Passage Through the Leadership Labyrinth: Women’s Journey in the Collegiate Recreation Profession

Abstract

The metaphor “glass ceiling” does not accurately articulate the complexities of experiences had by women as they progress in their professional career. The leadership labyrinth serves as a theoretical framework to describe the intricacies of women’s journeys throughout their professional career and personal life. The framework implies that there are walls all around and that the journey for women is complex. Human capital, gender differences, and prejudice influence women’s decisions about their professional trajectory in collegiate recreation. Using interviews of 36 women, this qualitative study used a phenomenological approach that concentrated on the direct experience of women. The study explored the trajectory of women working in collegiate recreation to understand their lived experience. Results from this study indicate four distinct themes: barriers, mentorship/allyship, self-efficacy/competence and interventions. The findings for this study provide insight into how mentors and supervisors can address organizational culture and support women’s leadership development while working in collegiate recreation. The study offers discussion and implications for future research and practice to address the complexities women experience while navigating their passage through the leadership labyrinth.

Keywords

Allyship barriers competence intervention self-efficacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anfara

V. A.

Brown

K. M.

Mangione

T. L.

(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.

Belkin

(2003, October 26). The opt-out revolution. The New York Times, p. 42.

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the career assessment of women. Journal of Career Assessments, 5(4), 383–402.

Book

E. W.

(2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman. HarperCollins.

Burton

L. J.

(2019). Under-representation of women in leadership roles in women’s sport. In Lough

Geurin

A. N.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of the business of women’s sport. Routledge.

Carli

L. L.

Eagly

A. H.

(2018). Leadership and gender. In Antonakis

Day

(Eds.), The Nature of Leadership (pp. 244–271). Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

11.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.

12.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business School Press.

13.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

14.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital: The environmental scan: A factfinding report of the federal glass ceiling commission. U.S. Government Printing Office.

15.

Hackett

Betz

N. E.

(1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.

16.

Heffernan

(2004). The naked truth: A working woman’s manifesto on business and what really matters. Jossey-Bass.

17.

Helgelsen

(1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. Doubleday.

18.

Hewlett

S. A.

(2002). Creating a life: Professional women and the quest for children. Talk Miramax.

19.

Kaiser

R. B.

Wallace

W. T.

(2016). Gender bias and substantive differences in ratings of leadership behavior: Toward a new narrative. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68, 72–98.

20.

Lough

Geurin

A. N.

(Eds.) (2019). Routledge handbook of the business of women’s sport. Routledge.

21.

McFadden

Molina

(2016). Collegiate recreation. In Zhang

(Ed.), Rentz’s student affairs practice in higher education (pp. 426–458). Charles C. Thomas.

22.

Moore

(1988). Women in elite positions: Insiders or outsiders? Sociological Forum, 3, 566–585.

23.

Morgan

C. L.

(2008). Review of through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

, Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 3, 319–326.

24.

Morrison

A. M.

White

R. P.

Van Velsor

(1987). Breaking the glass ceiling. Addison-Wesley.

25.

Nieva

V. E.

Gutek

B. A.

(1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. Praeger.

26.

NIRSA: Leaders in Collegiate Recreation. (n.d.). NIRSA regions. https://nirsa.net/nirsa/regional-state-provincial-networks/

27.

Northouse

P. G.

(2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.

28.

Rosener

(1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. Oxford University Press.

29.

Rossman

G. B.

Rallis

S. F.

(2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

30.

Sandberg

(2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. Alfred A. Knopf.

31.

Shaw

Frisby

(2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 483–509.

32.

Simon

Hoyt

C. L.

(2018). Gender and leadership. In Northouse

P. G.

(Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 403–431). Sage.

33.

Vachon

C. J.

(2014). Tiaras, queen bees, imposters and the boardroom: Lean in and women in corporate governance. Journal of Business and Technology Law, 9(2), 279–292.