes to minority-related service in some cases, as it is viewed as a significant personal or social benefit to provide service in that capacity and help with institutional changes (Baez, 2000; Padilla & Chávez, 1995). Some studies find that Black and Latinx faculty are also often found to spend more time in service and administrative service roles as compared to Whites and Asians (Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999), which could influence their belief of their leadership ambition based on the level at which they believe their work is attributing to institutional changes. Another possible explanation for Asians, could be that there is a natural cultural tendency to seek power positions. For example, Hofstede (1980) characterized Asian countries as exhibiting large power distance culture. Asians could value having a higher position in hierarchy and consider holding leadership position as prestigious and an example of obtaining power. Our findings on race and ethnicity show that it is important to look past POC as all-encompassing and to take into consideration the racial, ethnic, and cultural differences of leadership ambition.

Second, we find that support networks help women with their leadership ambition, which supports prior literature on the impacts of social networks on psychological well-being of women (Jung, 2022; Wellman, 1992). Informal networks which include both instrumental and expressive ties can provide both tangible and intangible resources to the individuals that they can utilize for leadership ambition development. For instance, women can develop leadership ambition because they have others in their network who can provide mentorship on ways to pursue leadership roles in their field or who can offer emotional support such as encouragement and advice. Following previous literature on the composition of social networks for women, it is also possible that women benefit from having a mixture of both men and women in their networks. It is possible that their networks are composed with more valuable connections to men in their organization which can support them in their advancement opportunities (Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Ibarra, 1992).

Third, our findings show that having a larger support network does not necessarily help men and women of color with leadership ambition. Rather we find that Black and Hispanic (non-White) men and women of other races are less likely to have leadership ambition when they have a larger support network. This finding could point to one possibility, that although they may have a support network, the relationship could be one-sided. Social relationships are expected to be reciprocated and rewarding to both individuals who are connected (Block, 2015). When one side evaluates the other as non-rewarding, they may not offer the same level or amount of resource benefits to the other compared to the ones they consider rewarding. POC, in particular women of color, often have different network experiences as they receive the differential access to social capital because they do not belong to the “old boys’ club” (Ibarra, 1992; Mcdonald, 2011; Xu & Martin, 2011). For example, POC could be using their support network to improve their productivity or juggle work, while White men use their network to seek career advancement opportunities (Khattab et al., 2020). It is also possible that our findings do not factor in the racial composition of the support networks. Faculty of color may indicate less ambition when they have larger networks indicate this because of the noise or feedback from their network that there have historically been few like “them” in leadership positions in their department. For example, it is possible that women and Black and Hispanic men with larger networks may likely hear stories concerning perils of leadership for women and other individuals of color and that it may dampen their interest or enthusiasm for taking on a leadership role.

Moreover, we find that when women perceive a higher workplace inequity in recruitment and equal treatment of diverse individuals, they are more likely to have leadership ambition. This finding matches prior studies that find that women are more likely than men in the same organizations to indicate that their department does not value recruitment and promotion of diverse individuals (Feeney & Camarena, 2019). It is possible that when they witness workplace inequity and perceive current leadership as not solving such inequitable practices, these situations may motivate them to hold a leadership position to resolve such practices. While male colleagues may be relatively less aware of workplace inequity compared to women, women could be less satisfied by workplace inequity and the dissatisfaction could lead to increased interest in leadership positions, through which women will have the power and access to reduce and improve inequitable practices (Adams, 1965).

Lastly, we find that family caregivers, regardless of gender, are more likely to have interests in holding leadership positions. Prior studies suggest mixed findings. One finds that parents reduce their time for research, teaching and service as their priorities go to family care, which is often time and energy consuming (Misra et al., 2012; Morgan et al., 2021). Others find that family responsibilities do not affect productivity (Barbezat, 2006; Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999). However, it is also possible that for individuals who bear family care responsibilities, family becomes a motivator or an incentive to be productive and seek career advancement opportunities to secure economic and career security (Joecks et al., 2014; Lutter & Schröder, 2020).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that the leadership disparities for women and people of color in public organizations are not a factor of a lack of leadership ambition but require focusing on ways to ensure these marginalized individuals have the same opportunity as others to fulfill their leadership ambition so that they can lead and manage. This study is unique as it not only looks at how leadership ambition may be influenced by the social environments of public organizations, but it also includes a large enough sample of historically marginalized groups of individuals which are not always adequately accounted for in public administration scholarship. Unlike previous literature on gender and racial/ethnic differences, POC and women of color are more likely to have leadership ambition compared to other social groups, yet the representation of individuals across these organizations in all categories are still vastly underrepresented and that social networks are important for women more than POC.

