Women in Sport Leadership

Although women and girls participate in sport in greater numbers than ever
before, research shows there has been no significant increase in women lead-
ing sport organizations. This book takes an international, evidence-based
perspective in examining women in sport leadership and offers future direc-
tions for improving gender equity. With contributions from leading inter-
national sport scholars and practitioners, it explores the opportunities and
challenges women face while exercising leadership in sport organizations
and evaluates leadership development practices.
While positional leadership is crucial, this book argues that some women
may choose to exercise leadership in non-positional ways, challenging
­readers to consider their personal values and passions. The chapters not only
discuss key topics such as gender bias, intersectionality, quotas, networking,
mentoring and sponsoring, but also present a variety of strategies to develop
and support the next generation of women leaders in sport. A new model of
how to achieve gender equity in sport leadership is also introduced.
Women in Sport Leadership: Research and Practice for Change is impor-
tant reading for all students, scholars, leaders, administrators, and coaches
with an interest in sport business, policy and management, as well as
­women’s sport and gender studies.

Laura J. Burton is an Associate Professor in Sport Management in the Depart-

ment of Educational Leadership in the Neag School of Education at the Uni-
versity of Connecticut, USA. Prior to completing her PhD, Laura worked as an
athletic trainer from 1995 to 1998. Her research focus is on gender issues in
sport leadership, including examining how stereotypes impact women in lead-
ership. She currently serves as the Editor of the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport.

Sarah Leberman is a Professor of Leadership and is the Dean Academic for

Massey University, New Zealand. Her research focus is on women in leader-
ship within sport and academia. She was a Fulbright Senior Scholar in 2007,
which she tenured at the University of Minnesota, USA. She was a member of
the New Zealand Olympic Committee, Women in Sport Group and the Man-
ager of the Women’s Junior Black Sticks and Black Sticks teams.
Routledge Research in Sport Business and Management
Available in this series:

1 Global Sport Marketing

Contemporary issues and practice
Michel Desbordes and André Richelieu

2 Public/Private Partnerships for Major League Sports

Facilities
Judith Grant Long

3 Managing Elite Sport Systems

Research and practice
Edited by Svein A. Andersen, Lars Tore Ronglan and Barrie Houlihan

4 Organisational Performance Management in Sport

Ian O’Boyle

5 Sport in Latin America

Policy, organization, management
Edited by Gonzalo Bravo, Rosa Lopez de D’Amico and Charles Parrish

6 Sports Agents and Labour Markets

Evidence from world football
Giambattista Rossi, Anna Semens and Jean Francois Brochard

7 Managing Drugs in Sport

Jason Mazanov

8 Elite Youth Sport Policy and Management

A comparative analysis
Edited by Elsa Kristiansen, Milena M. Parent and Barrie Houlihan

9 Women in Sport Leadership

Research and practice for change
Edited by Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman
Women in Sport Leadership

Research and Practice for Change

Edited by Laura J. Burton

and Sarah Leberman
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman
The right of Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman to be identified
as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Leberman, Sarah, author.
Title: Women in sport leadership : research and practice
for change / edited by Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY : Routledge, 2017.
Series: Routledge Research in Sport Business and Management ; 9 |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016055580 | ISBN 9781138686168 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781315542775 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Sports for women. | Leadership in women. |
Sex discrimination in sports. | Sports administration—Social aspects.
Classification: LCC GV709 W5747 2017 | DDC 796.082—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016055580
ISBN: 978-1-138-68616-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-54277-5 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to all women and girls worldwide who
exercise leadership in sport in a myriad of ways on a daily basis.
‘The success of every woman should be the inspiration to
another.
We should raise each other up.’
(Serena Williams)
‘Kei a tātou tēnei ao; kei a tātau hoki ēnei iti kahurangi.
This is our world; these are the challenges we must strive to
overcome.’
(Māori proverb)
Contents

List of figures ix
List of tables x
Acknowledgments xi
List of contributors xii

1 Why this book? Framing the conversation about

women in sport leadership 1
SARAH LEBERMAN AND LAURA J. BURTON

2 An evaluation of current scholarship in sport

leadership: multilevel perspective 16
LAURA J. BURTON AND SARAH LEBERMAN

3 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 33

NEFERTITI A. WALKER, CLAIRE SCHAEPERKOETTER,
AND LINDSEY DARVIN

4 The impact of bias in sport leadership 47

HEIDI GRAPPENDORF AND LAURA J. BURTON

5 Intersectionality: the impact of negotiating multiple

identities for women in sport leadership 62
E. NICOLE MELTON AND MICHAEL J. BRYANT

6 Quotas to accelerate gender equity in sport leadership:

do they work? 83
JOHANNA A. ADRIAANSE
viii Contents

7 Young women in sport: understanding leadership in sport 98

VICKI D. SCHULL

8 Future sport leaders: developing young women to lead 116

SARAH LEBERMAN

9 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring: strategies to

support women in sport leadership 130
JANELLE E. WELLS AND MEG G. HANCOCK

10 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership

of sport organizations 148
LAURA J. BURTON AND SARAH LEBERMAN

Appendix: moving the conversation forward:

future research directions 162
Index 164
Figures

1.1 Structure-Agency conceptual model for why women

remain underrepresented in sport leadership 11
2.1 Multilevel perspective and power within sport leadership 27
9.1 A conceptual pyramid of networking, mentorship, and
sponsorship 142
10.1 Structure-Agency quadruple top and bottom line
conceptual model to redress the underrepresentation of
women in sport leadership 156
Tables

5.1 Sport industry perspectives: participant profiles 72

6.1 Percentage of women as director/chair/chief executive of
national sport organisations (NSOs) in 2010 and 2014 84
6.2 Percentage of women as director/chair/chief executive of
international federations (IFs) in 2012 and 2014 85
6.3 Four-dimensional gender model applied to sport governance 91
7.1 Peer leadership in sport: young women’s perceptions 100
8.1 Leadership development models for young people 117
10.1 UN sustainable development goals 154
Acknowledgments

Thank you, Sarah for joining me on this project. This book is a reflection
of the integrity and thoughtfulness you bring to all aspects of your work.
I am so thankful for our friendship and for the opportunity to continue col-
laborating on work to make the world better for girls and women in sport.
Thank you to my wife Kathryn for your love and support of me while
working on this book. And thank you for the leadership and strength you
provide to our family. You inspire me everyday. Also, thank you to my par-
ents Joan and Richard, for their continued love and support.
—Laura J. Burton

Thank you, Laura for inviting me to co-edit this book. I have very much
enjoyed our journey together. This has truly been a sharing of minds and
hearts. I look forward to our ongoing friendship over the years to come.
Thank you to my daughter Phoebe and husband Brett for your support
throughout the process of writing this book, including time away at the
University of Connecticut and many weekends. I could not do all the things
I do without you.
—Sarah Leberman

Thank you to all our colleagues who have contributed to this book in
numerous different ways.
—Laura and Sarah
Contributors

Johanna A. Adriaanse is an Associate of the Business School at the University

of Technology Sydney, Australia. Her research expertise is in the area of
gender and sport. She has been a visiting scholar in the USA (Smith College,
Massachusetts), the Netherlands (Utrecht University), and Norway (Norwe-
gian University of Sport Sciences). She has been the Co-chair of the Interna-
tional Working Group on Women and Sport (IWG) from 2006 to 2014 and
has served on the Board of Women Sport International since 2005.
Michael J. Bryant is currently an Assistant Professor of Sport Management
at the University of Minnesota-Morris, USA. In addition to supporting
his students’ academic progress and professional preparation, he is most
interested in research that bridges theory to practice with emphasis upon
leadership, diversity, and inclusion in athletics. A native of Edmonds,
Washington, he spent several years coaching and in athletics administra-
tion at the college level before transitioning to the classroom.
Lindsey Darvin is currently a PhD student and graduate research assistant
in the department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management at the
University of Florida, USA. Her research areas and interests include women
in sport leadership, gender equity in sport, and athlete development.
Heidi Grappendorf is an Associate Professor in Sport Administration at the
University of Cincinnati, USA. Her research interests include how gender
role conflict impacts women’s careers in the management and leadership
of sport organizations, women’s career progression, and the overall under-
representation of women and diversity in sport. She has over 50 national
and international presentations, and over 30 publications including pre-
dominantly peer-reviewed journal articles, in addition to six book chap-
ters. She was named the 2015 NASSM Diversity Award winner.
Meg G. Hancock is the Chair of the Health & Sport Sciences Department and
an Assistant Professor of Sport Administration in the College of E
­ ducation
and Human Development at the University of Louisville (UofL), USA.
Her research interests include career development and gender diversity in
 Contributors xiii

the sport industry. Prior to Louisville, she worked with coaches, student
athletes, and college administrators at Dartmouth College, USA.
E. Nicole Melton is an Assistant Professor in the Mark H. McCormack
Department of Sport Management at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, USA. Her research focuses on diversity and inclusion in sport
organizations. She examines the antecedents of workplace or team inclu-
sion and the subsequent performance benefits of creating such environ-
ments. In addition, she explores ways to empower sport employees and
athletes to become effective change agents for social justice within sport.
Prior to academia, she played collegiate and professional golf and then
worked as a consumer test analyst for NIKEGOLF.
Claire Schaeperkoetter is a doctoral research fellow and graduate teaching
assistant in the Department of Health, Sport, and Exercise Sciences at
the University of Kansas, USA. Her research interests include examin-
ing how the intersection of organizational structures, financial goals, and
environmental pressures contribute to organizational programming and
decision-making.
Vicki D. Schull is an Assistant Professor in the Human Performance Depart-
ment at Minnesota State University, Mankato, USA. Her research interests
include leadership in sport, gender relations in sport, issues in intercol-
legiate athletics, and organizational change in sport organizations.
Nefertiti A. Walker is an Assistant Professor in the Mark H. McCormack
Department of Sport Management in the Isenberg School of Manage-
ment at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. She completed both
her BA and MBA from Stetson University, USA and her PhD from the
University of Florida, USA. Her research interests are gender, diversity
and inclusion, and organizational behavior in sport.
Janelle E. Wells is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Sport and Enter-
tainment Management Program at the Muma College of Business at
the University of South Florida, USA. She always had a livelihood in
sports, which earned her a collegiate athletic scholarship, progressed
into the coaching ranks, and then translated into the private sector and
classroom. She is an advocate for advancing professional competencies,
developing progressive inclusive organizational strategies, and connect-
ing sport scholars and practitioners.
Chapter 1

Why this book? Framing the

conversation about women
in sport leadership
Sarah Leberman and Laura J. Burton

Introduction
As we began work on this book, we considered why it is so important to
provide a detailed discussion of the state of research on women in sport
leadership. One of our primary motivating factors for embarking on this
work is the ubiquitous nature of sport—sport is everywhere—in the media,
in parks, and in educational institutions, and in many parts of the world,
girls and women are participating in sport in record numbers. However,
decisions about what happens in sport, including girls’ and women’s access
to sport, are still predominantly made by white, heterosexual men. This
affects what we see in the media, such as how often women athletes are
portrayed in active non-sexualized ways (Fink, 2016), the amount of cov-
erage afforded female athletes in all forms of media (Bruce, 2016; Cooky,
Messner, & Hextrum, 2013), and the amount of prize money and level of
salary female athletes receive in sport (Women on Boards, 2016). Further,
we need to know who is on the board of national and international sport
federations, holding leadership positions in interscholastic and intercollegi-
ate athletic administration, and who is provided the opportunity to coach
our children. It is critically important to know who leads our sports organi-
zations and why only a privileged few continue to hold power. It is our goal
to provide insights into these critical questions in the chapters that follow,
and in the final chapter to suggest ways forward to increase both access to
and equity in sport leadership.

Framing the conversation

Sport participation by women and girls has increased over the past 40 years,
due to both legislative interventions, such as Title IX in the USA, and pro-
grams at national, regional, and local levels worldwide, which encourage
girls and women to be physically active. The 2012 Summer Olympics in
London were touted as the Women’s Olympics with a record number of
female participants, and the requirement since 2014 that all Olympic Sports
2 Leberman and Burton

be available for men and women, with women’s ski jumping being added
to the competition. However, this increase in participation has not been
matched by a significant increase in the proportion of women in leader-
ship positions within sport at any level, but in particular at the national
and international level. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) set
a target of 20% representation on national sport governing bodies and
National Olympic Committees by 2005 for its member countries. However,
by 2016 this figure had only been achieved in some countries by some sports
(27 out of 135 National Olympic Committees who responded to the sur-
vey) (International Olympic Committee, 2016; Women on Boards, 2016).
Women remain underrepresented in leadership positions throughout sport;
women hold less than 20% of board director positions, only 10% as board
chairs and only 16% of chief executive positions (Adriaanse, 2015). In most
cases sport is still a male-dominated environment, where women, despite
an increase in opportunities to prepare themselves through education and
training, are still largely underrepresented in leadership roles the world over.
The 2016 Rio Olympics served to reinforce this pattern. For the first time
there were seven countries with a majority of women delegation in terms of
athletes –Puerto Rico (66%), China (61%), Canada (60%), United States
(53%), Bahrain (53%), Australia (51%), and New Zealand (51%). Over-
all women athletes made up 45% of the competitors. However, the 2016
International Sports Report Card on Women in Leadership Roles (Lapchick,
2016) paints a very different picture in terms of off-field participation by
women. Men run 33 of the 35 international federations affiliated with the
Olympics. Currently, only two women lead international sport federations:
Marisol Casado the International Triathlon Union (ITU) a summer sport
federation and Kate Caithness a winter sport federation—World Curling.
The report provides some disappointing figures with respect to women in
sport leadership roles. Only 5.7% of International Federations presidents
were women, 12.2% were vice-presidents, and 13.1% were executive com-
mittee members, and only 24.4% of the IOC members were women. More
concerning perhaps is the fact that a number of international federations
have no women on their executive committees despite having high levels
of participation by women—International Association of Athletics Federa-
tion, Federation of International Basketball Association, International Golf
Federation, International Handball Federation, and the International Swim-
ming Federation. At a national level the figures are not much better. Only
9% (389/4303) of national presidents across the world were women.
Some sports organizations are taking positive steps to address these chal-
lenges. For example, the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) launched
its Gender Equality Taskforce in July 2016. The focus is to achieve equal-
ity in both opportunities and participation for athletes, coaches, team and
technical officials, and in governance in all events and organizations linked
to the CGF by 2022 in Durban. The CGF elected its first woman president,
 Why this book? 3

Louise Martin, in 2015 and constitutionally is committed to gender equity

having both women and men represented in vice-presidential elections
(Commonwealth Games Federation, 2016).
Other issues affecting women in sport during 2016 included, for exam-
ple, the US Women’s National Team Soccer pay equity claim (March 31,
2016), where five members of the US national women’s soccer team filed
a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charg-
ing US Soccer with wage discrimination. The women were paid nearly
four times less than the men despite being more prominent, better known
and successful and exceeding projected revenues by $16,000,000 (Powell,
2016). Similarly, Australia’s leading women surfers are seeking pay equity.
The difference in prize money for the same surf event can be as much as
AUS$40,000 (Atkins & Burns, 2016). The gender pay gap in sport is only
being reduced very slowly. Some sports, however, have taken strategic deci-
sions which are positively impacting women in their sport. For example,
women cricketers in both Australia and the United Kingdom are being paid
more equitably as a result of increased game attendance, TV coverage, and
sponsorship opportunities (Women on Boards, 2016).

Business case for diversity

Most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
countries have a strong pipeline of female talent with more women graduat-
ing with tertiary qualifications than men. However, this is not yet translating
into equity within senior management and governance, or in terms of pay.
Research demonstrates the benefits to business of both gender and ethnic
diversity—it improves financial performance, widens the talent pool, sup-
ports enhanced innovation and group performance, encourages adaptability,
and improves employee retention. It is therefore important for policymakers
and sport organizations alike to identify strategies which capitalize on the
many and diverse strengths women and people of different racial and ethnic
backgrounds bring to the workforce and to the development of successful
sport organizations as we move through the 21st century (Badal & Harter,
2014; Catalyst, 2013; Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, 2010; Pel-
legrino, D’Amato, & Weisberg, 2011). Within sport, intercollegiate athletic
departments in the United States that adopt an inclusive culture and were
racially diverse had better performance outcomes (Cunningham, 2009). Fur-
ther, athletic departments supporting an inclusive culture that had a higher
number of LGBT employees performed better (more team success) than
other less inclusive athletic departments (Cunningham, 2011). This research
suggests that diversity benefits organizations for a wide variety of reasons.
Despite the evidence, the practice in sport worldwide is quite different.
Sport is also seen as an important vehicle for achieving gender equality
more broadly, as evidenced in the United Nations ‘Advancing Gender Equality
4 Leberman and Burton

through Sports: 2030 Agenda’ (United Nations Women, 2016). The terms
‘gender equality’ and ‘gender equity’ are often used interchangeably:

Gender equality is the result of the absence of discrimination on the

basis of a person’s sex in opportunities and the allocation of resources
or benefits or in access to services. Gender equity entails the provision
of fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibili-
ties between women and men. The concept recognizes that women and
men have different needs and power and that these differences should
be identified and addressed in a manner that rectifies the imbalances
between the sexes.
(European Commission, 2014, p. 47)

We favor the term ‘gender equity,’ as ‘gender equality’ tends to perpetuate

the existing structures that privilege men particularly with respect to career
paths, for example (Bailyn, 2003; Schein, 2007). Gender equity, in contrast,
seeks to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, but not necessarily in the same
way and therefore better accommodates difference.
Why are women still underrepresented? Why then after over 40 years
of initiatives and interventions and research to evidence that diversity is
positive for outcomes across a number of measures is the representation of
women in leadership positions within sport organizations and on govern-
ance boards, nationally and internationally, still not equitable? Women’s
representation in leadership positions in sport organizations has declined in
some areas (intercollegiate sport in the United States) and is virtually non-
existent in other areas (international professional sport), with overall pro-
gress being glacial (Fink, 2016; Knoppers, 2015; Shaw, 2006; Shaw, 2013;
Shaw & Hoeber, 2003; Women on Boards, 2016). Scholars have studied
this area extensively over the past 30 plus years and their research reveals
there are numerous forces at societal, organizational, and individual levels
that impede women’s opportunities for leadership positions in sport. Chap-
ter 2 provides a detailed discussion on these factors. Some countries, such as
Norway, have introduced quotas at a national level to ensure gender equity
on boards (see Chapter 6 for a discussion in the context of sport).
At the end of this introduction, we provide a conceptual framework (Fig-
ure 1.1) to examine this issue taking into account the available scholar-
ship to date. In our framework we focus on three main areas that must
be addressed to advance women in sport leadership—institutional practices
that reinforce the dominant male hegemony within sport (e.g., Cunning-
ham, 2010; Shaw & Frisby, 2006) (see Chapter 3), inherent biases, often
unconscious, toward women in sport and sport leadership (e.g. Burton,
2015; Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011) (see Chapter 4), and the
lack of understanding and recognition of intersectionality. Intersectionality
means that not all women are the same, and as such hold multiple identities,
 Why this book? 5

some of which are more immediately apparent including race, ethnicity, and
disability, and others which are not, such as sexuality, class, and religion
(e.g., Palmer & Masters, 2010; Walker & Melton, 2015) (see Chapter 5).
To counter this situation, Shaw (2013) argued that gender needs to be at
the center of sport policy development, with the analysis being scrutinized
through a gender lens. Her key message, drawing on radical feminist theory,
is the need to ask questions in different ways, which places the onus on the
organizations and structures which drive the sport sector, rather than on
what women can do to help themselves. The example she provided related
to the Black Ferns, the very successful New Zealand women’s rugby team:

rather than asking how the Black Ferns can fit within the male domi-
nated landscape of high performance sport, questions should be framed
by ‘how do our assumptions about gender limit funding and the potential
for meaningful development for the Black Ferns and women’s rugby?’
(Shaw, 2013, pp. 312–313)

Working to address the three core areas highlighted above and placing
gender at the forefront of structural decision making will go some way to
redressing the ongoing gender equity issues present in sport leadership.

Starting young
If we wait for these structural changes (institutional structures, removal of
bias, understanding of intersectionality) to take place in sport organiza-
tions, we will continue with the very slow progress toward gender equity.
Because if we have few women in strategic decision-making positions, the
status quo is likely to prevail. Therefore leadership development programs
for women in sport still need to be available, as do networking, mentor-
ing, and sponsoring opportunities (see Chapter 8). Looking to the future,
rather than waiting until women have entered the workforce for leader-
ship development opportunities, we believe providing these opportunities
when girls are aged between 10 and 12 will assist in equipping them with
an understanding of who they are, what their values and strengths are, and
how to navigate in the world of sport in order to exercise leadership, beyond
being sport participants. Learning about leadership and exercising leader-
ship are very different. Therefore providing multiple avenues for practicing
leadership (Raelin, 2016) will enable girls once they are women to have had
exposure to the complexities of leadership within sport before they enter
the sport industry per se. Similar to the thinking that elite athletes or expert
musicians require 10,000 hours of practice to attain that level (Ericsson,
Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993), we would argue that a similar amount of
time is required to exercise leadership in the strongest possible way for each
woman (see Chapters 7 and 8).
6 Leberman and Burton

Working together with men to lead change

At the same time we need to provide agency to girls and women enabling
them to become part of the structures which set the strategic direction of
organizations and develop policies, such as becoming CEOs or being mem-
bers of a board, so that in conjunction with similarly thinking men they
can work together for change from the structural perspective. A number
of groups now exist advocating for men to be part of the solution—for
example, HeforShe (www.heforshe.org/en), Male Champions for Change
(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013) and NBA Lean in Together
(2015). The role of men is critical in supporting structural change. The
Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physi-
cal Activity (CAAWS) provides 10 key ways in which men can support girls
and women (CAAWS, n.d.).

1 Speak up.
2 Celebrate women athletes.
3 Train and certify women coaches and officials.
4 Recruit women leaders.
5 Pay-it-forward and mentor.
6 Invite women.
7 Nominate women leaders.
8 Communicate opportunities.
9 Educate yourself and others.
10 Promote women and sport leadership networks.

Importance of values and a ‘sense of place’

The importance of values in shaping leadership behavior and of authentic
leadership within the context of sport are very pertinent to the discussion in
this book, highlighted by the fact that women may choose to exercise lead-
ership in many different ways which may be positional (e.g., CEO, board
member) and/or non-positional. Similarly, we are very mindful that readers
of this book will come from many diverse socio-cultural contexts. This is
important to know, as where we come from and the experiences we have
had fundamentally shape how we choose to be in the world. The values,
passion, and strengths we have inform many of the decisions we make and
it is therefore important to start with an understanding of who we are and
how we understand our place in the world. Māori, the indigenous people
of Aotaeroa/New Zealand, call this knowing your turangawaewae, often
associated with their tribal affiliation(s). It is about knowing where you feel
centered and what makes you who you are. Once you are clear about this,
it is much easier to stand strong in the face of different perspectives and be
respectful of these, rather than being threatened by them. Amanda Sinclair’s
 Why this book? 7

(2010) work focusing on knowing your ‘sense of place’ makes a similar

point. She focuses on the importance of knowing your sense of place when
learning and reflecting on leadership. Her key argument is that identities
(e.g., gender, ethnicity, sexuality, belief system) and places (e.g., country,
socio-economic context) have been largely absent from the leadership lit-
erature and yet form such an important part of thinking about both leader-
ship and what it means to be a leader. She suggests that we have multiple
identities and often these are contradictory, requiring constant negotiation
depending on the situation we are in.
Sinclair advocates for the importance of ‘placing ourselves,’ by thinking
about the places we have come from and are in, and the multiple identities
that we have, when we are thinking, studying, and practicing leadership.
She encourages us to ask, ‘Where do I come from?’ and ‘How do I situate
myself within this?’. Importantly, this also means that we cannot and do not
speak for all women, as depending on where we come from informs our per-
spectives and we have very different lived experiences. So it is about giving
voice to women individually and collectively to affect change.

Exercising leadership
Individual leaders, in sport or any industry, cannot be ‘successful’ on their
own. Leaders need the support of followers and the systems that underpin
their organization. If we think of a successful sports team, success is based
on performance of the group, rather than only attributable to the captain or
coach, because without the team there would be no success. The team also
includes the off field/off court team members, who provide the infrastruc-
ture within which these successful teams operate. In her book Leadership
for the Disillusioned (2007), Sinclair argues that we need to think “about
leadership as a way of being that is reflective and thoughtful about self;
that values relationships and the present; that is connected to others and
embodied; that is not narrowly striving or ego-driven; and that is liberating
in its effects’ (p. xv). She encourages us to reflect upon our own experiences
of leadership and how these experiences inform the way we are both leaders
and followers. Similarly, she highlights how the leaders we should aspire to
be are often business leaders, and questions how the voices and knowledge
of certain groups of society are privileged while others (i.e., those not lead-
ing businesses or sport organizations) are marginalised. These observations
are at the core of what is required to challenge the dominant structures sup-
porting leadership within the sport industry. Leadership is more than a posi-
tion or a title, it about being a person of influence, which can be exercised
in many different ways.
Donna Ladkin (2010) also questions the traditional approaches used for
studying leadership, adopting a phenomenological approach to exploring
the notions of leadership and leaders, taking account of time and context,
8 Leberman and Burton

which are particularly pertinent in the global and multicultural environment

within which sport operates. Ladkin argues that leadership is a ‘moment’ of
social relation, as it cannot exist independently—it requires people, a con-
text, a purpose, and a point in time, and therefore moves beyond the focus
on one aspect, namely that of the leader. The way we interpret this leader-
ship moment is very much dependent on our own perspective and experience
and how we are positioned in relation to that moment. What experiences do
we bring to the situation? Are we the parent, coach, umpire, or CEO?
Reinforcing this perspective, recent work by Raelin (2011, 2016) shifts
the focus from leadership as an individual act to leadership as the process of
people working together to accomplish a particular outcome. The empha-
sis is therefore on understanding “where, how and why leadership work
is organised and accomplished” (2011, p. 196), rather than on who the
individual is. Process and context are therefore vitally important, instead of
the outcome per se. Raelin argues that leaderful practice, as distinct from
leadership-as-practice, requires collectiveness, concurrency, collaboration,
and compassion. Leaderful practice focuses on the democratic approach
involving all stakeholders in working toward outcomes. “Leadership is thus
a meta-capability that encourages movement from day-to-day actions by
individuals to core processes and capabilities that subsequently shape indi-
vidual behaviour” (2016, p. 141). What this means for scholars examining
sport leadership is that it is time to move away from the more individualistic
approaches to leadership which have provided the majority of leadership
research in sport management toward research that takes more account of
context and the multiple realities of leadership. Raelin (2016) advocates for
leadership as collective agency, where “we need meaning makers, who can
actively participate in the affairs of the community and can be called upon
to offer meaning to the community, especially when it may face contested
terrain or periods of uncertainty or insecurity” (p. 146). If we substitute the
sport sector for community, the pertinence of this becomes obvious, particu-
larly with respect to women in sport leadership.

Power
The word ‘power’ is often associated with negative connotations. Consider
in contrast the notion of ‘power-with,’ rather than ‘power-over’ others, from
the Native American perspective (Starhawk, 1987). This provides a differ-
ent frame for how power can be interpreted. In the context of women and
leadership, Barbara Kellerman (2012) in her book The End of Leadership
provides a very useful discussion on the words ‘power,’ ‘authority,’ ‘influ-
ence,’ and ‘voice.’ In short, power and authority are usually associated with
positional leadership and bring with it certain accountabilities and respon-
sibilities. Whereas, influence and voice can be exercised without position,
although this may be more difficult.
 Why this book? 9

In order to affect structural change in the sport sector, we need women

to be in positions of leadership, as this is where strategies and policies are
developed. We acknowledge the importance of having women in positions
of leadership in sport so that women are shaping the strategic direction of
sport organizations. These positions include, for example, CEO of sports
organizations, athletic director, or member of sport governing bodies. How-
ever, positional leadership in sport has its own inherent biases—women who
are prototypical leaders, by exhibiting more masculine rather than feminine
behaviors (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009)—which does not fit all
women in sport who wish to contribute to leadership. At the same time we
need women to exercise leadership through their influence and voice in a
myriad of different ways within the sport sector, irrespective of whether they
hold a formal leadership position. Women exercise leadership daily within
sport organizations in ways that are not positional and therefore difficult
to count and make visible. In order to effect wholesale change in sport, it is
important not only to understand how more women can be provided with
opportunities to be in leadership positions, but also to respect that some
women may choose to exercise leadership in non-positional ways. If we
consider leadership as practice and a collective endeavour as suggested by
Raelin (2016), then this is even more important in our quest to redress the
gender equity issues prevalent across the sport sector.

Women helping women: Queen Bee phenomenon

Unfortunately, once women are in leadership positions they do not always
bring other women through and often once successful hold numerous lead-
ership/governance positions, rather than, for example, tapping other women
on the shoulder and advocating for them to be on boards. So women need
to advocate for women. The assumption is that once women reach leader-
ship positions they will mentor and advocate for younger women and serve
as role models (Duigud, 2011; Mavin, 2008). However, research by Derks,
Van Laar, and Ellemers (2016) suggests this is not necessarily the case, and
that women in male-dominated organizations assimilate to the prevailing
culture. This response is often termed the ‘Queen Bee syndrome.’ Derks and
colleagues argue that this behavior is “in response to the gender discrimina-
tion and identity threat that women leaders experience in some work set-
tings” (p. 457). Interestingly, they cite the example of the Dutch company
KPN scraping quotas as they were not attracting the gender diversity they
were seeking. Hurst, Leberman, and Edwards (2016) examine the Queen
Bee phenomenon from a relational perspective (Fletcher, 1999) by seeking
to understand what the expectations of women’s hierarchical workplace
relationships are and how they are experienced, as these expectations are
situated within societal gender-based expectations (Litwin, 2011). Under-
standing these relationships as situated within the wider organizational
10 Leberman and Burton

context and their impact on career decisions can assist organizations in

developing strategies to maximize the hierarchical relationships between
women in the workplace, that is, how to facilitate policies and practices that
enable women to support women. However, Krawcheck (2016) argues that
the Queen Bee syndrome is at an end for four reasons—the business case
for diversity is hard to ignore; women are building their own tables not just
asking for seats; one woman’s success clears the way for others; and more
women are recognizing their power to change things.

Importance of context
Given the importance of context in relation to leadership, we are very mind-
ful that countries across the world have different sport systems and there-
fore not all research is necessarily transferable beyond the specific locale
within which it has been undertaken. The reality is that most of the research
on women in sport leadership is situated within North America and primar-
ily the US intercollegiate sport system. The intercollegiate system is unique
in the world as it situates elite sport within a higher education framework.
Despite this situation many of the broader findings are likely to apply in
most OECD countries to a greater or lesser extent. Sport in most European
countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, is based on a regional/state
and national/federal sport organization structure, which operates within a
range of government policies. Sport structures are different again in many
African and Asian countries, where opportunities for women are often com-
pounded by cultural and religious norms.

Conceptual framework
The following conceptual model (Figure 1.1) has been developed to frame
our thinking for the book. We acknowledge that there is an ongoing debate
about whether our focus should be on structure or agency in endeavoring to
increase women in sport leadership. Critical feminist theorists advocate for
a focus on structure, whereas more liberal feminists argue that agency is of
primary importance.
We suggest that at this point in time we cannot afford to only focus
on one, but instead we need to be active in both areas to reduce the gap
between them as depicted by the space between structure and agency and
the blue arrows in our model—showing an increase in agency and a decrease
in structural issues. Institutional practices, gender bias, and lack of under-
standing about intersectionality are the three main areas we believe have not
been fully addressed. These require further examination in order to close the
gap between structure and agency, which once closed would ideally obviate
the need to have the numerous leadership and empowerment programs for
girls and women that exist today.
 Why this book? 11

Context
Socio-cultural STRUCTURE
Organizaonal (posional leadership)
Personal

Structural liming factors

Instuonal pracces
Gender bias
Lack of recognion of
interseconality
Upward
mobility Decrease
(to posional (change slow) Sporng context
leadership) Increase
(change fast)
of winning

Agency enhancing factors

Development programs

AGENCY
(non-posional leadership)

Figure 1.1 Structure-Agency conceptual model for why women remain underrep-

resented in sport leadership © Sarah Leberman and Laura J. Burton

Structural change takes time and is often slow, whereas programs to

increase agency can be comparatively fast and effective. The size of the boxes
for structure and agency suggest that the progress in changing structures has
been smaller than for agency. We also recognize that the comparative sizes
will be variable both within and between countries. For example, in a coun-
try such as Norway that has quotas, the size of the structure box would be
similar to that of agency. In the end, individuals create the structures we
are part of symbolized by the curving arrow on the left of the model. We
need more women to be part of those structures to affect change. Facilitat-
ing this through programs that develop women’s and girls’ self-confidence,
self-awareness, resilience, and networks as well as social capital are not
about ‘fixing the women,’ but about enabling them to seek those positions
of power and authority within the sport sector.
We therefore start with an overview of the structural issues affecting wom-
en’s sport leadership, which has been the main focus of the extant research
with respect to women in sport leadership. Chapter 2 reviews the scholar-
ship to date and explores new areas of research that enhance our under-
standing of the opportunities and challenges for women in all areas of sport
leadership globally. Chapters 3–5 discuss the three key areas we believe are
12 Leberman and Burton

influencing our ability to make genuine progress—institutionalized prac-

tices, the impact of bias on women when exercising leadership in sport,
and the lack of appreciation and understanding that intersectionality has
on women’s progress in sports organizations. Chapter 6 focuses on whether
the use of quotas is the way to improve gender equity in sport leadership as
experienced in many Nordic countries. Chapters 7 through 9 highlight the
role of agency in creating opportunities for women to be prepared for the
world of sport. Chapter 10 challenges the dominant ‘win at all costs’ para-
digm within sport organizations and suggests that fundamental changes are
required in the structures of sport organizations, informed by the concept
of the quadruple top—and bottom-line, in order to achieve gender equity in
sport leadership. The Appendix outlines a research agenda highlighted in the
process of writing this book.
We hope this book will challenge you to consider your personal values,
strengths, and passion for sport leadership—why you are interested in sport
leadership, what difference you wish to make and in which context—as
this will guide the choices you make and how you lead. Leadership is about
influence. Positional leadership adds the dimensions of authority and per-
ceived power. The interplay of these three concepts is crucial for under-
standing how leadership plays out in sport on a daily basis. Our overall
objective is to provide an evidenced-based discussion, together with a sug-
gested way forward and recommendations for future research on women in
sport leadership so that gender equity in sport leadership may be reached
within our lifetimes.

References
Adriaanse, J. (2015). Gender diversity in the governance of sport associations: The
Sydney Scoreboard Global Index of Participation. Journal of Business Ethics,
137(1), 149–160. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2550-3
Atkins, M., & Burns, A. (2016) Female pro surfers want industry to get on board
regarding sexism concerns. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/news/2016–04–15/
female-surfers-call-for-end-to-sexist-culture-in-sport/7329932
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). Male champions of change.
Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/projects/
male-champions-change
Badal, S. & Harter, J. K. (2014), Gender diversity, business-unit engagement, and
performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(4), 354–365.
Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT.
Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 137–153.
Bruce, T. (2016). New rules for new times: Sportswomen and media representation
in the Third Wave. Sex Roles, 74(7–8), 361–376.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18, 155–165.
Burton. L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). “Think athletic direc-
tor, think masculine?” Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles
within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 5–6, 416–426.
 Why this book? 13

Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in

athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice
against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.
Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activ-
ity. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.caaws.ca/gender-equity-101/what-men-can-do/
Catalyst. (2013). Why diversity matters. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/
knowledge/why-diversity-matters
Commonwealth Games Federation. (2016). Gender equality taskforce. Retrieved
from http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f10a798540c235ff87d5c474b&id=c
d58f441cd
Cooky, C., Messner, M. A., & Hextrum, R. H. (2013). Women play sport, but not
on TV: A longitudinal study of televised news media. Communication & Sport,
1, 203–230.
Cunningham, G. B. (2009). The moderating effect of diversity strategy on the rela-
tionship between racial diversity and organizational performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1445–1460.
Cunningham, G. B. (2010). Understanding the under-representation of African
American coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review, 13(4),
395–406.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011). The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship
among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport
Management Review, 14(4), 453–461.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why
women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 27(3), 456–469.
Duigud, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibi-
tors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 116, 104–115.
Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. (2010). The Business Case for Diversity.
Auckland, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from www.eeotrust.org.nz/toolkits/
index.cfm
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),
363–406.
European Commission. (2014). Gender Equality in Sport: Proposal for Strategic Actions
2014–2020. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/gender-equality-in-sport-pbNC0114573/
Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power and Relational Practice at
Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport.
Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7.
HeforShe. (n.d.). Homepage. I want my voice to make a difference. Retrieved from
www.heforshe.org/en
Hurst, J., Leberman, S. I., & Edwards, M. (2016) Women managing women: Inter-
sections between hierarchical relationships, career development and gender equity.
Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(1), 1–14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/GM-03–2015–0018
International Olympic Committee. (2016). Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://
stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/
Reference-Documents-Factsheets/Women-in-Olympic-Movement.pdf
14 Leberman and Burton

Kellerman, B. (2012). The End of Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.

