Historical foundation of the masculine role of university rectors in Poland

Abstract

The underrepresentation of women in leadership positions within higher education institutions is well-documented worldwide. However, limited evidence exists on the historical roots of this disparity, particularly regarding university traditions and their impact on the masculine role of rectors. This study addresses this issue by reconstructing the historical accounts of rectors in Poland, as demonstrated in institutional histories, autobiographies, biographies, laudatory statements, and obituaries. These historical accounts influence the formal aspects of the rector’s role, particularly their position within the university governance structure, while also shaping the institutionalised expectations of the individuals involved. Consequently, the embodiment of masculinity in the role of rector negatively impacts women’s access to these positions.

Introduction

Gender inequality in academia (Cervia and Biancheri, 2017) and academic leadership positions is a well-documented global phenomenon (European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2025; Fitzgerald, 2014; Kuzhabekova and Almukhambetova, 2017; Shepherd, 2017). Women’s underrepresentation in academic leadership encompasses both professorships and managerial positions, such as rectors and vice-rectors. According to the latest She Figures report, only 26% of heads of higher education institutions are women (European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2025). Earlier studies have provided ample evidence that, despite increasing public awareness of gender equality and diversity in academia (Eggins, 2017; Fitzgerald, 2014; UNESCO, 2021; Upchurch, 2020; Witteman et al., 2019), managerial roles in public universities worldwide remain predominantly held by men (Bothwell, 2017; Carvalho and Diogo, 2018; Wroblewski, 2019). This trend portrays universities as conservative institutions still characterised by masculine hegemony (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005).

The scarcity of women in academic leadership positions has recently attracted significant research attention (e.g. Eggins, 2017; Fitzgerald, 2014; Klenk et al., 2022; Kloot, 2004; Read and Kehm, 2016; Šadl, 2009; Sułkowski et al., 2019; White et al., 2011). Most of these studies have focussed on the gendered obstacles and challenges women face on their path to academic leadership, including gendered division of labour, gender bias and misrecognition, management and masculinity, greedy work, demanding work environments, and work/life balance challenges (Morley, 2013). Many of the explanations are based on the assumptions of a gendered male norm in academic leadership (Carvalho and Diogo, 2018; Morley, 2013; White et al., 2011) and hegemonic masculinity suppressing femininities, which has triggered increasing calls for the feminisation of the academia (Leathwood and Read, 2009) and demasculinisation of academic leadership (Billing and Alvesson, 2000). Previous studies have argued that the masculine ideal of a rector is embedded in the institutional culture of universities (Carvalho and Diogo, 2018). Antonowicz and Pokorska (2025) argued that this masculine ideal may be reproduced and reinforced through various habitual university ceremonies, artefacts, and social practices. To extend and empirically inform this argument further, this study aims to examine the historical construction of the role of a university rector by analysing universities as social institutions with their own systems of rules and practices built on durable social foundations that are relatively resistant to change (Scott, 2001) and—seeming to fit our study even better—settled habits of thought (Gronow, 2008; Veblen, 1990). This conceptual paper, supported by illustrative empirical examples, contributes to the literature by (a) demonstrating the historical trajectory of the role of Polish university rector and (b) discussing how the gendered nature of the social role of rectors, including their visual representation, contributes to the gendered expectations associated with the individuals who perform it.

The context of academic leadership in Poland is particularly relevant because, despite the long-standing presence of women in science (Wagner et al., 2017), their proportion in higher education institutions is low (23.6%; European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2025). This distinguishes Poland from many other European countries and differentiates universities from other public and private organisations in the country (Antonowicz and Pokorska, 2025; Sułkowski et al., 2019). Historically, the first Polish woman rector, Maria Joanna Radomska, was appointed in 1981 at the Main School of Rural Homestead (now known as the Warsaw University of Life Sciences), which at the time was not even an academic institution. The first woman university rector, Katarzyna Chałasińska-Macukow, was elected only in 2005 at Warsaw University. The low number of women rectors is even more pronounced in traditional universities, which remain the most conservative institutions in Poland, with only five different women having held the role of primus inter pares (a total of seven terms in office). In the current term (2024–2028), only two women have been elected as rectors in 25 traditional universities, despite the continuously increasing number of women academics, who now comprise 47% of the academic workforce and 34.6% of senior academics (GUS, 2021).

Conceptual backdrop

To understand the enduring scarcity of women university rectors and the gendered perceptions of the role of rectors, we build on the sociological concept of social roles (Eagly, 1987). Unlike Pierre Bourdieu’s theory—often used to explained structural inequalities also in academia—that concentrates on power, capital and control in certain social fields, the social role theory focuses on roles, norms and normative expectations tied to specific social positions (Atkinson, 2023). However, we acknowledge that the way gender norms and masculinity are interpreted in this context is informed through a power-sensitive lens. And therefore, this paper attempts to take on a more power-sensitive approach towards the concept of social roles. While we primarily focus on the normative expectations and cognitive scripts tied to the rector’s role, we also recognise that within the historically patriarchal structures of traditional universities, these social roles are deeply intertwined with power dynamics. This expanded perspective allows us to understand how the masculine construction of the rector’s role actively reproduces male dominance and institutional legitimacy, trying to connect the social role approach with feminist critiques of patriarchy.