Findings from our study offer insights for human resource practices in public organizations. First, public organizations may want to design and implement leadership training programs which can assist with developing leadership ambition within the organization, particularly for POC. As a first step, public organizations should acknowledge that leadership ambition varies based on gender, race and ethnicity generally. In doing this, public organizations will be better prepared to address and identify various leadership needs. In addition, we find that fostering informal support network increases women’s leadership ambition, overall. This suggest that developing organization-based networking events or mentoring programs can help women further foster their leadership ambition and help guide them toward understanding how to attain leadership positions. We do find that support networks can discourage individuals of color, depending on the intersection of race / ethnicity and gender. This suggests that rather than having one-size-fits-all approach in leadership programs targeted at increasing leadership representation in public organizations, individualized leadership training or mentoring programs may be more effective in addressing diverse levels of leadership interests.

Public administration literature today tries to argue that all marginalized people will behave or benefit from all types of diversity and inclusion efforts. This study highlights the reality that it will not be an easy and one-size-fits-all approach for public administrators to foster workplace environments where leadership representation of marginalized groups is simple. Rather, this study highlights that there are ways in which public organizations can build support for leadership representation of various types of marginalized people through support networks, department equity efforts, and organizational culture. It is possible to now think about the inequities within public organizations, especially within historically masculine and White organizations, where it is apparent which marginalized groups may benefit from certain types of diversity and inclusion initiatives versus others.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B.

Gender and Race/Ethnicity Breakdown by STEM Fields.

Gender and Race/Ethnicity	Biology (N = 351)	Biochemistry (N = 216)	Civil engineering (N = 279)	Math (N = 196)
Men	45%	60%	55%	51%
Women	55%	40%	45%	49%
White	69%	79%	69%	68%
Black	4%	4%	4%	5%
Asian	22%	15%	24%	25%
Hispanic (non-white)	7%	2%	8%	5%
Other Race	4%	1%	2%	2%

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the US National Science Foundation for its generous support of this research (Grants DGE #1661206 and DRL #0910191) and the many individuals who took the time to respond to the survey.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Leonor Camarena

Heyjie Jung

Notes

Author Biographies

Leonor Camarena is an Assistant Professor in the Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University – Bloomington. Her research addresses established and emerging issues realted to public management, nonprofit managment, and local government.

Heyjie Jung is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include organization theory and behavior, workplace identities, leadership, social networks, and science and technology policy.

References

Acker

(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.

Acker

(1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569.

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Adler

P. S.

Kwon

(2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

Amanatullah

E. T.

Morris

M. W.

(2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256.

Baez

(2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363–391.

Balkundi

Kilduff

(2006). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.01.001

Banchefsky

Westfall

Park

Judd

C. M.

(2016). But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75(3), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23–28), 2.

10.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206.

11.

Barbezat

D. A.

(2006). Gender differences in research patterns among PhD economists. The Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.3.359-375

12.

Bellas

M. L.

Toutkoushian

R. K.

(1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367–390.

13.

Benbow

R. J.

Lee

(2019). Teaching-focused social networks among college faculty: Exploring conditions for the development of social capital. Higher Education, 78(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0331-5

14.

Biggs

Hawley

P. H.

Biernat

(2018). The academic conference as a chilly climate for women: Effects of gender representation on experiences of sexism, coping responses, and career intentions. Sex Roles, 78(5), 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0800-9

15.

Bird

S. R.

(2011). Unsettling universities’ incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case-study approach. Gender, Work & Organization, 18(2), 202–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00510.x

16.

Blau

P. M.

(1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 26–54.

17.

Block

(2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Social Networks, 40, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.10.005

18.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), The sociology of economic life (pp. 241–258). Routledge.

19.

Bowles

H. R.

Thomason

Bear

J. B.

(2019). Reconceptualizing what and how women negotiate for career advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1645–1671.

20.

Britton

D. M.

(2017). Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society, 31(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216681494

21.

Burke

R. J.

(2007). Women and minorities in STEM: A primer. In Burke

R. J.

Mattis

M. C.

(Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers. (pp. 3–27). Edward Elgar Publishing.

22.

Bystydzienski

J. M.

Bird

S. R.

(2006). Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Indiana University Press.

23.

Camarena

(2020). Gendered expectations: How informal networks shape psychosocial outcomes for STEM faculty in gendered institutions. Arizona State University.

24.

Camarena

Feeney

M. K.

Lecy

(2021). Nonprofit entrepreneurship: Gender differences in strategy and practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(6), 1170–1192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021999436

25.