Knoppers, A. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On critical sport sociology
and sport management. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50,
496–501.
Krawcheck, S. (2016). Four reasons why gender equality in the workplace is closer than
you think. Retrieved from www.fastcompany.com/3063877/strong-female-lead/
four-reasons-why-gender-equality-in-the-workplace-is-closer-than-you-think
Ladkin, D. M. (2010). Rethinking Leadership: A New Look at Old Leadership
Questions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lapchick, R. (2016). Gender report Card: 2016 International Sports Report Card on
Women in Leadership Roles. The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. www.
tidesport.org/women-s-leadership-in-international-sports.html
Litwin, A. H. (2011). Women working together: Understanding women’s relation-
ships at work. CGO Insights, 33, 1–7.
Mavin, S. (2008). Queen bees, wannabees and afraid to bees: No more “best ene-
mies” for women in management? British Journal of Management, 19, S75–S84.
NBA Lean in Together. (2015). Pass it on with #LeanIn together. Retrieved from
http://leanin.org/together/men
Palmer, F. R. & Masters, T. M. (2010). Maori feminism and sport leadership: Explor-
ing Maori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13, 331–344.
Pellegrino, G., D’Amato, S., & Weisberg, A. (2011). The Gender Dividend: Making
the Business Case for Investing in Women. Retrieved from www2.deloitte.com/
content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Public-Sector/dttl-ps-­thegenderdividend-
08082013.pdf
Powell, M. (2016). Men of Soccer Don’t Get It, as Ususal. Retrieved from www.
nytimes.com/2016/04/02/sports/soccer/womens-soccer-pay-powell
Raelin, J. (2011). From leadership-as-practice to leaderful practice. Leadership, 7(2),
195–211.
Raelin, J. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collabora-
tive agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158.
Schein, V. E. (2007). Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in
Management Review, 22(1), 6.
Shaw, S. (2006). “Scratching the back of Mr X”. Analyzing gendered social pro-
cesses in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 510–534.
Shaw, S. (2013). Feminist analysis of sport policy. In I. Henry & L-M. Ko (eds.)
Routledge Handbook of Sport Policy (pp. 305–313). London: Routledge.
Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (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.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a
bitch”: Analyzing discourses of masculinity and femininity and their impact on
employment roles in sport organisations. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4),
347–376.
Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving beyond Myths and
Heroes to Leading that Liberates. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Sinclair, A. (2010). Placing self: How might we place ourselves in leadership studies
differently? Leadership, 6(4), 447–460.
 Why this book? 15

Starhawk. (1987). Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority and Mystery.
San Francisco: Harper.
United Nations Women. (2016). Advancing gender equality through sports.
Retrieved from www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2016/3/sport-an-important-
vehicle-to-achieve-gender-equality
Walker, N. A., & Melton, E. N. (2015). The tipping point: The intersection of race,
gender and sexual orentation in intercollegiate sports. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 29, 257–271.
Women on Boards. (2016). Gender balance in global sport report. Retrieved from www.
womenonboards.net/Impact-Media/News/Sportswomen-win-gold,-but-still-
paid-in-bronze
Chapter 2

An evaluation of current
scholarship in sport leadership:
multilevel perspective
Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman

Introduction
As we have noted in the introduction of this book, there has been glacially
slow progress toward the advancement of women into sport leadership. We
have identified three main factors that we believe hinder women’s progress
toward greater access to sport leadership positions, institutional practices
(see Chapter 3), bias (see Chapter 4) and the lack of recognition of inter-
sectionality (see Chapter 5). However, we would be remiss if we did not
provide a full account of the depth and breadth of scholarship that has been
conducted to date seeking to better understand why, given the increasing
number of girls and women playing and watching sport (e.g., in the United
States, see Acosta & Carpenter, 2014), there are still so few women leading
in the sport sector at all levels, within both the amateur and the professional
realm.

A multilevel approach
Fink (2008) noted that research examining gender issues in sport are “situ-
ated in multi-level, sometimes subtle, and usually taken-for-granted struc-
tures, policies, and behaviors embedded in sport organizations” (p. 147).
A multilevel perspective can help to better understand the underrepresenta-
tion of women in sport leadership, as “sport organizations are multilevel
entities that both shape and are shaped by myriad factors” (Cunningham,
2010, p. 396). We therefore adopt a multilevel perspective to examine
the lack of women in sport leadership positions (Burton, 2015; Burton &
LaVoi, 2016; Cunningham, 2008; Cunningham, 2010; Dixon & Cunning-
ham, 2006; LaVoi & Dutove, 2012).
From a societal (macro-level) perspective, we will first review research
that has examined institutionalized practices of gender in sport, including
social expectations and stakeholder expectations of leadership and the gen-
dered nature of leadership expectations within the domain of sport. At the
organizational (meso) level, we examine the stereotyping of leaders, how
organizational culture is constructed around gender, issues of discrimination,
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 17

including those unsupportive of the work–family interface, and how gen-

dered practices influence hiring and retention of women in leadership posi-
tions. Finally, from an individual (micro) level we turn toward women’s
expectations of and in leadership positions, turnover within leadership posi-
tions, and how internalized gendered stereotypes impact individual career
selection and advancement. In order to capture the most current research
advances in this area, the majority of work presented in this chapter has
been published in the last 15 years.

Sport leadership as masculine

Prior to beginning this review, we first establish that sport is a gendered
space, meaning that sport is used to “actively construct boys and men to
exhibit, value and reproduce traditional notions of masculinity” (Ander-
son, 2009, p. 4). Further, competitive sport serves as a social institution
that defines certain forms of masculinity as acceptable (i.e., exclusively het-
erosexual and physically dominant), while denigrating others. Sport also
supports heterosexual and physically dominant masculinity by suppressing
all other forms of masculinity and subordinating women (Connell, 1995).
Unfortunately, women are often situated as ‘other’ in the social institution
of sport, and the presence of women in sport, as athlete, coach, manager, or
leader, is under constant scrutiny (Fink, 2016; Kane, 1995), as most recently
evidenced during the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (e.g., Guest, 2016).
Any discussion of women in sport leadership must include an understand-
ing of gender as fundamental to both organizational and social processes
in the sport sector. Connell (2009) describes gender as a social process and
advocates for an examination of gender from a relational perspective. Gen-
der can have an influence on organizational practices, such that images, cul-
tures, interactions, and gender-appropriate behaviors are linked to socially
constructed masculine or feminine ideals within organizational operations
(Acker, 1990,1992; Britton & Logan, 2008). This understanding of gender
as a social process helps us examine how and why gender is such a powerful
factor in the social and organizational processes that define sport organiza-
tions (Kihl, Shaw, & Schull, 2013).

Influence of power
Gender not only shapes identities, but also operates as an axis of power.
Therefore power must be addressed within the context of sport leader-
ship as it highlights the influence of gender in interactions, structures, and
processes of sport organizations (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Power is “the
influence over a group or individual and provides the ability to change
another person’s behavior, actions, or attitude” (Kane, 2015, p. 5). Leaders
typically wield six sources of power within sport organizations. Reward
18 Burton and Leberman

power is the ability to provide rewards to subordinates, while another

source, coercive power, carries aspects of punishment if subordinates do
not meet expectations. Legitimate power is derived based on leaders formal
positions or titles, while leaders holding referent power command “such
a presence of personality that group members are compelled to follow”
(Kane, 2015, p. 6). Leaders can also hold expert power by holding particu-
lar skills, knowledge or expertise, and informational power is a situation-
specific form of power that provides leaders with knowledge to support
subordinates in meeting specific tasks (Kane, 2015).
A newly developed conceptual model that examines how power is
manifest in the promotion and selection of women to top-level positions
in organizations is equally applicable when considering how women are
selected and promoted to senior leadership positions in sport organizations
(Auster & Prasad, 2016). An antecedent component to the model is the
dominant ideology created by those in positions of power that perpetuate
role incumbent schema used to assess candidates for leadership positions
(Auster & Prasad, 2016). Further, power as held by similar ‘in-group’ mem-
bers (predominantly white, heterosexual men) results in individuals from
out-groups facing increased bias when seeking promotion to higher level
positions when compared to experiences of in-group members, because
­“in-group favoritism is a critical aspect of the social dominance that occurs
as committees make promotion decisions” (Auster & Prasad, 2016, p. 186).
Power held by those on hiring committees negatively impact those who
do not reflect ‘in-group’ membership, as committee practices including
the committee selection, evaluation of candidates, decision making proto-
cols, and meetings are impacted by social dominance processes and such
processes influence promotion bias and promotion outcomes (Auster &
Prasad, 2016). As an example, stakeholders within the sport sector were
found to use power to reinforce the gendered norms of an intercollegi-
ate athletic department in the United States. Work by Schull, Shaw, and
Kihl (2013) noted that stakeholders interested in maintaining power in a
women’s athletic program actively supported the hiring of a male athletic
director for a newly merged athletic department that would control both
the men’s and women’s programs. The stakeholders’ support for a male
athletic director was based on the perception that if a female athletic
director was to be selected, she would be “eaten up alive” (p. 71) by
members affiliated with the men’s athletic programs. Stakeholders associ-
ated with the women’s athletic program actively campaigned for a specific
type of male candidate, instead of campaigning for a female candidate.
As a result of the power and political influence enjoyed by stakeholders
aligned with the men’s athletic department, they had access to key deci-
sion makers and financial support of the university, as well as access to
critical constituents in the media. Finally, the criterion outlined to sup-
port the hiring of the new athletic director, though appearing to be gender
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 19

neutral, “privileged a certain type of masculinity in the sport context—a

man who values gender equity” (p. 76).
Another indicator of the link between power and gender within the struc-
ture of sport organizations is evidenced through the positioning of women
(legitimate power) within the major governing bodies of sport (e.g., IOC,
FIFA, NCAA). Scholars have noted that women were underrepresented in
positions of power or influence within the major governing body of inter-
collegiate sport in the United States, the NCAA. Women were poorly repre-
sented on executive leadership committees (less than 25%), and even fewer
women hold positions at the director level (less than 18%). In addition,
women were not represented on committees governing men’s intercollegi-
ate sports, yet men held over half of the positions on the Committee on
Women’s Athletics (Yiamouyiannis & Osborne, 2012). Further, when con-
sidering international sport federations, women held only 13% of positions
on boards of directors and only 8% of board chair (president) positions
(Adriaanse, 2015).
Power also has an influence on gendered relations in sport organizations.
Power is linked to gender within organizations in at least three different
ways. First, power connects to gender in the structure of organizations, as
men who are overrepresented in higher status jobs have higher pay and
more status within organizations. Second, power is demonstrated through
social practices that perceive men as powerful and women as compliant, and
therefore positions and tasks are constructed to favor men. Finally, power
can be used in the process of gender identity formation within the organiza-
tion such that external forces of power “endorse particular meanings of gen-
der, and internal pressures dictate the degree of one’s compliance” (Ely &
Padavic, 2007, p. 1131). Work by Claringbould and Knoppers (2008)
revealed that male leaders of national sport associations in the Netherlands
used their power to maintain boundaries that allowed for male leadership
to dominate, and women’s participation was limited to those women who
fit the model of leader as defined by the male leaders in those organizations.

Socio-cultural (macro) perspective on women

in sport leadership
Sport does not operate in a vacuum. It is a reflection of wider societal norms
and practices operating within both individual nations and globally. A socio-
cultural (macro) level approach to examining why there are so few women
in sport leadership requires situating sport as a gendered institution, where
all processes in sport operate within a shared understanding of sport as mas-
culine. Most individuals working in the sport sector share an assumption
that work and organizational practices are gender neutral, which serves to
reinforce male dominance in sport leadership (Burton, 2015). Sport organi-
zations have institutionalized masculinity as a way of operating, where male
20 Burton and Leberman

activity is privileged, and masculinity and masculine behavior are regarded

as leadership qualities necessary in sport (Cunningham, 2010; Fink, 2016;
Shaw & Frisby, 2006). For those who do not embody this type of masculine
behavior, perceptions of their skills as leaders and the individual’s recogni-
tion of leadership ability is called into question.
The demographic information of an organization, meaning what types of
people (based on race/ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual identity) hold certain
positions, influences perceptions regarding who is appropriate for particular
positions, and therefore appropriate to perform particular work, within an
organization (Ely & Padavic, 2007). Men dominate leadership positions
in sport organization in the United States and internationally (Acosta &
Carpenter, 2014; Lapchick, 2015, 2016; International Working Group on
Women and Sport, 2014; Smith & Wrynn, 2013). Women hold fewer than
25% of senior leadership positions across all US professional sports leagues
(Lapchick, 2015). The one exception is the Women’s National Basketball
Association; however, women only hold 33% of general manager positions
within that league.
Internationally, women hold fewer leadership positions in sport organiza-
tions when compared to men, including in volunteer and professional-level
organizations (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008; International Working
Group on Women and Sport, 2014). Within the Olympic movement, the
International Olympic Committee has for the first time met its self-imposed
threshold of at least 20% of the board composed of women member, as of
2016 22% of IOC members were women (IOC, 2016, Smith & Wrynn,
2013; Women on Boards, 2016). However, within national Olympic gov-
erning bodies (NGBs), 85.3% of those governing bodies are composed of
all-male leadership teams, while 14.1% have male/female leadership teams,
and only one (.5%), Zambia, has an all-female leadership team (Smith &
Wrynn, 2013). Overall, women held only 13% of positions on boards of
directors and only 8% of board chair (president) positions on international
sport federations (Adriaanse, 2015). Based on these data, the demography
of leadership positions in sport organizations is highly skewed to male lead-
ers. This skewed gender ratio serves to reinforce the notion of masculinity
and masculine leadership as the norm in sport.
As a result of the assumption that a certain type of masculinity (heter-
osexual and physically dominant) is required to lead sport organizations,
men maintain control of athletic director positions at the highest level of
intercollegiate sport (i.e., Division I Football Bowl Subdivision), holding
93% of those positions (Lapchick, 2015), and have higher rates of organiza-
tional success (e.g., rates of career advancement) (Whisenant, Pedersen, &
Obenour, 2002). In addition, women continue to be underrepresented as
athletic directors in merged intercollegiate athletic departments (those that
historically had both a male and a female athletic department that was then
joined) (Grappendorf & Lough, 2006). Women’s access to athletic director
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 21

positions at the interscholastic level has been constrained by this assumption

of masculinity, as women held less than 15% of those leadership positions
(Whisenant, 2008).

Organizational (meso-)level perspectives

on women in sport leadership
In order to understand how processes contribute to gender inequity and dis-
parity within organizations, it is important to understand the practice of gen-
der within organizations (Martin, 2003). Organizational-level factors include
structure, governance, policies, and various other organizational operations.

Operational and functional practices

The operations and functional practices within sport organizations also serve
to disadvantage women in leadership. For instance, within sport organiza-
tions in the United Kingdom, social processes including humor, informal net-
working, and use of dress codes were adopted that sustained masculine work
practices (Shaw, 2006). The structure of a volunteer grassroots sport organ-
ization board of directors demonstrated that men and women held posi-
tions considered appropriate based on gendered assumptions. Women on
the board were responsible for clerical work and home/kitchen duties, while
men on the board handled facility management and maintenance (Sibson,
2010). Within intercollegiate athletic administration in the United States,
women athletic administrator duties followed a more stereotypical feminine
approach toward work focused on caring for student-athletes (Inglis, Danyl-
chuk, & Pastore, 2000). Similarly, on a majority male board of directors for
a national sport organization in Australia, men controlled all of the signifi-
cant positions (external relations, strategic decisions, finances) and the sole
female on the board held the position of marketing director (Adriaanse &
Schofield, 2013). In a US-based women’s professional sport organization,
men marginalized the women in the organization by minimizing women’s
strategic influence in marketing strategies and undermining women’s author-
ity by requiring the women to conduct menial tasks below their level of
authority (e.g., vacuum the office, take out the mail) (Allison, 2016).

Organizational policies and procedures

Organizational policies and procedures can influence access for women to
leadership positions in the sport sector. International conferences in support
of women in sport that have convened over the past 20 years end with a
legacy, that is, calls for action, declarations or other initiatives to improve
gender inequality in sport and sport leadership. Examination of the lega-
cies of five of these conferences (Brighton Declaration, Windhoek Call for
22 Burton and Leberman

Action, the Montreal Toolkit, the Kumamoto Commitment to Collabora-

tion and the Sydney Scoreboard) revealed that legacies supported increasing
the number of women in leadership roles, providing greater access to power
and influence by increasing the number of women in decision-making posi-
tions, and creating a culture that values women’s input and participation in
sport organizations (Adriaanse & Claringbould, 2016).
When examining recruitment and selection and how perceptions of fit
influenced the hiring of women onto boards of directors for national sport
organizations in the Netherlands, incumbent male board members were able
to maintain control of and therefore power over the board by both “affirm-
ing and negating affirmative action policies and policing ‘fit’ during recruit-
ment and selection processes” (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2007, p. 503). In
addition, women applying for those positions did not question the criteria
used for selection even as they struggled to comply with the demands made
by the male board members.
Work–family and family–work interface scholars have also examined
how the organizational practices of sport organizations can be gendered.
This work has most often focused on the experiences of women in coach-
ing (in the United States) and examined organizational structures, policies,
and procedures supported by organizations (Bruening & Dixon, 2007;
Dixon & Bruening, 2007; Dixon & Sagas, 2007). Using an integrated the-
ory of work–family conflict in sports, Dixon and Bruening (2005) highlight
organizational-level constraints women face including job pressures and job
stress, work and hours of scheduled work, and the work–family culture of
an organization. At an organizational level, the demands of coaching and
the expectations of spending many hours in the office contributed to sig-
nificant work–family conflict for female head coaches (Dixon & Bruening,
2007). Similarly, women noted staying in current head coaching positions
longer when they received organizational support (i.e., supportive athletic
directors) to help manage work and family obligations (Bruening & Dixon,
2008). Leberman and Palmer (2009) report similar findings, based on their
research with mothers who were sport leaders in New Zealand. Their find-
ings suggested that women actively sought work environments which ena-
bled flexibility so they could meet the demands of work and family. Most
of the women, however, did not actively challenge organizational structures
and instead developed strong support networks which enabled them to ful-
fill their roles. Organizational practices that failed to support the balance of
work and family obligations placed greater burdens on women than men
within those organizations.

Organizational culture
Organizational culture defined as “the set of shared, taken-for-granted
implicit assumptions that a group holds and that determines how it perceives,
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 23

thinks about, and reacts to its various environments” (Schein, 1996, p.

236). The organizational culture of the majority of sport organizations
internationally support and perpetuate norms, values, and behaviors that
reinforce hegemonic masculinity. Organizational culture impacts women’s
experiences in sport organizations, as “cultures of similarity that marginal-
ize women are institutionalized within sport organizations” (Cunningham,
2008, p. 137). Even with research to support that an organizational culture
“that values diversity and capitalizes on the benefits such differences can
bring to the workplace” contributes to success (Cunningham, 2008, p. 137),
there are few sport organizations that adopt or demonstrate these character-
istics (Cunningham & Fink, 2006).
Sport organizations that foster an organizational culture with top man-
agement support that valued gender equity had more positive organiza-
tional outcomes for women, and men. These positive outcomes included
stronger organizational commitment and intentions to stay in the organi-
zation (Spoor & Hoye, 2013). Importantly, organizational practices that
supported women had a similar impact on the men working in that organi-
zation, including higher commitment and greater intention to stay, indicat-
ing that providing support for women can have a more significant impact
on the entire organization (Spoor & Hoye, 2013) and is therefore beneficial
to the organization as a whole.
When considering diversity in US intercollegiate athletic departments,
scholars noted that a majority of intercollegiate athletic departments oper-
ate in cultures that value similarity, and the majority of people in athletic
departments support the norms, values, and beliefs of white, Christian,
able body, heterosexual men (Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2001). As a result,
women and other minority groups exist as ‘other’ within intercollegiate ath-
letic department cultures. In addition, intercollegiate athletic departments
in the United States foster and support organizational cultures that valorize
heavy workloads and time in the office (Dixon & Bruening, 2007). This
type of culture places significant time demands on individuals in the organi-
zation and can have different impacts on the ability of men and women
to attend to the demands of work and family. Further, many intercollegi-
ate athletic administrators noted only modest support for work–life sup-
portive cultures in their athletic departments (Dixon, Tiell, Lough, Sweeney,
Osborne, & Bruening, 2008). The difficulty of being able to successfully
integrate work and family needs has led many women to leave their careers
in sport organizations (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Inglis et al., 2000; Leber-
man & Shaw, 2015).

Social processes
Social processes, as a component to organizational culture, can also be ana-
lyzed to understand the informal, everyday practices taking place within an
24 Burton and Leberman

organization (Acker, 1992). Informal networks within sport organizations

were important social processes within these organizations, with both an
old boys’ network and old girls’ network having influence (Shaw, 2006).
Dress codes, another way culture is expressed in an organization, were
also gendered within sport organizations, as men, perhaps to demonstrate
a more formal businesslike attitude, may wear neckties and jackets, while
women may adopt more casual tracksuits (Shaw, 2006). Use of humor is
another aspect of organizational culture and when considered in the context
of gender equity can serve to undermine organizational sanctioned gender
equity programs in sport organizations (Shaw, 2006).

Stereotypes
Stereotypes regarding appropriate leaders are created external to sport
organizations, yet stereotypes influence women’s experiences of leadership
within sport organizations (for a more detailed discussion of stereotypes
see Chapter 3). A prototypical leader of a sport organization is expected to
demonstrate more masculine managerial behavior than feminine manage-
rial behavior (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009). Therefore, women
are less likely to be considered for positions of leadership in sport, as these
positions are perceived to require stereotypical masculine attributes and
behaviors. In addition, when women are in leadership positions, they are
unfavorably evaluated because they demonstrate attributes and behaviors
perceived as incongruent with their prescribed gender roles (Eagly & Karau,
2002). Work in this area has shown that leadership stereotypes within the
context of intercollegiate sport have negative impacts on women, as they
were perceived as capable of success in leadership positions, yet considered
unlikely to be hired for such positions over equally comparable men (Bur-
ton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011). Additionally, discourse around
the selection of leaders in sport organizations in Norway supported gen-
dered images of corporate, heroic leaders (Hovden, 2010). Further, women
needed to prove their ability as leaders against their male counterparts in
national sport organizations as evidenced in Canada, and women experi-
enced more challenging interviews for those leadership positions as there
was an assumption that women would be less suited for such positions
(Shaw & Hoeber, 2003).
Despite the indication that leadership in sport is perceived to require
more stereotypical masculine attributes or is more closely linked with more
stereotypical male gender roles, findings examining leadership in the US
intercollegiate athletic administration context do not support a preference
for male leaders. Athletic administrators perceived that both male and
female leaders would provide positive organizational outcomes when lead-
ing athletic departments (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2009; Welty Peachey &
Burton, 2011).
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 25

Access and treatment discrimination

Other factors to consider at the organizational level are access and treat-
ment discrimination. Both types of discrimination can and do negatively
impact women in leadership positions in sport organizations. Access dis-
crimination excludes members of certain groups from entering the organiza-
tion, while treatment discrimination occurs when individuals from certain
groups receive fewer organizational resources than they would legitimately
deserve (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Homologous repro-
duction, a form of access discrimination, occurs when those in power in the
organization maintain influence by allowing only those with similar charac-
teristics to them, namely, the ability to access positions of power and influ-
ence within the organization (Kanter, 1977). Women have been excluded
from the hiring process in sport by being denied access as a result of the ‘old
boys’ network and homologous reproduction (Aicher & Sagas, 2009; Hoff-
man, 2011; Lovett & Lowry, 1988; Regan & Cunningham, 2012; Stangl &
Kane, 1991; Whisenant, 2008; Whisenant, Miller, & Pedersen, 2005; Whi-
senant & Mulane, 2007).
There is also evidence in sport organizations that women are impacted
by treatment discrimination as they are denied access to resources, rewards,
or on the job opportunities that they legitimately deserved (Aicher &
Sagas, 2009; Cunningham & Sagas, 2007). In intercollegiate athletics in
the United States, women in the Senior Woman Administrator position
were denied opportunities to engage in important oversight roles in budg-
eting and leading men’s sports programs, which negatively impacted their
abilities to build skill sets toward positions of athletic director (Claussen &
Lehr, 2002; Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; Pent, Grap-
pendorf, & Henderson, 2007; Tiell, Dixon, & Lin, 2012). Further, when
examining the experiences of minority women in sport leadership, Palmer
and Masters (2010) noted that Māori women were marginalized due to
their ethno-cultural and gendered identities.

Individual (micro-)level research on women

in leadership
At the individual or micro-level of analysis, researchers have focused on
how individuals understand and make meaning of their experiences, expec-
tations, and understandings of power, policies, and procedures operating
at the organizational level. We can also examine the assumptions made by
individuals in how they interact within an organization, and the self-limiting
behaviors individuals engage in within their work.
Scholars have used discourse analysis to help understand women’s experi-
ences in leadership and explore forces that keep women from advancement in
sport organizations. This includes a focus on how “constructions of gender
26 Burton and Leberman

are embedded in organizational discourses instead of primarily in structures

or the human or social capital of individual women themselves” in research
at the individual level (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, p. 405). When
examining sport organizations in Canada, discourse analysis was used to
understand perceptions of women’s and men’s abilities to lead and manage
in sport organizations (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). In these sport organizations,
senior management and leadership roles were dominated by discourses of
masculinity, and employment roles that were less valued in sport organiza-
tions were associated with women and discourses of femininity.

Human and social capital

Research has examined the human and social capital of women working in
sport organizations. An individual develops human capital through educa-
tion, job training, on the job experiences, and the like, and accrues social
capital resources through a network of relationships with peers, supervi-
sors, and subordinates (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004). The experiences
of women in intercollegiate athletic administration in the United States
revealed that social capital was more influential for men advancing in
sport organizations than it was for women (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004).
Also, based on other research regarding intercollegiate athletic adminis-
trators in the United States, differences on the impacts of social capital for
men’s and women’s careers can negatively impact women’s career aspira-
tions and intentions to advance in sport organizations (Cunningham &
Sagas, 2002).

Self-limiting behaviors
Frameworks to understand the lack of women in leadership in sport organi-
zations have failed to address “the emotional and cognitive processes of
women as they encounter disparate acceptance and treatment within the
male-dominated sport domain” (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007, p. 245).
Their framework described how “ideological gender beliefs may serve to
inhibit women within sport organizations through internal identity com-
parison processes that may subsequently result in the unconscious mani-
festation of self-limiting behaviors” (p. 259). Aside from examining the
experiences of women coaches in the US sports system, we are not aware
of research to date that has explored self-limiting behaviors of women in
sport leadership positions. This is an area that scholars should take up in
the future.

Conclusion
As detailed by the depth and breadth of research explored in this chap-
ter, understanding the continued underrepresentation of women in sport
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 27

Macro

Gendered
Instuons
Meso
Operang & funconal
pracces

Organizaonal policies
& procedures

Organizaonal culture
Micro
Social processes
Sport masculine & Human & Social Capital Self-liming behaviors
privileged Stereotypes

Access & treatment

discriminaon

Figure 2.1 Multilevel perspective and power within sport leadership © Sarah Leberman
and Laura J. Burton

leadership is a complex issue. Figure 2.1 summarizes the interaction between

the three levels and illustrates how power has an impact on all levels.
Within each level the factors affecting the numbers of women in leader-
ship positions are highlighted. It is encouraging to see scholars taking up
more complex examinations of how gender is operating within sport organ-
izations (e.g., Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013; Kihl et al., 2013; Walker &
Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). However, we must also continue to recognize that
gender as an organizing principle in sport needs to be considered along with
other forms of identity, including race, sexual orientation, class, and ability
(Burton, 2015; Fink, 2008).

References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gen-
der & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology,
21(5), 565–569.
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitu-
dinal, national study, thirty-seven year update 1977–2014. Retrieved from www.
acostacarpenter.org/
Adriaanse, J. (2015). Gender diversity in the governance of sport associations: The
Sydney Scoreboard Global Index of Participation. Journal of Business Ethics,
1–12. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2550-3
28 Burton and Leberman

Adriaanse, J. A., & Claringbould, I. (2016). Gender equality in sport leadership:

From the Brighton Declaration to the Sydney Scoreboard. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport, 51(5), 547–566.
Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analysing gender dynamics in sport govern-
ance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 14, 498–513.
Aicher, T. J. & Sagas, M. (2009). An examination of homologous reproduction and
the effects of sexism. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education,
3(3), 375–386.
Allison, R. (2016). From oversight to autonomy gendered organizational change in
women’s soccer. Social Currents. doi: 10.1177/2329496516651637
Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of
sport. Sport Management Review, 12(1), 3–14.
Auster, E. R., & Prasad, A. (2016). Why do women still not make it to the top?
Dominant organizational ideologies and biases by promotion committees limit
opportunities to destination positions. Sex Roles, 75, 177–196.
Britton, D. M. & Logan, L. (2008). Gendered organizations: Progress and prospects.
Sociology Compass, 2(1), 107–121.
Bruening, J. E. & Dixon, M. A. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching II: Manag-
ing role conflict. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 471.
Bruening, J. E. & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Situating work–family negotiations within
a life course perspective: Insights on the gendered experiences of NCAA division
I head coaching mothers. Sex Roles, 58, 10–23.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18, 155–165.
Burton, L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). “Think athletic direc-
tor, think masculine?”: Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles
within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61, 416–426.
Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in
athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice
against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.
Burton, L. J., & LaVoi, N. M. (2016). An ecological/multisystem approach to under-
standing and examining women coaches. In N. M. LaVoi (ed.) Women in Sports
Coaching (pp. 49–62). Oxford: Routledge.
Burton, L., & Welty Peachey, J. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leader-
ship preferences of division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate
Sport, 2(2), 245–259.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2007). Finding a “normal” woman: Selection
processes for board membership. Sex Roles, 56, 495–507.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2008). Doing and undoing gender in sport gov-
ernance. Sex Roles, 58, 81–92.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2012). Paradoxical practices of gender in sport-
related organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5), 404–416.
Claussen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision-making authority of senior woman
administrators. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 215–228.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Connell, R. (2009). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organi-
zations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145.
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 29

Cunningham, G. B. (2010). Understanding the under-representation of African Ameri-

can coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 395–406.
Cunningham, G. B., & Fink, J. S. (2006). Diversity issues in sport and leisure: Intro-
duction to a special issue. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 455–465.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects of human capital
for male and female division I basketball coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 73(4), 489–495.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2007). Examining potential differences between
men and women in the impact of treatment discrimination. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37(12), 3010–3024.
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2005). Perspectives on work-family conflict in
sport: An integrated approach. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227–253.
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching I: A top-
down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377.
Dixon, M. A., & Cunningham, G. B. (2006). Data aggregation in multilevel analysis:
A review of conceptual and statistical issues. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 10(2), 85–107.
Dixon, M. A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational sup-
port, work-family conflict, and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 236–247.
Dixon, M., Tiell, B., Lough, N., Sweeney, K., Osborne, B., & Bruening, J. (2008).
The work/life interface in intercollegiate athletics: An examination of policies,
programs, and institutional climate. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes
in Education, 2(2), 137–159.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex
differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121–1143.
Fink, J. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding com-
ments. Sex Roles, 58, 146–147.
Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport.
Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. (2001). Do differences make a difference?
Managing diversity in division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Man-
agement, 15(1), 10–50.
Grappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and
perspectives from female NCAA division I athletic directors of both separate and
merged athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related Topics Journal,
2(2), 6–20.
Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role ste-
reotyping: A qualitative analysis of senior woman administrators’ perceptions
regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics,
1, 26–45.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on
organizational experience, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.
Guest, K. (2016). While women triumph at Rio 2016, the media is competing to
see who can demean them the most. August 9. Retrieved from www.independent.
30 Burton and Leberman

co.uk/voices/rio-2016-women-sexism-female-gold-medal-athletes-treatment-
by-media-bbc-nbc-a7180476.html
Hoffman, J. L. (2011). The old boys’ network. Journal for the Study of Sports and
Athletes in Education, 5(1), 9–28.
Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders–prisoners of gender? The gendering of leader-
ship discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport
Policy, 2(2), 189–203.
Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K., & Pastore, D. (2000). Multiple realities of women’s work
experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women’s Sport and Physical
Activity Journal, 9(2), 1–27.
International Olympic Committee. (2016). Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://stillmed.
olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Reference-
Documents-Factsheets/Women-in-Olympic-Movement.pdf
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2014). Retrieved from www.
sydneyscoreboard.com/
Kane, G. (2015). Leadership theories. In J. F. Borland, G. M. Kane, & L. J. Burton
(eds.) Sport Leadership in the 21st Century. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Kane, M. J. (1995). Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: Exposing
sport as a continuum. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(2), 191–218.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kihl, L. A., Shaw, S., & Schull, V. (2013). Fear, anxiety, and loss of control: Analyz-
ing an athletic department merger as a gendered political process. Journal of Sport
Management, 27(2), 146–157.
Lapchick, R. (2015). The racial and gender report card. Retrieved from www.tidesport.
org/racialgenderreportcard.html
Lapchick, R. (2016). The racial and gender report card. Retrieved from www.tidesport.
org/racialgenderreportcard.html
LaVoi, N. M., & Dutove, J. K. (2012). Barriers and supports for female coaches: An
ecological model. Sports Coaching Review, 1(1), 17–37.
Leberman, S. I., & Palmer, F. R. (2009). Motherhood, sport leadership and domain
theory: Experiences from New Zealand. Journal of Sport Management, 23(3),
303–334.
Leberman, S. I., & Shaw, S. (2015) “Let’s be honest most people in the sporting
industry are still males”: Female graduate employability in the sport sector. Jour-
nal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 349–366.
Lovett, D., & Lowry, C. (1988). The role of gender in leadership positions in female
sport programs in Texas colleges. Journal of Sport Management, 2(2), 106–117.
Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “Saying and doing” gendering prac-
tices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3), 342–366.
Palmer, F. R., & Masters, T. M. (2010). Māori feminism and sport leadership:
Exploring Māori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13, 331–344.
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more?: An anal-
ysis of NCAA senior woman administrators’ participation in financial decision
making. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1(2), 157–174.
Regan, M., & Cunningham, G. (2012). Analysis of homologous reproduction in
community college athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Edu-
cation, 6(2), 161–172.
 Current scholarship in sport leadership 31

Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Does having “the right stuff” matter? Gen-
der differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic
administrators. Sex Roles, 50(5), 411–421.
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of
women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Quest, 59(2), 244–265.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 41, 229–240.
Schull, V., Shaw, S., & Kihl, L. A. (2013). “If a woman came in ... she would have
been eaten up alive”: Analyzing gendered political processes in the search for an
athletic director. Gender & Society, 27, 56–81.
Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the Back of “Mr X”: Analyzing gendered social pro-
cesses in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.
Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (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.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (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.
Sibson, R. (2010). I was banging my head against a brick wall: Exclusionary power and
the gendering of sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 379–399.
Smith, M., & Wrynn, A. (2013). Women in the 2012 Olympic and Paralym-
pic Games: An Analysis of Participation and Leadership Opportunities.
Ann Arbor, MI: SHARP Center for Women and Girls. Retrieved from www.
womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/research/sharp-center
Spoor, J. R., & Hoye, R. (2013). Perceived support and women’s intentions to stay at
a sport organization. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 407–424.
Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory
power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since title IX: The case of
homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(1), 47–60.
Tiell, B. S., Dixon, M. A., & Lin, Y. (2012). Roles and tasks of the senior woman
administrator in role congruity theory perspective: A longitudinal progress report.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 247–268.
Walker, N., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institu-
tionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think?
Journal of Sport Management, 27, 303–315.
Welty Peachey, J., & Burton, L. J. (2011). Male or female athletic director? Explor-
ing perceptions of leader effectiveness and a (potential) female leadership advan-
tage with intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 64(5), 416–425.
Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male dominance in interscholastic athletics:
A case of homologous reproduction … or not? Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 768–775.
Whisenant, W., Miller, J., & Pedersen, P.M. (2005). Systemic barriers in athletic
administration: An analysis of job descriptions for interscholastic athletic direc-
tors. Sex Roles, 53, 911–918.
Whisenant, W. A., & Mullane, S. P. (2007). Sport information directors and homolo-
gous reproduction. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
2(3), 252–263.
32 Burton and Leberman

Whisenant, W. A., Pedersen, P.M., & Obenour, B. L. (2002). Success and gender:
Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex
Roles, 47, 485–491.
Women on Boards. (2016). Gender balance in global sport report. Retrieved from
www.womenonboards.net/Impact-Media/News/Sportswomen-win-gold,-but-
still-paid-in-bronze
Yiamouyiannis, A., & Osborne, B. (2012). Addressing gender inequities in collegiate
sport examining female leadership representation within NCAA sport govern-
ance. SAGE Open, 2(2), 1–13.
Chapter 3

Institutionalized practices
in sport leadership
Nefertiti A. Walker, Claire Schaeperkoetter,
and Lindsey Darvin

Introduction
This chapter will examine how the overrepresentation of male leadership of
sport organizations has become an institutionalized practice that disadvan-
tages women from gaining access to such positions. Institutionalized prac-
tices within sport organizations have valued male ideals, provided men with
unquestioned power, and devalued women’s contributions to sport leader-
ship. This chapter will question those values, norms, and behaviors that
have privileged men and masculinity in sport leadership.