The origins of social role theory date back to the 1930s, drawing an analogy to a theatrical play in which actors follow the script of their roles (Linton, 1936; Mead, 1934). It views society and its institutions as sets of rights, duties, expectations, norms, and appropriate behaviours attached to specific social positions (Turner, 2001). It also assumes that roles are largely defined concepts that hold strong assumptions about who should perform certain roles and how they should be performed. Therefore, it is regarded as the best analytical device to study problems in highly institutional environments. The theory was developed by Goffman (1956) who paid less attention to normative construction of social roles but attribute more weight to their interactional aspects. Goffman was primarily interested in how actors perform their social roles in everyday life and how it may contribute to stability and/or change of their normative construction.

Our focus in this study is mainly on universities that are highly institutionalised organisations guided by established sets of roles, rules and norms frequently legitimised by academic tradition (Krücken and Meier, 2006; Musselin, 2007). Therefore, we use the structural approach (Linton, 1936) that views social roles as a source of social and organisational stability, introducing ‘persisting and bounded patterns of behaviours and interaction among people and positions’ (House, 1995: 390). It applies particularly to social roles to which actors are collectively elected by their peers such as university rectors in Poland. They are embedded in normative expectations about how these roles should be performed and by whom, since they are informally linked to specific types of actors (Hindin, 2007). From this perspective, the role of a university rector serves as a cognitive script and moral template, providing ‘frames of meaning’ that guide human behaviour (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 947). It encompasses informal yet hegemonic assumptions regarding the profile of individuals eligible for the rector’s role. Additionally, it manifests expectations about how the role should be performed, including adherence to the historical heritage celebrated in academic tradition (see, e.g. Goćkowski, 1999).

These assumptions are nearly omnipresent, influencing the (self-) selection of individuals for particular roles (see e.g. Bosak et al., 2008; Eagly, 2005; Garza Mitchell and Garcia, 2020). The more homogeneous are the peer expectations associated with institutional roles and deeper they are anchored in institutional tradition, the more challenging it is to contest and break them (Eagly, 2005). It is particularly true for Polish universities which historical institutions shaped primarily by legitimacy-seeking rather than efficiency consideration

Social expectations can relate to various individual characteristics, such as social class, ethnicity, physical appearance, and educational background. One of the most significant characteristics regarding the selection of actors for particular social roles is gender. ‘For example, men are still more likely than women to hold positions of power (e.g., US Presidents, corporate CEOs), whereas women are still more likely than men to be responsible for childcare and housework’ (Daniels and Leaper, 2011: 152; see also Cervia and Biancheri, 2017; Kuzhabekova and Kwiek, 2022). While men are ascribed agentic attributes such as aggression, dominance, and self-confidence, which they are expected to possess and demonstrate according to their gender role, women are ascribed communal attributes such as kindness, empathy, helpfulness, and nurturing (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). In line with social role theory, the attributes ascribed to management and leadership positions are often those associated with men. This phenomenon appears to be universal and has also been observed in the context of academic leadership (e.g. Carvalho and Diogo, 2018; Mikkonen et al., 2026). Social role theory is frequently employed to examine modern organisations, particularly focussing on their recruitment patterns and forms of leadership (Anglin et al., 2022; Dierdorff et al., 2012).

However, it has yet to be widely adopted in research related to higher education, specifically in studies on university leadership. Universities, as complex organisations, consist of structural arrangements that encompass multiple roles and the relationships between them (Bolman and Deal, 2008). Importantly, universities are also regarded as ‘specific organizations’ (Musselin, 2007: 75) where ‘the role of formal structures and rules (. . .) is therefore limited by the nature of academic activities and the unclear technology incorporated in them’. The normative expectations associated with specific roles are informal yet deeply ingrained. This strength arises from their historical entrenchment, shaping particular beliefs and institutional identities that influence actors’ cognitive frameworks and habitual behaviours. This influence is particularly strong in self-governing organisations, such as Polish universities, characterised by the enduring power of collegiality (Kwiek, 2015).

We conceptualise gender as a social-structural relation constituted by social processes embedded within societal and organisational hierarchies (e.g. Lorber, 1994; West and Zimmermann, 2020). Gender is continually (re)produced and contested through institutions and everyday practices. On the individual level gender refers to how people identify, behave and think in ways that are shaped by culturally available gender meanings. Social role theory suggests that because women and men are distributed into different social roles, people infer corresponding traits and self-regulate accordingly as discussed above (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001).

On the organisational level, gender is embedded in the structures, rules, routines, and cultural logics of organisations and institutions, such as workplaces, professions and policy regimes. However, universities, like many organisations often use neutrality to obscure their gender bias, which is evident in informal rules, social roles, and appropriateness patterns embedded in their history (Acker, 1990). Traditions, deeply rooted in academia, play a crucial role in shaping the ethos and identity of universities. The academic tradition serves as a particularly strong and broadly uncontested source of institutional rules and scripts for powerful roles. Its centrality is almost omnipresent, proudly manifested through a display of various cultural artefacts critical to their organisational identity. These include university crests, traditional outfits, memorials, monuments of historic university figures, and prominently displayed portrayals of former rectors across campuses. The glorified historical dimension, celebrated within academia, reinforces compliance with long-standing norms and expectations. Furthermore, it legitimises many peculiarities of universities, such as the traditionally masculine character of the role of a university rector, even when these do not correspond to modern societal norms. These factors reproduce the patriarchal system, in which power, authority, and institutional legitimacy are structurally and symbolically concentrated in the hands of men. Drawing on feminist and sociological theory, we understand patriarchy as a system of social relations that systematically privileges men over women by normalising male dominance in positions of leadership, knowledge production, and cultural representation, thus reproducing the dominance of men and patriarchal system (Dlamini and Adams, 2014; Walby, 1990).