Cameron

A. C.

Miller

D. L.

(2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317

26.

Carrigan

Quinn

Riskin

E. A.

(2011). The gendered division of labor among STEM faculty and the effects of critical mass. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(3), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021831

27.

Carroll

(2017). Ambition is priceless: Socialization, ambition, and representative bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016671602

28.

Coffman

Collis

Kulkarni

(2019). Stereotypes and belief updating (Working paper 19-068).

29.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

30.

Correll

S. J.

(2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.

31.

Dess

G. G.

Shaw

J. D.

(2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/259187

32.

Domingo

C. R.

Gerber

N. C.

Harris

Mamo

Pasion

S. G.

Rebanal

R. D.

(2022). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000292

33.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

34.

Eaton

A. A.

Saunders

J. F.

Jacobson

R. K.

West

(2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82(3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w

35.

Faniko

Ellemers

Derks

(2022). Lack of ambition or lack of support? Diverging career experiences of men and women explain the persistence of gender bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(9), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12883

36.

Feeney

M. K.

Bernal

(2010). Women in STEM networks: Who seeks advice and support from women scientists? Scientometrics, 85(3), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0256-y

37.

Feeney

M. K.

Camarena

(2019). Gender, race, and diversity values among local government leaders. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19865009

38.

Feeney

M. K.

Langer

(2016). Getting ahead in the public sector: Perceptions of managers in U.S. municipalities. American Review of Public Administration, 46(6), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015570037

39.

Forret

M. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.253

40.

Funk

K. D.

(2015). Gendered governing? Women’s leadership styles and participatory institutions in Brazil. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 564–578.

41.

Gaughan

Melkers

Welch

(2018). Differential social network effects on scholarly productivity: An intersectional analysis. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(3), 570–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917735900

42.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

43.

Griffith

Dasgupta

(2018). How the demographic composition of academic science and engineering departments influences workplace culture, faculty experience, and retention risk. Social Sciences, 7(5), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7050071

44.

Guy

Newman

(2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289–298.

45.

Hackett

Betz

N. E.

Casas

J. M.

Rocha-Singh

I. A.

(1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.39.4.527

46.

Hamidullah

M. F.

Wilkins

V. M.

Meier

K. J.

(2009). Looking for their Dick Vermeil: How prior performance influences the selection decision. Public Organization Review, 9(1), 1–14.

47.

Hart

(2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 605–634.

48.

Higgins

M. C.

Kram

K. E.

(2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378023

49.

Hofstede

(1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.

50.

Hogg

M. A.

van Knippenberg

(2003). Social identity and leadership processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1–52.

51.

Ibarra

(1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393451

52.

Ibarra

(1993a). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/256589

53.

Ibarra

(1993b). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/258823

54.

Ioanide

(2015). The emotional politics of racism: How feelings trump facts in an era of colorblindness. Stanford University Press.

55.

James

E. H.

(2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human and social capital. Organization Science, 11(5), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.493.15202

56.

Joecks

Pull

Backes-Gellner

(2014). Childbearing and (female) research productivity: A personnel economics perspective on the leaky pipeline. Journal of Business Economics, 84(4), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0676-2

57.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

58.

Jung

(2022). How included are you in your workplace? The effects of different social structures on perceived inclusion. Arizona State University.

59.

Jung

Welch

E. W.

(2022). The impact of demographic composition of social networks on perceived inclusion in the workplace. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13470

60.

Kachchaf

Hodari

Ong

(2015). Career-life balance for women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(3), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039068

61.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977). Some effects of proportions on group life. In Rieker

P.P.

Carmen

(Eds.), The gender gap in psychotherapy (pp. 53–78). Springer.

62.

Khattab

Van Knippenberg

Pieterse

A. N.

Hernandez

(2020). A network utilization perspective on the leadership advancement of minorities. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 109–129.

63.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.

64.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2002). Social cognitive career theory. In Brown

(Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 255–311).

65.

Leslie

S.-J.

Cimpian

Meyer

Freeland

(2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 6219. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-EWS

66.

Lim

Park

Tessler

Choi

Jung

Kao

(2020). Men and women’s different dreams on the future of the gendered division of paid work and household work after COVID-19 in South Korea. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 69, 100544.

67.

Long

J. S.

Fox

M. F.

(1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401

68.

Lutter

Schröder

(2020). Is there a motherhood penalty in academia? The gendered effect of children on academic publications in German sociology. European Sociological Review, 36(3), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz063

69.

Maranto

Teodoro

M. P.

Carroll

Cheng

(2019). Gendered ambition: Men’s and women’s career advancement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(4), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018804564

70.