Institutionalization defined
In order to understand how gender bias in sport leadership has been insti-
tutionalized, we will begin with discussion of the process of institutionali-
zation. An institution refers to “more-or-less taken for granted repetitive
social behavior that is underpinned by normative systems and cognitive
understandings that give meaning to social exchange and thus enable self-
reproducing social order” (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2012,
pp. 4–5). These institutions are supported through norms, values, and beliefs
that manifest in how one behaves. This process of establishing an institution
happens over time as the norms, values, and beliefs become so ingrained
into the culture that they become the taken-for-granted way of life. Institu-
tions can form at the individual level, such as how the high-five has become
a micro-level institutional norm of playing sports. It can happen at the meso
level, such as how data analytics has become an extra source of information
many sport organizations use to make decisions. Finally, institutions can
form at the macro level, such as how our expectation of rules and officials
or referees to manage the integrity of sport competitions has become part
of the institution of sport. All of these concepts represent institutional ide-
als that were once a belief, that became a norm, and are now intricate parts
of the institution of sport. Similarly, institutionalization is the process of
these ideals becoming permanent, rule-like fixtures in the institution. As an
34 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

example, at the end of sport competitions, competitors engage in a hand-

shake or high-five. This is usually not a written rule, but an intricate part of
the institution of sport competition. In many sports, to not engage with your
competitor after the game is unfathomable and seen as a direct defiance of
the institution of sport. Through the use of examples from sport, we will
explain how the institution of sport has developed an institutionalized bias
against women in leadership.
In her review examining the underrepresentation of women in leadership
positions in the sport management workplace, Burton (2015) emphasized,
“it is important to situate sport as a gendered space … Therefore, any dis-
cussion of women’s leadership experiences in sport must include position-
ing gender as a fundamental aspect of organizational and social processes”
(p. 156). Acknowledging, therefore the gendered space of sport workplace
settings combined with the notion that women are largely underrepresented
in the sport workplace (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007), we need to under-
stand how the underrepresentation came to be and why it continues to
persist. Acker (1992) argued, “gender has become … part of the everyday
language of social science, largely as a consequence of the feminist move-
ment and the accompanying intellectual efforts to better understand the
systematic and widespread subordination of women and their domination
by men” (p. 565). In detailing the importance of examining this intersection
of social relations and domination/subordination in the sport setting in par-
ticular, Theberge (1985) lamented that sport is often seen as a “static fact,
rather than as a dynamic social practice” (p. 193). By instead viewing sport
as a dynamic institutionalized male preserve, we can better understand the
patriarchal control of women in the sport setting (Theberge, 1985).

The institutionalization of men as leaders

In 1972, the United States enacted Title IX to increase gender equality in
government-funded entities such as intercollegiate sport. This policy sought
to increase the opportunities for girls and women to participate in amateur
sports. Whilst in most cases representation of girls and women as participants
in amateur sports has increased, women as head coaches, athletic directors,
and other leadership positions are significantly lower (Acosta & Carpenter,
2014). For example, before 1972 and the enactment of Title IX, women
coached 90% of women’s teams; currently, women coach only 43.4% of
women’s team (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014). Meanwhile, the percentage of
women coaching men’s teams has remained just about fixed at a measly
2–3% since 1972 (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014). This is a prime example of
how gender bias has been institutionalized in sport leadership. Women were
leaders of the majority of women’s amateur sports programs before 1972
because most of these programs were in all-women’s leagues. The leagues
received less commercialization and funding, and were not completely
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 35

included in the commercialized institution of sport as we know it. However,

once Title IX was introduced and sport organizations were forced to include
women into the male-dominated institution of sport through funding and
access, men also began to take over the leadership roles that women held
for years. The more women’s sports became a part of the normative system
of the institution of sport, the more leadership positions were normalized
by the belief that men should occupy them. This is why today, in American
amateur sports, men hold the majority of leadership positions. That is, the
more normalized a sport institution becomes, the more it will relegate itself
to the systematic and normalized gender bias in leadership that has been
perpetuated for years.
A similar trend is apparent when considering international sport. In 2016,
90 committee members made up the International Olympic Committee
(IOC), the governing body of the Olympic movement. Of those 90 mem-
bers, only 22 (24.4%) were female (Lapchick, Davison, Grant, & Quirarte,
2016). Additionally, of the 15 executive board members, only four were
women. This trend continues within the international federations. In 2016
women held 117 (14.5%) of the 805 leadership roles for international fed-
erations, 101 (14%) for summer sports and 16 (19.3%) for winter sports
(Lapchick et. al., 2016). Further, the gender composition of coaches at the
Olympic level follows a similar pattern. For example, the 2012 London
Olympic Games hosted a total of 3,225 accredited Olympic coaches. Of that
3,225, only 358 (11%) were female (ICCE, 2014). South America had the
lowest proportion of female Olympic coaches (2%), while the United States
represented the highest proportion (16%) (ICCE, 2014). Examining inter-
national women’s leagues, we see comparable institutionalized bias devel-
oped in the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA). The WTA was founded
and lead in its early years by all women, as stated on the WTA website:

In September 1970, the birth of women’s professional tennis was

launched when nine players signed $1 contracts with World Tennis pub-
lisher Gladys Heldman to compete in a new women’s tour, the Virginia
Slims Series. The Original 9, as they were called, included Billie Jean
King, Rosie Casals, Nancy Richey, Kerry Melville, Peaches Bartkowicz,
Kristy Pigeon, Judy Dalton, Valerie Ziegenfuss and Julie Heldman.
(WTA, 2016)

Now, men routinely dominate the WTA leadership. Currently, three of the
top four WTA leadership positions are held by men (i.e., Chief Executive
Officer, Steve Simon; President, Micky Lawler; Executive Vice President,
Laurence Applebaum; and Chief Operating Officer, Matthew Cenedella).
Again, signifying that once the sport moves toward institutionalization
as part of the normative sport system, gender bias in leadership begins to
take place. Netball, which is rarely competitively played by men, has an
36 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

International Netball Federation Board of Directors that is entirely female.

While the International Cricket Council, which is much more commercial-
ized and played by both women and men, has the vast majority of its leader-
ship positions held by men. The more women’s sports become a part of the
commercialized, widely followed and accepted institution of sport, the more
men become normalized as leaders and the less women leaders we see.

Institutionalized barriers
In order to examine the different ways in which male leadership in sport
organizations has been institutionalized, we will detail several different
frameworks for the institutionalization process. We will discuss the various
conceptual frameworks that have been developed in order to either examine
or attempt to explain how underrepresentation of women in leadership in
sport has become institutionalized. Specifically, we will briefly discuss the
following concepts: the glass wall, hegemonic masculinity, capital, role con-
gruity and the relevance of each of these concepts to the institutionalized
bias of women as leaders in sport.

The glass wall

The term ‘glass wall’ was introduced to the workplace literature in 1999 by
Miller, Kerr, and Reid, highlighting the horizontal rather than vertical bar-
riers to women progressing into certain leadership roles. Although sparse,
there are a few studies that have examined the glass wall phenomenon as an
institutionalized barrier in sport. The glass wall is often used as a metaphor
for institutionalized barriers to women in men’s sport, whereas the much
more familiar term ‘the glass ceiling’ refers to the lack of access women
have to moving up the organizational hierarchy to leadership positions and
was originally mentioned in the Wall Street Journal in 1986 (Weyer, 2007).
Specifically, the glass wall as described in sport management has thus far
referred to the lack of access women have to working in men’s sports. To
our knowledge, Walker and Bopp first applied this term in the sport man-
agement literature in their research published in 2011. This is problematic
because many of the highest paying and most visible leadership position in
sports, are in men’s sports. Also, we would assume at least half of women
leadership opportunities would be lost by not having access to men’s sports.
Walker, Bopp, and Sagas (2011) examined gender bias toward women in
the hiring process for a men’s college basketball coach. In-basket scenarios
were used in a quasi-experimental study in which the variables of hiring
recommendation, capability, and job-fit were assessed for potential can-
didates of both genders. Participants were given a job description from a
university with a pseudonym. They were then given the resume of a quali-
fied male candidate, qualified female candidate, or an overqualified female
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 37

candidate. As their names suggest, the qualified male candidate and the
qualified female candidate both had identical qualifications. The overquali-
fied female candidate qualifications were significantly better than both the
qualified male candidate and the qualified female candidate. Finally, par-
ticipants were instructed to rate the candidate based upon capability and
job-fit, and to give a hiring recommendation. Results suggest that although
women were scored relatively equal to men on capability and job-fit to
coach men’s college basketball, women were rated significantly lower than
men on the variable of hiring recommendation (Walker et al., 2011). This
result suggests that although participants deem women just as qualified
as men, participants were less likely to recommend hiring females, solely
because the candidate was a woman. This particular example shows how
this institutionalized barrier, the glass wall, perpetuates itself at the macro
level (i.e., society).
To better understand whether the institutionalization of the glass wall
manifests itself at the meso level (i.e., organization), Walker and Bopp (2011)
examined the perceptions of women who have worked as coaches in men’s
sports. Results provide evidence that gendered opportunities, male-exclusive
social networks, and pressures to over-compensate for being female were
strongly influential on the intentions of women to pursue leadership roles
in men’s sports (Walker & Bopp, 2011). It was broadly echoed that much
would have to change at the organizational level to break down the barriers
to women as leaders in men’s sports. Particularly, sexist attitudes toward
women in sport would have to be addressed, transparency in hiring deci-
sions become the norm, and organizational support for the inclusion of
women in the hiring process for positions in men’s sports. The next section
will highlight the sexist and hyper-masculine culture of men’s sports, which
supports the glass wall phenomenon.
To support previous work examining the institutionalization of the glass
wall acting as a barrier to women as leaders in sport, Walker and Sartore-
Baldwin (2013) examined this phenomenon of women working in men’s
sports through qualitative interviews with men. By talking with men who
have coached with women in men’s sports, they sought the perspective of
men who are deeply entrenched in the institution of men’s sports. Their
results suggest that men’s college basketball in particular and men’s sports
generally speaking are “hyper-masculine, gender exclusive, and resistant to
change” (p. 308). Further, this study suggests that change may come from the
core stakeholders, which include both men and women in sport leadership
positions. The findings are particularly enlightening for understanding the
glass wall phenomenon in sport because they suggested that change would
come when leaders working in the trenches of sport, which are mostly men,
consider women as viable candidates for leadership roles in men’s sports.
In essence, male leaders in men’s sports suggest that their fellow male sport
leaders become more inclusive and accepting of qualified women as leaders
38 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

in sport. It is also important to note that, given so much of the research

takes place in the coaching context, much more research needs to take place
examining the glass wall phenomenon at the professional, administrative,
and staff level of sport organizations.

Homologous reproduction
Numerous investigations dedicated to examining the decline of female
head coaches have employed the homologous reproduction framework
(Darvin & Sagas, 2016; Regan & Cunningham, 2012; Whisenant, 2008;
Whisenant & Mullane, 2007). In their study examining the prevalence of
homologous reproduction, defined as the idea that those in charge of hiring
are more prone to hire those who are “similar” to themselves, Regan and
Cunningham (2012) found that most athletics directors were men. By look-
ing at the association between gender of the athletics director and gender
of the head coaches of women’s basketball, softball, and volleyball, results
indicated that the gender of the athletics director was associated with the
gender of the women’s basketball and softball head coaches. Further, there
were statistically significant associations between the gender of the athletics
director and having all of the three coaches being the same gender as the
athletics director. Similar examinations have been conducted at the inter-
scholastic level. In a study conducted by Whisenant (2008), it was deter-
mined that homologous reproduction was prevalent within girls’ basketball
and softball. More specifically, under a male athletic director, male coaches
were represented at a higher rate (65.1%) than female coaches for girls’
basketball. Under a female athletic director for that same sport, it was deter-
mined that female head coaches were represented at a higher rate (54.1%).
This same trend was found within the sport of softball. When the athletic
director was female, female head coaches were represented at a higher rate
(67.3%), while under a male athletic director, male head coaches were rep-
resented at a higher rate (57.2%) than were females. Beyond coaching, the
homologous reproduction framework has been applied to hiring practices
within athletic departments. Whisenant and Mullane (2007) examined
whether the athletic director’s gender influenced the gender composition of
the sports information directors, finding that athletic directors did engage in
homologous reproduction practices.
While administrative and head coach hiring practices often perpetuate
male dominance within sport organizations, the same has not been found
when considering head coaches and their staff hiring practices. Darvin and
Sagas (2016) examined head coach gender and the subsequent gender com-
position of their staff members for four NCAA sports (women’s basketball,
women’s soccer, softball, and volleyball) across all three divisions. Results
indicated that while female head coaches for these sports were more likely
to hire female assistant coaches, male head coaches were not reproducing
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 39

themselves as frequently. Although these results suggest a positive trend for

females in coaching and run counter to other studies within the homolo-
gous reproduction framework, these higher percentages of female assistant
coaches for women’s teams have not, to this point, impacted the overall
number of women in head coaching roles, as that percentage has remained
relatively steady over the past ten years (43%) (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014).
Overall these studies suggest that male leaders hire other men for leader-
ship positions. Again, enabling the institution of sport that prefers men as
leaders as opposed to women. This supports the work of Anderson (2009)
which sought to examine how the stakeholders, hiring managers, and lead-
ing decision-makers in sport continue patterns of male representation in
sport management positions at the top of the organizational hierarchy. It
was emphasized that, “they [those in charge of hiring] would seek similar
qualities in people they hire – appointing clones to reproduce the masculin-
ized nature of their sport” (Anderson, 2009, p. 7). The best person for the
job may indeed be the person that least threatens the current structure in
the sport management setting (Anderson, 2009). As such, men as leader
becomes institutionalized.

Human capital and social capital

Numerous scholars have lauded the importance of human capital and its
relationship with career development (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004). Spe-
cifically, Sagas and Cunningham (2004) examined differences in human
capital and social capital between males and females in sport. Athletic
administrators completed a questionnaire to determine if human capital
and/or social capital served as a determinant in promotions in sport man-
agement. Results indicated that social capital (but not human capital) did
have a greater impact for men than women. Further, they posited, “recent
researchers have also noted a form of discrimination in managerial advance-
ment in that women often receive differential returns for their investments”
(Sagas & Cunningham, 2004, p. 414). Such differential returns may be a
byproduct of the proverbial glass ceiling that can occur for women in the
sport management workplace setting (Galloway, 2012). The glass ceiling
has been described as “a metaphor for examining gender disparities between
men and women in the workplace … Such disparities are not explained by
job-related characteristics of the employee, but by gender differences” (Gal-
loway, 2012, p. 53). Despite past work experience and accrued knowledge
(i.e., varying forms of human capital and social capital), the female sport
management employee may still face barriers to employment at the sen-
ior leadership level. The female sport management employee is therefore
stunted by the aforementioned glass ceiling (Galloway, 2012). Specifically,
the glass ceiling serves as a metaphor for the lack of access women have to
leadership positions in sports, generally speaking. As opposed to the before
40 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

mentioned glass wall, which usually refers to women’s lack of access to

leadership positions in men’s sports.

Role congruity theory

Another lens that may be helpful in examining the institutionalized bias
against women in leadership is through role congruity theory. Eagly and
Karau (2002) developed a theory to explain prejudice against female lead-
ers in order to explain why females struggle with attaining and maintain-
ing leadership roles. It is argued that people have dissimilar ideas of male
and female leaders. Specifically, “prejudice can arise when perceivers judge
women as actual or potential occupants of leader roles because of inconsist-
ency between the predominantly communal qualities that perceivers associ-
ate with women and the predominantly agentic qualities they believe are
required to succeed as a leader” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p. 575). Conse-
quences of such inconsistencies are threefold: (1) more favorable attitudes
toward male leaders in comparison to female leaders, (2) more difficulty
for women to advance to leadership positions, and (3) more difficulty for
women to maintain their leadership positions if and when they attain them
(Eagly & Karau, 2002). Such difficulty in maintaining leadership positions
for women aligns with the glass cliff—the idea that women may be pro-
moted to leadership positions, but those positions may inherently involve a
higher level of risk and resultant failure for women (Ryan & Haslan, 2005).
Acknowledging that stereotypes may exist about the qualities an athletic
director should embody, Burton, Barr, Fink, and Bruening (2009) studied
gender typing of sport management administrators’ managerial sub roles.
It was found that when compared to the positions of life skills coordina-
tor and compliance coordinator, the “masculine sub roles (i.e., allocating
resources, delegating, managing conflict, strategic decision making, and
motivating and inspiring) were considered significantly more important” for
the athletic director position (Burton et al., 2009, p. 423). Although women
can possess such characteristics, they are not perceived to be capable of con-
sistently exemplifying these skills. When they do engage in such behaviors,
they are considered incongruent with how a woman should act. Women
are not perceived as successful as their male counterparts even though they
may engage in the same behaviors and may therefore struggle with retain-
ing their leadership roles (Burton et al., 2009). In another study similarly
examining perceptions of gender in different types of management posi-
tions in intercollegiate athletics, the most salient finding from their study
was that female candidates “were evaluated as significantly less likely to be
offered the athletic director position when compared with the male candi-
date” (Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011, p. 36). Discussing their
results through the lens of role congruity theory, it was argued that females
were less likely to be offered the athletic director position because female
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 41

traits (e.g., helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle) were deemed to be

incongruent with agentic characteristics more typically used to describe suc-
cessful male leaders (Burton et al., 2011). We argue this is a demonstration
of the continued institutionalized gender bias of leadership positions in the
sport management setting. These characteristics associated with each gender
are congruent with the institutionalized belief of what a leader looks like in
a way that disenfranchises women to lesser leadership roles, and positions
men as the norm for leadership.
When describing why such institutionalization persists, Dufur (2006)
bemoaned, “since sport symbols are linked so intimately with ­masculinity,
women’s display of those symbols does not mesh well with the dominant
femininity that defines women as physically attractive, petite, demure,
weak, and supportive rather than aggressive” (p. 587). This quote circles
back to the norms, values, and beliefs that enable institutionalized bias. As
such, women face gender-based barriers to employment in sport manage-
ment settings (Dufur, 2006). Martin (2003) emphasized that men need not
overtly or knowingly engage in gendered practice. Rather, by continuing as
“the way it’s always been,” social closure and oppression continues to exist
in ways that are “consistent with institutionalized norms and stereotypes of
masculinity” (Martin, 2003, p. 361). Similarly, Shaw and Hoeber (2003)
suggest varying forms of discourse influence the differing roles found in
sport organizations. Their findings indicate that senior-level management
roles were most commonly linked to men and that discourses of ­masculinity
were prominent, while women and more feminine discourse were linked
to undervalued roles in sport organizations. We now harken back to Bur-
ton’s (2015) work imploring scholars to “situate sport as a gendered space”
(p. 156). In doing so, many scholars have examined the underrepresenta-
tion of females in leadership roles in sport management. Despite a better
understanding for why such institutionalized underrepresentation exists,
“women continue to face challenges and obstacles when seeking leadership
positions in sport organizations” (Burton, 2015, p. 163). By detailing these
theoretical concepts, we hope to have further illustrated the institutionaliza-
tion process of men in leadership and the bias women face in sport.

Discrimination
According to Cunningham (2008), the lack of women present in sport
organizations is influenced by gender discrimination. Additionally, research
has determined that both access and treatment discrimination, specifically,
influence the lack of women in leadership positions of sport organizations
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2007). Within sport organizations, access dis-
crimination suggests that the “old boys network,” or exclusive networks
in general, prevent certain individuals from entering the field (Walker &
Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Similarly, sex discrimination is one of the most
42 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

common forms of discrimination seen in male-dominated professions (i.e.,

sports) (Knoppers, 1987). Although there may be a lack of sport research
and given that it is quite difficult to obtain direct evidence of gender dis-
crimination, the sparse representation of women as leaders for male teams
(i.e., head coach, front office), while men are well represented as leaders for
female teams, raises suspicions about the biased culture of sport organi-
zations. Beyond the institutionalization of gender bias, institutionalized
discrimination may be influencing the lack of women as leaders in sport.
Therefore, scholars turn to methods of collecting indirect evidence of gen-
der discrimination. Anderson and Gill (1983) found indirect evidence of
gender-differentiating hiring standards when researching men who coached
females and women who coached females. They determined that men who
coached females had fewer years of collegiate athletic experience and had
also received fewer collegiate athletic awards. Examining the practices of
unfavorable evaluations of female leaders may be a fruitful setting for future
inquiry into concepts of discrimination.

Conclusion: institutional change—women breaking

institutionalized barriers in sports
Thus far, in this chapter we have focused the majority of the discussion on
how the underrepresentation of women in sport leadership positions has
manifest into an institutional norm, even in women’s sports. However,
we do believe there is a shift taking place in sports. Sport organizations
are beginning to realize the benefits of diversity and inclusion. In a recent
espnW project named Open Look, Drs. Nefertiti Walker and Nicole Melton
have suggested that inclusive sport organizations boast a workplace where
employees are not only more satisfied, less likely to leave, and bring their
authentic self and ideas to the table, but are also more successful. Sport
organizations, specifically college athletic departments, are more successful
in objective measures such as team wins, as well as subjective measures eval-
uated by employees’ feeling of success (espnW 2014). Sport organizations
seek to identify and support leaders who can move them toward measures of
success. Therefore, knowing that women in leadership positions help accom-
plish this goal has changed the way sport operates. Recently, the National
Football League (NFL) has implemented a rule “that the league would now
require at least one woman be interviewed for any executive position open-
ings in the league office” (Belson, 2016, p. 1). Currently, the NFL does have
a few women in important league office positions, such as Dawn Hudson,
chief marketing officer; Anna Isaacson, vice president for social responsibil-
ity; and Lisa Friel, who runs investigations into player misconduct (Belson,
2016). Implementing this policy suggests the NFL values women voices, and
is demanding women be included in the process of leading their organiza-
tion. The NFL is the most popular and profitable sports league in the United
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 43

States, which suggests others, through mimetic pressures (i.e., copying the
policies of other organizations in order to fit in to the norms set by industry
leaders), may follow their lead of gender inclusion in leadership positions.
Over the years, the rate at which we see women serving in front office
leadership roles of men’s professional sports leagues has continued to show
promise for the future state of inclusion. For example, in 2013 women occu-
pied 21.7% of the senior executive level positions in Major League Base-
ball (Lapchick, 2013). Further, during the 2013 NBA season, women held
41.1% of the professional positions within the league office, and a historical
high of 18.5% of vice president positions (Lapchick, 2013). The NFL has
also experienced an increase in gender inclusion over the past few seasons.
In 2013, 20 women occupied roles at or above the vice president level in the
NBA, an increase from 17 women in 2011–2012 (Lapchick, 2013). Simi-
larly, the National Basketball League Players Association (NBAPA) Execu-
tive Director, Michele Roberts, is the first woman to hold such a powerful
and influential role in the NBA. Specifically, “she is the first woman to lead a
major sports union” (Chafkin, 2015, p.1). Michele Roberts being elected as
the Executive Director of the NBAPA speaks not only to the league’s move
toward a culture of gender inclusion, but also to the inclusive perceptions
of the individual athletes in the NBA. The old ideals of men not wanting to
be led by women are being challenged in some of the most masculine sport
environments, such as the NFL and NBA. Even in professional coaching,
women are breaking barriers as leaders. In 2014, Becky Hammon, of the
NBA’s San Antonio Spurs, became the first woman hired as a full-time coach
in any of the American men’s sport leagues. Similarly, in 2016, Kathryn
Smith was hired for the Buffalo Bills, an NFL team, as the first full-time
woman hired to a coaching staff in the NFL. In Europe the Ladies European
Tour is led by Chair Helena Alterby Nordstrom. In Australia, New Zea-
lander Raelene Castle was appointed as the first woman CEO to a Profes-
sional Rugby League Club—The Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs in 2013.
In Honk Kong, Chan Yuen-ting lead Eastern to the Hong Kong Premier
League championship were they won their first title in 21 years. Chan sug-
gested, “maybe I can be a good example. It depends on the culture of the
region. In Hong Kong, between men and women, there is no discrimination.
We are really fair. I am young and a woman and the club gave me a chance”
(Duerden, 2016, p. 1). These sport organizations and the women they hire
are opening doors for women in leadership.
Although most sport leagues and organizations have not implemented
specific policies to address the lack of gender diversity in leadership posi-
tions, there are still women breaking through institutional barriers. Overall,
the institutionalized gender bias of women in leadership positions has led to
the lack of access and opportunities for women in sports. However, times
are changing. Women are gaining access to leadership positions in profes-
sional and amateur sports. Norms and behaviors will begin to change and
44 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

interviewing female applicants will become commonplace. The myth that

men do not want to be lead by women is already being debunked by the suc-
cess of women leaders such as Becky Hammon, who in 2015 lead a group
of NBA rookies to the coveted NBA Summer League Championship. In
this particular example, male allies in team management recognized Becky
Hammon’s talent and were change agents for gender inclusion. Although
the norm in the NBA is to hire men, they saw the value in hiring the best
person for the job, regardless of gender. This decision results in an immedi-
ate return on their investment, by Hammon leading their team to the Sum-
mer League Championship. Similarly, as mentioned in the previous section,
Yuen-ting had a combination of male allies both in management and in sub-
ordinates, the players who followed her lead. However, she mentioned that
Hong Kong has a much more egalitarian culture, which would be conducive
to breaking down institutionalized bias. This combination of inclusive cul-
ture, coupled with male allies, produces an environment rich for women to
obtain fair access to leadership positions and success. Research, inclusive
policies, change agents, and male allies are all working to break down the
institutionalized barriers to women in sports. Future research should exam-
ine how to encourage cultural changes and also develop and empower male
allies, and explore other techniques for the de-institutionalization of barri-
ers to women in sport leadership.

References
Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology:
A Journal of Reviews, 21(5), 565–569.
Acosta, R. V. & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longi-
tudinal, thirty-one year update, 1977–2010. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn
College, Brooklyn, New York.
Anderson, D. F. & Gill, K. S. (1983) Occupational socialization patterns of men’s
and women’s interscholastic basketball coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6,
105–116.
Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of
sport. Sport Management Review, 12(1), 3–14.
Belson, K. (2016). N.F.L. will require interviews of women for league executive posi-
tions. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/sports/
football/nfl-women-rooney-rule-super-bowl.html?_r=0
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165.
Burton, L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). “Think athletic direc-
tor, think masculine?”: Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles
within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61(5–6), 416–426.
Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in
athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice
against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), 36–45.
Chafkin, M. (2015). Outside shooter. The Atlantic. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.
com/magazine/archive/2015/05/outside-shooter/389549/
 Institutionalized practices in sport leadership 45

Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organi-

zations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145.
Cunningham, G. B. & Sagas, M. (2007). Examining potential differences between
men and women in the impact of treatment discrimination. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37(12), 3010–3024.
Darvin, L. & Sagas, M. (2016). An examination of homologous reproduction in the
representation of assistant coaches of women’s teams: A 10-year update. Gender
Issues, 1–15.
Duerden, J. (2016). Chan Yuen-ting: The female coach who took a men’s team to
a national title. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/jun/14/
chan-yuen-ting-female-football-coach-hong-kong-eastern
Dufur, M. J. (2006). Gender and sport. In J. Saltzman Chafetz (ed.) Handbook of the
Sociology of Gender (pp. 583–599). New York: Springer.
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
espnW (2014) Open look: Project 1 data summary (Research Report No. 1). Decem-
ber. Bristol, CT: N. A. Walker & E. N. Melton.
Galloway, B. J. (2012). The glass ceiling: Examining the advancement of women in the
domain of athletic administration. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 5(1), 51–62.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2012). The Sage Handbook
of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage.
ICCE women in coaching (2014). Gender and coaching report card: London
2012 Olympics. Retrieved from www.icce.ws/_assets/files/news/IWG/Leanne_
NormanGender_Coaching_Report_Card.pdf
Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest 39(1), 9–22.
Lapchick, R. (2013). Racial and gender report card. Retrieved from http://nebula.
wsimg.com/728474de65f7d28b196a0fbb47c05a91?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D
8FB 782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Lapchick, R., Davison, E., Grant, C., & Quirarte, R. (2016). Gender report card:
2016 International sports report card on women in leadership roles. Retrieved
from https://nebula.wsimg.com/0e5c5c3e23367795e9ec9e5ec49fc9b2?AccessKey
Id=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “Saying and doing” gendering prac-
tices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3), 342–366.
Miller, W., Kerr, B. & Reid, M. (1999). A national study of gender-based occupa-
tional segregation in municipal bureaucracies: Persistence of glass walls? Public
Administration Review, 59(3), 218–230.
Regan, M. & Cunningham, G. (2012). Analysis of homologous reproduction in
community college athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Edu-
cation, 6(2), 161–172.
Ryan, M. & Haslan, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-
represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management,
16(2), 81–90.
Sagas, M. & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Does having “the right stuff” matter? Gen-
der differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic
administrators. Sex Roles, 50(5–6), 411–421.
Sartore, M. L. & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of
women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Quest, 59(2), 244–265.
46 Walker, Schaeperkoetter, and Darvin

Shaw, S. & Hoeber, L. (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, 347–375.
Theberge, N. (1985). Toward a feminist alternative to sport as a male pre-
serve. Quest, 37(2), 193–202.
Walker, N. A. & Bopp, T. (2011). The underrepresentation of women in the male
dominated sport workplace: Perspectives of female coaches. Journal of Workplace
Rights, 15(1), 47–64.
Walker, N. A., Bopp, T., & Sagas, M. (2011). Gender bias in the perception of
women as collegiate men’s basketball coaches. Journal for the Study of Sports and
Athletes in Education, 5(2), 157–176.
Walker, N. & Sartore-Baldwin, M. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institu-
tionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think?
Journal of Sport Management, 27, 303–315.
Weyer, B. (2007). Twenty years later: Explaining the persistence of the glass ceiling
for women leaders. Women in Management Review, 22(6), 482–496.
Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male dominance in interscholastic athletics:
A case of homologous reproduction… or not? Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 768–775.
Whisenant, W. A. & Mullane, S. P. (2007). Sport information directors and homolo-
gous reproduction. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
2(3), 252–263.
Women’s Tennis Association (2016). The WTA Story. Retrieved from www.
wtatennis.com/scontent/article/2951989/title/about-the-wta
Chapter 4

The impact of bias in sport

leadership
Heidi Grappendorf and Laura J. Burton

Introduction
Sport as a social institution has privileged heterosexual male power and
domination, which is evident in all spheres, including leadership (see Bur-
ton, 2015). In addition, leadership and notions of successful leadership are
consistently perceived as masculine and best embodied by men. As such,
women are perceived as lacking the necessary skills to lead, most notably
in the male-dominated institution of sport. When women seek access to
leadership positions in sport organizations, they face biased perceptions of
their ability to be successful leaders and this bias can be further damaging
as women must overcome these stereotypes when exercising leadership and/
or when holding leadership positions. They also face challenges for acting
outside of their stereotypical gender role once in leadership roles.
This chapter will focus on the potential stereotypes and biases that women
working in sport organizations may face. We will begin by introducing the
concepts of social role theory, move to a discussion of gender role stereo-
types and leadership stereotypes, and describe how women face a double
bind when aspiring to leadership positions and/or exercising leadership in
sport organizations. How stereotypes can be self-limiting to women and the
impacts of stereotype threat to women in sport leadership will also be high-
lighted. At the close of this chapter, we will offer potential solutions that
individuals working in sport organizations can consider to help minimize
the impact of stereotypes for women in sport leadership.

Sport as a social institution

Exploring sport as a social institution is important to understanding some
of the phenomena and theories related to bias examined in this chapter.
Social institution is defined as “a set of relations, values, norms, statuses,
roles, groups and establishments that are widely accepted and adopted by
the society within the scope of their basic needs and that regulate the social
structure” (Kaplan, Tekinay, & Ugurlu, 2013, p. 64). Sport can therefore be
considered a very prominent social institution in almost all societies.
48 Grappendorf and Burton

Sport has traditionally been a male-dominated domain where women’s

sports have been marginalized (Coakley, 2014; Schell & Rodriguez, 2000),
as sport was created by and for men, and continues to be controlled and
dominated by men in many ways (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014; Adriaanse,
2015). Considering it is widely accepted that men have been the dominant
majority in sport and reproduce themselves through mechanisms such as
networking, hiring, and promotion, it provides a challenging environment
for women to attain positions of power or move up the organizational
ladder (Whisenant, 2005). We need not look further than who holds lead-
ership positions in national and international governing boards, college ath-
letics, and professional leagues to find evidence of continued control and
dominance.
To help understand the continued control and dominance by men in
sport, it is important to examine the values that are held and continually
reinforced. In other words, particular values can be disseminated through
sport, as sport and sport organizations reproduce traditional gender roles
that reify male power and dominance (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008;
Frey & Eitzen, 1991; Shaw & Hoeber; 2003). Anderson (2009) and Fink
(2016) reinforce the point that sport is a powerful place where traditional
values regarding masculinity are celebrated and upheld, as well as serving
as a social institution organized to reinforce masculinity and reproduce
hegemonic masculinity (i.e., where men maintain and reproduce power over
women). Thus, sport has traditionally been utilized to serve as a medium for
celebrating the achievements of men and promoting the values of masculin-
ity, while marginalizing the status of women. As Frey and Eitzen (1991)
noted “sport has been as a result largely a ‘male preserve’ supported by
institutional practices of discrimination against women” (p. 516). Ulti-
mately because sport values masculinity and masculine traits (Anderson,
2009; Shaw, 2006), women are seen as aberrant employees, thereby creat-
ing a dynamic where women may face negative consequences as a result of
their presence in sport organizations, including in leadership positions (see
Burton, 2015 for a review).

Women and leadership in sport

As previously described in the Introduction and Chapter 2 of this book,
despite increased sport participation opportunities for girls and women, they
are underrepresented in sport leadership (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014; Adri-
aanse, 2015; Lapchick, 2014). Data of women in sport management and
leadership indicates that women’s representation has declined in some areas,
while making modest gains in others. For example, internationally, less than
1% of voters in FIFA’s Congress are women, while national soccer boards
have only 8% female representation (Dodd, 2015). On the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) there are only 22.6% female board members
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 49

(IOC, 2016). It is evident there is an underrepresentation of women in sport

management and leadership in a variety of sporting areas both nationally
and internationally.
To help understand the underrepresentation of women in sport leader-
ship, it is important to note that women working in sport organizations
continue to face an array of barriers not only when entering management,
but also when moving into leadership positions in those organizations (Bur-
ton, 2015). “The potential reasons for women’s under-representation, and
men’s overrepresentation, in influential positions in sport management can
be described as overwhelming” (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003, p. 348) and unfor-
tunately, 15 years after this statement was published, it is still the case for
women in sport leadership.

Gender stereotypes
To help explain what may be happening to women in sport leadership,
social role theory has been utilized. Social role theory proposes that there
are expectations regarding the roles that men and women occupy in society
(Wood & Eagly, 2012). These expectations effect both the roles society
perceives men and women should occupy (prescriptive roles) and the quali-
ties and behavioral tendencies stereotypically demonstrated by each gender
(descriptive roles). Within these socially constructed expectations women
are often described as holding communal attributes such as being affec-
tionate (emotive), helpful, and nurturing and are perceived as most appro-
priate for women to demonstrate (Wood & Eagly, 2012). Conversely, men
are often described as holding agentic attributes such as being aggressive,
dominant, and self-confident and are perceived as most appropriate for
men to demonstrate (Wood & Eagly, 2012). When individuals are per-
ceived as behaving contrary to these expectations, it can be perceived nega-
tively by other individuals and as a result they may experience a backlash
for not demonstrating perceived appropriate stereotypical gender roles
(Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Stereotypes have been defined as “the unconscious or conscious applica-
tion of (accurate or inaccurate) knowledge of a group in judging a member
of the group” (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994, p. 58). Gender role stereotyping
is forming specific expectations and assumptions regarding an individual’s
abilities and behavior on the basis of their gender roles (Hughes & Seta,
2003). These expectations and assumptions (e.g., stereotypes) are often
accepted based upon the cultural and societal beliefs or one’s own beliefs
about women and women’s roles in the workforce. Stereotypes are formed
based on observations about social roles and also through occupational
roles (Koenig & Eagly, 2014), such as woman as team mom and man as
coach, woman as a nurse and man as a doctor, or man as a CEO and woman
as an administrative assistant. Prescriptive gender role stereotypes indicate
50 Grappendorf and Burton

that women should occupy more communal roles and jobs, and men should
be in more agentic roles and jobs (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012).
Thus, gender stereotypes are derived from shared understandings of what
are considered expected and appropriate attributes and behaviors for men
and women (Wood & Eagly, 2012).
The implications of social role theory and gender stereotyping are
widespread, but particularly applicable to women in sport leadership. As
described by Brescoll (2016) “the most influential psychological theories of
gender and power have all emphasized the central role of gender stereotypes
in explaining the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
(p. 416). The role stereotypes of “women take care and men take charge”
(Hoyt & Burnette, 2013, p. 1307) affect how women are evaluated in lead-
ership positions and are both pervasive and resilient. Further, emerging
research by Cundiff and Vescio (2016) indicated that if individuals strongly
endorse gender stereotypes (e.g., women as nurturing and men as domi-
nant), they were less likely to attribute gender disparities in the workforce
(e.g., fewer women in sport leadership positions) to gender discrimination.
Conversely, those who did not strongly endorse gender stereotypes were
more likely to acknowledge that discrimination plays a role in why we see
gender disparities in the workforce (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). These find-
ings are concerning when considered in the context of sport, as women are
persistently underrepresented in leadership positions in sport organizations
and individuals who strongly endorse gender stereotypes will not recognize
that gender discrimination is contributing to the lack of women in leader-
ship and can hinder organizational policies which seek to minimize gender
discrimination (e.g., Title IX).