To these ends, the study identifies and analyses the historical foundation of the masculine (or even patriarchal) figure of the university rector in Poland by examining both the evolution of structural arrangements and the narratives associated with the role of rectors.

The study

As discussed theoretically above, the historically shaped institutional environment establishes organisational boundaries for the rector’s role. While it does not formally impact the underrepresentation of women, it influences the script of the rector’s role including who is perceived as capable of filling the role and how it should be performed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify how the social role of a university rector has been constructed over time and what structural and cultural factors influence its gendered profile in the context of Polish universities. This paper offers an empirically informed conceptual study inspired by historical research designs (see e.g. Booth and Rowlinson, 2006) because its main purpose is to discuss how social institutions (universities and the role of a rector) and institutional governance arrangements may affect the gender profiling of their leaders.

Most studies and scholarly activities from a sociological perspective, especially in the Polish context regarding academic careers, have either highlighted the conservative nature of society (e.g. Fuszara and Grudzińska, 1994) or explicitily the impact of Catholic church (Heinen and Portet (2014) or pointed to the field of science as providing an unfavourable environment for women (Wagner et al., 2017). Previous studies on women have focussed primarily on cultural and structural inequalities (in the sense of Bourdieu’s theory), pointing to the accumulation of capital and control within a given field. Our analysis, by contrast, draws attention to universities as institutionalised organisations (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) which, although operating within the social field of science, are nevertheless distinctive and governed by their own organisational logic.Little attention has been paid to how institutional factors influence the selection of university leaders and the manner in which they perform their roles, as this has often been taken for granted and viewed as completely neutral. Therefore, this study offers a novel perspective to understanding how the description of the rector’s role has been constructed throughout the 20th century. In practice, we use archival data (Booth and Rowlinson, 2006; Chandola and Booker, 2021) as illustrative empirical examples to support our reasoning and reflect empirical reality. In addition to prior scientific literature, the empirical material used includes (a) historical studies on university governance arrangements since 1920, when the first national higher education law was enacted, and (b) bibliographies and biographical notes of former rectors, which consist of (b1) commemorative publications about rectors commonly published on the occasion of the university’s establishment anniversary, (b2) biographies of individual rectors published to memorialise their contributions to specific universities, and (b3) autobiographies of rectors.

We also examine academic works related to (c) Polish public discourse on university governance (Dziedziczak-Foltyn, 2017; Ostrowicka and Pezda, 2012) to assess how the issue of gender imbalance among university rectors is recognised as a policy problem. The departure point for our analysis was the outcomes of individual in-depth interviews with women in leadership positions (Antonowicz and Pokorska, 2025) in which they indicated strong normative expectations of gender role of university rector. In order to explore it we deployed a motif-based analysis (Riessman, 2008) that focuses on identifying recurring motifs, ideas, or narrative elements across texts. We searched for motifs that appeared in different shapes, forms and contexts which can be significant for the purpose of our study. It was both challenging and time consuming because the anlysis covered various types of texts published over the span of hundreds years. The sample was purposive as we chose to examine all accessible texts that could make the contribution to the construction of a social role of university rector in Poland. It was feasible to conduct because until 1990s there were only handful of universities in Poland and in addition most of the texts were printed and accessible in public libraries.

From a technical point of view, the process involved two members of the research team who examined all the collected texts in search for related gender-motifs with direct or non-direct reference to the construction of the role of a university rector. Those motifs were discussed internally to establish whether they and how they attribute to gendered role of the rector. Most of them made patriarchal references through shedding light on individual features, particular attitudes, type of behaviours or style of leadership. The empirically informed section of this article is divided into two parts. First, we discuss the role of the university rector in institutional governance, primarily focussing on legislative and formal descriptions of the role. This is followed by a section focussing on the historical descriptions and illustrations of a rector’s role, emphasising the cultural aspects that shape the script for this position.

Contextual backdrop: Role of the university rector in institutional governance

Universities operate within a national context and are subject to governmental regulations, professional norms, and cultural-cognitive values, beliefs, and traditions (Austin and Jones, 2015; Clark, 1983). Polish universities are self-governing and autonomous organisations rooted in the Humboldtian foundation which implies ‘weak university management, strong self-regulation and collegial control by the professoriate’ (de Boer and Goedegebuure, 2003: 215). The National Law (Art. 17) establishes only the core governance framework, allowing universities to develop their own detailed arrangements. The law mandates universities to have two collective bodies: an academic senate and a university council, in addition to one individual actor—the rector. Rectors are elected for a 4-year term by an assembly representing various university (internal) jurisdictions. Professors (associate and full) hold at least half of the votes, while students hold at least one-fifth. The internal distribution of votes among campuses, faculties, and departments is determined by the individual institutions.

Elections are typically popularity contests, often preceded by, sometimes intense, election campaigns and frequent political bargaining behind the scenes. Article 24 of the law establishes the basic eligibility requirements for candidates seeking the position of a rector, which includes possessing a doctoral degree, having a clean criminal record, and being free of disciplinary actions. Additionally, candidates must be under 70 years old at the beginning of their term. Individual institutions retain the discretion to establish additional criteria for candidates, although these typically only raise the seniority requirement for candidates demonstrating habilitation or full professorship. According to Article 26 of the law, the rector’s term of office is 4 years, with a maximum of two consecutive terms. Formally, rectors hold the position of primus inter pares and primarily serve as university heads (see, e.g. Antonowicz et al., 2025).

