We examined how university leaders described what and who needed to change in order to increase the representation of female faculty in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) departments. Thirty-one (28 men and 3 women) STEM departmental chairs and deans at a large, public university participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were examined using both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Analysis focused on participants’ descriptions of responsibility for changes related to gender equity. Using the distinction of high versus low responsibility, themes were examined for their qualitative characteristics as well as their frequency. Leaders who exhibited high personal responsibility most frequently saw themselves as needing to change and also named their male colleagues as concurrently responsible for diversity. Conversely, leaders who exhibited low personal responsibility most frequently described female faculty as responsible and described women’s attitudes and their “choice” to have a family as obstacles to gender diversity in STEM. We argue that the dimensions of high and low responsibility are useful additions to discussions of leadership, workplace diversity initiatives, and gender equity more broadly. To this end, we provide several methodological tools to examine these subtle, yet essential, aspects of how diversity and change efforts are imagined and discussed.
AveryD. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations: A theoretical exploration of its origins and offshoots. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 239–256.
5.
AveryD. R.McKayP. F. (2006). Target practices: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187.
6.
BailynL. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 137–153.
7.
BarretoM. E.RyanM. K.SchmittM. T. (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
BassB. M.BassR. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed). New York, NY: Free Press.
9.
BernsteinM.CrosbyF. (1980). An empirical examination of relative deprivation theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 442–456.
10.
BlackburnR. T.HollensheadC.CoenP.ThomasG.WaltmanJ.WenzelS. (1999). University of Michigan faculty work-life study report. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
11.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
12.
BrickmanP.RabinowitzV. C.KaruzaJ.CoatesD.CohnE. S.KidderL. H. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368–384.
13.
ButtnerE. H.LoweK. B.Billings-HarrisL. (2006). The influence of organizational diversity orientation and leader attitude on diversity activities. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 356–371.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
16.
CombsG. M. (2002). Meeting the leadership challenge of a diverse and pluralistic workplace: Implications of self-efficacy for diversity training. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8, 1–16.
17.
Dedoose (Version 4.5) [web application]. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dedoose.com.
18.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85, 62–71.
19.
EaglyA. H.ChinJ. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65, 216–224.
20.
EcclesJ. S. (1986). Gender-roles and women’s achievement. Educational Researcher, 15, 15–19.
21.
EcclesJ. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.
22.
EcclesJ. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
FitzgeraldL. F.ShullmanS. L.BaileyN.RichardsM.SweckerJ.GoldA.…WeitzmanL. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175.
25.
GlasmanL. R.AlbarracínD. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778–822.
26.
GlassC.MinnotteK. L. (2010). Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 218–229.
27.
Glazer-RaymoJ. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
GmelchW. H.WilkeP. K.LovrichN. P. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education, 24, 266–286.
29.
GundermanR. B. (2003). Why do some people succeed where others fail? Implications for education. Radiology, 226, 29–31.
30.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
31.
Hoffman-KimD. (1999). Women scientists in laboratory culture: Perspectives from an academic scientist in training. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 868, 106–109.
32.
HopkinsN. (1999a, June 11). MIT and gender bias: Following up on victory. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, B4–B5.
HuffmanM. L. (2013). Organizations, managers, and wage inequality. Sex Roles, 68, 216–222.
35.
IbarraH.CarterN. M.SilvaC. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88, 80–85.
36.
IliesR.HausermanN.SchwochauS.StibalJ. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using a meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607–631.
37.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.
38.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.
39.
KalevA.DobbinF.KellyE. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.
40.
KittsA. (2001). Career selection for women in science: Is it really Hobson’s Choice after 30 years of progress?Association of Women in Science Magazine, 30, 21–22.
41.
KleinK. M.AppleK. J.KahnA. S. (2011). Attributions of blame and responsibility in sexual harassment: Reexamining a psychological model. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 92–103.
42.
LefcourtH. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
MajorB.KaiserC. R.McCoyS. K. (2003). It's not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772–781.
44.
MartinsL. L.ParsonsC. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 865–875.
45.
McConahayJ. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551–558.
46.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
47.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Retrieved fromhttp://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
48.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandlesmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479.
49.
MurphyE. F. (2005). Getting even: Why women don’t get paid like men-and what to do about it. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
50.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Division of science resources statistics: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/tables.cfm
51.
NemiroJ. E.HackerB.FerrelM. L.GuthrieR. (2009). Using appreciative inquiry as a tool to investigate transformational change in recruiting and developing women faculty in STEM disciplines. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology, 1, 1–35.
PowellG. N.GravesL. M. (2003). Yesterday and today. In PowellG. N.GravesL. M. (Eds.), Women and men in management (3rd ed., pp. 12–35). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
54.
ProkosA.PadavicI. (2005). An examination of competing explanations for the pay gap among scientists and engineers. Gender & Society, 19, 523–543.
55.
RaginsB. R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A review of positive social capital approach. In AllenT. D.EbyL. T. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 281–200). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
56.
RichardO. C.BarnettT.DwyerS.ChadwickK. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 255–266.
57.
RigerS.SullivanM.StokesJ. P.RajaS. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for female faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 63–78.
58.
RobersonQ. M.ParkH. J. (2007). Examining the link between diversity and firm performance the effects of diversity reputation and leader racial diversity. Group & Organization Management, 32, 548–568.
59.
SearleJ. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SettlesI. H.CortinaL. M.MalleyJ.StewartA. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58.
61.
ShieldsS. A.ZawadzkiM. J.JohnsonR. N. (2011). The impact of the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation in the Academy (WAGES–Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 120–129.
62.
StevensF. G.PlautV. C.Sanchez-BurksJ. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity all-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 116–133.
63.
StewartA. J.MalleyJ. E.LaVaque-MantyD. (2007). Transforming science and engineering: Advancing academic women. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
64.
SwimJ. K.AikinK. J.HallW. S.HunterB. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
65.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88.
66.
ThomasK. M.PlautV. C. (2008). The many faces of diversity resistance in the workplace. In ThomasK. M. (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
UssherJ. M.SandovalM.PerzJ.WongW. T.ButowP. (2013). The gendered construction and experience of difficulties and rewards in cancer care. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 900–915.
68.
ValianV. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
69.
ValianV. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20, 198–213.
70.
ValianV. (2007). Women at the top in science: And elsewhere. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 27–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
71.
VoegtlinC. (2011). Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 57–73.
72.
WaldmanD. A.SiegelD. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.
73.
WigboldusD. H.SeminG. R.SpearsR. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic biases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5–18.
74.
WinterD. G. (1991). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term management success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 67–80.
75.
YangY.KonradA. M. (2011). Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36, 6–38.
76.
YedidiaM. J.BickeJ. (2001). Why aren’t there more women leaders in academic medicine?The views of clinical department chairs. Academic Medicine, 76, 453–465.
77.
YoungB. L.MadsenJ.YoungM. A. (2010). Implementing diversity plans: Principals’ perception of their ability to address diversity in their schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 135–157.
78.
ZawadzkiM. J.ShieldsS. A.DanubeC. L.SwimJ. K. (2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 75–92.