Leadership stereotypes
Historically, leadership has been depicted in primarily masculine terms,
and therefore many theories of leadership focus on stereotypically mascu-
line qualities (Eagly, 2007). Leaders are consistently classified as having the
characteristics of self-confidence, dominance and aggressiveness and these
characteristics have been regarded as more similar to men than to women
(Schein, 1973, 1979). Work by other scholars has noted that leaders are
perceived to have more agentic than communal traits and characteristics
(e.g., Powell & Butterfield, 1979). Additional research has supported the
view that occupations that require leadership behavior are characterized as
more masculine than feminine occupations (e.g., Shinar, 1975). This work
has been replicated over the past 40 years using multiple diverse groups of
people in the United States and internationally, and supports the perspec-
tive that leaders are consistently associated with men not women, and that
leaders are perceived to be more masculine (agentic) than feminine (com-
munal) (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Thus, if we continue
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 51

to identify leadership behavior with men and male characteristics, it will

continue to create an uphill battle for women seeking leadership positions.

Mismatch of gender stereotypes and leadership stereotypes

There are real implications for women seeking leadership positions in sport
when appropriate female behavior is framed as communal, but effective
leadership behavior is seen as agentic and, thus, in masculine terms. With
such a framing, a perceived lack of fit between gender role stereotypes of
women and stereotypes regarding the role of leader is created. There are
three predominant theories that describe the intersection of gender and
leader stereotypes: role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), status
incongruity theory (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012), and
the lack of fit model (Heilman, 2012). Each of these theories explains how
gender stereotypes of women are misaligned with stereotypes of effective
leadership.
The lack of fit model describes a perceived lack of fit between the traits
seen as typical for women and the traits required of successful leaders (Heil-
man, 2012). In other words, if women are traditionally viewed as being nur-
turing, kind, and sensitive and as having communal traits, Heilman noted
there will not be a ‘fit’ with what one thinks of a woman when considering
leadership. Related, role congruity theory describes the double bind women
face in leadership as women are perceived as lacking the necessary attrib-
utes of leadership (agentic traits) and are perceived as not qualified for such
positions. This framework specifically refers to the incongruity between ste-
reotypes of women and stereotypes of leadership, and if or when women
are in leadership, the potential negative consequences they face. Ultimately,
when women do demonstrate agentic or communal leadership behavior,
they are perceived as violating gender norms and are unfavorably evalu-
ated for doing so (Eagly & Karau, 2002). As an extension of the double
bind described in role congruity theory, work by Rudman and colleagues
(2012) explain that the nature of the backlash toward women in leadership
results from the defense of a gender hierarchy in leadership, where men are
expected to occupy positions of leadership and retain status as leaders. In
the end, the backlash occurs as leadership is not viewed as a place where
women belong as it is a domain reserved for men.

Women in sport leadership: mismatch

of leadership and gender stereotypes
The mismatch of effective leadership stereotypes and gender stereotypes
hinder women in sport leadership. A prototypical leader of a sport organi-
zation should demonstrate more masculine managerial behavior than femi-
nine managerial behavior (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009), which
52 Grappendorf and Burton

is consistent with work on leadership prototypicality (Koenig et al., 2011).

When evaluating leadership in intercollegiate athletics in the United States,
stereotypically masculine managerial roles, including allocating resources,
strategic decision-making, and punishing employees, are regarded as more
appropriate roles for an intercollegiate athletic director (i.e., leader) (Burton
et al., 2009). As noted previously, men hold the majority of athletic direc-
tor positions in the United States (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014) and there-
fore perceptions of leadership as masculine and requiring more masculine
managerial roles serves to disadvantage women regarding their fit with this
leadership role.
Another factor at play for women in sport leadership is the leadership
double bind described in role congruity theory. Using that framework,
women can be perceived as having the necessary skills to be successful in
sport leadership positions, but ultimately are not selected for such positions
potentially due to gender stereotyping of women (Burton, Grappendorf, &
Henderson, 2011). As noted in their findings, Burton and her colleagues
revealed that individuals working in athletic administration in the context
of US intercollegiate sport at the Division I level (the most competitive level
of intercollegiate sport) evaluated comparable male and female athletic
administrators as similar in their ability and their potential to be successful
as athletic directors. However, despite this perceived equal competence for
leadership, athletic administrators did not believe the female administrator
would be selected for the position of athletic director. Further, in another
study by Grappendorf and Lough (2006), female athletic directors in US
intercollegiate athletic departments perceived that gender bias and discrimi-
nation contributed toward the underrepresentation of women pursuing a
career such as an intercollegiate athletic director. In addition, 77% of female
athletic directors believed the perception that women cannot lead men was
a barrier to their overall career success (Grappendorf & Lough, 2006). Ulti-
mately, women in sport leadership can obtain the necessary skills, be com-
petent in their jobs, and yet still not be viewed as a viable candidate for a
leadership position, highlighting that the double bind still exists.
Another facet related to the mismatch of leadership and gender stereo-
types focuses on the discourse regarding leadership and selection for leader-
ship in sport organizations. In Norway, work by Hovden (2010) revealed
that discourses regarding the selection of leaders to sport governing bodies
supported gender stereotypical imagery of heroic and masculine leaders.
In other work, within a national sport organization in England, women
reported having to prove their ability to lead against their male counterparts
as a result of stereotypes of leadership as masculine. They were also subject
to more challenging interviews for leadership positions because those man-
agers of the organization conducting the interviews made gendered stereo-
typical assumptions that women would be less suited for those positions
(Shaw & Hoeber, 2003).
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 53

In an effort to counter stereotypes regarding their abilities to lead in

national sport organizations, women in leadership positions on national
sport governing boards felt pressure to avoid what they perceived to be
female gender stereotypical behavior and tried to adopt behaviors that were
more stereotypically masculine (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008). Further,
“paradoxically, this pressure to behave in or associate with gender-neutral
ways limited what women could do” (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008,
p. 408), evidencing the double bind women face within sport leadership
positions. Similar findings were reported when exploring the recruitment
and selection process of board members for Dutch national sport organiza-
tions. Women indicated that they faced a double bind in being selected as a
board member, stating that they had to be “like one of the men” (Claring-
bould & Knoppers, 2007, p. 501) with regard to work experience, but were
expected to not act like the men with regard to behavior, by being ambitious
or aggressive (i.e., agentic) (Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008). Ultimately,
gender role stereotyping can be a significant challenge for women seeking
to be hired and equitably treated and rewarded, as well as a major barrier
for companies and organizations wanting to hire, maintain, and promote
fairly. Given the preceding discussion it is not surprising that leadership can
be “psychologically burdensome for women and [stereotyping and bias] can
contribute to their underrepresentation” (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016, p. 388).
The impact of gender stereotypes on women in leadership has also been
evaluated with regard to the context within which women are selected for
leadership positions. An emerging line of inquiry has explored whether and
how stereotypes of leadership and gender may place women in precarious
leadership positions. This notion, termed the ‘glass cliff,’ describes how
women are more likely to be selected for leadership positions in organiza-
tions that are declining or have experienced a crisis (Ryan & Haslam, 2005).
The underlying mechanism used to explain this phenomenon is based on
stereotypes of leadership and gender stereotypes, as women are perceived
as non-prototypical leaders and therefore may be viewed as a different type
of leader to help navigate the failing organization out of trouble (Kulich,
Lorenzi-Cioldi, Iacoviello, Faniko, & Ryan, 2015). The glass cliff has not
been examined empirically in the field of sport management, but may provide
an interesting avenue to explore women’s experiences in sport leadership.
The impact of stereotype threat is another critical concern that needs to
be considered in the context of women’s experiences in sport leadership. In
the following section we describe the concept of stereotype threat and dis-
cuss how this threat impacts women in leadership.

Stereotype threat
Gender based stereotypes create disadvantages, and have real consequences
for women in leadership, including sport leadership (Hoyt & Murphy,
54 Grappendorf and Burton

2016). The concept of stereotype threat, first explored by Steele and Aron-
son (1995) in the context of racial stereotypes, is also applicable to gender
stereotypes in sport leadership. Stereotype threat is “the concrete, real-time
threat of being judged and treated poorly in settings where a negative stereo-
type about one’s group applies” (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, p. 385).
Stereotype threat is a complex process in which the type of threat experi-
enced by the individual depends on the source of the threat (who judges the
action—self, in-group, out-group) and on the target of the threat (who one’s
actions reflect upon) (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007).
The impacts or outcomes associated with stereotype threat are equally
complex, including declining performance and avoidance of situations in
which these stereotypes may manifest. Within the context of sport leader-
ship, the outcome of stereotype threat for women may include a decreased
motivation to take on leadership roles and/or decreased engagement in lead-
ership positions. Sport organizations may well contribute to female leaders
experiencing increased stereotype threat, as those threats are increased in
“organizations where women are scarce, in contexts where gender stereo-
types are made salient through the media or physical environments, or in
organizational cultures extolling the virtues of competition or innate bril-
liance for success” (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016, p. 390).

Addressing bias and stereotypes

We now turn the discussion to ways of addressing the impact of stereo-
types, stereotype threat and biases. Before we discuss specific steps, we will
introduce the concept of second-generation bias to understand how gender
stereotypes operate within organizations to impede women’s experiences in
attaining leadership positions and exercising leadership. Then we will dis-
cuss both individual and organizational-level steps that can be taken to help
mitigate the impact of gender stereotyping and stereotype threat on women
in sport leadership, and finally we highlight strategies to assist in reducing
stereotyping and stereotype threat at the individual level.

Second-generation bias
An understanding of why women continue to face barriers in accessing lead-
ership positions and exercising leadership in the workplace has shifted from
explicit gender discrimination to an understanding of more implicit and
subtle forms of gender bias, as we have described in this chapter. This subtle
form of gender bias impacting women is described as second-generation
bias, “the powerful but subtle and often invisible barriers for women that
arise from cultural assumptions, organizational structures, practices, and
patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men while putting women
at a disadvantage” (Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013, p. 60). In other words,
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 55

second-generation bias is deeply entrenched in organizations and practices

where masculine values are reflected, thus creating gendered stereotypes that
put women at a disadvantage. These subtle and invisible barriers described
by second-generation bias include the limited number of role models for
women aspiring to leadership positions and a lack of access to networks and
sponsors to help women as they seek to advance into positions of leader-
ship. Another challenge addressed in second-generation bias is the structure
of careers paths and work that appear to be gender neutral, but are actually
based on structures and practices that benefit men’s lives. This can include
expectations that it is easy to move to another position in a different state or
country to enhance your career. Finally, the notion of the double bind also
contributes to second-generation bias. As we have described earlier in the
chapter, this double bind manifests as women are not expected to possess
leadership skills and are therefore not seen as a ‘good’ fit for such positions,
and conversely women are disliked when they are in leadership positions or
demonstrate leadership behavior (Ibarra et al., 2013).

Recommendations to reduce second-generation bias

Based on the concepts of second-generation bias, we provide recommenda-
tions that can be implemented in sport organizations to help mitigate the
impact of this subtle form of bias. One of the first steps that can be taken is
to educate members of the organization regarding the components of second-
generation bias and how this bias impacts individuals in the organization.
This includes discussion of the concepts of gender-role stereotypes and lead-
ership stereotypes and how these stereotypes influence women’s experiences
in sport organizations, including how they are evaluated for leadership posi-
tions in those organizations. There are online evaluation tools available to
help individuals understand and examine their own gender biases (e.g., Pro-
ject Implicit). It is important to note that even with an understanding of gen-
der stereotypes and biases, recognition alone will not mitigate their influence
on individual behaviors or change organizational policies. Compelling new
research has discovered that in order to minimize the impacts of stereotypes it
might be more useful to not merely identify that individuals hold stereotypes,
but more importantly, organizations are “highlighting the pervasiveness of
individuals’ willingness to exert effort against their unconscious stereotypes”
(Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015, p. 354).
Naming gender bias and the double bind women face in leadership is
important at the organizational level, and organizations should provide
spaces and/or opportunities for women to come together to discuss and
interpret messages they receive in their organizations (e.g., evaluations,
feedback), as all messages should be evaluated through the lens of gender
stereotypes. By recognizing and naming biases and stereotypes, women can
gain “a more nuanced understanding of the subtle and pervasive effects of
56 Grappendorf and Burton

gender bias, how it may be playing out in their development as leaders, and
what they can do to counter it” (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011, p. 486). This
can also help women be less susceptible to the negative outcomes of these
challenges.
Other organizational-level changes that can be implemented to help
mitigate gender bias include changes to the hiring process. Gender blind
evaluation of resumes, by removing information that reveals the gender
of the applicant has increased the number of women interviewed for posi-
tions in other fields (Aslund & Skans, 2012; Krause, Rinne, Zimmermann,
2012). Further, there are training programs such as Situational Attribu-
tion Training (Steward, Latu, Kawakami, & Myers, 2010) that have
been developed to minimize racial bias during the interview process. This
type of training program may be adapted to minimize gender bias (Latu,
Mast, & Stewart, 2015).

Recommendations to reduce stereotype threat

There are ways in which the threat of stereotypes can be moderated to reduce
negative outcomes for women. These intervening factors can be established
at the organizational level and can also occur at the individual level. At the
individual level, women with high levels of leadership self-efficacy suffer
fewer negative consequences from stereotype threats. In addition, women
who hold the belief that characteristics are malleable, can change or adapt
over time, and have a growth mindset (Dweck, 1999), also appear to mini-
mize the consequences of stereotype threat. Interpersonal factors, beyond
individual differences among women, can have significant effects on wom-
en’s experiences of stereotype threat. Female role models, in particular,
can help protect women from negative threats to their leadership identity
(Simon & Hoyt, 2013).
At the organizational level, there are steps that can be taken to reduce
stereotype threat for women in sport leadership. The first, and one quite
relevant to the context of sport organizations, is the creation of identity-safe
environments that challenge the acceptance of negative stereotypes linked
to minority identities (e.g., race, gender, sexual identity) (Davies, Spencer &
Steele, 2005). Sport organizations that supported an organizational cul-
ture described as having community and cohesion, respect and inclusion,
and were success oriented, resulted in more positive outcomes for LGBT
employees and for the organizations overall (Cunningham, 2015). The
organizational culture described in Cunningham’s (2015) work would likely
also reduce stereotype threat for other minority identities. Another impor-
tant step that sport organizations can take to minimize stereotype threat is
to encourage entry-level female employees, and/or those without leadership
experience to take up leadership roles and foster a growth mindset in the
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 57

organization, which endorses employee growth, “by advocating the belief

that everyone can expand their intelligence and abilities can foster identity
safety and combat stereotype threat” (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016, p. 394).
There has been limited research to examine how stereotype threat con-
tributes to the lack of women in sport leadership. However, Sartore and
Cunningham (2007) provided a conceptual model to explain how the influ-
ence of gender stereotypes can be attributed to self-limiting behavior for
women in sport leadership. Newly emerging work on how stereotype threat
influences women in leadership, as detailed above, provides interesting new
avenues for research and support for programs to help minimize this threat
for women in sport leadership.
Ultimately, it is important to educate and empower women to recognize
the biases they face in their pursuit of leadership, and how to overcome
them as they aspire to leadership in sport organizations. As Ibarra, Ely, and
Kolb (2013) found, when women were empowered and had support, they
would take steps to off-set negative biases. Therefore it is important for
women to find support, build networks, and seek a mentor.
Additionally, Ibarra and colleagues (2013) noted that we must stop send-
ing messages to women that they are the problem and need ‘fixing’ and that
they must stop being ‘too nice,’ or ‘too sensitive’ or even ‘too aggressive’ or
‘too assertive.’ In other words, we cannot keep blaming women for being
who they are and penalizing them for whatever characteristic they dem-
onstrate. Women in leadership must stop being put into this bind and the
‘catch-22’ of leadership of no matter who they are or what they do, they are
penalized. Blaming women for systematic bias accomplishes nothing, except
to further impede them.
Providing opportunities through leadership development and training
that specifically help women to consider, describe, and anchor their lead-
ership purpose is critical. When women are able to firmly establish (i.e.,
anchor) their purpose(s) for leading, they are able to redirect their attention
toward shared goals and to consider who they need to be and what they
need to learn in order to achieve those goals. Women need to be encour-
aged to not define themselves relative to gender stereotypes, whether that
may manifest as a rejection of stereotypical masculine approaches to leader-
ship because they feel inauthentic to women, or by rejecting stereotypically
feminine leadership behaviors for fear that those behaviors convey incom-
petence, women in leadership can focus on behaving in ways that advance
the purposes upon which they stand (Ibarra et al., 2013).

Conclusion
It is clear that women face challenges when seeking leadership positions
within the sport realm. This chapter identified some of the major biases and
58 Grappendorf and Burton

stereotypes that women encounter, as well as some recommendations as to

how to address them. The problem of the underrepresentation of women in
sport leadership is a complex one. However, with knowledge of biases and
the impact stereotypes can have, steps can be taken to best support women
and alleviate the challenges that create their underrepresentation.

References
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longi-
tudinal study—thirty-seven-year update (1977–2014). Unpublished manuscript.
Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY. Retrieved from http.://webpages.charter.net/
womeninsport/
Adriaanse, J. (2015). Gender diversity in the governance of sport associations: The
Sydney Scoreboard Global Index of Participation. Journal of Business Ethics,
137(1), 149–160.
Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of
sport. Sport Management Review, 12(1), 3–14.
Aslund, O., & Skans, O. N. (2012). Do anonymous job application procedures level
the playing field? ILR Review, 65, 82–107.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. In
M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (eds.) The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Sym-
posium, vol. 7 (pp. 55–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brescoll, V. L. (2016). Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion
lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 415–428.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165.
Burton. L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). “Think athletic direc-
tor, think masculine?” Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles
within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 5–6, 416–426.
Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in
athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity theory to examine (potential) prej-
udice against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2007). Finding a “normal” woman: Selection
processes for board membership. Sex Roles, 56(7–8), 495–507.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2008). Doing and undoing gender in sport gov-
ernance. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 404–416.
Coakley, J. (2014) Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people
explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75(3–4), 126–138.
Cunningham, G. (2015). Creating and sustaining workplace cultures supportive of
LGBT employees in college athletics, Journal of Sport Management, 29, 426–442.
Davies, P., Spencer, S., & Steele, C. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moder-
ates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287.
Dodd, M. (2015). FIFA needs more women. November 19. Retrieved from www.
nytimes.com/2015/11/20/opinion/fifa-needs-more-women.html?_r=0
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 59

Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping?: How

awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 343–359.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Devel-
opment. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the
contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and
design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493.
Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport.
Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7.
Frey, J. H., & Eitzen, D. S. (1991). Sport and society, Annual Review of Sociology,
17, 503–522.
Grappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and
perspectives from female NCAA Division I athletic directors of both separate and
merged athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related Topics Journal,
2, 6–20.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, 32, 113–135.
Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders–prisoners of gender? The gendering of leader-
ship discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport
Policy, 2(2), 189–203.
Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations merging
implicit theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 39(10), 1306–1319.
Hoyt, C. L., & Murphy, S. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat,
women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 387–399.
Hughes, F. N., & Seta, C. E. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Children’s perceptions of future
compensatory behavior following violations of gender roles, Sex Roles, 49, 685–691.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard
Business Review, 91(9), 60–66.
International Olympic Committee. (2016). Women in the Olympic movement.
Retrieved from www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/
Women_in_Olympic_Movement.pdf
Kaplan, Y., Tekinay, D., & Ugurlu, A. (2013). Social status of sport: Sport as a social
event, phenomenon and institution. International Journal of Science Culture and
Sport, 1, 64–69.
Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2008). Gendered managerial discourses in sport
organizations: Multiplicity and complexity. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 93–103.
Koenig, A.M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereo-
type content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392.
Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader ste-
reotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.
60 Grappendorf and Burton

Krause, A., Rinne, U., & Zimmerman, K. F. (2012). Anonymous job applications in
Europe. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 1, 1–20.
Kulich, C., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Iacoviello, V., Faniko, K., & Ryan, M. K. (2015).
Signaling change during a crisis: Refining conditions for the glass cliff. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 96–103.
Lapchick, R. (2014). Race and Gender Report Cards. Retrieved from www.tidesport.
org/racialgenderreportcard.html
Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., & Stewart, T. L. (2015). Gender biases in (inter) action the
role of interviewers’ and applicants’ implicit and explicit stereotypes in predict-
ing women’s job interview outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4),
539–552.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or
androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 395–403.
Project Implicit. (nd). Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.
html
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incon-
gruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice
against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-
represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management,
16(2), 81–90.
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of
women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Quest, 59(2), 244–265.
Schein, V. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite man-
agement characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein, V. E. (1979). Examining an illusion. Human Relations, 32, 287–295.
Schell, L. A., & Rodriguez, S. (2000). Our sporting sisters: How male hegemony
stratifies women in sport. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 9(1),
15–35.
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats:
Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, con-
sequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2),
107–130.
Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of “Mr X”: Analyzing gendered social pro-
cesses in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 510–534.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a strong woman is a
bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment relations in sports
organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–375.
Shinar, E. H. (1975). Sexual stereotypes of occupations. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 7(1), 99–111.
Simon, S., & Hoyt, C. L. (2013). Exploring the effect of media images on women’s
leadership self-perceptions and aspirations. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela-
tions, 16, 232–245.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test per-
formance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(5), 797–811.
 The impact of bias in sport leadership 61

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image:
The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.
Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Kawakami, K., & Myers, A. C. (2010). Consider the situ-
ation: Reducing automatic stereotyping through situational attribution training.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 221–225.
Whisenant, W. (2005). Organizational justice and commitment in interscholastic
sports. Sport, Education and Society, 10(3), 343–357.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2012). Social role theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, &
E. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 458–478).
London: Sage.
Chapter 5

Intersectionality: the impact of

negotiating multiple identities
for women in sport leadership
E. Nicole Melton and Michael J. Bryant

Introduction
In many cases, people discuss diversity in terms of singular diversity dimen-
sions. Consider recent media stories about athletes who have publically dis-
closed their sexual orientation. Articles and news segments tend to focus
exclusively on the athlete’s sexual orientation, while devoting relatively little
attention to their racial identity or other relevant social identities that might
influence their opportunities or experiences in sport. Such a narrow empha-
sis not only misrepresents a person’s identity, but also fails to acknowledge
how multiple diverse identities operate simultaneously.
To shed light on the impact and importance of recognizing people’s multi-
ple identities, WNBA player Layshia Clarendon recently shared her story of
living at the center of various intersections. When discussing her reaction to
the prejudice and discrimination she encounters, Clarendon (2016)—who
identifies as black, gay, female, non-cisgender, and Christian—writes:

What’s most upsetting is not simply being misidentified … What’s upset-

ting is that it is a constant reminder that binaries rule our society. There
is no space for the in-between. You have to be either male or female, gay
or straight. When you don’t fit those rigid molds, you are confronted
everywhere you go that there is no space for you. The larger issue at
play here is our limited view on gender, our antiquated definition of
what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. We don’t
often think critically about how patriarchy, sexism, and racism inter-
sect. (emphasis added)

Clarendon’s comments highlight how when people do not neatly fit into a
box based on a singular diversity dimension, they are treated differently, or
not accepted, in many sport spaces.
Adopting a more critical approach, and recognizing how marginalized
identities intersect, may help explain why Serena Williams has not always
been loved or enthusiastically embraced by those within the traditionally
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 63

white, upper-class world of tennis. Crouch (2014), for instance, suggests

the “dueling–isms of American prejudice” manifest each time viewers (pre-
dominantly males) feel compelled to comment on Williams’ body or style
of play, which does not mesh with societal expectations for how a (white)
female athlete should look and act. He notes how some concluded her
“toned arms made her look more like a male boxer or linebacker than like
a women’s tennis player,” while others criticized her tennis outfits as being
“flashy, unserious, and self-absorbed” (Crouch, 2014, p. 2). Meanwhile,
viewers are less critical of Maria Sharapova’s mini-dresses and admired
Roger Federer when he wore a familiar suave white blazer at Wimbledon in
2016 (Roger Federer is getting serious at Wimbledon, 2016). Commenta-
tors even suggested Federer was sending a message to competitors to “Look
at me (Federer), I’m the seven-time champion,” I’m confident, and ready to
win. And, while it is okay for men to exude confidence, or anger challeng-
ing the chair umpire (something John McEnroe was beloved for doing),
female athletes are constantly reminded that they are guests in the white,
male-dominated sport institution, and are expected to behave in ways that
conform to its hegemonic traditions and ideals.
The tendency to concentrate on one diversity dimension, or assume that
those who share a specific diversity dimension (e.g., African American)
experience similar challenges and opportunities, is also evident in discus-
sions related to women in sport leadership. In a recent espnW article, for
example, journalist Jim Caple (2015) investigated the possibility of Major
League Baseball (MLB) hiring its first female general manager (GM). To
understand how this barrier might be broken, he decided to examine the
knowledge, skills, and abilities of Kim Ng. Ng is the current senior vice
president of baseball operations for the MLB, previously served as assistant
general manager for both the New York Yankees and Los Angles Dodgers,
and is the highest ranking woman in baseball.
After conducting interviews with Ng and several people within her per-
sonal and professional network, he identified core reasons she might be the
first female GM in the MLB. According to the article, Ng’s keys to suc-
cess include her (a) expertise in baseball analytics, (b) personal demeanor,
(c) tenacious work ethic, (d) willingness to sacrifice work–life balance, (e)
competitive nature, (f) exceptional communication and negotiation skills,
(g) deep understanding of the game, (h) business acumen, (i) athletic back-
ground, and (j) ability to be “one of the guys.” In fact, Joe Torre (MLB’s
executive vice president for baseball operations) insists Ng has all the quali-
fications needed to be a GM, and Dan Evans (former White Sox and Dodg-
ers general manager) states, “there is no one in the game who could question
her ability to be that person” (Caple, 2015).
While the majority of the article highlights Ng’s abilities and qualifica-
tions, it did provide three reasons a team has not offered her a GM position.
Jim Boden (ESPN analyst and former Cincinnati Reds GM), for instance,
64 Melton and Bryant

was confident gender was not a factor, but thinks Ng might have a slight
weakness in scouting talent—even though the article frequently referenced
her proficiency in scouting analytics. Dan Evans, on the other hand, simply
felt poor timing or lack of fit may hinder Ng’s opportunities. While both
men quickly dismissed the idea of a gender bias, it is difficult to follow the fit
argument, especially since Ng seems to display all the traits men tradition-
ally value. The article even suggested the launching point of her career came
a few weeks into her first job with the MLB. During a chance golf outing,
she was able to gain the respect of her male colleagues after they witnessed
her competitive drive on the course, and her desire to play from the same
tees as the men.
There is no question people need to celebrate and share Kim Ng’s story
of immense success. However, Caple framed his article in a way that raises
a number of concerns. First, while Ng’s story provides one example of how
a woman with multiple identities (e.g., woman, Asian-American) traversed
the gendered sport landscape, it certainly does not reflect the challenges and
opportunities all women face.
Second, Caple primarily draws from interviews with Ng’s male col-
leagues and mentors to tell her story. As a result, these male voices shape
the narrative and the reader learns more about their opinions and val-
ues than Ng’s perspectives. For instance, Ng’s baseball career began when
she accepted an unpaid internship position with the Chicago White Sox.
Those interviewed suggest Ng’s willingness to forgo more lucrative job
prospects in order to break into the industry demonstrates her dedication,
passion for the game, and motivation to succeed. While this may be true,
the article neglects to consider how her family’s support—both emotional
and financial—allowed her to pursue this opportunity. Similarly, her col-
leagues never mention her ethnic identity. However, Ng described how her
parents, who are of Chinese decent, instilled the importance of a strong
work ethic and expected an unwavering commitment to excellence (Caple,
2015). Thus, while Ng acknowledges the role her culture and upbringing
played in her career, the article tends to downplay factors associated with
her social class and ethnicity.
Finally, the narratives Caple emphasized or deemphasized maintain the
status quo and reinforce the gendered assumption that women must act like
men in order to succeed in sport. For example, he assured readers Ng is a
real sports fan by describing the sports paraphilia in her office, noted how
she gained respect by playing golf from the men’s (gendered language used
in article) tees, and made several references to how she fits in with the guys.
What’s more infuriating—though Caple spends the majority of the article
documenting Ng’s notable qualifications—he remains silent when two for-
mer MLB executives assert gender bias has no impact on hiring decisions.
At this point, he had objective evidence that she is undoubtedly qualified for
the position, had the support of Joe Torre, and was writing for a socially
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 65

conscious, espnW audience. He had all the tools to take a stand. Yet when
it was his moment to hit a homerun for equality, he failed to even step up
to the plate.
The Kim Ng article demonstrates how those in the sports media typically
represent individuals with multiple identities. They focus on one diversity
dimension (e.g., Ng’s identity as a woman), and allow dominant male dis-
courses to frame the narrative. As a result, we do not learn the person’s
unique perspectives because her voice remains in the background of the story
(unless the article was written by the women with multiple identities, see
Clarendon, 2016). Unfortunately, sport management scholars provide few
insights into the experiences of people with multiple identities. Most of the
extant research focuses on institutional structures and organizational prac-
tices that limit women’s leadership potential (see Burton, 2015). Less work,
however, addresses the “emotional and cognitive processes of women as they
encounter disparate acceptance and treatment within the male-dominated
sport domain” (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007, p. 245)—particularly from
the perspective of women with multiple marginalized identities.
The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to further our understanding of
how the intersection of multiple marginalized social identities impacts wom-
en’s experiences and opportunities in sport. To do so, we will review the ten-
ets of intersectionality theory and then discuss outcomes related to multiple
marginalized identities, such as minority stress and identity management
techniques. Next, we will present sport industry perspectives from women
with diverse identities. Finally, we will suggest ways to create more welcom-
ing and supportive sport spaces for women with intersecting identities.

Intersectionality
Much of the literature within sport and general management focuses on
the unique effects of singular diversity dimensions. For instance, researchers
might examine how race, gender, and sexual orientation affect people’s sal-
ary or opportunities for professional development within a sport organiza-
tion. Although this approach is appropriate and helpful in creating baseline
data, people do not have a single identity, and it is difficult if not impossible
to compartmentalize the various aspects of their identity. As such, research
designs must use methods that capture the unique, lived experiences of peo-
ple who have multiple identities (e.g., multiple diversity dimensions) that
operate simultaneously.
Recognizing this need, Crenshaw (1991) developed the idea of intersec-
tionality. This concept informed her original work examining race and gen-
der, and highlighted the unique inequities black women encounter. Using
an intersectionality approach, researchers can uncover multiple forms
of prejudice women of color face due to structural and systematic pres-
sures. More recent applications of intersectionality research also investigate
66 Melton and Bryant

issues related to sexual orientation (Walker & Melton, 2015), social class
(McDowell & Cunningham, 2009), and ability (Norman, 2016). As LaVoi
(2016) notes, “intersectionality forwards understanding that one’s identity
(e.g., race, gender, sexuality, age, class, ability, and ethnicity) interacts on
multiple, interdependent, and often simultaneous levels with racism, sexism,
homophobia, and belief-based bigotry, which contributes to ‘intersecting’
forms of systemic injustice, oppression, and social inequality” (p. 16). It
is also important to note, intersectionality (or intersectionality theory) is a
critical theory. Scholars using this approach do not attempt to quantify the
additive effects of various identities; instead, they focus on the qualitative
effects of multiple points of difference.
To further enhance understanding of the challenges women with multi-
ple identities face within institutions, Crenshaw (1991) also outlines three
constructs within intersectionality theory. They include (a) representational
intersectionality, (b) political intersectionality, and (c) structural intersection-
ality. Representational intersectionality refers to the presence of stereotypes
in cultural presentations, such as sports media or film that affects individu-
als with multiple identities. The visible overrepresentation of white men in
leadership positions, for instance, perpetuates the notion that these individu-
als possess superior leadership abilities compared to their counterparts. As
mentioned in the opening example, media messages praising the masculine
traits of successful women in sport may also reinforce leadership stereo-
types. Carter-Francique and Olushola (2016), on the other hand, note how
increased representations of black female coaches in basketball counters the
notion that only men, or white women, can hold the head coach position.
Structural intersectionality, refers to how hierarchical power structures
and people’s social categorizations intersect, and negatively influence the
treatment and experiences of people with marginalized identities. Much of
the extant sport management research draws from the social categoriza-
tion framework (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987) to explain why white, heterosexual men maintain their
power within sport organizations. According to this framework, people
(a) identify themselves in terms of social groups, (b) subconsciously make
social comparisons, and (c) generally form more positive attitudes toward,
and prefer to interact with, people similar to self (i.e., intergroup bias, see
Ferguson & Porter, 2013). Illustrative of these dynamics, members of the
privileged social group in sport (white, heterosexual men) continue to hire
and promote people who look and act like them.
Finally, political intersectionality refers to when competing political
agendas among social groups discourage individuals with multiple social
identities from expressing their views. For instance, an African American
executive may be hesitant to advocate for pro-LGBT policies for fear she
might offend her other social groups. Recent actions by the WNBA allude to
the pressure athletes face. For example, during the 2014 season, the WNBA
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 67

created a marketing campaign directly targeting the LGBT community. As

part of the Pride campaign, players were asked to wear warm-up shirts pic-
turing a rainbow basketball on their team’s Pride night. However, members
of the Indian Fever were told not to wear the shirts because certain players,
who held leadership roles, refused to support the campaign (Clarendon,
2016). Political pressure also played a role in 2016, when WNBA play-
ers (70% of whom are African American) were fined for wearing ‘Black
Lives Matter’ t-shirts (the fines were later rescinded). The league-imposed
fines were surprising for two reasons. First, NBA players were not fined
for similar actions in 2014. Second, the league had players wear ‘Orlando
Strong’ shirts after 49 people were murdered in a mass shooting at the Pulse
night club in Orlando, Florida, USA. This league-endorsed show of solidar-
ity took place a mere 10 days before players wore ‘Black Lives Matter’ shirts
to raise awareness around racial injustice (Gibbs, 2016).
Exposure to inaccurate cultural representations, encountering organiza-
tional structures and systems that limit one’s experiences and opportuni-
ties, and feeling conflicting pressures from different social groups adversely
affects minority members in several ways. Specifically, the combined effect
of these negative occurrences creates unique social stressors (i.e., minority
stress) that majority group members do not experience—oftentimes com-
peling minority members to adopt identity management techniques to evade
prejudice and discriminatory treatment. In the next section we will discuss
the minority stress model and the outcomes related to experiencing this
form of stress.

Minority stress
Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model provides a framework for understand-
ing the distinct and chronic stressors minorities experience because of their
marginalized identities. The model describes stress processes, consequences
associated with stressful events, and coping mechanisms minorities use to
lessen their stress and enhance mental health. The three stress processes
minorities encounter include (a) experiencing prejudice and discrimination
(b) expecting or fearing that one will experience disparate treatment; and
(c) internalizing negative stereotypes associated with their marginalized
identities. Though Meyer originally developed the model to examine sex-
ual minorities, it has been applied to other populations, including women,
immigrants, the poor, and racial and ethnic minorities.
With respect to multiple diverse identities, Meyer (2003) suggests having
multiple marginalized identities increases one’s likelihood of experiencing
prejudice or discrimination. The low number of women of color in sport
leadership positions perhaps most visibly reflects the increased access dis-
crimination people with multiple diverse identities face. These individuals
also have to exert considerable mental effort in negotiating their identities
68 Melton and Bryant

(see Borland & Bruening, 2010). For example, they balance being a woman,
racial minority, and lesbian while working in male-dominated, predomi-
nantly white, heterosexist sport organizations. Women in sport leadership
roles may experience additional strain if their values—ones that are deeply
connected to their salient cultural identities—conflict with traditional lead-
ership styles or organizational objectives. Māori (indigenous people of New
Zealand) women sport leaders, for instance, note that sexism, racism, and
classism negatively affect their sport leadership experiences. However, they
also describe how their cultural understanding of leadership, which empha-
sizes leaders’ responsibility to give back to the community, can conflict
with sport organizations that focus solely on economic or athletic success
(Palmer & Masters, 2010).
With regard to the consequences of multiple minority stress, research sug-
gests experiencing several forms of discrimination (i.e., race, gender, and
sexual orientation), combined with the need to negotiate multiple marginal-
ized identities, negatively relates to a number of mental, physical, and pro-
fessional outcomes. Within the sport management literature, for instance,
qualitative investigations reveal that athletes and sport administrators of
color, who also identify as lesbian, tend to be socially isolated within sport
organizations and feel forced to conceal parts of their identity (Melton &
Cunningham, 2012; Walker & Melton, 2015). At times, the mental and
professional toll of being “othered” has motivated many of these women
to pursue career opportunities in more inclusive, non-sport industries
(Walker & Melton, 2015).
However, not all people with multiple identities report higher instances
of stress, and many successfully cope with their stress (Herek & Garnets,
2007). According to Herek and Garnets (2007), this occurs because “inte-
grating multiple identities may enhance a minority individual’s overall psy-
chological resilience and increase one’s available resources for coping with
stigma” (p. 363). Specifically, recourses (e.g., social support, positive evalu-
ations) individuals receive from other social group affiliations help them
manage, and excel in spite of, experiencing various forms of discrimination.
Though Herek and Garnets (2007) make a compeling argument, it is still
unclear if having a multiple minority status is beneficial. In fact, lesbian
athletes and administrators of color, who have experienced discriminatory
treatment because of their devalued sexual identity, have reported increased
anxiety and feelings of shame (Melton & Cunningham, 2012).
Sport management researchers have identified three factors that influence
minority stress. First, Sartore and Cunningham (2009) proposed that the
level of stigma consciousness, or “the degree to which women focus on their
stereotyped social identity within the sport context” (p. 298), can reduce the
negative psychological effects related to one’s marginalized identify. Thus,
women of color with high levels of stigma consciousness are more likely to
anticipate that they will experience negative stereotyping, prejudice, and
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 69

discrimination. Second, these authors suggest that one’s role with a sport
organization can impact their stress. For instance, women who hold low-
status positions may feel more pressure to downplay their marginalized
identities.
Melton and Walker’s (2015) study with athletic administrators in the
United States provides additional insights into these dynamics. Specifi-
cally, their findings suggest one’s position within the organization positively
related to psychological safety (feel contributions are valued and safe to
be authentic self) at work. However, this relationship was moderated by
one’s sex and sexual orientation, such that top-level female administrators
reported lower levels of psychological safety than male administrators, and
high-ranking LGBT administrators reported lower psychological safety
than their heterosexual counterparts. Furthermore, lesbian administrators
reported the lowest level of psychological safety.
Finally, perceived social support can also influence one’s level of minor-
ity stress. Lack of support was frequently mentioned in Walker and Mel-
ton’s (2015) qualitative investigation with black lesbians working in college
sport. Participants expressed how they felt isolated within their athletic
departments because they were not welcomed into the predominantly white
lesbian community or the black coaches’ and administrators’ community.
Though support groups are not always available for women with multiple
identities, some research describes how these women create their support
system to handle the stain of being “othered” within their sport organi-
zations. For instance, Māori women in sport leadership positions organ-
ized a ‘team’ of people within their organization who shared similar values
(Palmer & Masters, 2010).