However, it is important to acknowledge the realities of governance in many Polish universities, which tend to be highly decentralised (Wnuk-Lipińska, 1996) and operate as loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976). Historically, these institutions were established by professors and function as a republic of scholars (Polanyi, 1962), with rectors acting solely as their representatives to the nation-state. Neave (2002) suggested that the Humboldtian structure aimed to maintain the academic community’s vigilance regarding national interests, rather than allowing potential influence from external stakeholders. Internally, these historical roots have shaped normative expectations for the role of rectors, particularly among professors who traditionally hold significant influence—both formal and informal—over the selection of rectors. The public accountability of Polish university rectors is largely symbolic, and professional accountability remains relatively limited, if it exists at all (see Dobbins, 2015). While rectors hold some level of responsibility to university councils and senates, only the assembly of electors has the authority to remove them from office, requiring a supermajority vote (three-fourth) with at least two-thirds of electors present. Notably, there has not been a single documented instance of an academic community removing a rector from office in Polish universities.

This lack of removal can be partially attributed to the absence of well-defined indicators for evaluating the success or failure of institutional leadership. Dobbins (2015: 20) underscored that governance models informed by Humboldtian ideals ‘often lack comprehensive performance-based criteria’ for key areas such as teaching quality, student admissions, and research outcomes. Additionally, funding allocation often follows predetermined formulae or input-based models, limiting university autonomy in resource distribution. As a consequence, university rectors are primarily viewed as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals), fulfilling largely representative, patriarchal, and ceremonial functions. Traditionally, rectors are addressed as ‘Your Magnificence’, highlighting the extraordinary and almost aristocratic nature of the role. They typically avoid undue interference in internal university affairs, intervening only in exceptional circumstances when critically needed, primarily to balance various interests and resolve internal conflicts.

Since the political transformation of 1989, universities have been organised as loosely coupled systems, embracing historical governance models that feature a primarily ceremonial rectoral role with some patriarchal characteristics. As Dobbins (2015: 19) prudently acknowledged, ‘despite a myriad of change-promoting forces, Polish public HE governance has been relatively change- resistant until most recently and characterised more by the steadfastness of historical institutions than policy change’. However, in the Polish context, national legislation enacted over the past two decades has increasingly positioned universities as organisational actors (Krücken and Meier, 2006). This shift suggests a trend towards tighter coupling within these institutions, potentially accompanied by an expansion of rectors’ executive authority (Donina and Jaworska, 2024; Urbanek, 2020). Notably, since 2018, public universities are no longer mandated to maintain the traditional faculty structure with faculty councils and deans. However, a strong element of path dependence persists, with the vast majority of institutions opting to preserve the existing governance system with only minor modifications (Urbanek, 2025). This illustrates the deep historical entrenchment of Polish universities and their embodiment of academic tradition, grounded in the principles of self-governance and a strong commitment to individual academic freedom (Antonowicz et al., 2020; Kwiek, 2015; Urbanek, 2025).

Taken together, the role of the rector in Polish university governance is situated at the intersection of formal authority, collegial legitimacy, and deeply institutionalised tradition. As we will describe in the following section, collegial legitimacy and deeply institutionalised academic traditions shape the prescription of who is seen as legitimate to enter the role. While contemporary legal frameworks and reform efforts increasingly conceptualise universities as organisational actors requiring strategic coordination and executive leadership, the rectorate remains profoundly shaped by Humboldtian ideals of autonomy, self-regulation, and professorial sovereignty. However, these governance arrangements are not gender neutral. The symbolic construction of the rector as primus inter pares, the collegial mode of selection dominated by senior professors, and the emphasis on representational, ceremonial, and patriarchal functions embed historically masculine norms of authority into the role. Leadership legitimacy is thus closely tied to seniority, academic prestige, and continuity with the male-dominated professorial community that historically founded and governed universities. The role of the rector is therefore shaped not only by regulatory frameworks but also by cultural-cognitive traditions that normalise masculine leadership and reproduce gendered patterns of access to the highest positions. This contextual embedding provides a crucial backdrop for analysing how rectors’ masculine role is enacted, sustained, and legitimised within Polish universities.

Historical foundation of the masculine nature of university rector’s role

As historical institutions, universities are deeply embedded in tradition. While tradition plays a central role in shaping their identity, history also serves as a powerful conceptual tool for understanding institutional continuity and ongoing transformations (Krücken, 2003; Välimaa, 2007). This is particularly evident in Polish academic institutions, which exhibit a strong sense of self-reference. They largely resist being labelled as public sector organisations or enterprises, instead emphasising their unique status and alignment with the longstanding academic tradition (Dobbins and Knill, 2009). The prominent role of academic tradition and institutional memory (Corbett et al., 2020) shapes not only the unique governance structure and collegial decision-making process (Kwiek, 2015) but also the formal and informal norms, cultures, and behaviours of individuals within these institutions. They actively celebrate their exceptional status, which has significant implications for institutional leadership, leading rectors to align themselves almost exclusively with their predecessors, whose portraits adorn the walls of main university halls.

This historical perspective shifts the research focus to how the rector’s role has been enacted over time. Tradition serves not only as a reference point but also as a mechanism for validating appropriate behaviour (Burkinshaw, 2015). Scholarship has portrayed higher education under the communist regime (1945–1990) as a period of disruption and discontinuity from the Humboldtian tradition (Dobbins, 2015; Mucha, 1985). However, individual institutions proudly acknowledge their entire history, including rectors who served during the communist era (even the Stalinist period). Portraits of these rectors grace main halls and university websites, their biographies are documented, and their legacies live on in the memories of those who worked under them or learned about their leadership. These elements collectively influence how the role of the university rector is constructed, thus affecting how and by whom it is performed. Consequently, we begin with a historical examination of how the rector’s role has evolved since 1920. Our approach aligns with the structural perspective (Bolman and Deal, 2008), which views formal structures and relationships as tools designed to facilitate individuals in fulfilling their roles within a framework of social expectations.