Marsden

P. V.

(1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–453.

71.

Martin

(1994). The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1(2), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050849412011

72.

McDonald

(2011). What’s in the “old boys” network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks, 33, 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.10.002

73.

McLaughlin

M. W.

Talbert

J. E.

(2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. University of Chicago Press.

74.

McPherson

J. M.

Smith-Lovin

(1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 370–379.

75.

Merluzzi

Burt

R. S.

(2013). How many names are enough? Identifying network effects with the least set of listed contacts. Social Networks, 35(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.03.004

76.

Miner

K. N.

January

S. C.

Dray

K. K.

Carter-Sowell

A. R.

(2019). Is it always this cold? Chilly interpersonal climates as a barrier to the well-being of early-career women faculty in STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(2), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2018-0127

77.

Misra

Kuvaeva

O’meara

Culpepper

D. K.

Jaeger

(2021). Gendered and racialized perceptions of faculty workloads. Gender & Society, 35(3), 358–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001387

78.

Misra

Lundquist

J. H.

Templer

(2012). Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociological Forum, 27(2), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x

79.

Mollica

K. A.

(2003). The influence of diversity context on white men’s and racial minorities’ reactions to disproportionate group harm. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 415–431.

80.

Morgan

A. C.

Way

S. F.

Hoefer

M. J. D.

Larremore

D. B.

Galesic

Clauset

(2021). The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Science Advances, 7(9), eabd1996. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1996

81.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021 (Special Report NSF 21-321). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd

82.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

83.

O’Meara

Kuvaeva

Nyunt

Waugaman

Jackson

(2017). Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1154–1186.

84.

Obenauer

W. G.

Langer

(2019). Inclusion is not a slam dunk: A study of differential leadership outcomes in the absence of a glass cliff. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(6), 101334.

85.

Ospina

(2009). Weaving color lines: Race, ethnicity, and the work of leadership in social change organizations. Leadership, 5(2), 131–170.

86.

Padilla

R. V.

Chávez

R. C.

(1995). Leaning Ivory tower, The: Latino professors in American Universities. SUNY Press.

87.

Patton

Bartrum

D. A.

Creed

P. A.

(2004). Gender differences for optimism, self-esteem, expectations and goals in predicting career planning and exploration in adolescents. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 4(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-005-1745-z

88.

Perrone

K. M.

Sedlacek

W. E.

Alexander

C. M.

(2001). Gender and ethnic differences in career goal attainment. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00981.x

89.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.

90.

Riccucci

(2021). Managing diversity in public sector workforces (2nd ed.). Routledge.

91.

Riegle-Crumb

King

(2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10391657

92.

Sabharwal

(2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/24484973

93.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.

94.

Settles

I. H.

Jones

M. K.

Buchanan

N. T.

Brassel

S. T.

(2022). Epistemic exclusion of women faculty and faculty of color: Understanding Scholar(ly) devaluation as a predictor of turnover intentions. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494

95.

Smith

A. E.

Hassan

Hatmaker

D. M.

DeHart-Davis

Humphrey

(2021). Gender, race, and experiences of workplace incivility in public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20927760

96.

Teodoro

M. P.

(2011). Bureaucratic ambition: Careers, motives, and the innovative administrator. JHU Press.

97.

Tierney

W. G.

Bensimon

E. M.

(1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Suny Press.

98.

Turner

C. S. V.

González

J. C.

Wong

(2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024630

99.

Vacha-Haase

Davenport

D. S.

Kerewsky

S. D.

(2004). Problematic students: Gatekeeping practices of academic professional psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.2.115

100.

Valverde

L. A.

(2003). Leaders of color in higher education: Unrecognized triumphs in harsh institutions. Rowman Altamira.

101.

Webster

Foschi

(1988). Status generalization: New theory and research. Stanford University Press.

102.

Welch

E. W.

Jha

(2016). Network and perceptual determinants of satisfaction among science and engineering faculty in US research universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 290–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9393-z

103.

Wellman

(1992). Which types of ties and networks provide what kinds of social support. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 207–235.

104.

Woehler

M. L.

Cullen-Lester

K. L.

Porter

C. M.

Frear

K. A.

(2021). Whether, how, and why networks influence men’s and women’s career success: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 47(1), 207–236.

105.

Y. J.

(2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4

106.

Y. J.

Martin

C. L.

(2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: From the aspects of informal professional networking and faculty career development. Gender Issues, 28(3), 134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-011-9104-5

107.

Yang

Pandey

S. K.

(2009). How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 335–360.