Identity management techniques

As previously mentioned, people with multiple identities often engage in
a variety of identity management techniques in order to gain acceptance
or avoid discriminatory treatment. Goffman (1963) uses the term “cover-
ing” to describe when people with stigmatized identities make considerable
efforts to downplay parts of their identity that are devalued in society. The
strategies people use to cover their marginalized identities has been observed
in a number of diversity-related research in sport. For example, black female
administrators may straighten their hair to de-emphasize their race (McDow-
ell, 2008), and openly gay and lesbian sport employees might emphasize
their shared sport fan identity to connect with heterosexual coworkers (Mel-
ton & Cunningham, 2014a). In these examples people are not hiding their
identity, rather they use various identity management tactics to ensure their
stigmatized identity remains in the background during social interactions.
Yoshino and Smith (2013) expanded Goffman’s (1963) concept of cover-
ing by identifying four forms of covering: appearance, affiliation, advocacy,
70 Melton and Bryant

and association. Appearance-based covering refers to how people present

themselves in social settings, which includes mannerisms they use, how they
dress, and grooming preferences. Affiliation-based covering is when people
avoid behaviors that may confirm negative stereotypes associated with their
identity. For instance, a woman may not mention her children at work for
fear her colleagues will think she is less committed to the job. Association-
based covering, on the other hand, is when people with marginalized social
identities limit contact with other group members. A lesbian athletic direc-
tor, for example, may not bring her partner (spouse) to work gatherings.
Finally, advocacy-based covering concerns one’s willingness to support his
or her social group. This form of covering occurs when a woman is hesitant
to challenge a sexist remark or joke.
Similar to association-based and affiliation-based cover, research sug-
gests that women, particularly when participating or working in sports
viewed as more masculine, will engage in “defensive othering”—the pro-
cess in which subordinate group members distance themselves from other
subordinates by displaying attitudes and behaviors that reinforce and
legitimize their devalued status (Ezzell, 2009, p. 111). Specifically, women
will take on the views of dominant group members (i.e., emphasizing the
notion that men’s sport is superior to women’s sport, support the view
that women should not appear too muscular or masculine, or reinforce
the belief that heterosexuality is and should be the norm) in response to
the lesbian stigma and backlash women encounter in sport settings. When
relying on this strategy, women cast themselves as the exception to the
stereotype, thereby unintentionally reinforcing masculine hegemony and
heteronormative ideology in sport.

Organizational performance
Manifestations of minority stress at the individual level (e.g., depression,
low self-esteem, low job satisfaction) can also significantly influence group,
team, or organizational outcomes. For instance, research suggests employees
who report high levels of work-related stress are more likely to experience
poor physical and psychological well-being, which limits their performance
and/or production at work (Cryer, McCraty, & Childre, 2003). However,
when diverse employees feel valued and included in the workplace, they
are more likely to experience high job satisfaction, which relates to positive
organizational outcomes (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Walker and Melton
(2015) observed this in their qualitative investigation with female athletic
administrators. The women of color in non-inclusive work environments
were more likely to express low job satisfaction and intention to leave the
organization than those who worked in inclusive environments.
Research also suggests inclusive climates relate to performance gains
at the organizational level. For instance, Cunningham (2011b) examined
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 71

performance outcomes related to sexual orientation diversity in NCAA

Division I athletic programs. In his study, athletic departments that com-
bined high sexual orientation diversity with a proactive diversity strat-
egy (i.e., a strategy that values diversity and emphasizes inclusion and
positively relates to job satisfaction among minorities) were able to sig-
nificantly outperform other programs—in some instances, these programs
earned almost seven times the NACDA points of their peers. In a follow-
up study with athletic departments from all NCAA divisions (Cunning-
ham, 2011a), findings indicated high sexual orientation diversity positively
related to a creative work environment when the organization had a strong
commitment to diversity.

Sport industry perspectives

Considering the limited amount of sport management research examining
the experiences of women with multiple identities, we interviewed 11 sport
industry professionals—from diverse backgrounds and who are at differ-
ent points in their careers—to further our understanding of how the inter-
section of multiple marginalized social identities impacts their experiences
and opportunities in sport (see Table 5.1, pseudonyms have been used).
While some are at the top of their fields, others are just beginning their
careers in sport. Collecting such an array of perspectives allowed us to
develop a more authentic understanding of the challenges and opportunities
women face when holding, or pursuing, leadership positions in sport. Below
we first present their perceptions of the barriers women with multiple identi-
ties face in the sport industry, and then discuss strategies for creating more
accepting and welcoming sport environments for minorities.

Challenges

Lack of diversity in positions of power

When discussing the main challenges women with multiple identities face,
many of the industry professionals we interviewed discussed how the low
percentage of diversity at the top of sport organizations limits girls’ and
women’s expectations of what careers they can and should pursue. It is not
surprising the women expressed this concern given that men continue to
hold the majority of leadership positions in sport organizations, both in the
United States and internationally (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; International
Working Group on Women and Sport, 2012; Lapchick, 2015; Smith &
Wrynn, 2013). In fact, when comparing the diversity of hiring practices
in sport to the hiring practices in Fortune 500 companies, sport organiza-
tions continue to lag behind. While 5% of Fortune 500, and 8% of Fortune
50, companies have female CEOs, there are only two women who hold
Table 5.1 Sport industry perspectives: participant profiles

Pseudonym Position Sport Racial Number Marital Sexual College Citizenship

Tenure Identity of Status Orientation Athlete
Children
Alice Former President 19 Asian, Native 1 Married Lesbian Yes, DI USA
and CEO of American, Basketball
WNBA Team Caucasian
Kia Senior Associate 12 African 0 Single Heterosexual Yes, DI USA
AD for Internal American Basketball
Operations at DI
program
Mona Deputy Director of 26 African 2 Married Heterosexual Yes, DI USA
Athletics at DI American Track &
program Field
Maci Assistant Coach 2 Caucasian 0 Single Lesbian Yes, DI Field Canadian
Hockey
Astin Founder and 5 Cuban and 0 Married Lesbian Yes, DI USA
Director of African Soccer
Non-profit sport American
organization
Lucy International 1 Asian 0 Single Heterosexual Yes, DI China
business affairs Tennis
for professional
league
Sabari International 1 Indian 0 Single Heterosexual Yes, Tennis India
business affairs
for professional
league
Pseudonym Position Sport Racial Number Marital Sexual College Citizenship
Tenure Identity of Status Orientation Athlete
Children
Elizabeth Assistant Athletics 8 Caucasian 0 Single Lesbian Yes, DI USA
Director for DI Basketball
program
Lilliana Sports Agent 3 Latina 0 Single Heterosexual No Chile
Skylar Assistant Director 4 Caucasian 0 Single Non-gender No USA
for College conforming
Recreation lesbian
Department
Becca Non-managerial 1 Non-white 0 Single Heterosexual No Italy
position in sports
marketing firm
74 Melton and Bryant

this position on a professional men’s team—Jeanie Buss of the Los Ange-

les Lakers and Gillian Zucker of the Los Angeles Clippers. Furthermore,
there are only two women of color who hold the president or CEO position
in the WNBA, and they both work for teams not affiliated with an NBA
franchise—Alisha Valavanis (Seattle Storm) and Christine Simmons (Los
Angeles Sparks). These sentiments were reflected by the participants. For
examples Alice indicated that

It’s hard to aspire to something you can’t see. A little boy can dream
of being anything because he sees himself everywhere. Considering all
the other social pressures girls face that undermines their confidence, it
takes a very rare and special girl to believe she can do something that
no other woman has done.

Similarly, Skylar observed:

I think it’s hard to trust that people will really accept women who might
look different than what they are accustomed to seeing. Most women in
leadership positions typically look pretty feminine. You don’t see many,
if any, women at the top who aren’t gender conforming.

Limited opportunities to develop valuable skills

According to Ely and Padavic (2007), the current positions minorities hold
within an organization can also influence one’s idea of what roles are appro-
priate and attainable for certain people. Such attitudes can lead to occupa-
tional segregation, which refers to “the clustering of people into particular
roles based on their demographic characteristics” and “can limit career
choices and opportunities and create wage disparities” (Cunningham, 2015,
p. 75). Data from the 2014–2015 Racial and Gender Report Card (Lap-
chick, 2015) highlights how racial minorities are often pigeonholed into
certain jobs within intercollegiate athletes. For example, many contend
fundraising and development experiences are prerequisites to becoming an
athletic director, yet racial minorities hold less than 6% of those positions.
The opinions conveyed during the interviews support these dynamics. Spe-
cifically, participants expressed that men who control hiring decisions often
believe women lack certain sport business-related abilities (e.g., scouting
or player development), and only add value in specific areas of the organi-
zation (e.g., corporate social responsibility, public relations, international
business). The following participant comments reflect this.

Women get hired, but they aren’t always given any responsibility or
opportunity to make decisions that matter. If I think back on why I’ve
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 75

been successful, I can’t stress enough how valuable my first job was.
I was given real responsibilities; I had a budget and deadlines and had
to coordinate with a lot of different groups to get the job done.
(Alice)

If I’m given an opportunity, I take it. Even if I’m not sure how to do it,
I’m confident I can figure it out or I know someone who can give me
some advice on how to solve the problem. When you’re starting out,
you have to seize the few opportunities you have to show people you
have what it takes.
(Kia)

Since I speak Spanish they might think that I could maybe add value in
some way. Maybe in player relations or customer services.
(Lilliana)

Organizational culture in sport

According to Schein (1996), organizational culture refers to the “the set
of shared, taken-for-granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and
that determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to its vari-
ous environments” (p. 236). The organization’s culture serves to direct
behaviors and is taught to newcomers as a model for what is valid and
appropriate. Past research demonstrates how hegemonic masculine norms
have shaped organizational culture within the sport industry—promoting
practices that privilege sport’s prototypical members (males who are able-
bodied, white, protestant, and heterosexual) and marginalize people, val-
ues, and behaviors that challenge hegemonic masculinity (Cunningham,
2008). Over time, these social processes, activities, and mindsets have
become institutionalized, such that people unquestionably accept them
as legitimate.
When reflecting on their experiences in sport, all the women spoke
about how prevailing norms within sport organizations influence wom-
en’s leadership opportunities. For instance, they described how the sport
culture rewards those who display great passion, embrace traditional
sport values, and are willing to sacrifice work–life, and pay, to help
the team. Employees are required to work long hours and weekends,
constantly entertain clients, and socialize with coworkers after work—
particularly during the early stages of their careers. Such a demanding
schedule may not be feasible for women who have responsibilities out-
side of work.
In addition, women with multiple identities are “othered” in sport
(Collins, 2000), which means they do not easily fit in dominant binary
76 Melton and Bryant

categorizations (e.g., male/female, white/black, lesbian/heterosexual, rich/

poor). Their othered status can make it difficult to connect with peers and
lead to feelings of isolation within sport organizations (Walker & Melton,
2015). Alice observed:

Sport has a very social culture, which blurs the line between work and
play. You’re working all the time, nights and weekends. There’s a lot
of entertaining. After work you’re hanging out with coworkers. You
don’t have time for a personal life, you’re always working. But, I knew
I had to keep the pace and stay out to show I was committed … It was
also during these time where I was able to form friendships with my
coworkers … When they got to know me on a personal level, I felt my
gender or sexuality was less of an issue. Sport prides itself on passion
and hard work, it doesn’t pride itself on new ideas or welcome people
from different backgrounds. They like to do things like they’ve always
been done I became bored with this. Other industries emphasize innova-
tion and value divergent thinking. Their business models excite me …
The sport industry has a lot of guys who seem content with the current
mode of operation and refuse to adopt new strategies or incorporate
cutting-edge technology.

Lilliana indicated that:

The jobs that are available in the sport industry offer very low pay. So
you have to have a lot of passion to first work in an industry where the
cards are stacked against you, and be willing to earn less money. Eco-
nomically speaking, I’m not able to make that sacrifice.

Constant pressure to perform

The women also recognized that sports’ institutionalized values and prac-
tices reinforced gender and racial stereotypes related to leadership abilities.
For instance, people in sport are more likely to associate leadership with
men or masculine traits (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009). According
to the women we interviewed, men also believe women lack the necessary
skills, abilities, or commitment to be effective sport leaders. As such, all of
the women constantly felt the need to prove their competence and focus
exclusively on producing quantifiable results for their sport organization.
Sabari reflected:

I think you’re always aware that you’re different. You don’t look like
everyone else and you stand out because of it. You don’t want people
to judge you or think you’re not good enough. So I try to show my
expertise and what I’ve done because people assume I don’t really
belong.
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 77

Lucy suggested that:

Women have to always make sure their contributions make the team
better. I also think it’s important to be a good team member. So I try to
not be conformational because I see how that has hurt other women.
If you push your point too much or you’re too argumentative people
won’t listen or won’t want to work with you.

Managing multiple identities

All of the women described ways they negotiated or covered various parts
of their identities. Those who were just starting their careers in sport, and
held relatively little power or status in the organization, tended to be more
concerned about how others perceived them at work. As such, they would
use various techniques to downplay parts of their identity, such as their gen-
der or sexuality. With respect to the women who had worked in the industry
longer or held more prestigious positions, they were comfortable bringing their
authentic self to the workplace, but did monitor the way they communicated
with certain audiences. In general, all of the women managed their multiple
identities so that they could best “fit” or connect with a certain group of people
in their organization. This was highlighted in the following comments:

If I’m talking to a group of African American girls, I draw from my expe-

riences as a racial minority. I use a different approach if I’m talking as a
You Can Play ambassador, and probably draw more from my experiences
as a lesbian to connect with that audience. I think it all depends on your
audience and figuring out the best way to get your message across. I’m
naturally an introvert so I consciously try to be more outgoing and talka-
tive when I’m around clients or people at work. But, I think people are
expanding their idea of what it takes to be good leader. More and more
companies are now appreciating a variety of leadership traits and styles.
(Astin)

It’s all about finding a connection point with your audience. I think you
are always trying to emphasize parts of your identity or downplay parts
to connect with someone. It’s a constant force you have to deal with,
but it’s also a skill you need to have, everyone needs to have. You need
to be able to read people and know how to frame your argument in a
way that resonates with them.
(Alice)

I’m always cognizant of how I’m being perceived by others, and I know
my gender and race play into that perception … I know I can’t act in
ways my male colleagues can.
(Mona)
78 Melton and Bryant

Suggested strategies for success

While all of the women we interviewed recognized the barriers women face
when working in the sport industry, they were optimistic not only that the
sport culture could change, but also that women holding sport leadership
positions would soon be the norm rather than the exception. To achieve
this goal, they suggested a number of strategies to enhance the experiences
and opportunities for women in sport. First, several of the women who
held top positions within the industry emphasized the need to celebrate and
share women’s success stories. According to those interviewed, increasing
public awareness of powerful women serves as one way to challenge biased
assumptions that men are the only ones equipped to be effective sport lead-
ers, and also provides women and girls with visible role models. It is impor-
tant, however, to ensure that the stories of women from all backgrounds
receive attention, as failure to provide a diverse set of perspectives will not
address the issues related to representational intersectionality. As such, sport
leaders must be mindful of who they choose to highlight and how they por-
tray these successful women in the sport industry.
Second, to change the culture of sport it is necessary for leaders to cham-
pion diversity and inclusion efforts. Leaders have the potential and power
to influence others’ perceptions of the value of diversity and inclusion, as
they provide the example of appropriate behaviors and interactions, such
as equitable treatment, promoting diverse hiring practices, fostering col-
laboration among diverse teams, and productively managing conflict (Fer-
dman, 2014; see also Avery, 2011). Furthermore, Smith and Smith (2016)
argue that no diversity and inclusion initiative will ever be successful with-
out leadership support. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) aids in
understanding the importance of leader behaviors, as Bandura states, “vir-
tually all learning phenomena, resulting from direct experience, can occur
vicariously by observing other people’s behaviors and the consequences for
them” (p. 19). To illustrate these effects, consider past research demon-
strating that employees will engage in inclusive behaviors when their lead-
ers expect them to (Umphress, Simmons, Boswell, & Triana, 2008), and
that when sport leaders challenge prejudice, their supportive behaviors can
enhance feelings of inclusiveness among minority employees (Melton &
Cunningham, 2014b).
Third, sport leaders must also provide skill-enhancing opportunities for
women and girls from diverse backgrounds. Many of those we interviewed
argued that minority women will never succeed if sport organizations do
not give them real responsibility and assign them tasks that make a mean-
ingful impact in the organization. In addition, all of the women stressed the
need to provide minority girls ample opportunities to participate in sport.
They felt sport participation can expose girls to strong, female role mod-
els and help them develop the necessary skills to be effective sport leaders.
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 79

Alice expressed how sport “hard wires you to not only set goals, but to then
develop strategies to achieve those goals,” while Astin suggested, “you learn
that it takes all types of people, with different abilities and backgrounds, to
succeed. You learn the importance of working through conflict and finding
common ground with people who are different from you.” Several of the
women also noted how sport participation increased their confidence and
self-esteem, taught them how to deal with failure, and how to celebrate their
successes. In addition, they discussed how early co-ed sport experiences
helped them learn how to effectively interact and negotiate with men. Given
the many positive outcomes of sport participation, sport leaders need to
create an array of competitive and recreational sport opportunities that are
accessible and attract girls from all backgrounds—regardless of their race,
ethnicity, religion, nationality, social class, athletic background, or mental
and physical ability (Aspen Institute Project Play, 2016; Cohen, Melton, &
Welty Peachy, 2014; Walseth, 2015; With-Nielsen & Pfister, 2011).
Finally, the women explained that having a strong support system is essen-
tial to ensuring success in the sport industry. Mona described this as forming
a “dream team” that can comprise a variety of people (e.g., friends, family
members, mentors, sponsors, colleagues) who provide professional support
and emotional support. All of the women felt building their professional
network was key to accessing various positions or opportunities in sport.
However, many also noted that emotional support is particularly important
for women with multiple identities, as they often encounter unique social
stress because of their minority status. Astin stated, for instance, “it’s impor-
tant to stay physically and mentally healthy. It’s difficult to work in a sport
environment that usually isn’t welcoming for people who are different. You
need your team of people you trust to help you stay sane.”

Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to further our knowledge of how the inter-
section of multiple marginalized social identities impacts women’s experi-
ences and opportunities in sport. We hope the review of past literature,
combined with current perspectives of women working in the sport indus-
try, inspires both researchers and practitioners to continue to explore ways
we can create more accepting sport environments for women with multiple
diverse identities. While there are certainly challenges to overcome, the sto-
ries of these women demonstrate success is possible.

References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitu-
dinal, national study, thirty-five year update 1977–2012. Retrieved from www.
acostacarpenter.org/
80 Melton and Bryant

Aspen Institute Project Play. (2016). State of play 2016: Trends and developments.
Retrieved from www.aspenprojectplay.org/sites/default/files/StateofPlay_2016_
FINAL.pdf
Avery, D. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations. Organizational Psychol-
ogy Review, 1, 239–256.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations for Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Borland, J. F., & Bruening, J. E. (2010). Navigating barriers: A qualitative examina-
tion of the under-representation of Black females as head coaches in collegiate
basketball. Sport Management Review, 13, 407–420.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18, 155–165.
Burton, L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). Think athletic director,
think masculine? Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles within
athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61, 416–426.
Caple, J. (2015). Will Kim Ng be MLB’s first female GM? Retrieved from http://
espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13371785/will-kim-ng-mlb-first-
female-gm
Carter-Francique, A. R., & Olushola, J. (2016). Women coaches of color: Examining
the effects of intersectionality. In N. M. LaVoi (ed.) Women in Sports Coaching
(pp. 81–94). London: Routledge.
Clarendon, L. (2016). Layshia Clarendon on how LGB too often leaves off the
T. Retrieved from www.esquire.com/news-politics/a45824/layshia-clarendon-
gender-binaries/
Cohen, A., Melton, E. N., & Welty Peachey, J. (2014). Using coed sport’s ability to
encourage inclusion and equality. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 220–235.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41–53.
Crouch, I. (2014). Serena Williams is America’s greatest athlete. Retrieved from www.
newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/serena-williams-americas-greatest-athlete
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity, politics, and
violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Cryer, B., McCraty, R., & Childre, D. (2003). Pull the plug on stress. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 81(7), 102–107.
Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organi-
zations. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 136–145.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011a). Creative work environments in sport organizations:
The influence of sexual Orientation diversity and commitment to diversity. Jour-
nal of Homosexuality, 58, 1041–1057.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011b). The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship
among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport
Management Review, 14(4), 453–461.
Cunningham, G. B. (2015). Diversity and Inclusion in Sport Organizations (3rd ed.).
Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex
differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121–1143.
 Intersectionality: negotiating multiple identities 81

Ezzell, M. B. (2009). “Barbie dolls” on the pitch: Identity work, defensive othering,
and inequality in women’s rugby. Social Problems, 56(1), 111–131.
Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a
systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (eds.) Diver-
sity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion (pp. 3–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ferguson, M., & Porter, S. C. (2013). An Examination of categorization processes in
organizations: The root of intergroup bias and a route to prejudice reduction. In
Q. Roberson (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work (pp. 98–114).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, L. (2016). Punished by the league for “Black Lives Matter” activ-
ism, WNBA players fight back. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/
sports/2016/07/25/3801601/wnba-black-lives-matter/
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2012). Retrieved from www.
sydneyscoreboard.com
Lapchick, R. (2015). The racial and gender report card. Retrieved from www.
tidesport.org/racialgenderreportcard.html
LaVoi, N. (2016). A framework to understand experiences of women coaches around
the globe: The ecological-intersectional model. In N. M. LaVoi (ed.) Women in
Sports Coaching (pp. 13–34). London: Routledge.
McDowell, J. (2008). Head Black woman in charge: An investigation of Black female
athletic directors’ negotiation of their gender, race, and class identities. Disserta-
tions Abstract International, 69(7), 3210.
McDowell, J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2009). The influence of diversity perspectives
on Black female athletic administrators’ identity negotiations outcomes. Quest,
61, 202–222.
Melton, E. N., & Cunningham, G. B. (2012). When identities collide: Exploring mul-
tiple minority stress and resilience among college athletes. Journal for the Study of
Sports and Athletics in Education, 6, 45–66.
Melton, E. N., & Cunningham, G. B. (2014a). The experiences of LGBT sport employ-
ees: A social categorization perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 21–33.
Melton, E. N., & Cunningham, G. B. (2014b). Who are the champions? Using a
multilevel model to examine perceptions of employee support for LGBT-inclusion
in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 189–206.
Melton, E. N., & Walker, N. A. (2015). Psychological safety among women in
sport: The influence of status, gender, and sexual orientation. Paper presented at
the North American Society for Sport Management 2015 Conference, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bul-
letin, 129, 674–697.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understand-
ing the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 21(2), 402–433.
Norman, L. (2016). Lesbian coaches and homophobia. In N. M. LaVoi (ed.), Women
in Sports Coaching (pp. 65–80). London: Routledge.
82 Melton and Bryant

Palmer, F. R., & Masters, T. M. (2010). Māori feminism and sport leadership:
Exploring Māori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13, 331–344.
Roger Federer is getting serious at Wimbledon. (2016). Retrieved from www.news.
com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-is-getting-serious-at-wimbledon/news-story/3dc
b851b71700a715c2cc516a4b0998e
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of
women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Quest, 59, 244–265.
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2009). The lesbian label as a component of
women’s stigmatization in sport organizations: An exploration of two health and
kinesiology departments. Quest, 61(3), 289–305.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229–240.
Smith, G. A., & Smith J. C. (2016). Diversity and inclusion: Insights and lessons
learned from world-class organizations. Paper presented at the NCAA Inclusion
Forum, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Smith, M., & Wrynn, A. (2013). Women in the 2012 Olympic and Paralym-
pic Games: An Analysis of Participation and Leadership Opportunities.
Ann Arbor, MI: SHARP Center for Women and Girls. Retrieved from www.
womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/research/sharp-center
Tajfel, H., & Turner J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In
W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
(pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. T., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the Social Group. A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Umphress, E. E., Simmons, A. L., Boswell, W. R., & Triana, M. (2008). Managing
discrimination in selection: The influence of directives from an authority and
social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 982–993.
Walker, N. A., & Melton, E. N. (2015). The triple threat: Examining the intersection
of gender, race, and sexual orientation in sport organizations. Journal of Sport
Management, 29, 257–271.
Walseth, K. (2015). Muslim girls’ experiences in physical education in Norway:
What role does religiosity play? Sport, Education & Society, 20, 304–323.
With-Nielsen, N., & Pfister, G. (2011). Gender constructions and negotiation in
physical education: Case studies. Sport, Education & Society, 16, 645–665.
Yoshino, K., & Smith, C. (2013). Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion. Retrieved
from www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/about-deloitte/us-
inclusion-uncovering-talent-paper.pdf
Chapter 6

Quotas to accelerate gender

equity in sport leadership:
do they work?
Johanna A. Adriaanse

Introduction
Since 2008 Marisol Casado, a Spanish woman, has been the elected presi-
dent of the International Triathlon Union, the global governing body of
that sport (International Triathlon Union, 2016). Her position is unique as
she is one of only six women occupying the role of president of an interna-
tional sport federation (International Working Group on Women and Sport,
2016c). Throughout the world women and girls have embraced playing
sport but there has been no significant increase in the number of women
in organizational leadership roles. Although a substantial body of research
has investigated the underrepresentation of women in sport leadership
(Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013; Burton, 2015; Claringbould & Knoppers,
2008, 2012; Hovden, 2010; Pfister & Radtke, 2009; Schull, Shaw, & Kihl,
2013; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003; Shaw & Penney, 2003; Shaw & Slack, 2002),
increasing women’s presence at the executive table remains a challenge.
Yet the benefits of gender diversity in leadership are widely acknowledged.
A review of scholarship on women directors on corporate boards, for exam-
ple, was informed by more than 400 publications spanning the past 30 years
(Terjesen, Sealy, & Singh, 2009).
This chapter explores the use of gender quotas as a strategy to accelerate
the growth of women in sport leadership, particularly in the governance
of national sport organisations (NSOs) and international federations (IFs).
First, I present an overview of the current global status of women’s par-
ticipation in sport governance based on the Sydney Scoreboard, a global
index for women in sport leadership. This provides compeling evidence that
only limited progress has been made to date and gender equity in sport
governance remains elusive. Second, I discuss several strategies for disrupt-
ing the status quo at an international level, including the Brighton Plus
Helsinki Declaration and an important initiative by the United Nations
(Adriaanse & Claringbould, 2016), as well as the introduction of gender
quotas. The latter is controversial. Many organizations oppose this type
of intervention, although quotas can be effective in bringing about positive
84 Adriaanse

change. Third, I explore the use of quotas in the public, corporate, and
sport sectors. Drawing on examples from Norway (Skirstad, 2009; Torchia,
Calabro, & Huse, 2011) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
(Henry, Radzi, Rich, Shelton, Theodoraki, & White, 2004; Henry & Rob-
inson, 2010), I compare the effectiveness of targets versus quotas. I also
discuss the impact of quotas in sport governance based on a recent study of
Australian sport organizations. Finally, I draw conclusions about the use of
quotas as a strategy to accelerate gender equity in sport governance.

Current status of women’s participation in sport

governance globally
Data from the Sydney Scoreboard global index for women in sport leader-
ship indicate that women’s representation in the governance of sport has
increased in recent years (International Working Group on Women and
Sport, 2016c). The Sydney Scoreboard, a legacy of the 5th IWG World Con-
ference on Women and Sport, monitors women’s presence on sport boards
using three key indicators: board directors, board chairs, and chief execu-
tives. At a national level, based on data from 38 countries and 1599 NSOs,
the average representation of women directors increased from 19.7% in
2010 to 20.7% in 2014 (International Working Group on Women and
Sport, 2016c). Further, while the average for women chairs remained the
same at 10.6% during this period, the average for women chief executives
rose from 17.3% in 2010 to 19.8 % in 2014. See Table 6.1 for a summary
of the findings.
At an international level, based on data from 76 IFs, the average represen-
tation of women directors went up from 12% in 2012 to 13.3% in 2014.
In addition, women occupying the position of chair or president of an inter-
national federation increased from 7% to 8% and those in the role of chief
executive or secretary-general from 9% to 21% in the same time period.
Table 6.2 shows a summary of these results.
It should be noted, however, that, in a number of IFs, women’s partici-
pation rates in leadership were markedly below the average (International
Working Group on Women and Sport, 2016c). Some 24 of 76 IFs had no
women on their board in 2014, including several that govern popular global

Percentage of women as director/chair/chief executive of national

Table 6.1 
sport organisations (NSOs) in 2010 and 2014

Leadership Position 2010 2014 Change

Women directors 19.7 20.7 +1
Women chairs 10.6 10.6 0
Women chief executives 17.3 19.8 +2.5
Note: based on 38 countries and 1599 NSOs – see sydneyscoreboard.com
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 85

Table 6.2 Percentage of women as director/chair/chief executive of international

federations (IFs) in 2012 and 2014

Leadership Position 2012 2014 Change

Women directors 12 13.3 +1.3
Women chairs 7 8 +1
Women chief executives 9 21 +12
Note: based on 76 IFs – see sydneyscoreboard.com

sports such as tennis, cricket, rugby, handball, and baseball. In a case of

‘reverse’ gender inequity, the IF that governs the popular sport of netball
had 0% men’s participation on its board. FIFA, the international govern-
ing body of the world’s most popular sport, football, had only one woman
among its 24 executive members (4%) in 2014.
Although average results show an increase, albeit small, in women’s rep-
resentation in sport governance globally, in all cases women remain mark-
edly underrepresented; none of the indicators has yet reached 40%. As a
measure of gender equity, a minimum of 40% representation of men and
women is often regarded as evidence of gender balance or gender parity
in groups. This target is adopted by researchers (Joecks, Pull, & Vetter,
2013; Kanter, 1977) and is also recommended by public policy makers in
governance such as the Australian Human Rights Commission (2010) and
the European Parliament (Whelan & Wood, 2012). The consequences of
a lack of gender balance in board composition are twofold. First, impor-
tant stakeholders of the organization are excluded from participation in
decision-making. Board directors play a critical role in developing strategy
and decision-making as they represent the source of values and objectives
that develop and sustain an organization (Clarke, 2007). For example, hun-
dreds of thousands of girls and women play tennis and football worldwide;
nevertheless they are represented minimally if at all at the highest level of the
sport’s governance. This means that their voice is excluded from the shaping
of core organizational values and the creation of a strategic vision for the
sport. Second, a substantial body of research has demonstrated the advan-
tages of a gender-balanced board (Bilimoria & Wheeler, 2000; Nielsen &
Huse, 2010; Terjesen et al., 2009; Torchia et al., 2011; van der Walt & Ing-
ley, 2003). These include greater sensitivity to different perspectives, which
bodes well for innovation and better decision-making and problem-solving.
In addition, boards with three or more women directors have been shown
to be more inclined to consider non-financial performance measures such as
CSR involvement and stakeholder satisfaction (Terjesen et al., 2009). These
types of performance measures are increasingly essential for the sustainabil-
ity of contemporary organizations. In other words, a lack of gender balance
in board composition suggests that the governance of global sport is not
reaching its full potential (Adriaanse, 2016).
86 Adriaanse

Disrupting the status quo

Several international strategies designed to address gender inequality in
sport governance have been implemented since the 1990s. The Brighton
Declaration was the first international declaration which specifically identi-
fied the aim of increasing women’s participation in sport leadership, with
the goal of empowering women and advancing sport. This declaration
was informed by key UN documents such as the Charter of the United
Nations (United Nations, 1945), the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (United Nations, 1948) and the Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (United Nations,
1979). Representing a global voice, delegates from 82 countries adopted
the Brighton Declaration at the 1st IWG World Conference on Women and
Sport in Brighton in 1994 (International Working Group on Women and
Sport, 2016b). An updated version, the Brighton plus Helsinki Declaration,
was adopted by participants from almost 100 nations at the 6th IWG World
Conference on Women and Sport in Helsinki in 2014 (International Work-
ing Group on Women and Sport, 2016b). One of the ten principles in this
declaration focuses on leadership in sport:

Women remain under-represented in the leadership and decision mak-

ing of all sport and sport-related organisations. Those responsible for
these areas should develop policies and programmes and design struc-
tures which increase the number of women coaches, advisers, deci-
sion makers, officials, administrators and sports personnel at all levels
with special attention given to recruitment, mentoring, empowerment,
reward and retention of women leaders.
(International Working Group on Women
and Sport, 2016b, p. 10)

So far 441 organizations have signed the Brighton Declaration or updated

Brighton Plus Helsinki Declaration, including the most prestigious and
influential sport bodies: the International Olympic Committee, the Inter-
national Paralympic Committee, and FIFA (International Working Group
on Women and Sport, 2016a). Other international signatories include the
Association of Summer Olympic International Federations, the Common-
wealth Games Federation, the International University Sports Federation
and SportAccord. Some 28 IFs and 66 National Olympic Committees have
also signed the declaration, as well as many government organizations such
as ministries for sport and sport councils. A list of all signatories can be
viewed at http://iwg-gti.org/iwg-signatories-2/. In summary, many organiza-
tions worldwide have committed to the advancement of women and sport at
all levels, including women’s representation in sport leadership.
Another important strategy for disrupting the status quo in the govern-
ance of sport globally was the UN publication Women 2000 and Beyond:
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 87

Women, Gender Equality and Sport (United Nations Division for the
Advancement of Women, 2007). It was developed in collaboration with
the International Working Group on Women and Sport (IWG) and Wom-
enSport International and launched by the UN at the 52nd Session of the
Commission on the Status of Women at the UN Headquarters in New York
in 2008. This was the first time in the history of the United Nations that
an entire publication was devoted to women and sport. It urges a range of
bodies, including governments, UN entities, sporting institutions and non-
government organizations, to take further action to address discrimination
against women and girls in sport. One of the specific issues it addressed
was the under-representation of women in decision-making bodies of sport
organizations at local, national, regional, and international level. In order to
accelerate the process of change in sport governance it recommended:

Establishing higher targets for women’s participation in decision mak-

ing and leadership … Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of ini-
tiatives, such as the use of targets and quotas, need to be significantly
strengthened. Reliable and comparable data are required, both as an
advocacy and awareness tool.
(United Nations Division for the Advancement
of Women, 2007, pp. 29–30)

In line with this recommendation, the IWG decided that the legacy of its next
conference, the 5th IWG World Conference on Women and Sport, would be
the Sydney Scoreboard. Its purpose was to increase “within the context of
the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals … the number
of women on the boards/management committees of all sport organisations
at international, regional, national and local level” (International Working
Group on Women and Sport, 2016c). The Sydney Scoreboard, an online
tool, has since developed into a global index for women in sport leader-
ship which has collected and displayed data on boards of national sport
organizations and international federations since 2010. People active in the
global women sport movement in approximately 50 countries have contrib-
uted data with the aim of raising awareness and promoting a new level of
transparency and accountability around gender equity in sport leadership.
Essentially, the tool was conceptualized as a catalyst for change. As previ-
ously noted, however, change has been extremely modest to date and gender
balance in sport governance has not yet been achieved. What other initia-
tives or strategies have been or can be used?