First universities 1920–1940

Established in the early 20th century, the first modern Polish universities were founded on the principles of the Humboldtian foundation. From their inception in the 1920s, rectors were democratically elected among university professors for a period of 1 year, after which they stepped down but continued to serve for another year as a vice-rector. This represents the purest definition of rectors serving as primus inter pares in universities that are literally ‘republics of scholars’ (Article 24). The role of the rector (Article 26) was to represent the professors, who essentially constituted the university in the early days, and to perform some administrative tasks on their behalf. Rectorship quickly became a focal point of political turmoil as the state transitioned into an authoritarian regime during the 1930s (Jastrzębski, 2013). The 1933 Higher Education Law empowered the Polish president to appoint rectors upon the recommendation of the minister, who was obligated to transmit the candidates elected by the professors. This process became politicised amidst the radical activism of many professors and students, leading to frequent unrest and even physical violence. In such a context, rectors were called upon to address growing tensions, including nationalism and anti-Semitism on campus (Aleksiun, 2014). These circumstances demanded rectors to demonstrate ‘hard’ and traditionally masculine leadership qualities, including unwavering resolve, moral courage, and attributes such as decisiveness, steadfastness, and bravery.

The newly elected rector soon showed that he could be courageous. When, on 10 XI 1932, a fight broke out in one of the lecture rooms between National Democratic militia and Jewish students, Ujejski stepped into the middle of the brawl and calmed the quarrelling parties (Gawkowski, 2016: 262).

Such events were not isolated incidents at the time (Aleksiun, 2011). Rather, they indicated a broader trend that began to influence how the role of a university rector started to be constructed. Rectors’ biographies specifically emphasise professional authority, personal courage, and dignity—which, during regular intimidation and physical assaults against public figures—became clear manifestations of strong leadership.

He left behind the memory of a distinguished scholar, a man of great spiritual qualities, a great patriot and a tireless warrior for the freedom of Polish science (Gawkowski, 2016: 247).

An examination of rectors’ biographies, biographical sketches, and obituaries illuminates key characteristics associated with university rectors during the formative years of modern Polish higher education institutions. These features included decisiveness, gallantry, heroism, courage, and perseverance. In essence, early perceptions portrayed university rectors as akin to mediaeval knights. This narrative of academic chivalry likely stemmed from the then-dominant masculine presence in academia and was further reinforced by the turbulent political climate. These historical constructions highlight how societal conditions and challenges shaped the expectations and valued qualities of academic leadership.

The communist period 1945–1989

Following World War II, the communist regime stripped universities of their institutional autonomy and self-governance. The appointments of rectors primarily went to professors who were demonstrably loyal to the communist regime (Connelly, 2000; Hübner, 1992). Efforts to resist the regime’s ideological intrusion into university affairs proved futile. Despite these challenges, a few rectors heroically attempted to mediate government pressure and shield their campuses from political repression; however, these efforts often yielded limited success. Most rectors simply followed the directives of the communist party, effectively functioning as zealous apparatchiks. Prioritising ideological loyalty over professional integrity and academic freedom, they censored academic publications, curtailed free speech on campus, and repressed members of civic organisations. Rectors did not hesitate to expel academic staff or students who supported the democratic opposition and civic rights movements. Through these actions, they ultimately transformed into political figures, embodying a stern image of authority and wielding administrative power to control the academic community.

He ruled for a long time and obediently implemented party guidelines. During his rectorship, the Deputy Prime Minister of the USSR visited the sessions of the Senate of the University of Warsaw (Gawkowski, 2016, 310).

With the rise of the Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, the unexpectedly amended higher education law of 1982 introduced greater self-governance, including the democratic election of university rectors. The newly elected rectors also became political figures, although for vastly different reasons. The exercise of these newly acquired self-governance powers by universities resulted in the election of rectors largely affiliated with the democratic opposition. This development positioned Polish university rectors as the pioneers of democratic leadership within the public sphere behind the Iron Curtain. However, this did not translate into a purely apolitical role. Instead, these newly elected leaders found themselves thrust into a political role, with their primary responsibility becoming the ardent defence of institutional autonomy and self-governance.

Our academic community survived the years of the martial law without any major conflicts or tensions, thanks in large part to the courageous and dignified attitude of the then rector Professor Jerzy Wroblewski. (Puś, 2015: 61)

What remained unchanged from the rise of the communist regime to the Solidarity Movement were the presumptions regarding the rectors’ role. As the descriptions and excerpts above illustrate, rectors were consistently portrayed as firm and authoritative figures, wielding power either in support of the communist party or later in opposition to it. The rector’s image continued to be championed as a symbol of steadfast leadership and institutional authority, reinforcing the expectation of strength and decisiveness in the role, traditionally associated with masculinity and men (e.g. Carvalho and Diogo, 2018; Mikkonen et al., 2026). Moreover, as the rectors’ role was highly political and (men’s) networks influenced who was selected as the rector, the individuals chosen for these positions continued to embody the traditional description of a rector.

