Elevating women in collegiate recreation is essential for organizational success and requires addressing assumptions that limit women's opportunities to lead. This study is grounded in role congruity theory which explains how gender-based prejudice emerges when communal traits associated with women are viewed as incongruent with the agentic qualities expected of leaders, reinforcing cultural and structural bias. The BeCOME framework offers a model for cultivating allyship and fostering organizational cultures where women can thrive. To explore men's perceptions of their role in allyship and advocacy, 22 interviews with men were conducted. Findings revealed four themes: valuing and elevating women's voices; building relational connections; cultivating self-awareness and humility; and gendered leadership pathways in transition. Together, these insights underscore the importance of men leveraging their roles as supporters, collaborators, sponsors, and advocates to advance more equitable workplace practices.
AnfaraV. A.BrownK. M.MangioneT. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028
2.
AsmelashL. (2023, June 14). DEI programs in universities are being cut across the country. What does this mean for higher education?. CNN.
3.
BuchananH. E. (1978). An analysis of administration responsibilities for men and women within institutional membership units of the National Recreational Sports Association. NIRSA Journal, 2(2), 26–28.
4.
BuchanonM.BoneP. B.LevittK.LaoT. (2025). Perspectives on career advancement among African American women leaders in STEM: A single case study. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 25(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.142914
5.
BurtonL.NewtonA. (2021). Organization-level practices to support women in coaching. In NormanL. (Ed.), Improving gender equity in sports coaching (1st ed, pp. 173–190). Routledge.
6.
BurtonL. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.004
7.
CarliL. L.EaglyA. H. (2018). Leadership and gender. In AntonakisJ.DayD. (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 244–271). Sage.
8.
CarlsonJ.LeekC.CaseyE.TolmanR.AllenC. (2020). What’s in a name? A synthesis of “allyship” elements from academic and activist literature. Journal of Family Violence, 35(8), 849–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00073-z
9.
CarneyA.GoldE. (1978). Common challenges of women NIRSA members. NIRSA Journal, 2(3), 10–13.
10.
ChengS. K.NgL. C.TraylorA. M.KingE. B. (2019). Helping or hurting?: Understanding women’s perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5(2), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2019.02.006
11.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, (1), 139–167.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
14.
DeSouzaL.SchmaderT. (2025). When people do allyship: A typology of allyship action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 29(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241234567
15.
DruryB. J.KaiserC. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104336
16.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
17.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business School Press.
ElliottC.LeckJ. D.OrserB.MossopC. (2011). An exploration of gender and trust in mentoring relationships. Journal of Diversity Management, 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00823.x
20.
EtikanI.MusaS. A.AlkassimR. 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
GalsanjigmedE.SekiguchiT. (2023). Challenges women experience in leadership careers: An integrative review. Merits, 3(2), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021
23.
GilbertL. A.RossmanK. M. (1992). Gender and the mentoring process for women: Implications for professional development. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.233
24.
HindmanL. C.WalkerN. A. (2020). Sexism in professional sports: How women managers experience and survive sport organizational culture. Journal of Sport Management, 34(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0331
HofferberthL.BabyakA. (2025). The challenges of female executives in the sport industry: An interpretive phenomenological study. Advancing Women in Leadership, 44(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21423/awlj-v44.a526
27.
HolcombeE. M.KezarA. J.UedaN.VigilD. (2023). Shared equity leadership: Working collectively to change campus cultures. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(5), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000536
28.
HongX.ZhengX.YuanH.NiC. (2025). Parenthood penalties in academic: Childcare responsibilities, gender role beliefs and institutional support. Physics and Society, 2, 1–92. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.13923
29.
HorowitzJ. M.ParkerK. (2024). How Americans see men and masculinity: Views of the impact of changing gender roles. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3A5Ei8R.
30.
HungoM.CasinilloL.DagohoyR.LleveE. (2024). Job satisfaction and intention to stay among selected private school teachers: Implication to educational policy. Diversitas Journal, 9(2), 891–910. https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9i2.3035
JohnsonW. B.SmithD. G. (2016). Athena rising: How and why men should mentor women. Harvard Business Review Press.
33.
KossekE. E.LadgeJ.LittleL. M.LoydD. L.SmithA. N.TinsleyC. H. (2024). Introduction to the special issue: Allyship, advocacy, and social justice to support equality for marginalized groups in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 183, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104336
34.
KrigerD.Keyser-VerreaultA.JosephJ.PeersD. (2022). The operationalizing intersectionality framework. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 16(4), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2021-0069
35.
LaVoiN. M.AntunovicD.LebelK. (2025). Sociological aspects of sport management. In PedersenP. M.ThibaultL. (Eds.), Contemporary sport management (8th ed., pp. 111–131). Human Kinetics.
LuciaC. (2024). Sexism. In PedersenP. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sport management (2nd ed., pp. 863–864). Edward Elgar.
39.
LuciaC.Lopez-HerreraV. R.StewartH. (2024). Centering belonging for NIRSA: Leaders in collegiate recreation. Recreational Sports Journal, 48(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/15588661241279089
40.
LuciaC.MolinaD. (2023). Collegiate recreation. In ZhangN. (Ed.), Rentz’s student affairs practice in higher education (6th ed., pp. 443–463). Charles C. Thomas.
41.
LuciaC.PadgettM. (2021). Passage through the leadership labyrinth: Women’s journey in the collegiate recreation profession. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(2), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/15588661211024315
NorthouseP. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.
46.
PerezT. R. (2024). Through the rainbow labyrinth: A narrative inquiry of queer women leadership in collegiate recreation [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas San Antonio. Runner Research Press Dissertations & Theses. https://rrpress.utsa.edu/items/bb83e453-a86c-44c6-940e-1fe233ba9f0e.
47.
PietriE. S.MoserC. E.DerricksV.JohnsonI. R. (2024). A framework for understanding effective allyship. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(10), 686–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00359-0
48.
QinX.ChuaR. Y. J.TanL.LiW.ChenC. (2023). Gender bias in cultural tightness across the 50 US states, its correlates, and links to gender inequality in leadership and innovation. PNAS Nexus, 2(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad238
ReischM.JaniJ. S. (2025). Deconstructing DEI: Unmasking its complexities, contradictions, and challenges. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 45(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469550
51.
RossmanG. B.RallisS. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
ShawS. (2003). A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4), 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.17.4.347
56.
SimonS.HoytC. L. (2018). Gender and leadership. In NorthouseP. G. (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 403–431). Sage.
57.
SmithD. G.JohnsonW. B. (2020). Good guys: How men can be better allies for women in the workplace. Harvard Business Review Press.
Son HingL. S.SakrN.SorensonJ. B.StamarskiC. S.CanieraK.ColacoC. (2023). Gender inequities in the workplace: A holistic review of organizational processes and practices. Human Resource Management Review, 33(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100968
60.
StrodeJ. P.ParkerH. M.KerwinS. (2023). Organizational-level factors that influence women coaches’ experiences. Journal of Sport Management, 38(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2022-0077