Gender quotas
A common strategy for accelerating women’s participation in leadership
has been the adoption of gender quotas, also referred to as affirmative or
positive action. Gender quotas need to be distinguished from gender targets.
88 Adriaanse

While both quotas and targets refer to a minimum number or percentage

of women in specific positions, quotas are mandated through legislation or
some other form of regulatory requirement (Whelan & Wood, 2012). In the
realm of sport, quotas can be embedded as a clause in the organization’s
constitution or by-laws. Quotas are not negotiable and often need to be
achieved within a specified timeframe. Non-compliance results in sanctions
or penalties for the organization. Gender targets, on the other hand, are
more voluntary in nature, reflecting aspirational goals that the organization
hopes to achieve. They cannot be legally enforced and usually do not carry
sanctions if not achieved. Nevertheless, managers can receive performance
rewards if their organization does reach the targets. Because of their vol-
untary nature, targets are more widely accepted by organizations than are
quotas.
The main objection to gender quotas is the perception that women are
appointed simply to fulfil the quota, even if they lack the required quali-
fications and competency for the position. There is, however, no research
evidence that women appointed under quotas are less competent or perform
less effectively. Whelan and Wood (2012) provide a useful list of examples
of common arguments for and against the use of quotas. They identify the
following key arguments in favor of the introduction of quotas. After dec-
ades of aspirational programs and initiatives that have largely failed, quotas
are an effective temporary measure to achieve greater gender equity. Only
quotas can enforce the attainment of a critical mass of women in leader-
ship roles. In addition, quotas encourage organizations to be innovative,
to identify talented women and to work harder to provide development
opportunities for them. In contrast, those against quotas often argue that
they undermine the principle that merit and meritocracy should take prior-
ity over diversity in business. Further, quotas lead to additional regulation,
which increases costs and inefficiencies for organizations. Finally, many
women themselves do not like to be appointed through quotas because they
believe that their appointment will be viewed as tokenistic and not based on
their qualities.

Use of gender quotas in the public, corporate,

and sport sectors
Although gender quotas are controversial, they were first used extensively in
the political realm to increase women’s representation in government. Sub-
sequently, the corporate sector also adopted this strategy to increase gender
balance on its boards. One of the more notable examples was the case in
Norway. In 2005, the Norwegian government introduced a quota law that
called for a minimum of 40% representation of men and women on the
boards of its public limited-liability companies (Torchia et al., 2011). Inter-
estingly, this law was passed after companies had been given the opportunity
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 89

in 2002 to voluntary implement a 40% target. When insufficient progress

had been made after several years, the law was passed in 2005. Sanctions for
non-compliance included dissolution of the company. Enforcement of the
law began in 2008, by which time the majority of companies had already
met the requirements. As a result of the quota law, women’s participation
on these Norwegian boards increased from 7% in 2003 to 40.3% in 2010.
This example clearly demonstrates that quotas enforced by law are more
effective than voluntary targets in achieving gender balance on boards.
The sport sector has been reluctant to adopt quotas. Even in Norway,
sport organizations perceived a 40% gender quota as too radical (Skirstad,
2009). Following a consultation process on the strategic direction of Nor-
wegian sport, participants agreed that women’s representation in leader-
ship positions should increase, but they did not support the implementation
of a 40% gender quota. Nevertheless, women’s representation in the Gen-
eral Assembly of Norwegian sport, the highest decision-making body for
sport, increased from 8% to 39% between 1971 and 2007. Skirstad (2009)
attributed this dramatic improvement to evolutionary changes in the inter-
nal and external contexts. The internal context refers to the structure and
culture within the sport organization, while the external context refers to
the wider political, social, and economic environment. Gender equity meas-
ures in Norwegian society at large influenced measures in the sport sector
such as the adoption of a modest target of a minimum of two male and two
female representatives. Despite this modest target, women’s participation
in the governance of Norwegian sport achieved a relatively high propor-
tion (39%). This was largely facilitated by the broader environment—the
external context—which promoted a positive approach to gender equity.
The positive change toward gender equity on sport boards in Norway is
continuing. In 2014 based on data from 51 Norwegian NSOs, the aver-
age representation of women directors was 37.4% (International Working
Group on Women and Sport, 2016c). In terms of representation of women
directors in sport governance, Norway was placed second highest in the list
of 38 countries on the Sydney Scoreboard global index for women in sport
leadership.
In 2016, FIFA, one of the most influential global sport organizations, voted
to replace the current executive committee with a new 36-member council
that included a gender quota (FIFA, 2016). The statutory reform stated that
the members of each confederation must ensure that they elect at least one
female member to the council. There are six confederations, which means
that a minimum of six of the 36 members or 16.7% must be women. This is
an improvement on women’s representation in its leadership; however, from
4% in 2014 to 16.7% in the new council means that gender balance will not
yet be achieved. The IOC, another influential and prestigious global sport
organization, has also used positive action to increase women’s presence on
boards of Olympic bodies. In 1996, the IOC adopted targets for women’s
90 Adriaanse

representation on executive committees of National Olympic Committees

(NOC) and those International Sport Federations that are part of the Olym-
pic movement (Henry et al., 2004). The targets were for women to occupy
a minimum of 10% of executive positions by the end of 2001, increasing to
a minimum of 20% by the end of 2005. A key finding of research (Henry
et al., 2004) into the success of these targets is that they have had a clear
positive impact on raising awareness of gender inequities and bringing tal-
ented women into Olympic executive positions. Nevertheless, the targets
were not achieved since, overall, women’s presence on executives of NOCs
had only risen to 17.6% and on IFs to 18.3% in 2009 (Henry & Robinson,
2010). Some continents achieved better women’s representation on its NOC
executive committees than others. The average women’s presence on NOCs
was well below the target of 20% in Asia (12.5%) and Europe (14.1%),
while Africa (19.5%) was close to the target. By contrast, NOCs in both
the Americas (20.5%) and Oceania (26.1%) exceeded the target. Research-
ers attributed this higher level of women’s representation to the fact that
NOCs in Oceania had been established relatively recently and thus were
less influenced by traditional patterns of male domination in sport govern-
ance. In relation to the IFs, women’s overall representation (18.3%) is actu-
ally skewed by the presence of a small number of women—sometimes only
one—on some small boards. Therefore the results are even more sobering;
more than half (55.3%) of the IFs had only one or no women executives.
Regardless of whether or not the target was achieved, it should be noted
that, in terms of gender balance, a target of 20% is very modest; a minimum
of 40% is usually regarded as a measure of gender equity. There were no
penalties or sanctions for failing to achieve the targets. Unlike quotas, they
were not compulsory or legally binding. Henry and Robinson (2010) con-
cluded that even those NOCs and IFs that had achieved the minimum target
had not necessarily adopted new policies which would enhance women’s
participation in sport organizations. This raises another important issue,
namely, that the adoption of targets and quotas is not necessarily sufficient
to achieve true gender equity in the governance of sport. This requires tran-
scending numbers and ensuring that women and men exercise equal influ-
ence in strategic decision-making and resource allocation. The next section
further explores this issue in relation to the impact of gender quotas, includ-
ing the issue of how we can ensure sustainable change to achieve gender
equity.

The impact of gender quotas

A recent study examined the impact of gender quotas on gender equity in
the governance of National Sport Organizations in Australia (Adriaanse &
Schofield, 2014). It was part of a larger study into gender dynamics on the
boards of these organizations. The theoretical concept of a gender regime
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 91

(Connell, 2009) was central to the study. A gender regime refers to a pat-
tern of gender relations characterized by four interwoven dimensions of
social life: production relations, power relations, emotional relations, and
symbolic relations. According to Connell, the first dimension—production
relations—is about the way in which production or work is divided along
gender lines. In the context of sport governance, it involves the way in which
roles and tasks are allocated to men and women on the board. The second
dimension, power relations, refers to the manner in which power, authority,
and control are divided along gender lines. In sport governance, this relates
to who exerts influence on the board and makes important decisions. As
previously discussed, men often outnumber and outrank women on sport
boards and therefore wield more power and influence. The third dimension
of a gender regime is emotional relations, which refer to attachment and
antagonism between people along gender lines. In the case of sport boards,
this concerns patterns of attachment and hostility between and among men
and women board members. This can be observed when, for example, they
support or, alternatively, undermine each other in their work. The fourth
dimension, symbolic relations, involves the prevailing beliefs and attitudes
about gender. In the realm of sport governance, this refers to the way in
which men and women understand and value gender and gender equity. It
includes board members’ beliefs about gender equity and the use of gender
quotas. An overview of the four-dimensional gender model applied to the
context of sport governance is presented in Table 6.3.
Although these four dimensions can be examined separately for heuris-
tic purposes, it is important to emphasize that they are interwoven and
constantly interact with each other. Overall, the four dimensions pro-
duce a gender pattern or regime which provides a better understanding
of how gender works in organizations or on a board. Further, it allows an
analysis of the prospects for gender equity in the organization or, in this
case, the governance of a sport organization (Connell, 2005; Schofield &
Goodwin, 2005).

Table 6.3 Four-dimensional gender model applied to sport governance

Gender dimension Application to sport governance

Production relations How roles and tasks are allocated to
men and women on the board
Power relations How power, authority, and control are
divided between and among men and
women board members
Emotional relations Patterns of attachment and hostility
between and among men and women
board members
Symbolic relations How men and women understand and
value gender and gender equity
92 Adriaanse

The study investigated the gender regime on boards of three Australian

NSOs which had adopted gender quotas that were specified in their respec-
tive constitutions. Board D was the national governing body of a popular
non-Olympic individual and team sport. Using the four-dimensional model,
Adriaanse and Schofield’s (2014) analysis showed that this board repre-
sented a gender regime that could best be characterized as one of masculine
hegemony. It had introduced a gender quota of one, which meant that at
least one director must be male and at least one female. There were seven
male and two female directors on the board. In terms of production rela-
tions, men assumed most of the tasks because they were in the majority.
Men also prevailed in power relations because they occupied the most influ-
ential positions, such as president and chief executive. In terms of emotional
relations, men and women worked cooperatively and there was no evidence
of explicit affection or hostility between them. In terms of symbolic rela-
tions, most directors understood gender equity as providing equal opportu-
nity for all. Interviews with the board members disclosed that several male
directors did not agree with the use of gender quotas. One male director
said: “There should be more (women) … (but) it shouldn’t be mandated …
I am not interested in ‘you must have that and you must have (this).’ ” They
stated that the lack of gender balance on the board was mainly because not
enough women were willing to ‘step up’ and be nominated for leadership
positions. One of the women directors commented that women often lacked
governance skills and experience. The board agreed that gender inequity
was essentially a problem within women themselves. The chief executive,
nevertheless, felt that the board had an obligation to actively address the
issue. Given that he was a minority of one, the prospects for achieving gen-
der equity on this board were very limited.
Board C was the Australian governing body of a popular Olympic indi-
vidual sport. The gender relations on this board shaped a gender regime
of masculine hegemony in transition (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2014). The
constitution included a gender clause of a minimum of two directors of
each gender. At the time of the study, the board consisted of four men and
two women; therefore women’s representation was 33%. Production and
power relations were dominated by men because they outnumbered women,
assumed the majority of tasks and had a strong influence in the decision-
making process. An interesting dynamic emerged, however, because a
woman occupied the president’s role and she was committed to promot-
ing gender equity in the sport. In terms of emotional relations, she was
strongly supported by a close group of two directors and the male chief
executive. On the other hand, she was fiercely resisted by one male direc-
tor who felt that she was not a good leader due to her uncompromising
rational approach and her lack of knowledge of the sport itself. Regard-
ing the symbolic relations, there was ambivalence about the gender quota
clause. Most directors felt that getting the “best” people on the board had
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 93

priority over achieving a gender-balanced board. One male director said:

“I just believe you get the best people, whoever the best people are, that’s
what you need for the organization.” On the other hand, the chief execu-
tive strongly supported gender balance by arguing that the presence of more
diverse perspectives would actually enhance the board’s decision-making
and problem-solving capacity. Overall, as in the previous gender regime,
prospects for gender equity on this board were limited, but could be viewed
more positively mainly due to the influence of the female president and the
supportive attitude of the chief executive.
Board E was the governing body of a prominent Olympic team sport in
Australia. The gender regime on this board was characterized as one of gen-
der mainstreaming in progress (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2014). The gender
quota set for this board was a minimum of three members of each gender.
There were nine directors, six men and three women, or a 33% represen-
tation of women. Although men dominated production and power rela-
tions merely through numbers, the minority of three women had significant
influence through their specific portfolios, which included finance and high
performance. The women were strongly supported in their role by the chair
and the chief executive, both of whom were male. It was evident that the
emotional relations among board members were supportive and collabora-
tive; the board formed a cohesive team. In terms of symbolic relations, none
of the directors expressed resistance to the gender quota clause. They were
committed to gender equity. The CEO said: “The organisation … very much
embraces the ethos of equality across a whole range of areas, and that is true
for the board as well.” Directors also understood that gender equity needs
to go beyond gender balance in numbers on the board. They mentioned that
it involves equitable contributions and participation by men and women at
every level of the sport. As one of the women directors explained, it meant
considering a gender perspective on all issues such as board composition,
policy development and resource allocation, which reflects a gender main-
streaming approach (Rees, 2002). Gender equity had not yet been achieved
but, in comparison with the previous two sport boards, this gender regime
demonstrated conditions that were the most conducive to accelerated posi-
tive change.
The key finding of the study was that a quota of a minimum of three
women was fundamental for advancing gender equity in sport governance.
It is important to emphasize that a minimum percentage is insufficient; the
quota needs to extend to specify a minimum number of three. Both boards
C and E had 33% women’s representation but only Board E had three
women members. It was this, I argue, that contributed to its ongoing gen-
der regime of gender mainstreaming with its promise of advancing gender
equity. This finding supports other research in corporate governance which
found that the appointment of three or more women is necessary to form
a critical mass which is essential to change boardroom dynamics (Konrad,
94 Adriaanse

Kramer, & Erkut, 2008; Torchia et al., 2011). The study also showed that
the establishment of a quota with a minimum of three was only the first
condition for advancing gender equity. In relation to the four-dimensional
gender model, the other conditions were: i) board members’ understand-
ing of and commitment to gender equity across all activities of the sport
organization (symbolic relations); ii) the allocation of women directors
to key portfolios or roles on the board (production and power relations);
and iii) a collaborative, supportive environment among board members
(emotional relations).

Conclusion
This chapter has explored the use of gender quotas to improve gender equity
in sport leadership, in particular in the governance of national sport organi-
zations and international federations. Gender quotas are often introduced
after other initiatives have failed to achieve gender equity as seen, for exam-
ple, in the Norwegian case study discussed above (Torchia et al., 2011).
Establishing quotas, however, is controversial. Proponents argue strongly
that quotas are an effective strategy for identifying and promoting tal-
ented women, which benefits the organization. Opponents, including some
women, are equally passionate in their view that quotas undermine appoint-
ments based on merit. The study of boards of Australian sport organizations
provides evidence of this ambivalence toward gender quotas; while some
board members (on Board E) embraced this measure, others (on Boards C
and D) clearly did not.
Several global initiatives other than quotas have been introduced to
address gender equity in sport leadership. The first international declaration
to advance women and sport—the Brighton Declaration, which was updated
in 2014 to the Brighton plus Helsinki Declaration and signed by more than
400 organizations worldwide—includes a clause on increasing the number
of women in sport leadership positions (International Working Group on
Women and Sport, 2016b). Another key initiative was the publication and
wide distribution of the UN document Women 2000 and Beyond: Women,
Gender Equality and Sport (United Nations Division for the Advancement of
Women, 2007). It emphasized the need to address the underrepresentation of
women in decision-making bodies of sport organizations from local to inter-
national level and included a range of recommendations on ways of achiev-
ing gender equity in sport leadership. Despite these important initiatives,
data from the Sydney Scoreboard show that gender equity has not yet been
achieved. Although considerable progress has been made, women remain
markedly underrepresented: none of the three key indicators of women’s
participation as directors, chairs, and chief executives has yet reached 40%.
The introduction of targets to improve gender balance in sport governance
has had limited success due to the voluntary nature of this strategy. This was
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 95

evident when the use of gender targets for Olympic governing bodies was
evaluated (Henry et al., 2004; Henry & Robinson, 2010).
The limited progress made so far suggests that the use of gender quotas
warrants consideration as a strategy to accelerate women’s representation
in sport governance. But do they work? A key finding of a study into the
impact of quotas on gender equity in Australian sport was that a minimum
of three women who made up a third or more of board members contributed
to gender equity. However, this is only a first step because quotas needed
to operate with other gender dimensions to move toward gender equity,
that is, equal participation by men and women in board decision-making.
Based on the four-dimensional gender model (Connell, 2005, 2009), the
other conditions were: adopting gender equity as an organizational value
by all board members; sharing of influential roles on the board, with both
men and women taking responsibility for significant portfolios; and creat-
ing a cohesive, supportive team of board members. Overall, gender quotas
are best perceived as part of a suite of strategies to achieve gender equity
in sport leadership. International declarations and publications on women,
sport and gender equity are valuable in creating awareness of and sensitiv-
ity to the issue, but it is clear that additional efforts are required to achieve
equal participation by men and women on sport boards. Gender quotas can
add value and work effectively provided they occur in conjunction with the
other three conditions on the board. Ultimately, when gender balance in the
composition of the board is achieved, global sport governance can reach its
full potential.

References
Adriaanse, J. (2016). Gender diversity in the governance of sport associations: The
Sydney Scoreboard global index of participation. Journal of Business Ethics,
137(1), 149–160.
Adriaanse, J. A., & Claringbould, I. (2016). Gender equality in sport leadership:
From the Brighton Declaration to the Sydney Scoreboard. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport, 51(5), 547–566.
Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analysing gender dynamics in sport govern-
ance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 16, 498–513.
Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2014). The impact of gender quotas on gender
equality in sport governance. Journal of Sport Management, 28(5), 485–497.
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2010). Gender Equality Blueprint. Sydney:
Australian Human Rights Commission.
Bilimoria, D., & Wheeler, J. V. (2000). Women corporate directors: Current research
and future directions. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (eds.) Women in Manage-
ment: Current Research Issues (vol. II, pp. 138–163). London: Sage.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2008). Doing and undoing gender in sport gov-
ernance. Sex Roles, 58, 81–92.
96 Adriaanse

Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2012). Paradoxical practices of gender in sport-

related organisations. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5), 404–416.
Clarke, T. (2007). International Corporate Governance: A Comparative Approach.
London: Routledge.
Connell, R. (2005). Advancing gender reform in large-scale organisations: A new
approach for practioners and researchers. Policy and Society, 24(4), 5–24.
Connell, R. (2009). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
FIFA. (2016). FIFA Congress. Retrieved 8 from www.fifa.com/about-fifa/fifa-congress/
index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_extracongress
Henry, I., Radzi, W., Rich, E., Shelton, C., Theodoraki, E., & White, A. (2004).
Women, Leadership and the Olympic Movement. Loughborough: Institute of
Sport & Leisure Policy, Loughborough University and the International Olympic
Committee.
Henry, I., & Robinson, L. (2010). Gender Equity and Leadership in Olympic Bod-
ies. Loughborough: Centre for Olympic Studies and Research, Loughborough
University and International Olympic Committee.
Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders – prisoners of gender? The gendering of lead-
ership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of
Sport Policy and Politics, 2(2), 189–203.
International Triathlon Union. (2016). About. Retrieved from www.triathlon.org/
about
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2016a). IWG signatories.
Retrieved from http://iwg-gti.org/iwg-signatories-2/
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2016b). Past IWG World Con-
ference and their legacies. Retrieved 29 February 2016, from http://iwg-gti.org/
past-iwg-world-conferences-and-their-legacies/
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2016c). The Sydney Score-
board: A global index for women in sport leadership. Retrieved from www.
sydneyscoreboard.com/
Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm
performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass”? Journal of Business Eth-
ics, 118, 61–72.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Konrad, A.M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three
or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of direc-
tors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
18(2), 136–148.
Pfister, G., & Radtke, S. (2009). Sport, women and leadership: Results of a project
on executives in German sports organisations. European Journal of Sport Science,
9(4), 229–243.
Rees, T. (2002). A new strategy: Gender mainstreaming. Paper presented at the 5th
European Women and Sport Conference, Berlin.
Schofield, T., & Goodwin, S. (2005). Gender politics and public policy making:
Prospects for advancing gender equality. Policy and Society, 24(4), 25–44.
Schull, V., Shaw, S., & Kihl, I. A. (2013). If a woman came in ... she would have been
eaten up alive: Analyzing gendered political processes in the search for an athletic
director. Gender and Society, 27(1), 56–81.
 Quotas to accelerate gender equity 97

Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is
a bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport
organisations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–375.
Shaw, S., & Penney, D. (2003). Gender equity policies in national governing bodies:
An oxymoron or a vehicle for change? European Sport Management Quarterly,
3(2), 78–102.
Shaw, S., & Slack, T. (2002). “It’s been like that for donkey’s years”: The construc-
tion of gender relations and the cultures of sports organisations. Culture, Sport,
Society, 5(1), 86–106.
Skirstad, B. (2009). Gender policy and organisational change: A contextual
approach. Sport Management Review, 12(4), 202–216.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards:
A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
17(3), 320–337.
Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards:
From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.
United Nations. (1945) Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from www.un.org/
en/charter-united-nations/
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
United Nations. (1979). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimi-
nation against women. Retrieved from www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
cedaw.htm
United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. (2007). Women 2000 and
Beyond: Women, Gender Equality and Sport. New York: United Nations Division
for the Advancement of Women.
van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of profes-
sional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Govern-
ance: An International Review, 11(3), 218–234.
Whelan, J., & Wood, R. (2012). Targets and Quotas for Women in Leadership:
A Global Review of Policy, Practice and Psychological Research. Melbourne:
Centre for Ethical Leadership, Melbourne Business School.
Chapter 7

Young women in sport:

understanding leadership
in sport
Vicki D. Schull

Introduction
Sport participation rates for girls and women have increased dramatically
over the last four decades. In the United States, nearly 3.2 million girls par-
ticipate in high school sports (NFHS, 2013), while over 200,000 women
participate in sport at the college level (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014). The
increased participation rates bode well for women in leadership, given the
popular anecdote that sport participation builds leadership. In fact, women
have increased their representation in leadership positions across a variety
of employment and business sectors, and many women in upper-level lead-
ership positions attribute their success to their participation in sports (EY &
espnW, 2015). Yet the belief that sport builds leadership does not seem to
apply to women in sport, and despite these record participation rates, the
underrepresentation and continued decline of women in leadership posi-
tions persists at all levels of sport (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014; Lapchick,
2012; LaVoi, 2013; Smith & Wrynn, 2013).
The continued decline of women in sport leadership and coaching posi-
tions was underscored in the 2016 National Collegiate Athletic Associa-
tion (NCAA) Women’s Basketball Final Four where, for the first time in its
35-year history (and the first time in the 44-year history of women’s college
basketball championships) all four teams were coached by men (Walters,
2016). The NCAA Women’s Final Four basketball championship is one of
the most watched women’s sporting events in the United States, and his-
torically at least one of the four teams playing for the championship was
coached by a women. Women’s college basketball in the United States also
features a higher percentage of women head coaches at 59.2% (Acosta &
Carpenter, 2014), and yet the figure is still deficient.
The underrepresentation and continued decline of women holding leader-
ship positions is somewhat surprising when framed by: 1) the dramatic increase
in sport participation opportunities for girls and women; 2) the belief that
sport participation builds leaders and associated skills; and 3) the knowledge
that a logical career progression to sport leadership positions begins with sport
 Young women in sport 99

participation (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Lough & Grappendorf, 2007).

Put another way, former athletes are more likely to enter the sport leadership
pipeline and move into coaching and sport management positions; however,
this logic does not seem to translate to women in sport leadership, despite their
increased participation rates. This begs the question that if girls and women
are participating in sports at record levels, why then are so few women rising
through the ranks to obtain and/or maintain sport leadership positions?
This chapter examines how young women conceptualize leadership in
sport by focusing specifically on the sport leadership perceptions of female
athletes. Sport and gender scholars have examined women’s underrepre-
sentation in sport leadership by focusing on women who currently hold or
have recently held leadership positions within various sport organizations
(for a review, see Burton, 2015). However, female athletes represent a large
and often overlooked pool of qualified candidates who are a critical piece of
the puzzle with perhaps the most promise to increase women’s representa-
tion in leadership positions across all levels of sport (Madsen, 2010; Schull,
2014). For example, Drago, Hennighausen, Rogers, Vescio, and Stauffer
(2005) found that many female athletes are not pursuing leadership posi-
tions in college sports when their athletic careers have concluded. By exam-
ining their understandings of leadership and leadership narratives, we can
recognize perceptions of leadership, develop strategies to support leadership
development from a multilevel perspective, and provide useful knowledge
to practitioners in the coaching and mentoring of young women in sport
leadership. Highlighting female athletes’ perceptions of leadership in sport
can also contribute new insights and broader sociological understandings of
leadership practices (Elliot & Stead, 2008), which can go some way to dis-
rupting the dominant forms of masculinity associated with sport leadership.

Peer leadership in sport

It is well established that leadership is a very important practice within the
context of sport teams. A coach, by the nature of his or her position, leads
a team, and the majority of scholars have thus focused their attention on
the coach leadership construct. However, the focus of this chapter is on peer
or athlete leadership. Peer leadership is defined as the behaviors and attrib-
utes displayed by and among team members intended to influence group
members to achieve common goals (Loughead, Hardy, & Eys, 2006). Peer
leadership includes both formal and informal roles—that is to say, anyone
can display leadership regardless of title or position within the group or
team. While there have been numerous studies focusing on peer leadership
in sport, few have focused specifically on young women’s leadership per-
ceptions in the context of sport. Women’s leadership experiences remain
marginalized and excluded in masculine-oriented cultures (Elliott & Stead,
2008), and sport is certainly a culture and social institution with a strong
Table 7.1 Peer leadership in sport: young women’s perceptions

Authors Participants Findings/Conclusions

Price & Weiss, 2011 Adolescent girls (a) H igher levels of perceived sport competence, intrinsic motivation,
participating in soccer and behavioral conduct were positively linked to peer leadership
(14–18 years old) behaviors
(b) Peer leadership behaviors are important to team outcomes such as
cohesion, goal attainment, and efficacy
Price & Weiss, 2013 Adolescent girls (a) Peer and coach transformational leadership behaviors were related
participating in soccer to positive athlete and team outcomes
(14–18 years old) (b) Peer transformational leadership behaviors were more influential
than coach leadership to social cohesion
(b) C oach transformational leadership behaviors were more influential
than peer leadership related to individual athlete outcomes
(d) B oth peer and coach transformational behaviors were influential on
task outcomes
Loughead & Hardy, Women (94) and men (a) C oach and peer leaders displayed different leadership behaviors
2005 (144) Canadian (b) Peer leaders displayed more positive feedback, social support, and
athletes in a variety of democratic behaviors, while coaches displayed more autocratic behaviors
competitive levels and behaviors related to training and instruction
(Mean age: 20.39) (c) Peer leadership was displayed by both team captains and other team
members
Loughead, Hardy, & Women (118) and men (a) F ormal team leaders more likely identified as team leaders and
Eys, 2006 (140) varsity student- serve as liaisons to coaches while informal leaders were more often
athletes from two viewed as peer leaders; the majority of players identified as leaders
Canadian universities were third and fourth year players and starters
(Mean age: 20.6) (b) F ewer athletes occupied external leadership roles compared to
social and task leadership
(c) Team and peer leadership was stable over the course of a season
Authors Participants Findings/Conclusions
Eys, Loughead, & Women (115) and men (a) A thletes who perceived a balance between the three leadership
Hardy, 2007 (103) varsity student- functions (i.e., task, social, and external) were more satisfied with
athletes from two their team’s performance and integration than those athletes who
Canadian universities perceived an imbalance in the three functions
(Mean age: 20.6)
Holmes, McNeil, Women (46) and men (a) M en athletes preferred peer leaders to display more autocratic
Adorna, & (33) student-athletes behaviors compared to women athletes
Procaccino, 2008 from a US university (b) B oth men and women participants believed peer leaders should
(Mean age: 19.32 work hard and set an example; however, men participants placed
[women] and more value on work ethic and performance leadership behaviors
19.58[men]) while women participants placed more value on vocal and
encouraging leadership behaviors
Holmes, McNeil, & Women (17) and men (a) C ertain perceptions of peer sport leadership behaviors and
Adorna, 2010 (16) student athletes characteristics are common for both men and women (e.g., vocal,
from a US university trustworthy, lead by example, role model, interpersonal skills)
(18–21 years old) (b) L eadership perceptions more important for women athletes included
being vocal, sensitive, and interpersonal skills
(c) L eadership perceptions more important for men athletes included
being trustworthy and having athletic/sport experience
Glen & Horn, 1993 Female (106) high Peer leaders rely on both instrumental and expressive behaviors
school soccer athletes
Schull, 2014 Women (23) student (a) F emale athletes’ perceptions of peer leadership including
athletes at a US communication, being an example, and social leadership
university (19–22 (b) P articipants’ perceptions of peer leadership draw on both masculine
years old) and feminine leadership styles
(c) P articipants’ leadership perceptions include gendered assumptions
related to leadership
102 Schull

history of favoring men and featuring dominant forms of masculinity. So the

lack of attention to women’s leadership experiences is not necessarily sur-
prising. It is, however, problematic, as we know research informs practice.
Nine studies were identified that examined athlete peer leadership in sport
including the leadership experiences, behaviors, and or conceptions of young
women in sport. Only four of those studies focused exclusively on female ath-
letes’ peer leadership perceptions and experiences, while five included both
female and male athletes. One recent study examined the leadership percep-
tions of female athletes in US college sport utilizing a gendered social process
approach (Schull, 2014). Table 7.1 provides a summary of these studies.

Gender and leadership in sport

In order to explore and analyze the leadership perceptions of young women
in sport, it is important to understand the integral links between gender,
leadership, and the sport context. Briefly, leadership and gender are both
inherently social products and influenced by socio-cultural factors within
a specific context. Sport is a decidedly gendered context where common
leadership conceptions and narratives feature forms of dominant masculin-
ity (Hovden, 2000; Shaw, 2006; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003), and where sport
leadership positions are quantitatively dominated and controlled by men
(Acosta & Carpenter, 2014; Lapchick, 2012; LaVoi, 2013; Smith & Wrynn,
2013). Gender, leadership, and sport thus comprise a powerful and domi-
nant trio (Schull, 2016), and as such, potentially make sport leadership posi-
tions difficult for some women to successfully navigate (Madsen, 2010).
Gender is positioned as a set of social relations where beliefs around what
it means to be a man or woman, male or female, and masculine or feminine
are created, expressed, and reproduced through complex social processes
(Britton & Logan, 2008; Ely & Meyerson, 2000). Gender relations play
out in ways in which masculinity/femininity, male/female are defined and
described in relation to the other. As gendered distinctions and differences
are made, gender inequality is created, sustained, and in some cases, chal-
lenged. While there are several categories of gendered social processes, those
related to leadership conceptions include: 1) narratives, cultures, and ide-
ologies; and 2) gender appropriate behaviors and expectations (Britton &
Logan, 2008; Ely & Meyerson, 2000). For example, dominant masculine
values and ideologies such as aggression, physicality, and power are endemic
in general sport narratives and therefore define the culture of sport as a
masculine space. Sport leadership narratives also feature masculine values
such as heroic individualism, authority, and paternalism (Hovden, 2000,
2010; Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2005; 2008; Schull, 2014, 2016). Mascu-
line leadership narratives contribute to a state of play in sport contexts and
cultures that favor certain men as sport leaders more so than women and
similarly value expressions of masculinities over forms of femininity.
 Young women in sport 103

Gender-appropriate behaviors and expectations also influence notions

of leadership in many contexts—especially male-dominated positions and
cultures found in sport contexts. For example, gendered leadership expecta-
tions and stereotypes are associated with sport leadership including senior
management positions in sport organizations (Hovden, 2000; Knoppers &
Anthonissen, 2005, 2008; Shaw, 2006; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003), as well as
expectations for male and female coaches (Fasting & Pfister, 2000; Messner,
2009; Schull, 2014, 2016). Gender-appropriate behaviors and expectations
in sport, like other masculine-dominated contexts, often place women in
“double-binds,” where feminine styles of leadership are expected of women,
yet not rewarded and valued equally (Eagly, 2007). While at the same time,
if women display the masculine leadership styles compatible with the con-
text, they are penalized because others may perceive this to be incompatible
with their identities as women.
Leadership is also a social process constructed and embedded in a context
where prevailing assumptions, beliefs, and history matter (Osborn, Hunt, &
Jauch, 2002). Perceptions of leadership are thus influenced by an individ-
ual’s experiences—both past and present—and are shaped by collective
beliefs within a specific socio-historic context. For example, socio-cultural
factors that influence sport leadership conceptions include the competition
level and setting, the high task-focused orientation of sport, individuals’
past sport experiences, as well as leader-focused attributes such as commu-
nication, sport skill/competence, and class/age (Holmes et al., 2008; Holmes
et al., 2010; Price & Weiss, 2011, 2013). Leadership is thus conceptualized
and practiced differently in sport compared to other settings and influenced
by the gendered sport culture where men and masculine values have been
historically embedded and continue to persist.

Gender-specific leadership styles

Noteworthy to the study of leadership is a recent shift in leadership prac-
tices and ideals from traditional conceptions featuring authoritative, com-
mand, and control styles to more egalitarian, collaborative, and relational
styles (Fletcher, 2004). Gender is also implicated in this shift as leadership
and gender scholars contend that traditional leadership styles are conceived
of in terms of masculine traits and values. For example, traits commonly
associated with traditional leadership include authority, heroic individual-
ism, control, and ‘power over’ subordinates. While both men and women
can display these traits and characteristics, they are socially constructed as
masculine and more often assigned to men. Contemporary leadership styles
featuring egalitarian, collaborative, relational, and ‘power with’ styles are
socially constructed as feminine. Here again, both men and women can dis-
play these traits, but they are more commonly assigned to women. Despite
the shift in leadership practices, conceptions and everyday narratives of
104 Schull

leadership remain stuck in the outdated styles and approaches (Fletcher,

2004). That is to say that leadership narratives and attributes remain firmly
grounded in masculine values—especially in male-dominated contexts such
as sport (Drago et al., 2005; Hanold, 2011; Schull, 2014).
Gender-specific leadership styles (e.g., authoritarian/masculine and rela-
tional/feminine) emerged in examinations of the differences between men and
women related to the way they lead and the associated leadership attributes.
While it is widely disputed whether or not men and women truly lead differ-
ently, the gendered ideologies and stereotypes that have emerged from such
inquiries are no doubt part of the greater leadership narratives. There is also
some criticism around gender-specific leadership styles as it can be seen as
an oversimplification based on its gender binary approach (Hovden, 2010).
This is an important critique given that gender binaries highlight gender
differences and could be perceived as prescriptive in nature. That is, stating
that all men lead in authoritative ways, while all women are relational lead-
ers is clearly a generalization and thus perpetuates gender stereotypes and
biases. While recognizing this important critique, gender-specific leadership
is a useful frame through which to examine leadership conceptions of young
women in sport. A gender-specific approach can enhance understandings
of gendered leadership conceptions within social processes (e.g., narratives,
ideologies, cultures, and gender-appropriate behaviors) by examining how
gendered categories associated with leadership acquire meaning. Further-
more, sport scholars have utilized gender-specific leadership styles to exam-
ine women’s perceptions of their own leadership work in sport (Brown &
Light, 2012), as well as conceptions of female leadership in sport (Hovden,
2010). The focus on women’s leadership perceptions, experiences, and con-
structions of female leadership can also serve to dismantle the gender binary
and gendered assumptions and beliefs by highlighting variations and contra-
dictions to gender-specific leadership styles. It is with this approach in mind
that I next discuss and analyze female athletes’ perceptions of leadership
in sport, while paying close attention to the gendered nature of leadership.

Female athletes’ perceptions of leadership

and gender implications
Young women in sport conceptualize peer leadership as a multidimensional
construct of leader-focused behaviors including task-oriented behaviors,
social-oriented behaviors, communication, and external behaviors. Peer
leadership was also often described as positional or hierarchical in nature,
although many female athletes do believe that anyone can be a leader and
contribute to the leadership process within their athletic teams. Many of the
leadership dimensions highlighted are reflective of the behavioral leader-
ship approach (Yukl, 2012). There are also some subtle gender implications
associated with the multiple dimensions of peer leadership. More broadly,
 Young women in sport 105

a behavioral approach by definition is focused on the leader’s behaviors

drawing attention to agentic qualities and ‘heroic individualism’ which are
considered masculine in nature (Eagly, 2007; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt,
2001; Fletcher, 2004). The multiple dimensions are further outlined in this
section and the gender implications of each dimension are woven into the
discussion.