This short-lived experiment with democratic rector selection was met with a swift response from the communist regime. The regime implemented measures to regain control over university leadership, including blocking candidates, dismissing elected rectors, and ultimately revising the law in 1985 (Waltoś and Rozmus, 2009). This revision stripped the academic community of its power to elect leaders, relegating them to merely nominating candidates for ministerial appointment. This shift significantly re-politicised the selection process and created a situation of profound internal conflict for some rectors, as they found themselves caught between calming campus unrest and protecting dissenting students (Ochinowski and Łęcka, 2021). This dilemma was particularly acute during the implementation of Martial Law in 1981, which significantly heightened political tensions on university campuses. As a former student recounted, a democratically elected rector at the University of Warsaw made a valiant effort to protect students, undoubtedly mindful of the brutal campus pacification that occurred in 1968.

Rector Samsonowicz met us in the most glorious university halls and persuaded us not to consider occupational strike. (Kaczanowski, 2021: 126)

The prevailing circumstances under communist rule undeniably rendered rectors’ political figures, burdening them with the responsibility of safeguarding their academic communities. The brutality of the communist state, including physical assaults and arrests of academics and students, heightened expectations of rectors as protectors against the authoritarian regime. These circumstances further entrenched a traditional leadership script, emphasising stereotypically masculine traits such as physical strength, dominance, political acumen, resilience, and courage, in academic leaders (Burkinshaw, 2015; Carvalho and Diogo, 2018). This trend was reinforced by the immense pressure exerted by the communist regime on rectors, who were ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of the academic community. While women were not formally excluded from the role, men were simply perceived as a better fit for this traditionally masculine ideal and thus seen as more suited for the rector’s role.

The historical legacy of universities under authoritarian regimes has profoundly impacted the conception of a rector as a political figure, narrowing the pool of candidates perceived as most ‘suitable’ for the role. Regardless of whether they acted as agents of the regime or demonstrated resilience and integrity in the face of opposition, the role of rectors during this period was inherently political and associated with a set of authoritative, masculine features. Official institutional histories often downplay the problematic actions of communist-era rectors while attempting to celebrate a select few heroic figures. This is often done through paternalistic language that further emphasises toughness and a rector’s counselling role within universities, reinforcing the gendered script of the rector’s role.

After the introduction of Martial LawLaw, Rector Dembiński stood up for the interned and persecuted staff and students (. . .)students. Despite despite pressure from the communist authorities, Rector Dembiński did not allow any of them to be expelled from the university. It was for his firm and brave attitude, among others, that he was dismissed by the political-military authorities on 4 August 4, 1982. (Czyżniewski, 2015: 122)

The communist period is often viewed as a distinct era that concluded with the fall of the Iron Curtain. However, the structural and personal transformations experienced by Polish universities were relatively smooth and peaceful compared to those in east Germany (Jabłecka, 1994). Notably, changes to university governance were initiated earlier, in 1982, although the communist regime retained political control. With the advent of democratic transformation, the Humboldtian tradition was naturally restored (Dobbins, 2015). However, the absence of an immediate lustration process (unlike in east Germany) meant that academics who had previously worked under the communist regime remained employed at the universities (Williams et al., 2005), allowing the persistence of established norms, values, and behavioural patterns rooted in the previous system. As a result, institutional culture remained deeply influenced by past traditions, shaping both governance structures and everyday academic life.

University governance after the democratic transformation—Old wine in new skin

The 1990 higher education law introduced new structural arrangements that enshrined the legal status of rectors as democratically elected leaders with immunity from dismissal (Popłonkowski, 1996). Rectors became the embodiment of university autonomy and the guardians of academic freedom (Hübner, 1992; Jabłecka, 1993). However, this new status also conferred upon them an air of aristocratic superiority, standing in stark contrast to other organisations, both public and private, which were embracing popular Western entrepreneurial models of the 1990s. This particularly applied to private higher education institutions that operated like normal businesses (Antonowicz et al., 2017). Public universities ostensibly returned to their historical roots, adopting a distinctive governance model inspired by Humboldtian principles (see, e.g. Dobbins, 2015). Nevertheless, rectors retained their symbolic role as representatives of universities still dominated by men professors. They continued to operate within historically entrenched paternalistic frameworks that persisted even in post-conflict society.

Rector M. Sewerynski was an extremely dynamic person, he was a visionary who infected others with his optimism, he saw in the future "his" University as one of the leading universities not only in the country but also internationally. (Puś, 2015: 83)

The smooth political transformation of the entire higher education sector came at a cost. It is an open secret that, during the communist regime, many academics benefitted from close ties with the communist party (see Hübner, 2023; Salmonowicz, 2012). They enjoyed numerous privileges, such as publishing opportunities and international travel, while others faced severe political repression, including imprisonment (Franaszek, 2010). This included many high-profile academics whose professional achievements were accompanied by morally dubious attitudes and behaviours. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, they all found themselves working in the same autonomous and democratic academic institutions. This situation placed rectors in an extremely difficult position, primarily tasked with preventing conflicts and, if possible, initiating some form of reconciliation process within the academic community. The undertaking posed a formidable challenge, as the process of reconciliation in post-conflict societies is inherently complex, often characterised by deep-seated tensions and requiring nuanced approaches to address historical grievances and foster social cohesion. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, sporadic yet significant scandals emerged from the disclosure of documents from the former state security service (SB). These revelations profoundly disturbed university communities, necessitating individual management by rectors, who were once again viewed through a paternalistic lens and expected to navigate the ship to calmer waters. The process was particularly challenging due to ambiguous legislation (later invalidated by the Constitutional Court) and the moral complexities surrounding the disclosures, which elicited diverse and often extreme reactions within academic circles (Kędziora, 2015). This situation placed a considerable ethical burden on rectors to conduct the process with rigour, transparency, and fairness. Exemplifying this stance, the Rector of Jagiellonian University (Musioł, 2007) publicly asserted his intention to execute the vetting process according to his own principles, citing it as his moral imperative.