Task-oriented leadership
Task-oriented peer leadership for female adolescent soccer players included
a variety of sport-related leadership behaviors such as developing team cohe-
siveness and confidence, guiding team tasks, and goal attainment (Price &
Weiss, 2013). Female athletes in college sport also believed that peer leaders
should demonstrate a strong work ethic, serve as an example within their
team, and provide positive feedback and motivation, as these functions
relate to team goals and performance outcomes (Holmes et al., 2008, 2010;
Loughead & Hardy, 2005; Schull, 2014). One female athlete described lead-
ership in task-oriented terms: “Leadership is somebody who can command
a presence within a team … they’re very objective, they can look over the
entire situation, and what’s going on and see the best possible answer to the
problem” (Schull, 2014). In terms of serving as an example, another female
athlete stated: “That’s what leadership is, taking initiative, going out on a
limb, and you do things without being told to do it” (Schull, 2014).
Team task completion and goal achievement is often associated with a
transactional leadership style (Peachy & Burton, 2011; Yukl, 2012). Given
the high-task and goal-oriented nature of sport teams, transactional styles
are seemingly a good match for sport contexts. Transactional leadership
styles often feature autocratic behaviors and are therefore more often
affiliated with men and perceived to be masculine in nature (Eagly, 2007;
Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Fletcher, 2004). The first quote above,
for example, highlights the autocratic and transactional (i.e., masculine)
leadership style—in particular the way a leader is described as “command-
ing a presence within a team.” Other masculinized leadership traits implicit
within transactional leadership are agency with a team/group, assertiveness,
and heroic individualism (Eagly, 2007; Fletcher, 2004; Hovden, 2000). For
example, the second quote above highlights, not only the heroic and indi-
vidual nature of leadership, but also how leaders demonstrate agency, or the
capacity to act for a group or team. Such leadership perceptions that laud
the behaviors of an individual leader as solely responsible for leadership
within a team or group are in contrast to the more collective and collabora-
tive leadership practices, which again are socially constructed as feminine
(Fletcher, 2004).
The connection between transactional leadership and masculinity sug-
gests that perhaps some female athletes believe masculine leadership styles
106 Schull

are better suited for athletic contexts. The connection between masculine
leadership traits and transactional leadership in sport could also help to
explain why some female athletes prefer men coaches in a variety of settings,
including US college sport. For example, Drago et al. (2005) found that
female athletes preferred a coach who was able to command respect, was
authoritarian, and kept their personal lives private, while Frey, Czech, Kent,
and Johnson (2006) found that nine out of twelve female athletes expressed
explicit preferences for male coaches, because they believed men were better
able to enforce discipline and garner respect.
Gendered leadership expectations of coaches and preferences for male
coaches could also be influential to female athletes’ career aspirations to
obtain sport leadership positions. For example, young women in sport
may internalize the gendered and masculinized leadership assumptions and
expectations and perhaps feel that their own leadership styles are not com-
patible for such sport leadership positions (Schull, 2014). Madsen (2010)
further stated: “the combination of the masculine nature of athletics and the
masculine assumptions of leadership make athletic careers extremely diffi-
cult for women to successfully negotiate” (p. 3). Furthermore, if and when
former female athletes display authoritarian leadership behaviors developed
and nurtured in athletic contexts, they could get caught up in the double
leadership bind, where they are scrutinized for acting in masculine ways
that do not conform to their gender, and dismissed and overlooked as lead-
ers when they comply with gender-appropriate leadership expectations. We
have seen countless women leaders, both in sport and out of sport contexts,
fall victim to the double bind mentality.

Social-oriented leadership
Social-oriented behaviors represented a second important dimension of peer
leadership in sport contexts, and for 14–18-year-old female soccer players,
this included the ability to demonstrate care and concern for teammates
and to develop relationships and discussions with coaches (Price & Weiss,
2011, 2013). Peer leaders were also well liked among their team (Price &
Weiss, 2011), and likability is a decidedly social element of leadership.
Young women in college sport also valued social leadership among their
peers; however, one notable difference is that likability was not necessarily
a contributing factor of leadership for female college students. That is, peer
leaders did not have to be liked to be effective leaders and female college
athletes indicated that respect was more important to leadership than lik-
ability (Holmes et al., 2010). This difference could be a reflection of age and
experience of the participants, as well as differences in sport and competi-
tion levels (i.e., youth sports compared to college sport).
Other important social leadership behaviors identified by female college
athletes included the ability to demonstrate good interpersonal skills, to
 Young women in sport 107

foster individual relationships, and to be trustworthy and caring (Holmes

et al., 2008, 2010). In terms of relational leadership, one female athlete
said: “I try to keep a relationship with every [teammate], too. I try to find
something special about everybody that I can connect with, and it’s not even
about [team/sport]” (Schull, 2014). In addition to developing relationships
with teammates, for some young women in college sport the ability to pro-
mote team cohesion and harmony outside of the athletic arena, to provide
individual support, and to manage conflicts between teammates were all
important aspects of social leadership (Schull, 2014). For example, another
female athlete stated: “Being able to bring the team together … being able
to keep the team cohesiveness together through the good times and the bad
times, and I would definitely say a leader is somebody that any of the other
players can go to for problems with [our team/sport] or school” (Schull,
2014).
Accounts of social-oriented peer leadership are in line with Eagly’s (2007)
and Fletcher’s (2004) descriptions of collaborative and relational leadership
practices. Such relational leadership practices are not only gaining traction
and value in contemporary organizations, but are also socially constructed
as feminine. For example, fostering interpersonal relationships and provid-
ing support and displaying empathy toward others are distinctly relational
and feature more egalitarian, or equal and open leadership practices in con-
trast to the autocratic and hierarchical styles associated with traditionally
masculine leadership. The increased focus on social and relational leader-
ship has led to discussions around a potential female advantage in lead-
ership (Eagly, 2007), which would seemingly serve many female athletes
transitioning to work after their athletic careers conclude very well. How-
ever, women leaders should also be aware of gendered expectations associ-
ated with providing emotional support and labor—that is, women leaders
are more often expected to provide emotional labor to their followers, and
albeit important, emotional support is not valued as highly as other forms of
leadership when displayed by women leaders (Eagly, 2007; Fletcher, 2004).
The gendered expectations tied to social and relational leadership make up
the second part of the ‘double bind’ facing women leaders. More specifically,
the social and relational leadership contributions of women, while gender
appropriate, are not rewarded to the same extent as the leadership contribu-
tions of men. Men in leadership roles do not face such binds—in fact, when
they express more feminine and relational leadership and empathize with
their followers, rather than face scrutiny for acting counter to gender appro-
priate expectations, they are praised for their interpersonal skills, making
the very same leadership practices expressed by women expendable.
It is also relevant to note that Holmes and colleagues (2010) reported gen-
der differences among female and male college athletes related to social peer
leadership. More specifically, they found that female athletes often placed
more emphasis on providing encouragement and demonstrating sensitivity,
108 Schull

compared to male athletes who emphasized performance, experience, and

trust. More recently, Schull’s (2014) study found that female athletes in college
sport discussed social leadership less frequently, compared to task-oriented
leadership. That is, female athletes valued the task-oriented behaviors such
as accountability, role modeling, communication and motivation to a greater
extent than social leadership skills; however, this examination did not include
comparisons to male athletes.

Communication
A third dimension of peer leadership is communication. Communication
was often positioned within other leadership dimensions. For example, the
ability to provide feedback and motivation through communication with
teammates is also directly related to team task behaviors and social commu-
nication. However, positioning communication as a stand-alone category
or dimension highlights the nuances of communication skills that contrib-
uted to peer leadership perceptions (Holmes et al., 2010; Schull, 2014).
Communication leadership broadly included being verbal, motivating, and
encouraging to teammates (Holmes et al., 2008, 2010; Schull, 2014). Com-
munication leadership also played out in the expectations that some players
would serve as liaisons between players and coach by interpreting coaches’
instructions and representing teammates views with coaches.
For some young women (i.e., NCAA Division I female athletes), com-
munication leadership included the ability to hold teammates accountable
to certain team standards or expectations. Accountability was accomplished
by a team leader’s ability to ‘call out’ teammates, which was described by
female college athletes as the ability to ‘speak up’ and to confront or repri-
mand teammates when they did not meet or comply with certain team stand-
ards (e.g., rules, performance expectations). For example, one participant
highlighted that: “If you do something wrong, expect your teammates to
call you out on it. Or if you’re not playing hard, expect your teammates to
call you out on it … holding each other accountable is huge” (Schull, 2014).
Female athletes’ descriptions of accountability communication fea-
tured autocratic and authoritarian leadership styles, including the ability
to be assertive with one’s peers. Fletcher (2004) describes authoritarian
and autocratic leadership styles in terms of exercising ‘power over’ oth-
ers, which is also linked to masculine leadership ideals. Authoritarian and
‘power over’ leadership behaviors are considered outdated and have lost
some relevance in contemporary organizational settings where workers
prefer collaborative and egalitarian leadership practices (Eagly, 2007).
Sport, however, is not one of those setting as it has been argued that out-
dated and autocratic practices persist in sport leadership and coaching
positions (Drago et al., 2005; Hanold, 2011; Knoppers & Anthonissen,
 Young women in sport 109

2005). Female college athletes also did not perceive the autocratic leader-
ship behaviors associated with holding teammates accountable to be out-
dated. Rather, they saw it for the most part as instrumental in terms of
team functioning and performance and a vital aspect of peer leadership
within athletic teams (Schull, 2014).
While female leaders in various settings are often expected to express
more sensitivity, empathy, and generally be more focused on relational
aspects rather than team tasks (Eagly, 2007; Fletcher, 2004), the notion that
young female athletes both value accountability among their peers and are
expected to hold teammates accountable departs from gender-specific lead-
ership styles that espouse egalitarian and collaborative leadership styles.
The expectation for ‘calling out’ teammates and associated autocratic lead-
ership practices thus challenges gendered leadership ideals and assists in
demonstrating the complexity of gender (Ashcraft, 2009). In other words,
not all young women in sport adhere to gendered expectations, nor do they
prefer their female peers to display simply emotional support and relational
leadership practices based upon their gender. However, young women in
sport should be aware of how such leadership behaviors may be perceived
by others and the challenges associated with those perceptions.
Likewise, it is important to note that for some young women, being asser-
tive with teammates by ‘calling them out’ made them a little uncomfortable,
and they described it as something they had to do based often upon their
position as a captain or on their years of experience on the team (Schull,
2014). One female athlete noted: “That was the first time I ever made an
[autocratic] statement knowing I wasn’t going to be someone’s friend and
having to be okay with it … I don’t like playing that role, but at the same
time we [captains] have to” (Schull, 2014).

External behaviors
Peer leadership for young women in sport included external behaviors, which
highlights the popular notion that peer leadership can emerge both in and
out of sport contexts. External behaviors also feature a blend of both task
and social leadership. For example, external behaviors consisted of repre-
senting and promoting the team at external functions and fundraising efforts
(Loughead & Hardy, 2005; Loughead et al., 2006), as well as representing
the team in the classroom by performing well academically and generally
serving as a role model out of the sport contexts (Holmes et al., 2008, 2010;
Schull, 2014). Other external peer leadership behaviors included administer-
ing individual support and the ability to understand the needs of the team
and its members off the field or court (Loughead & Hardy, 2005). External
leadership behaviors were specific to the college sport context where athletes
are more visible within a campus and local community and thus expected to
110 Schull

conduct themselves in a professional manner outside of their sport as they

can come under great scrutiny.
External leadership behaviors can take the form of heroic individualism
where behaviors and expectations for leadership center on individual lead-
ers and what they do outside of the athletic arena. There is also agency at
play given that certain individual players are expected to represent the team
at external functions and their behaviors are perceived as acting on behalf of
the team. For some athletes, external leadership overlaps with social leader-
ship given that leaders are expected to provide individual support to other
members of the team outside of sport contexts. External behaviors demon-
strate the notion that leaders in sport should be able to balance a variety of
leadership styles.

Hierarchical and positional leadership

Peer leadership, by its very definition, includes both formal and informal
leadership roles (Loughead et al., 2006). Young women in sport also believe
that leadership can be performed and displayed by a number of individuals
in various roles. For example, a common belief among athletes—both female
and male—is that you do not have to hold a formal position, such as a team
captain to exercise leadership (Loughead & Hardy, 2005; Schull, 2014).
However, it is important to note that while many young women (and men)
in sport subscribe to the belief that anyone can fulfill a leadership role regard-
less of formal position within team, formal leaders such as team captains and
players with more experience were often more likely to display leadership
and to be seen as leaders within their respective teams (Holmes et al., 2008;
Loughead et al., 2006; Schull, 2014). Formal leaders include team captains,
and the selection to formal leadership roles was influenced by player status
including year of eligibility and previous sport experience. Athletes who ful-
filled central roles on their team and athletes who possessed exemplary sport
skills were also more likely to be perceived as leaders and exhibit leadership
skills, such as the behaviors highlighted above (i.e., task, social, communica-
tion, external). Therefore, while it may be popular for athletes to espouse the
notion that anyone can exercise leadership, it appears to be more hierarchi-
cal, top-down and positional in sport teams (Schull, 2014).
While the hierarchical- and positional-based nature of peer leadership is
common in sport contexts, it provides a subtle departure from contempo-
rary organizational leadership that promotes collaborative more ‘bottom-
up’ styles of leadership where truly anyone can display leadership (Fletcher,
2004). Understanding leadership as hierarchical and positional may poten-
tially impact young women as they transition to life after sport and enter
the workforce. Gaining leadership experience and emerging as an informal
leader in task-oriented groups are vital to individual leadership develop-
ment. In the context of team sport, Schull (2014) found that emergent
 Young women in sport 111

informal leadership was stifled—especially for younger female athletes.

How this transfers to other work settings for former female athletes could
present them with some leadership challenges. If young women believe they
have to be in formal leadership positions or gain multiple years’ work expe-
rience with organizations or firms before exercising leadership, this could
place them at a distinct disadvantage compared to their peers.
It is also important to note that coaches play a role in prescribing leader-
ship beliefs and expectations—particularly the hierarchical or positional lead-
ership roles—by setting leadership expectations for captains and third and
fourth year players who possess more sport experience. For example, one
female athlete stated: “[Coaches] expect the captains to speak up. I practice
when there’s not enough energy … it’s kind of our job to hold each other
accountable and call people out” (Schull, 2014). The positional and hier-
archical nature of peer leadership is certainly a feature of the sport context
with the importance of team captains and where athletes are often referred to
by their years of experience with a team (e.g., rookie/novice, veteran). Sport
practitioners and coaches should be aware of the hierarchical leadership per-
ceptions and focus on leadership development for all participants—not just
captains and players who fulfill central roles on the team. Emergent and infor-
mal leadership are vital to the growth of leaders and will serve young women
well as they enter the work force.

Conclusions
Sport participation is often believed to contribute to the development of
leadership skills, and it is widely assumed and accepted that leadership
skills developed through sport participation can serve former athletes well
in their selected careers. Schull (2014) found that female athletes construct
peer leadership in the context of sport by drawing primarily on masculine
styles, traits, and practices. Female athletes also value aspects of social lead-
ership among their peers, but described leadership in more task-oriented
terms. Much of the research reviewed in this chapter also featured implicit
gendered leadership ideologies with a strong focus on task-oriented leader-
ship. One possible explanation for the gendered leadership constructions
could be due to the predominance of men sport leaders and coaches and the
likelihood that they perhaps more often express and normalize masculine
leadership practices. It is also quite likely that the sport context with its
strong focus on task/team performance and outcomes contributes to the
more masculine leadership constructions.
Considering the more recent shift in organizational leadership approaches
that embrace collaborative and relational practices, masculinized leadership
behaviors found in sport contexts could prove problematic for young women
entering the workforce. For example, the different leadership styles could
pose a ‘double bind’ for young women working in a variety of professions,
112 Schull

including sport. The double bind exists when women are expected to adhere
to gender-appropriate leadership practices such as being empathetic and col-
laborative, and in so doing they are valued less as leaders. At the same time,
if women display agentic, assertive, and authoritarian leadership behaviors
expected in certain contexts such as sport, they are frequently penalized
because they are breaching gender expectations by leading ways that are
socially constructed a masculine. Young women who aspire to leadership
roles in a variety of organizational and sport settings should be aware of the
challenges associated with the double bind and develop strategies to success-
fully negotiate the leadership challenges facing them. It could also be argued
that because young women in sport draw on both masculine and feminine
leadership styles, they are already gaining experience in negotiating some of
these challenges.
An important implication for sport leadership practitioners, especially
coaches, is that they play a vital role in not only establishing peer leadership
expectations, but also modeling sport leadership behaviors. We know that
group norms and culture are influenced by what leaders pay attention to,
and focusing only on autocratic, individualist, and hierarchical leadership,
while certainly valuable within a sport context, may have some limitations
for leadership development more broadly. Leadership development pro-
grams for female athletes and other young women in sport should therefore
continue to focus on a wide range of skills that can be transferred to a vari-
ety of other organizational leadership settings.
There are also important implications for young women who aspire to
obtain a sport leadership career. As highlighted throughout this book, sport
leadership careers remain quantitatively dominated by men at all levels of
sport, and “the lack of female role models in coaching and athletic leader-
ship sends a disturbing message to female athletes about their own likely
professional opportunities” (Rhode & Walker, 2008, p. 14). Likewise, it is
vital to explore how gendered leadership assumptions and dominant mascu-
line ideals associated with sport leadership influence young women in sport.
More specifically, researchers should explore how young women internalize
masculine sport leadership ideals and how such internalization may impact
or inhibit their intentions to pursue sport leadership careers. Female athletes
represent a large pool of potential sport leaders and coaches, and it is pos-
sible that some candidates may be lost because the way they see their own
leadership may not mirror their perceptions of sport leadership.

References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitu-
dinal, national study thirty-five year update (1977–2012). Retrieved from www.
acostacarpenter.org
Ashcraft, K. L. (2009). Gender and diversity: Other ways to make a difference. In M.
Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Critical
Management Studies (pp. 305–327). London: Oxford University Press.
 Young women in sport 113

Britton, D. M., & Logan, L. (2008). Gendered organizations: Progress and pros-
pects. Sociology Compass, 2(1), 107–121.
Brown, S., & Light, R. L. (2012). Women’s sport leadership styles as the result of
interaction between feminine and masculine approaches. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Health, Sport, and Physical Education, 3(3), 185–198.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165.
Drago, R., Hennighausen, L., Rogers, J., Vescio, T., & Stauffer, K. D. (2005). CAGE:
The coaching and gender equity project. Final report for NCAA, NACWAA and
The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://lser.la.psu.edu/workfam/
CAGE.htm
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the
contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women
and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797.
Elliot, C., & Stead, V. (2008). Learning from leading women’s experience: Towards
a sociological understanding, Leadership, 4(2), 159–180.
Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new
approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 22, 103–151.
Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for
coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy, valance, and perceived barri-
ers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 188–200.
EY & espnW (2015). Where will you find your next leader? Retrieved from www.ey.com/
gl/en/newsroom/news-releases/news-sport-is-a-critical-lever-in-advancing-
women-at-all-levels-according-to-new-ey-espnw-report
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2007). Athlete leadership dispersion and
satisfaction in interactive sport teams. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(3),
281–296.
Fasting, K., & Pfister, G. (2000). Female and male coaches in the eyes of female elite
soccer players. European Physical Education Review, 6(1), 91–110.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender,
power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647–661.
Frey, M., Czech, D. R., Kent, R. G., & Johnson, M. (2006). An exploration of
female athletes’ experiences and perceptions of male and female coaches. The
Sport Journal, 9(4). Retrieved from www.thesportjournal.org/article/exploration-
female-athletes-experiences-and-perceptions-male-and-female-coaches
Glenn, S. D., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Psychological and personal predictors of leadership
behavior in female soccer athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 17–34.
Hanold, M. T. (2011). Leadership, women in sport, and embracing empathy.
Advancing Women in Leadership, 31, 160–165.
Holmes, R. H., McNeil, M., & Adorna, P. (2010). Student athletes’ perceptions of
formal and informal team leaders. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(4), 442–465.
Holmes, R. H., McNeil, M., Adorna, P., & Procaccino, J. (2008). Collegiate student
athletes’ preferences and perceptions regarding peer leadership. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 31, 338–351.
Hovden, J. (2000). “Heavyweight” men and younger women?: The gendering of
selection processes in Norwegian sports organizations. Nordic Journal of Feminist
and Gender Research, 8(1), 17–32.
114 Schull

Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders—prisoners of gender? The gendering of lead-

ership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of
Sport Policy, 2(2), 189–203.
Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2005). Male athletic and managerial mascu-
linities: Congruencies in discursive practices? Journal of Gender Studies, 14(2),
123–135.
Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2008). Gendered managerial discourses in sport
organizations: Multiplicity and complexity. Sex Roles, 58, 93–103.
Lapchick, R. (2012). The racial and gender report card. The Institute of Diversity
and Ethics in Sport (TIDES), The University of Central Florida.
LaVoi, N. M. (2013). The Decline of Women Coaches in Collegiate Athletics:
A Report on Select NCAA Division-I FBS Institutions, 2012–13. Minneapolis:
The Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport.
Lough, N., & Grappendorf, H. (2007). Senior woman administrators’ perspectives
on professional advancement. International Journal of Sport Management, 8(2),
193–209.
Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination of coach and peer leader
behaviors in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 303–312.
Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete leadership.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(2), 142–158.
Madsen, R. M. (2010). Female student-athletes intentions to pursue careers in col-
lege athletics leadership: The impact of gender socialization. Doctoral disserta-
tion. Retrieved from Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3451398).
Messner, M. A. (2009). It’s All for the Kids: Gender, Families, and Youth Sports.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) (2013). 2012–2013
high school athletics participation survey. Retrieved from www.nfhs.org/content.
aspx?id=3282
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837.
Peachey, J. W., & Burton, L. J. (2011). Male or female athletic director? Exploring
perceptions of leader effectiveness and a (potential) female leadership advantage
with intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 64(5–6), 416–425.
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2011). Peer leadership in sport: Relationships among
personal characteristics, leader behaviors, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 23, 49–64.
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationship among coach leadership, peer lead-
ership, and adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of trans-
formational leadership theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 265–279.
Rhode, D. L., & Walker, C. J. (2008). Gender equity in college athletics: Women
coaches as a case study. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 4,
1–49.
Schull, V. (2014). Female college athletes’ perceptions of leadership in college sport:
A gendered approach. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/163286.
Schull, V. (2016). Female athletes’ conceptions of leadership: Coaching and gen-
der implications. In N. M. LaVoi (ed.) Women in sports Coaching (pp. 126–138).
New York: Routledge.
 Young women in sport 115

Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of “Mr. X”: Analyzing gendered social pro-
cesses in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (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, 347–375.
Smith, M., & Wrynn, A. (2013). Women in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games:
An Analysis of Participation and Leadership Opportunities. Ann Arbor, MI: SHARP
Center for Women and Girls. Retrieved from www.womenssportsfoundation.
org/en/home/research/articles-and-reports/athletes/2012-olympic-report
Walters, J. (2016, March 30). You’ve got male: For the first time, only men are coaching
women’s Final Four teams. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/
youve-got-male-first-time-only-men-coaching-womens-final-four-teams-442213
Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chapter 8

Future sport leaders:

developing young women
to lead
Sarah Leberman

Introduction
Leadership is something that takes time to develop (Nelson, 2010) and exer-
cising leadership takes place in a myriad of ways on a daily basis in our
homes, pre-schools and schools—but is most often associated with adults. If
we compare this to developing elite athletes and the 10,000 hours of prac-
tice required to become an elite athlete or accomplished business person
(Ericsson, Karmpe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Gladwell, 2008), at what age
should we be fostering leadership opportunities? This chapter discusses
leadership development models for young people and highlights programs
specifically focussed on young women. Murphy and Johnson (2011), focus-
ing specifically on leader development, advocate for a long-term approach
starting at an early age and present a model of leader development across the
lifespan. They posit that early developmental factors such as temperament
and gender, parenting styles, and learning experiences, influence leader iden-
tity development, which in turn affects self-regulation, which is associated
with future development experiences and leadership effectiveness. Leader-
ship development needs to be intentional and to start at secondary school
(Rehm, 2014). Rehm (2014) draws on four leadership development models
which focus on young people to propose a practitioner-based model (see
Table 8.1). The four models include Murphy and Johnson’s (2011) life-span
model, Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, and Osteen’s (2006) lead-
ership identity model, Van Linden and Fertman’s (1998) as well as Rick-
etts and Rudd’s (2002) models which both focus on identifying stages and
dimensions for leadership development. The resultant practitioner model
identifies, self-efficacy, identity /personality and the best practices of lead-
ership as the three areas of focus, all within the context of an experiential
approach (Rehm, 2014). Anderson and Kim (2009) highlighted that effec-
tive youth leadership development should facilitate experiences that “allow
them to explore their interests, discover their authentic selves, develop
autonomy, and increase their decision-making power in a steadily advancing
and nonthreatening environment” (p. 18). Many programs exist that focus
on women who are identified as having leadership potential, with most of
 Future sport leaders 117

these being offered once women are either at university or in the workforce.
There is a distinct lack of leadership training aimed at young women in high
schools and in particular for those who do not ‘fit’ the dominant discourse
of what a leader ‘looks like.’

Table 8.1 Leadership development models for young people

Authors Model name Key characteristics

Van Linden & Stage-orientated Identifies three stages of
Fertman, 1998 approach to leadership development
adolescent from awareness
leadership though interaction
development to mastery. Five
dimensions of leadership
development—leadership
information, leadership
attitude, communication,
decision making, and
stress management.
Ricketts & Rudd, Model for youth Identified five dimensions:
2002 leadership leadership knowledge and
curriculum information; leadership
attitude, will and
desire; decision making,
reasoning, and critical
thinking; oral and written
communication skills;
intra and interpersonal
relations.
Komives, Longerbeam, Leadership identity Focuses on how leadership
Owen, Mainella, & development model identity is developed.
Osteen, 2006 Identified six-stage
developmental process in
six different categories:
awareness; exploration/
engagement; leader
identified; leadership
differentiated;
generativity; integration/
synthesis.
Murphy & Johnson, Life-span model Focuses on contextual-
2011 developmental stages,
societal expectations and
time in history. Considers
early developmental
factors which shape
leader identity and self-
regulation, which inform
future development
experiences and
leadership effectiveness.
118 Leberman

Leadership development for young women

Research suggests that boys and girls learn to lead in different ways (Hoyt &
Johnson, 2011), reflecting to a large extent, society’s expectations of how
men and women should behave in leadership roles (Eagly, 2007), with
women often being penalized for which ever approach they take—either too
agentic or too communal (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). With
leadership often being associated with men, there is little focus on leader-
ship development for girls, as the predominant messaging for girls focuses
on how to behave and how to dress (Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008). Kelinsky
and Anderson (2016) suggest that developing programs for young women
need to actively take account of the gendered leadership environment within
which participants are operating, and argue that in order to meet the expec-
tations of effective leadership a transformational approach informed by
inspirational motivation may be most powerful. The program they describe
was framed within a feminist and appreciative pedagogy and applied three
stages of learning leadership development: awareness, interaction, and
integration. They conclude that “encouraging participants to develop an
authentic leadership style that is more androgynous … And a more transfor-
mational style of leadership, can serve as a catalyst for empowering young
females to find their authentic voice and ability to lead in various situations”
(p. 167). This is particularly important in the sport context, which is still
dominated by male hegemony and ongoing challenges for women aspiring
to leadership, associated with gender stereotyping and bias as discussed in
Chapter 4 of this volume (see, for example, Anderson, 2009; Cundiff &
Vesico, 2016; Fink, 2016).

Making gender visible in leadership development initiatives

Research focusing on leadership development for young women has
grown slowly over the last five years, with most of this growth having
been focused on university-level students, as opposed to young women in
secondary schools (McNae, 2010; Rorem & Bajaj, 2012). Messages that
young women hear in secondary school are often internalized and this is
particularly so in the context of leadership. Young women who are not
deemed ‘leadership material’ miss out on many leadership development
opportunities provided by schools. Often these opportunities are only
afforded to those young women who fit the box of a positional leader
such as captain of a team, leader of the orchestra, or head of the student
council. More often than not these young women are confident and out-
going. However, we must consider what happens to the quieter, shyer, and
less confident young women, as they may be passed over for leadership
development opportunities. Susan Cain in her excellent book Quiet: The
 Future sport leaders 119

Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking highlights the

strengths that introverts can bring to leadership. Women like Rosa Parks
and Eleanor Roosevelt “who achieved what they did not in spite of but
because of their introversion” (Cain, 2012, p. 6, emphasis in original).
She also draws on research that suggests being shy and being introverted
are not necessarily connected. “Shyness is the fear of social disapproval
or humiliation, while introversion is a preference for environments that
are not over stimulating” (Cain, 2012, p. 12).
An example of a leadership development program aimed at young
women who would not traditionally consider themselves as leaders is a
six-week summer programme run in New York (Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008).
Their findings suggest that after the programme the young women had
a deeper understanding of leadership within a feminist context and had
assisted them in developing a leadership identity that was reflective of
who they are. Rorem and Bajaj (2012) suggest that there is a link between
youth leadership development and civic engagement, but that it is an
underresearched area. They highlight four key learnings—“leadership is
the application of ability and agency to exercise authority, which is used
to positively influence others”; “adults should model positive leadership
through facilitation, apprenticeship and joint work”; “leadership strate-
gies are either transformational or transactional”; and “women appear
to be particularly effective as transformational leaders” (pp. 1–2). They
cite two case studies aimed at young women in high school—Sadie Nash
Leadership project in New York City and the Young Women’s Leadership
Program in central California.
Many leadership programs for young people are based on adult perceptions
of what is needed and their frames of reference. Mita (2008) has called for
more cooperative initiatives where young people and adults work together to
create learning opportunities. Based on this, McNae (2010) co-developed a
leadership development program for young women at a high school in New
Zealand. Also in New Zealand is the Young Women in Leadership (YoWiL)
program developed by Sarah Leberman, which facilitates vision and action
in young women not in leadership positions, to collaboratively bring about
change within their communities. This experiential program is aimed at
15–16-year-old female high school students who are not in leadership posi-
tions and are therefore rarely, if ever, exposed to leadership training oppor-
tunities or notions about exercising leadership. YoWiL was developed after
reading Susan Cain’s book Quiet, and recognizing that the message young
women receive at an early age influences how they view their leadership poten-
tial in the future. The program is founded on the belief that as long as these
young women can identify their values and their passions, they are all able to
exercise leadership in different ways, irrespective of whether they have been
‘identified’ as leadership potential by their parents, teachers and/or peers.
120 Leberman

In addition the program seeks to redress the confidence gap identified as a

contributing factor as to why women remain underrepresented in leadership
roles. The outcomes enable participants to:

• identify their values and passions and how this connects to the develop-
ment of a leadership identity.
• learn about the many different ways and contexts within which leader-
ship is exercised and that it is not based on position.
• develop leadership skills and experience in the delivery of a project.

Each participant:

• attends a day-long leadership training workshop focusing on leader-

ship; identifying values and passions; ethical leadership; teambuilding
and followership; project planning and development; an inspirational
woman guest speaker.
• plans for and delivers a small-scale project with other students on the
program from their school. Project examples include awareness raising,
educational programs or campaigns, small-scale events, fundraising for
charity.
• attends a second half day workshop eight weeks later, which includes
a session on reflective practice, a presentation on their project and an
inspirational woman guest speaker.

Nearly 500 young women have attended the program over the last three
years, many traveling large distances to attend with the feedback from high
schools being overwhelmingly positive. Feedback from participants includes:
“This project has made a big impact towards my learning and my future
career which is to serve people and being able to work together in a group”;
“Working as a team to conduct the project; interacting with new people;
explaining our project; and completion of project”; “Meeting new people
and seeing what other people had done for their projects. It was awesome to
see such cool things happening in the community—it was inspiring.”

The role of playing sport in leadership development

Murphy and Johnson’s (2011) model of leader development is contextual
by being cognizant of developmental stages, societal expectations, and time
in history. Pertinent to this chapter is that one of the early learning expe-
riences highlighted as important for leader development in their model is
sport, in addition to education and practice. If one accepts that initiative
and team work are important for leadership development, then research
findings by Larson, Hansen, and Moneta (2006) in the youth sport context
would support this. In addition, Chelladurai (2011) highlighted how many
 Future sport leaders 121

skills developed through participating in sport are transferable to exercis-

ing leadership. Leadership development through physical activity and sport
has been widely promoted in the youth sport literature (Gould & Voelker,
2012; Martinek & Hellison, 2009; Voelker, 2016). Programs with struc-
tured leadership opportunities for girls have shown to increase self-esteem,
foster positive health behavior and physical activity (Barr-Anderson, Laska,
Veblen-Mortenson, Farbakhsh, Dudovitz, & Story, 2012; Taylor, 2014).
Voelker (2016) suggests that three areas are of particular importance in fos-
tering girls leadership development. These are “(1) embracing leadership
diversity and deconstructing gender stereotyping, (2) building networking
and mentoring opportunities, and (3) encouraging girls to use their voice
and exercise leadership skills” (Voelker, 2016, pp. 10–11).
Research by EY and espnW (2015) has also highlighted the value of sport
to girls and women across their lives. They suggest that sport participation
assists girls to grow up healthy and confident. Kay and Shipman (2014)
emphasize the importance of girls playing sport to build confidence, which
women often lack despite their educational and career achievements. They
argue that the experience of both winning and losing teaches girls how to
deal with setbacks and keep going, which is then helpful later on in life. One
of their key concerns is the large number of girls who drop out of sport in
their teenage years in developed countries. In many developing countries
girls do not have access to sport and therefore their opportunities to develop
confidence are even more challenging. Similarly, lessons learned from sport
assist young women leaders to rise through their careers, and research by Ste-
venson (2010) indicates women who have been athletes in high school also
earn more when they enter the workforce. She suggests that sport develops
attributes such as teamwork, communication skills, assertiveness, discipline,
and competiveness, all of which are valued in the workplace. In addition, the
EY research suggests that sporting background has helped C-suite leaders
succeed. However, other research would suggest that simply being an athlete
and participating in sport does not necessarily translate into leadership as an
adult (Extejt & Smith, 2009), and that it is therefore necessary to provide
specific opportunities to exercise leadership (Gould & Voelker, 2012).
The Building Leadership in Young Women Through Sport Project
(BYWLTS) was a three year (2013–2015) program implemented by Women
Win and funded by the UK government’s Department for ­International
Development (DFID) with the objective of increasing leadership in adolescent
girls and young women (AGYW) in formal and informal ­decision-making
processes through sport and a life skills approach (Women Win, 2015). The
programme evaluation recommends that it is essential to understand that
women cannot, and will not, become leaders overnight and that leadership
development needs to start with girls, especially during their adolescence
when young people often start looking for ways to engage in the public
sphere.
122 Leberman

Two programs using sport and physical activity to develop young women
as leaders are currently being piloted in New Zealand. The first is ‘Shift: Shift
your body, Shift your mind’ and targeted at young women aged between 12
and 20 to become more physically active, with the concomitant outcomes
of increased self-confidence, stress management techniques, self-esteem,
strength and coordination, social connections and sense of achievement.
The program develops Shift Leaders, through a weekly leadership pro-
gram. Less active young women co-design a 10-week physical activity and
­well-being program in their high school. A fund has also been created that
young women can apply to in order to facilitate access to sport and physi-
cal activity opportunities—‘Give back, shift forward’ (http://wellington.govt.
nz/recreation/support-and-advice/shift-physical-activity-and-wellbeing). The
second ­initiative, ‘HERA; Everyday Goddess,’ aims to develop confidence
and ­self-belief in 13–18-year-old girls who are inactive through participa-
tion in sport and recreation. As with the ‘Shift’ initiative, the girls have
co-developed and co-lead the implementation of the program.