In 2007, the Lustration Law mandated vetting declarations from assistant, associate, and full professors (Kędziora, 2015). The law required rectors to collect all declarations and submit them to the Institute of National Remembrance. Most rectors complied with the new law, although some openly refused to hand over the declarations, and a few declared that they would not dismiss academics for refusing to submit declarations (which was required by the law). Once again, rectors faced the tough choice of either disobeying the government or unreservedly executing vetting regulations, which elicited mixed but extreme reactions among academics (Kędziora, 2015). Although the situation was extraordinary, it aligned well with the historical image of university rectors as firm, noble, and wise individuals with the authority to make tough ethical choices on behalf of the academic community. This aristocratic image has been perpetuated and endorsed in various private and public contexts, involving a so-called gentlemen’s club culture, from which women have been either excluded, patronised, or sidelined during ‘serious’ conversations (Antonowicz and Pokorska, 2025). The mechanisms of patronising women academic leaders were subtle, remote, and even gallant, yet impactful. This impact was brilliantly captured by Barbara Kudrycka, the first woman to serve as Minister of Science and Higher Education (2007–2013). She recalled her first official meeting with the assembly of the Rectors’ Conference when she was welcomed as a damsel in distress with the words, ‘Madame, the flower of chivalry of Polish science is woven at your feet’. Stunned, she spontaneously replied, ‘You don’t think I’m just going to stand on the balcony and blow a handkerchief’, which foreshadowed tense relations between the rectors, predominantly men, and the minister.

The paternalistic figure of a knight, introduced into public conversation by the rectors themselves, was not incidental. Knights are archetypical noble men driven by a code of honour, whose superior status stems from their extraordinary social and political role of representing (and protecting) those who are weaker and inferior. This fits well with the regal image of rectors, whose portraits often contain traditional symbols of (masculine) power, such as a gold sceptre and a ring. The historically developed social role of the university rector also heavily impacts the normative assumptions of their place within institutional governance.

A good illustration of this is provided by recent public debates surrounding political attempts to modernise university governance, including a new, more managerial role for rectors (Dziedziczak-Foltyn, 2017; Shaw, 2019). The new legislation sought to make rectors more accountable for their leadership roles and introduced the legal possibility to dismiss them for flagrant breaches of the law (2005, Art. 38, p. 5) and for the financial collapse of higher education institutions (2009, Art. 100a). Both cases sparked controversies, and in the latter instance, even an outcry among rectors who felt politically intimidated (Czeladko, 2009) and accused the minister of restoring Stalinist methods (see, e.g. Pezda, 2012). Despite heavy backlash from the academic community, the government managed to pass the law in both instances. Another telling example of historical embeddedness is demonstrated by attempts to modernise institutional governance arrangements, including the role of the rector. For decades, rectors have been perceived as ‘elected officials’ chosen predominantly by senior academics, who hold at least 50% of the votes. When the government planned to replace the existing plebiscite system with an open appointment process, the initiative was met with a firestorm of criticism from the academic community, effectively halting the reform. The persistence of the current method of selecting rectors is a testament to its deep-rooted acceptance, seen as the only legitimate approach due to its historical precedent. The proposed reform also failed to comply with the traditional concept of the university as a republic of scholars, where the rector’s role is primarily representative with little administrative power (Shaw, 2019). Senior academics not only hold a dominant position in electing rectors but are also the main custodians of the status quo, reproducing the historical role of the rector (Urbanek, 2025). The amendment was initially watered down by making it optional and was eventually dropped from the legislation.

Concluding discussion

The aim of this study was to enhance the understanding of the scarcity of women university rectors in Poland. We demonstrated how the structural arrangements of university governance, with the formal description of the role of university rector and the historically developed account of the rector’s role, built on traditional masculinity and the male norm (e.g. Carvalho and Diogo, 2018), have contributed to the perceived legitimacy of gender inequality in academic leadership in Poland. To illustrate this line of thinking, this study provided historical evidence showing how, throughout the 20th century, the rector’s role was associated with skills and features traditionally perceived as masculine, thus reinforcing the gendered script for the role. The motifs-based analysis allowed us to reconstruct the historical role of the rector which has consistently been masculine despite changing decades, eras, and even political regimes. While women have not been formally prevented from running for the rector’s office in the present or past, they have often been consciously or unconsciously perceived as simply the second-best fit for the role’s script. So, the study claims that academic tradition provides legitimacy for gender profiling of the social role of rectors. Moreover, the mechanisms of selecting rectors (with a majority professors) further attributes to masculine construction of role of a university rector.

The analysis transcends a popular explanation that points solely to a deficit of women professors. We do not underestimate the impact of gender bias among senior academics, it falls short in providing a full account of the overwhelming dominance of men as university rectors in Poland. Rather than contrasting social capital with the social role approach, we argue that these two dimensions are deeply intertwined and mutually reinforcing. While social capital and men’s control in the field of science provide the structural networks and voting power—evidenced by most prominent professors acting as gatekeepers in the election process—necessary to secure the status quo, the historically constructed social role of the university rector provides the cultural and symbolic legitimacy. The construction of the rectors’ role holds informal, though still strong, gendered expectations that interact with existing power structures. These expectations have been historically constructed and legitimised by academic tradition.

Not only do they envision rectors as representative, political, and patriarchal figures, but they also strongly impact the gender selection of individuals who perform this role. Therefore, this study strengthens the conclusions of previous studies arguing that a redefinition of leadership roles to encompass less traditionally masculine characteristics could promote greater gender equality, particularly if women’s leadership experiences are effectively communicated to decision makers (e.g. Bosak and Sczesny, 2011).

Even if a woman possesses the masculine characteristics, skills, and abilities associated with the role of a rector, she may not be perceived as the best fit for the position due to stereotypical gender roles ascribed to men and women (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and the stereotypes and prejudices evoked by her physical appearance (Billing and Alvesson, 2000; Mikkonen, 2023). Moreover, if women engage in behaviours associated with men and masculinity, they may be ‘penalised’ with negative evaluations for breaking gender roles (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Furthermore, as both men and women can be socialised into the gender roles of a given context, women may begin to view themselves as unfit for the masculine rector role, even if they possess all the required skills and competencies (see Antonowicz and Pokorska, 2025; Burkinshaw, 2015), leading to self-limiting behaviours. The gendered ideals connected to the role are particularly pronounced in political races where leaders (in this case, rectors) are elected through a plebiscite involving hundreds of employees and students, with no accountability measures in place.

Consequently, we argue that the historical roots and socialisation of a rector’s role hinder gender equality and women’s opportunities to attain these positions. Gender bias tends to be more prevalent in roles where the inconsistency between women’s gender roles and a particular (university) leadership role is greater (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Therefore, we contend that this dynamic significantly contributes to (a) the persistent scarcity of women in rector positions within academia and (b) the notable lack of public (authorities) interest in addressing gender equality in academic leadership. Overall, this historical burden not only adds to other barriers for women in academic leadership positions but also legitimises gender bias. While gender equality is clearly progressing in other areas of the public sector (or is recognised as a policy problem), Polish universities still exemplify women being associated with ‘soft’ management (e.g. Carvalho and Diogo, 2018; White et al., 2011), old-boys clubs (e.g. Fitzgerald, 2014; O’Connor, 2014), and the gendered nature of higher education institutions (O'Connor et al., 2015), along with structural factors (Shepherd, 2017). The academic context appears challenging for the public and authorities to address because, even if they are ‘outside’ the system, they fail to recognise the challenge of gender inequality or imbalance in rector positions, unlike in many other sectors.

There are at least three explanations for this phenomenon. First, as described in this paper, academia has been an autonomous field in Poland where authorities do not see the necessity to intervene in such matters, unlike in public organisations for which the public sector is fully responsible. Second, due to the autonomous and perhaps even ‘mystical’ nature of the scientific field, the general public is either unaware of or uninterested in who leads universities, as their everyday lives are not directly impacted by these institutions and their governance. Finally, ministers and public authorities are often linked to the academic sector or are former academics, thereby socialised into certain academic traditions, as described in this article. More importantly, they are surrounded by university rectors, who are the custodians of the current system and thus reinforce this socialisation.

This study demonstrates that the role of a university rector has been shaped by its historical roots and is imbued with academic tradition. Individuals become socialised into the academic culture as students and employees, perpetuating learned ways of thinking, behaving, and being in academia while inheriting taken-for-granted ideas about the role of rector (Antonowicz and Pokorska, 2025). As Kwiek (2017: 17) aptly summarised the academic tradition, ‘constitutive rules, norms and academic practices cannot be easily changed’, and professors—with their dominant position in university governance—are undoubtedly its main custodians (Urbanek, 2025). University governance is designed to maintain the status quo, with formal requirements for rectors being senior academic positions and strong informal pressures for rectors to come from within the institution. This prevents individuals from ‘outside’ (those not socialised into the local academic tradition) from entering these power positions, which could, in turn, help change the gendered culture shaping the masculine descriptions of rectors. The strong attachment to tradition and its prominent role a source of institutional stability brings Polish universities closer to the logic of the Catholic Church. In the Humboldtian tradition, if there are no clear performance expectations and measures for the rector, it seems that appearance and fit are the primary factors legitimising individuals in these positions.

Finally, the study provides evidence demonstrating the importance of historical trajectories and narratives in understanding the role of university rectors. Historical narratives offer cognitive lenses through which people interpret not only structural arrangements but also the roles and rules within the university power structure. This has tangible consequences, influencing both the (s)election process of rectors and the normative expectations associated with the role (including those held by individuals performing the rector’s role). Consequently, reforms attempting to break with tradition have often led to significant backlash. Even if more progressive members of Polish academia have raised concerns about gender equality (Sułkowski et al., 2019), our study suggests that these efforts alone will not challenge the established social role of the rector. The masculine profile of rectorship is part of a broader concept of university governance that, despite its historical legitimacy, is largely taken for granted. Our study largely aligns with earlier findings (see, e.g. Winchester and Browning, 2015) by providing evidence that, in addition to broader societal changes (which have occurred in Poland) enhancing gender equality in academic leadership requires multiple means and instruments at various levels, including government legislation, regulatory frameworks, organisational strategies, and committed individuals with decision-making power within institutions and the field, such as professors (see, e.g. Mikkonen, 2023). The latter group is the most important and serves as a gatekeeper in selection processes. However, they may be too embedded in the current institutional order to question the existing gendered prescriptions of the rector’s role.