Leadership development for girls through sport

Rauscher and Cooky (2016) provide a very timely critical analysis of girl-
centered sport and physical activity programs in the USA based on a posi-
tive youth development approach. There is evidence to suggest that these
programs benefit girls on many psycho-social dimensions (Tucker Centre,
2007). However, Rauscher and Cooky suggest that these programs do not
prepare young women for the wider social environment within which they are
situated, which is still largely gendered, and where privilege and inequalities
(racial, ethnic, sexual, ability, religious) are experienced by many women on a
daily basis. In essence the programmes are not preparing young women for the
‘real’ world they will encounter. They instead advocate for programs based on
a transformative approach to positive youth development, which go beyond
participation in sport and physical activity, by engaging the young women in
projects focusing on social change within their communities. This approach
focuses on connecting agency with structure and may go some way to redress-
ing the gap identified in the conceptual framework for this book (Figure 1.1).
Following are some programs worldwide that exemplify this approach.
Wijnen and Wildschut (2015) use a postcolonial feminist lens to analyse a
Digital Storytelling (DST) workshop led by an international women’s rights
organization, Women Win (WW), who use sport as a tool to equip girls to
exercise their rights and realize their leadership potential. The approach
of Women Win’s Digital Storytelling workshop (held in Amsterdam and
involved young women from Cambodia, India, Kenya, Zambia, Ethio-
pia, and Rwanda) and framework of feminist transformational leadership
reflects the idea that leadership is anchored within individuals and practiced
by the self. DST is a program in which young women create and develop
 Future sport leaders 123

their digital story on if and how sport has influenced and empowered their
lives. The authors investigate how these stories and identities are being con-
structed and how the process of representation develops. Wijnen and Wilds-
chut (2015) strongly believe that young women’s voices need to be included
in adapting and improving the cross-cultural leadership development pro-
cess, and programs need to be designed in collaboration with young women.
Furthermore, they argue that young women can have the opportunity to
exercise agency through storytelling if the true possibility of authenticity
within and through stories can be supported and increased.
Research in Sweden by Meckbach and Larsson (2012) and Larsson and
Meckbach (2013) focused on the experiences of young coaches. Sport in
Sweden relies on sport associations and clubs built on democratic princi-
ples and fundamental values. Many young people indicated that they would
like to become leaders if only they were asked and this was particularly
the case for girls (The Swedish Sports Confederation, 2005). Significantly
more young men than young women completed their leadership training
(The Swedish Sports Confederation, 2005). In 2007 the Swedish govern-
ment decided to invest EUR 200,000 for four years into children’s and
young people’s sporting activities as part of the sporting initiative known
as Idrottslyftet (Lift for Sport). This initiative included the recruitment and
development of young coaches, a formal role in sport that requires leader-
ship. Coach training was emphasized as an important factor in encouraging
young people to seek leadership positions (Westerdahl, 2007). In addition,
club support was regarded as particularly important for the effective devel-
opment of young leaders (Redelius, Auberger, & Bürger Bäckström, 2004;
Gerrevall, Carlsson, & Nilsson, 2006).
Meckbach and Larsson’s (2012) findings are based on written mate-
rial on the Young Coach initiative and focus group interviews with pro-
gram participants. The analysis shows that the expectations placed on the
young leaders are divided along gender lines; male leaders are expected
to act in one way, and female leaders to some extent, in another. A gen-
der coding of different activities was also identified. In the joint courses
for young men and women, the focus was on knowledge of children and
young people, whilst in the women-only courses, the focus was more on
the participants who appeared to need a boost to their self-confidence,
were nervous about speaking in front of a group, and were interested in
diet, health, and equality. The results indicated that the male norm and
the division into masculine and feminine-coded sports activities that have
characterized, and are characterizing, the sport movement still exist and
serve as an underlying classification principle for how coach training pro-
grams are designed.
Larsson and Meckbach (2013) explored young coaches’ experiences
and notions of influence in the Swedish sport associations, focusing on
their articulation of what it was like to have been chosen to be coach, their
124 Leberman

resulting influence, and holding power. The data in this study consisted
of focus group and semi-structured interviews with 37 young coaches, 20
of whom were women, who participated in leadership training for young
coaches in sport clubs. They concluded that the opportunities for being
considered for a leader assignment and having access to the sports field
are not available to everyone. Only those young people with the habitus
and the capital matching what is expected are provided the opportunity
to coach. Having a background as an active sportsperson emerges as a
given prerequisite, being Swedish, male and older also privilege access to
both coaching and board positions. Larsson and Meckbach (2013) con-
clude that if sport associations genuinely want young people to influence
sport organizations and have real access to power then ‘the rules of the
game’ need to change.
The Scottish ‘Girls on the Move’ program is focused on specifically
developing young women’s (16–25) leadership capabilities and in par-
ticular self-esteem through attending and then facilitating leadership
development programs based on dance. Completing the program led to
being awarded a dance leadership qualification. The program had two
main objectives, “(1) promoting opportunity and resilience by mobilising
young women to provide for their local communities and (2) preventing
delinquency and failure through engaging young women in purposeful
activity” (Taylor, 2014, p. 66). The findings suggest that only the girls
who went on to facilitate the program showed improvements in self-
esteem (Taylor, 2014).
Globally, sport programs, including those mentioned above, have been
reported to effectively raise self-esteem, confidence, and self-­empowerment,
transform and challenge gender norms, improve social relations, and pro-
vide opportunities for leadership development and advance communica-
tion skills (Levermore & Beacon, 2009). However, postcolonial scholars
argue that programs designed to empower women through sport are often
paradoxical, since sport is situated in a world of male privilege and power
and a Euro-American dominance vis-à-vis the Global South is often tied
to Sport Development Programmes (SDPs) (Adair, 2013). Notwithstand-
ing this situation, most programs are centered on developing young girls’
agency, rather than addressing the broader structural issues which are pre-
venting women in general securing sport leadership roles. This in itself is
not problematic as many of these programs need to evidence short-term
outcomes to funders, and as highlighted in Figure 1.1, structural change
is a long term endeavour. The key is being able to prepare these young
women for the world they will encounter as they move through the sport-
ing environment, as highlighted by Rauscher and Cooky (2016), whilst at
the same time lobbying public and private sport organizations for struc-
tural change.
 Future sport leaders 125

Recent graduate experience and suggestions

for young women
Young women at university are another group who are critical to changing
the future of sport organizations. Are they prepared adequately for the world
of sport, and based on their experiences of working in sport, do they have
advice for young women considering a career in sport? Similar to the obser-
vations by Rauscher and Cooky (2016) most of the discussion around the
development of skills such as leadership for employability purposes has taken
place in a socio-cultural vacuum. This does not address, for example, issues
of gender which are particularly pertinent to this book, given the underrepre-
sentation of women in leadership positions within the sport sector worldwide
(Burton, 2015). Moreau and Leathwood (2006) conclude that “skills and
qualities are not neutral” (p. 319), in that employers read these differently
depending on the applicant. Social class, gender, and race are often perceived
as irrelevant by graduates, until they enter the workforce. In research on
accounting for instance, Gracia (2009) found that female students were not
prepared for the gendered aspects of the accounting profession, meaning that
they were left to work out for themselves in situ how to behave and what to
do. It is therefore critically important to prepare female students whilst in
tertiary education with the tools to navigate the realities of the workforce
post-graduation, rather than naively assume it is an even playing field.
Leberman and Shaw (2015) sought to identify the key attributes or skills
women needed to be successful in sport management based on research with
female sport management graduates. The findings suggested that being able
to build relationships was most important (98.1%), followed by having good
communication skills (96.2%), interpersonal skills (90.6%), and being able
to plan/organize (90.6%), and by having passion and drive (88.7%). One
quarter of the respondents felt that being a woman had hindered their career.
In their qualitative responses, they stated that the sport industry was run like
an ‘old boys club’ and was male dominated. As one woman mentioned:

The current sport environment holds male opinion over female opinion
and boys give boys jobs (boys clubs) so I have found it useful to make
friends with the right males and influence decisions via them – the way
of the world right now is that a man in sport gets listened to more than
a woman as illustrated by the fact there are more men on boards than
women. But I know there are a lot of very good people working to
change that. I will keep working at things alongside those people and
keep trying to shift the balance.

Her last statement indicated that she was keen to change the structures in
sport, rather than only focus on her individual agency. Another woman
126 Leberman

observed that being a woman in sport “hinders pay packets and salary.
I think you are also less likely to get promoted. There is still a lot of the old
boys’ club attitude around.”
The participants also highlighted the challenges of raising a family and
working in the environment, not being taken seriously and how emotionally
draining working in the sport industry can be:

The workplace is still a male dominated arena. Most leadership is often

based on long hours and hard work. Raising a family is still seen as the
career interrupter and bosses give opportunities to others who don’t
have family commitments, e.g. travel.

The participants were asked what advice they would give to current female
students based on their experience of the industry. Comments included
being realistic about your expectations, finding something that you’re really
interested in, network, get experience, that the degree on its own is useless,
being honest and not being complacent. Their response was to be very stra-
tegic about how they interacted with their environment and they knew that
in order to survive, they had to build relationships and to navigate their way
through the politics. There was, however, no mention of structural change
within the organizations, which suggests these participants were more will-
ing to adjust how they behaved to fit in, rather than change the situation
they were in—a focus on agency, rather than structure.
The sport sector, like many traditionally male-dominated industries,
requires female graduates to be equipped with the skills and knowledge to
be successful, so that this “can mitigate against them interpreting a lack of
success as a personal failure and to make collectivist interpretations and
challenges seem possible” (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006, p. 320). As dis-
cussed in Chapter 4 in this volume, gender stereotyping and bias is still
prevalent in the sport industry, and in many cases the message is that it is
the women’s problem rather than the fact that fundamental changes to the
structures governing sport are required.

Conclusion
It is evident that there are numerous programs worldwide focusing on
developing young women as leaders either through sport, or by using sport
and physical activity as a catalyst to develop competencies associated with
leadership. The main challenge is that many of these programs and tertiary
education courses appear not to incorporate elements in the program design
that expose the young women to the realities of the world they will encoun-
ter post-high school and tertiary education (Leberman & Shaw, 2015;
Rauscher & Cooky, 2016). Longitudinal research is required to establish
whether these programs have a long-term effect on not only young women’s
 Future sport leaders 127

agency, but also making structural changes which in an ideal world would
void the need for these programs.

References
Adair, D. (2013). Sport: Race, Ethnicity and Identity: Building Global understand-
ing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of
sport. Sport Management Review, 12(1), 3–14.
Anderson, J. C., & Kim, E. (2009). Youth leadership development: Perceptions and
preferences of urban students enrollened in a comprehensive agriculture program.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 8–20.
Barr-Anderson, D. J., Laska, M. N., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Farbakhsh, K., Dudovitz,
B., & Story, M. (2012). A school-based, peer leadership physical activity interven-
tion for 6th graders: Feasibility and results of a pilot study. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, 9, 492–499.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.
New York: Broadway Books.
Chelladurai, P. (2011). Participation in sport and leadership development. In S.E.
Murphy & R. J. Reichard (eds.) Early Development and Leadership: Building
the Next Generation of Leaders (pp .95–113). New York: Psychology Press/
Routledge.
Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people
explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75(3–4), 126–138.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the
contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),
363–406.
Evans, S. D. (2007). Youth sense of community: Voice and power in Community
Contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 693–709.
Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (2009). Leadership development through sports team
participation. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2), 224–236.
EY & espnW (2015). Where will you find your next leader? Retrieved from www.
ey.com/gl/en/newsroom/news-releases/news-sport-is-a-critical-lever-in-advancing-
women-at-all-levels-according-to-new-ey-espnw-report
Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport.
Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7.
Gerrevall, P., Carlsson, S., and Nilsson, Y. (2006). Lärande och erfarenheters värde:
en Studie avledare inom barn- och ungdomsidrott [The Value of Learning and
Experiences: A Study of Leaders within Children’s and Young People’s Sport],
R&D Report 2006:1. Stockholm: The Swedish Sports Confederation.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little Brown & Co.
128 Leberman

Gould, D., & Voelker, D. K. (2012). Enhancing youth leadership through sport and
physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(8),
38–41.
Gracia, L. (2009). Employability and higher education: Contextualising female stu-
dents’ workplace experiences to enhance understanding of employability develop-
ment. Journal of Education and Work, 22(4), 301–318.
Hoyt, C., & Johnson, S. (2011). Gender and leadership development: The case of
female leaders. In S. E. Murphy & R. J. Reichard (eds.) Early Development and
leadership: Building the Next Generation of Leaders (pp. 205–228). New York:
Routlege.
Hoyt, M. A., & Kennedy, C. L. (2008). Leadership and adolescent girls: A qualitative
study of leadership development. American Journal of Community Psychology,
42, 203–219.
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong,
sensitive type: Evidence for gender-specific leadership prototypes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39–60.
Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence gap. The Atlantic. Retrieved from-
www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/
Kelinsky, L. R., & Anderson, J. C. (2016). Women’s leadership development training
for [program]. Journal of Leadership Education, 15(1), 161–170.
Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader ste-
reotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.
Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J. E., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2006).
A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory.
Journal of College Student Development, 47, 401–420.
Larson, L., & Meckbach, J. (2013). To be or not to be invited youth sport:
Young people’s influence in voluntary sport. Sport Science Review, XXII (3–4),
187–204.
Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of devel-
opmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental
Psychology, 42(5), 849–863.
Leberman, S., & Shaw, S. (2015). “Let’s be honest most people in the sporting indus-
try are still males”: The importance of socio-cultural context for female graduates.
Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 349–366.
Levermore, R., & Beacom, A. (eds.) (2009). Sport and International Development.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martinek, T., & Hellison, D. (2009). Youth Leadership in Sport and Physical Educa-
tion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McNae, R. (2010). Young women and the co-construction of leadership. Journal of
Educational Administration, 48(6), 677–688.
Meckbach, J., & Larson, L. (2012). Education: One way to recruit and retain young
coaches. Journal of Youth Sports, 6(2), 25–31.
Mitra, D. L. (2008). Balancing power in communities of practice: An examination of
increasing student voice through school-based youth-adult partnerships. Journal
of Educational Change, 9(3), 221–242.
Moreau, M.-P., & Leathwood, C. (2006). Graduates’ employment and the discourse
of employability: A critical analysis. Journal of Education and Work, 19(4),
305–324.
 Future sport leaders 129

Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to

leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 22, 459–470.
Nelson, A. E. (2010). Stepping in early to grow great leaders. LIA, 29(6), 20–24.
Rauscher, L., & Cooky, C. (2016). Ready for anything the world gives her?: A critical
look at sports-based positive youth development for girls. Sex Roles, 74, 288–298.
Redelius, K., Auberger, G., and Bürger Bäckström, C. (2004). Ung ledare sökes: En
Studie av Riksidrottsförbundets satsning pâ unga ledare [Young Leaders Required:
A Study of the Swedish Sports Confederation’s Young Leader Initiative]. Stock-
holm: Swedish Sports Education/The Swedish Sports Confederation.
Rehm, C. J. (2014). An evidence-based practitioner’s model for adolescent leadership
development. Journal of Leadership Education, Summer, 83–97.
Ricketts, J. C., & Rudd, R. D. (2002). A comprehensive leadership education model
to train, teach, and develop leadership in youth. Journal of Career and Technical
Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JCTE/v19n1/
ricketts.html
Rorem, A., & Bajaj, M. (2012). Cultivating young women’s leadership for a kinder,
braver world. Kinder & Braver World Project: Research Series. Berkman Center
for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Retreived from http://cyber.law.
harvard.edu/node/8094
Shaw, S., & Leberman, S. (2015). Using the kaleidoscope career model to analyse
female CEOs’ experiences in sport organizations. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 30 (6), 500–515.
Stevenson, B. (2010). Beyond the classroom: Using Title IX to measure the return to
high school sports. NBER Working Paper 15728, National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Taylor, J. A. (2014). The impact of the “girls on the move” leadership programme on
young female leaders’ self esteem. Leisure Studies, 33(1), 62–74.
The Swedish Sports Confederation. (2005). Idrotten vill: Idrottsrörelsens verksam-
hetsidé och riktiinjer [Sport Wants To: The Sports Movement’s Mission Statement
and Guidelines]. Stockholm: The Swedish Sports Confederation.
Tucker Centre for Research on Girls & Women in Sport. (2007). The 2007 Tucker
Center Research Report, Developing Physically Active Girls: An Evidence-based
Multidisciplinary Approach. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Van Linden, J. A., & Fertman, C. I. (1998). Youth Leadership: A Guide to Under-
standing Leadership Development in Adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Voelker, Dana K. (2016) Promoting the leadership development of girls through
physical education and sport. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 87(3), 9–15.
Westerdahl, L. (2007). Attitydundersökning bland ungdomar kring ledaruppdrag i
internationella organisationer [A Survey of Young People’s Attitudes Concerning
Leadership Positions in International Organizations]. Stockholm: SIFO Research
International/The Swedish Sports Confederation.
Wijnen, E., & Wildschut, M. (2015). Narrating goals: A case study on the contri-
bution of digital storytelling to cross-cultural leadership development. Sport in
Society, 18(8), 938–951.
Women Win (2015). Building young women’s leadership through sport 2013–2015:
programme evaluation. Retrieved from https://womenwin.org/files/BYWLTS%20
Programme%20Evaluation_1.pdf
Chapter 9

Networking, mentoring,
sponsoring: strategies to
support women in sport
leadership
Janelle E. Wells and Meg G. Hancock

Introduction
To ascend the career ladder, one cannot do it alone. Individuals, especially
women sport leaders, need networking, mentoring, and sponsoring strat-
egies to achieve career success. While general research on these topics is
plentiful, specific research in the sport context is scant. The majority of
networking, mentoring, and sponsorship literature pertains to general busi-
ness management, and where possible the literature specific to sport will
be highlighted, but much in this context remains unknown. Although this
may be troubling, it is fruitful for prospective research. Given the static, and
at times declining, presence of women sport leaders, this chapter discusses
opportunities and strategies for women sport leaders in the male-dominated
field of sport.
This chapter is organized into sections based on three topics: networking,
mentoring, and sponsoring. All three of the concepts are grounded in theory,
but the mentoring and sponsoring sections take an applied focus. The struc-
ture of the sections begin with a discussion on the importance of the topic
and then transition into a discussion on the type, benefits, and advantages
of networking, mentoring, and sponsoring. Throughout each section exam-
ples of gender differences will be weaved into the text. The sections will
conclude with a discussion on strategies to increase women leaders in sport
organizations.

Networking: defining relationship patterns

A significant predictor of career success is an individual’s network and the
size of the network (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). A network is a pattern
of relationships among individuals (Seibert et al., 2001). For the remainder
of the chapter, a network will be discussed as the action of networking.
Networking is referred to as the building and nurturing of professional and
personal relationships to create a system of support, information, and contact
crucial for career and personal success (Whiting & De Janasz, 2004). Network-
ing allows increased exposure to people within the organization, which may
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 131

enhance access to information, resources, and the understanding of organiza-

tional practices (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). In sport especially, the need for
networking is vital given the competitive tight-knit nature of the industry. It is
not unusual for hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants to apply for one posi-
tion. To stand out in a pile of one hundred resumes, knowing someone within
the organization is key to having your application considered.
In general, specific elements of networking relate differentially to men and
women. Social role theory has been used as a framework to examine poten-
tial gender differences in networking behaviors. Since agentic qualities align
more with the male role, and communal qualities align more with a female
role, networking researchers suggest men tend to be more instrumental (e.g.,
task and goal oriented), while women tend to be more relational (Macin-
tosh & Krush, 2014). Van Emmerik (2006) indicates that men specialize in
obtaining “hard social capital,” based on task-related benefits, compared
to women acquiring emotional support or “soft social capital.” There is
also evidence suggesting women value networking differently than men. For
example, women have attributed career success to external influences, such
as networking, while men have attributed career success to internal factors,
such as ambition (Ackah & Heaton, 2004).
So what is social capital and what does it have to do with networking?
Social capital includes the skills, organizational knowledge, and relation-
ships acquired through professional networks (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004).
An individual’s social capital increases when access to resources come from
higher-level organizational members, such as those with authority, power,
and influence (Seibert et al., 2001). While having connections with supervi-
sors is important, social capital theorists also suggest having a vast network
with peers and direct reports (James, 2000), because access to information
and resources encourages career advancement (Seibert et al., 2001).
In the context of sport, participation in networks is integral for advance-
ment within sport organizations, particularly, for women (Bower, 2009; Han-
cock & Hums, 2016; Hums & Sutton, 1999; Shaw, 2006). For example, a
recent study on collegiate women athletic administrators showed that of the
20 women interviewed, all attributed their current positions as an assistant
or associate athletic director and career advancement to their professional
networks (Hancock & Hums, 2016). Specifically, networks provide opportu-
nities to develop new and continuing relationships with peers, mentors, and
potential employers in intercollegiate athletics and sport more generally.

Network types

Formal and informal networks

Distinguishing between formal and informal networks is relevant for this
chapter because engagement in either form of network may have differ-
ing implications (McGuire, 2002). Informal social networks at work are
132 Wells and Hancock

organically formed, and have been known to encourage job embeddedness

and to provide more access to job leads (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablyn-
ski, & Erez, 2001). On the contrary, formal networks are official, publicly
recognized organizational networks that have identifiable membership and
explicit structure. Furthermore, formal networks are more accessible for
change policies to advance careers. For example, if a member was excluded
from a formal network, he or she could refer to a policy to argue they have
been treated unfairly. In contrast, a member excluded from an informal net-
work has little recourse because organizations lack responsibility over infor-
mal work ties (McGuire, 2002).

Homogenous and heterogeneous networks

Although individuals prefer to function in homogeneous groups (e.g., indi-
viduals of similar demographic groups and/or organizational positions)
(Levine & Moreland, 1990), having diverse ties enhances individuals’ access
to valuable information (Lin, 2001). Homogenous networks have led to
increased social support and exchange of information, which has benefited
individual career outcomes (James, 2000). Yet, homogenous networks have
also created conformity and exclusion (Blackshaw & Long, 2005). This has
occurred in the affluent homogenous network of collegiate athletic direc-
tors, where the majority are white men (Lapchick, 2015) and underrepre-
sented individuals have been less likely exposed to these networks (Bettie,
2003). Speaking more generally, especially amongst sport leaders, this lack
of acceptance into homogeneous networks may promote insular behavior
and norms that engender institutionalization without bridging relationships
and diversifying representation.
Diversity amongst resource users, which can be found in a heterogene-
ous network, potentially influence the use and creation of one’s social
networks. Ibarra (1995) discovered underrepresented individuals in
the workplace have greater heterogeneous support networks compared
to their majority counterparts. Underrepresented individuals are a part
of more heterogeneous networks because they must reach beyond the
boundaries of the organization or occupation to reach similar demo-
graphic individuals (Ibarra, 1995). As such, heterogeneous networks
have provided individuals with new and unique resources, while also
increasing their access to better resources (Lin, 2001). While heterogene-
ous networks promote diverse thought and resources, they also have limi-
tations. For example, in common-pooled resource systems, which exist in
sport, demographic differences have created strong divides between indi-
viduals (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Divides can be caused
by the interactions experienced by members, the quality of information
received, and attitudes formed in heterogeneous networks (Ibarra, 1995;
McPherson et al., 2001).
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 133

Networking outcomes
Networking has positive effects on both individual careers and organiza-
tional success. Over the years, researchers have revealed networking facili-
tates the formation of common norms and rules (Pretty, 2003), provides
greater social support (Chiaburn & Harrison, 2008), enhances an individ-
ual’s reputation (Steward, Walker, Hutt, & Kumar, 2010), creates clearer
role expectations (Podolny & Baron, 1997), improves task performance,
increases access to career and emotional coping resources (Van Emmerik,
2006), and advances careers (Metz & Tharenou, 2001).
Even though women engage more in networking behaviors, men had
greater success gaining promotions through their effective use of networks
(Cannings & Montmarquette, 1991) and benefited more from the satisfac-
tion of networking (Macinstosh & Krush, 2014). One form of networking,
external networking, has benefited women more than men. Clarke (2011)
discovered women benefited more because of greater opportunities to con-
nect with peers, mentors, or role models of the same sex.
Despite the clear benefits of networking, having a networking conver-
sation may not be comfortable or attractive for some, but it is necessary
because individuals are hungry for real relationships and conversations
(McKeown, 2015). While networking can be timely, often intentional and
selective, authentic and sincere networking may help overcome an individu-
al’s hesitation to network.

Networking in the sport industry

Across the world, sport organizations have recognized the vital role of net-
working. Due to social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and
LinkedIn, connecting and networking have never been easier than before. As
such, the virtual networks allow individuals and organizations a platform
to access and create targeted connections. Virtually, Ernst & Young Global
Limited (EY) created a platform, specifically for women, to take advantage
of networking opportunities to reach the executive suite. EY notes women
athletes are “by nature, high achievers, influential leaders and team players
who have tremendous value for businesses, governments and NGOs around
the world. The transition from sport to post-athletic success, however, can
be daunting. That’s why we created the Women Athletes Business Network”
(WABN, 2016, p. 1). Additionally, the Australian Sport Performance Net-
work (ASPN) provides an online forum to collaborate with all allied health
care providers and sport science disciplines throughout the country (ASPN,
2016). In the United Kingdom, the Sport Business Network created a move-
ment through businesses, clubs, charities, and governing bodies to change
lives through the power of business and sport (SBN, 2016). In the United
States, sport organizations such as the National Association of Collegiate
134 Wells and Hancock

Women Athletic Administrators (NACWAA) and the Alliance of Women

Coaches have supported the advancement of women through networking
activities. NACWAA consistently champions “our members’ achievements
and encourages advancement through leadership education, networking and
career guidance” (2016a, p. 1) through multiple workshops and conventions
held throughout each year. Additionally, one of the reasons the Alliance of
Women Coaches exists is because they believe “that a national network and
community of women coaches not only serves the individual but will make
it possible for other women to follow in their footsteps” (AWC, 2016, p. 1).
These few examples are only a snapshot of sport organizations dedicated to
creating networking opportunities specific to and for women.
Since networking is prevalent across and throughout all sport careers
(Rice, 2015), it is important for sport leaders, particularly women, to note
that networking provides greater access to expertise, which can lead to
higher status and career success (Forret & Doughterty, 2001). Further-
more, researchers have shown that not only is respect, support, and advice
shaped by the structure of an organization, but it is even more strongly
molded by the demography of individuals’ job level and titles (Ibarra,
1992, 1995). Given that the majority of sport leaders are men, especially
at the most commercialized, lucrative, and powerful levels (Acosta & Car-
penter, 2014; Adriaanse & Crosswhite, 2008; Burton, 2015, Lapchick,
2015), this is of particular interest to note. Since women, at times, have
been excluded from networks, especially those that are above the glass
ceiling, an invisible barrier to career advancement (Lyness & Thompson,
2000), it is imperative women make connections to higher-level organi-
zational members to increase their access to information, influence, and
resources (Seibert et al., 2001).

Mentorship and outcomes

Mentoring is a popular buzzword in conversations regarding professional
success and career advancement. Fortune 500 companies like Google and
Deloitte have well-established programs designed to inspire and cultivate
mentoring relationships within their respective organizations. Not surpris-
ingly, both companies are also on Fortune’s list of ‘100 Best Companies to
Work For’ (Fortune, 2016). Sport organizations like the NACWAA and the
National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) have
also recently started mentoring programs for various constituencies across
college and university athletic programs. NACWAA offers a ‘Mentor Pro-
gram’ that “matches accomplished veteran administrators with talented
up-and-comers committed to advancing and excelling in college athlet-
ics” (NACWAA, 2016b, para. 1). More specifically, the year-long program
is divided into three phases – introduction (a face-to-face meeting at the
national convention), coaching (a series of phone conversations with themed
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 135

guidelines for each call), and closing (in-person meeting). The NACWAA
program has desired outcomes for the up-and-comer, as well as the men-
tor. NACDA offers a ‘Senior Administrators Mentoring Institute’ designed
to “assist and prepare those individuals that are Senior Level Administra-
tors in athletics administration who are one step away from becoming an
athletics director” (NACDA, 2016, para. 1). Programming for the Institute
includes leadership and management strategies, student-athlete welfare, and
organizational culture. In addition, NACDA also supports and promotes
mentoring programs for the National Association of Academic Advisors
for Athletics (N4A) and the National Association for Athletics Compliance
(NAAC).
Internationally, the US Department of State also created the Global Sports
Mentoring Program (GSMP), a one-month mentorship program that con-
nects emerging female leaders from around the world with women executives
at leading US organizations in the sport industry (US Department of State,
2016). The goal of the GSMP is to empower emerging leaders to “serve their
local communities by increasing access and opportunities for participation
in sport” (US Department of State, para. 1). Other examples of mentoring
programs outside the United States also exist. Sport New Zealand (2016)
offers a year-long mentorship program for women serving on governance
boards of sport organizations. The program is designed to offer guidance
and advice on promoting evidence-based best practices. Women Ahead is a
mentorship in the United Kingdom comprising “global experts that special-
ize in designing, implementing, and evaluating world-class mentoring part-
nerships between and within worlds of sport and business” (Women Ahead,
2016, para. 1). More specifically, Women Ahead’s ‘30% Club’ is a mentoring
program that pairs male and female leaders with women in different sport
and business organizations to build learning, development, and professional
networks. Similar to Women Ahead, the Australian Woman and Recreation
Association established an e-mentoring program to “assist women in mid-
dle management in sport to make the next step” (AWRA, 2016). The online
program includes activities for mentors and their mentees, information and
discussion groups relevant to women in sport management, and web-based
workshops on various professional development topics (e.g., networking,
establishing career goals, defining skills and experience).
The term ‘mentor’ and the action of ‘mentoring,’ as well as the role of the
mentee are broad and come with many perceived expectations (Haggard,
Dougherty, Turban, & Wilbanks, 2011). When not clearly defined, the men-
tor/mentee relationship may become marred with confusion and frustra-
tion. The purpose of this section is to define the role of a mentor, types of
mentorship, the benefits of having a mentor, and strategies for cultivating a
mutually beneficial mentor/mentee relationship.
A mentor provides specific “guidance focused on professional issues, such
as talking about goal setting, pursuing education, and seeking the right
136 Wells and Hancock

experiences to be successful in a position” (Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010,

p. 568). With this in mind, mentors often serve a mentee primarily in one
of two functions—career or psychological (Kram, 1983; Kram & Isabella,
1985). Career functions prepare the protégé for career advancement. The
mentor may provide the mentee career advice, access to networks, profes-
sional coaching, challenging work, and professional protection. The purpose
of the career function is to help the mentee learn about an organization and/
or industry and develop competencies for career growth and advancement.
Psychological functions include a mentor’s role in: building a mentee’s sense
of professional self, acting as a sounding board, developing problem-solving
strategies, and giving respect and support. Mentors who perform psycho-
logical functions may also develop friendships with their protégés, while still
serving as a role model. Additionally, mentors benefit from a relationship
with a mentee in that a mentor also gains experience in providing support,
feedback, and guidance, which can help the organization by developing tal-
ent (Kram & Isabella, 1985).

Types of mentoring relationships

Informal and formal mentoring

Mentoring relationships may be cultivated formally or informally. Infor-
mal mentoring relationships “develop on the basis of mutual identifica-
tion and the fulfillment of career needs” (Ragins & Cotton, 1999, p. 530).
Often informal mentoring occurs at the early stages of a mentee’s career and
involves a mentor who identifies as a mid-level manager. Mentors in infor-
mal relationships may select mentees they perceive to be less experienced
versions of themselves in an effort to pass down knowledge and wisdom
to future generations. Conversely, the mentee, selects a mentor they view
as a role model and someone who can provide guidance to help achieve
long-term career goals (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). For both the mentor and
the mentee, mentorship is grounded in the perceived competence and the
strength of an interpersonal relationship. In short, an informal mentoring
relationship is one in which mentors seek mentees they perceive to be capa-
ble of successful career growth; mentees seek mentors who possess a desired
skill set, offer advice that protects the mentee’s best interests, and reflect the
professional values of the mentee (Boddy, Agllias, & Gray, 2012). Given the
close interpersonal nature of informal mentorships, the relationship may last
several years. As such, informal mentoring is likely to fulfill psychosocial, as
well as career functions (Boddy et al., 2012; Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
In recent years, research on mentoring relationships has shifted to an
examination of formal mentoring. To contend with and keep up with an
increasingly global environment, organizations are implementing for-
mal mentoring programs to “develop and sustain a knowledgeable and
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 137

connected talent pool” (Chun, Litzky, Sosik, Bechtold, & Godshalk, 2010,
p. 422). A formal mentor/mentee relationship is sanctioned by an organiza-
tion in which mentors and mentees are matched in an effort to share organi-
zational knowledge, build strong cultures, enhance political skill, and build
professional connections (Chun et al., 2010). Mentors and mentees are
often paired on the perceived competency of the mentor and for the purpose
of meeting organizational needs (Blake-Beard, O’Neill, McGowan, 2007).
Based on the matching process, the mentor and mentee never meet or
converse until the match is made. Previous role modeling and interpersonal
relationship cultivation is absent; thus, psychosocial functions may occur
less (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) or in later stages of the formal mentoring
relationship as the mentor and mentee develop rapport. As such, formal
mentoring relationships tend to focus on career functions like skill devel-
opment and access to networks, rather than developing self-confidence or
friendships with the mentee. Furthermore, the lack of rapport may signifi-
cantly inhibit the mentoring relationship, thus negating organizational and
professional goals of a formal mentoring program. With this in mind, Chun
and colleages (2010) explored the role of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and
trust in formal mentoring relationships. A mentor’s EI was positively related
to their ability to effectively mentor as well as build trust with the mentee.
More importantly, when mentees had a positive experience with their men-
tor, mentees expressed a greater desire and willingness to mentor others.
This is particularly important given that most formal mentorships are time
based and generally last 6 to 12 months (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). It should
be noted that while formal mentorship may be time-based, the relationship
may continue beyond the original parameters of the mentorship program if
the mentor and mentee develop a strong friendship and rapport. Although
formal mentoring programs offer benefits, the creation and implementation
come with challenges. When selection choices are unavailable to mentors
and mentees unrealistic expectations may exist, reciprocity between the two
parties lacks, and the two may have reduced opportunities for identifying
with one another (Blake-Beard, 2001).

Internal and external mentors

In addition to formal and informal relationships, a mentor can exist inside
(i.e., internal) or outside (i.e., external) of an organization (Baugh &
Fagenson-Eland, 2005). Internal mentors are more physically accessible
than external mentors and can provide assignments and immediate feed-
back to enhance mentee self-confidence (Haggard et al., 2011). Moreo-
ver, mentors in the same organization are particularly helpful when a
mentee seeks advancement. Internal mentors often have more knowledge
of organizational personnel, policies, and politics, which the mentee can
then access to navigate the organization (Murrell, Blake-Beard, Porter, &
138 Wells and Hancock

Perkins-Williamson (2008). On the other hand, mentors external to the

organization may offer a more objective perspective for mentees seeking
advice or guidance on career-related issues (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom,
2005; Ragins, 1997). External mentors also extend the mentees professional
network, which may be beneficial for career mobility (Arthur et al., 2005;
Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2005; Haggard et al., 2011). It is important to
consider the advantages and disadvantages of an internal versus external
mentor, as well. Perhaps not surprisingly, mentees with internal mentors
reported higher levels of career and psychosocial support than protégés with
external mentors (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2005). In a study on coaching,
internal and external mentors were equally beneficial to a mentees learn-
ing and performance; however, internal coaching mentors had a stronger
effect on learning and performance than external coaching mentors (Jones,
Woods, & Guillaume, 2015). Despite this, mentees with external mentors
may be more independent and have greater self-efficacy, because mentors are
not immediately available for guidance (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2005).
Whether a mentee has a formal or informal mentor who is either internal
or external to an organization, identifying the purpose for the mentoring
relationship is critical for both parties to derive the most benefit. The fol-
lowing section details the professional career benefits of having a mentor.

Who can be a mentor?

Traditionally, mentorship has been defined by age and rank; that is, an older,
more senior person (i.e., the mentor) provides guidance to the younger,
less experienced person, also known as a protégé. Traditional mentorship
also suggests that the mentor is at a higher position in the organizational
hierarchy than the mentee. Therefore, the traditional mentor may be more
likely to supply the mentee a broader range of mentoring function, more
exposure/visibility in the organization, and provide more access to organi-
zational resources (Haggard et al., 2011). Interestingly, traditional mentor-
ship may have limited applicability to women and people of color (Ragins,
1997) especially in the sport industry, which tends to be dominated by white
men (IOC, 2016; Lapchick, 2015). As our understanding of mentorship has
evolved, so too has the definition. Certainly, mentors may be older or more
senior in the organization, but mentors can also be colleagues who are one
‘step-ahead’ in a career path (Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001). Moreo-
ver, a peer mentor can be just as beneficial and may be more accessible than
other mentoring relationships (Kram & Isabella, 1985). Peer mentors pro-
vide important professional and social support for protégés (Bauer, Bodner,
Erdogan, Truxilla, & Tucker, 2007). Likewise the professional reciprocity
experience by both the mentee and the mentor is likely to be greater than
in a traditional mentorship (Haggard et al., 2011). Still peer mentors often
have less organizational power by virtue of their position in the hierarchy
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 139

and are likely to have less access to organization resources. Regardless of

relationship (e.g., traditional, step-ahead, peer), support, guidance, and
counseling are hallmarks of mentorship that have the potential to “enhance
career development and psychosocial development of both individuals”
(Kram, 1983, p. 613).

Mentoring outcomes
Given the developmental nature of the mentor/mentee relationship, mentor-
ing affords the mentee many opportunities for career development, growth,
and advancement. When engaged in a mentoring relationship, mentees dem-
onstrate higher rates of promotion (LaPierre & Zimmerman, 2012), higher
salaries (Ramaswami, Dreher, Bretz, & Wiethoff, 2010), greater levels of
job and career satisfaction and higher rates of organizational commitment
(Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2005). For most mentees, these ben-
efits are related to personal perceptions of career success and advancement
(Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou, 2009). For the mentor, the opportunity to
increase employee satisfaction and organizational commitment may result
in less turnover (Baranik, Roling, & Eby, 2010); thus, the mentor and the
organization not only retain talent, but also reduce costs associated with
recruiting and hiring practices (Baranik et al., 2010).
In male-dominated industries like sport, mentorship is particularly
important to women, as women are more likely to experience barriers to
advancement (Bower & Hums, 2013; Shaw, 2006). Moreover, engaging in
a mentoring relationship is an effective way for women not only to advance,
but also to reach top management and leadership levels (Dworkin, Mau-
rer, & Schipani, 2012). Through mentorship, women understand them-
selves, styles of operating, and the ways they might need to change to gain
more opportunities for career success (Ibarra, Carter, & Silva, 2010). The
success women mentees experience is also due, in part, to the career oppor-
tunities afforded by virtue of the guidance, support, and protection of the
mentor (Metz & Tharenou, 2001).
Despite the clear advantages and benefits of mentorship, many women
have difficulty engaging in a mentoring relationship. In the sport industry,
this has been attributed to the low proportion of women in top-management
levels. This perspective, however, assumes that women seeking mentorship
must seek another woman. The following section details the role of gender
when selecting a mentor.

Gender in mentorship
Male mentors have been found to be more likely to provide career functions
of mentoring, while women mentors were more likely to provide more psy-
chological functions of mentoring (Cullen & Luna, 1993). Not surprisingly,
140 Wells and Hancock

mentees had similar expectations of their mentors. For example, mentees

expected female mentors to exhibit outreach and support, while male men-
tors were perceived to be more content-focused and less comfortable with
certain discussions like those pertaining to work–life balance (Levine, Mech-
aber, Reddy, Cayea, & Harrison, 2013).
Women with a senior-male mentor in a male-dominated industry had
the highest level of career progress satisfaction (Ramaswami et al., 2010).
Conversely, some benefits may occur from having a female–female men-
tee–mentor such as understanding the unique challenges facing women in
the workplace. Despite the benefits, females are less likely to have a female
mentor, “probably due to too few women in sufficiently advanced positions
to provide mentoring to junior colleagues” (Dworkin et al., 2012, p. 366).
In sum, men and women in management and leadership positions are
likely to possess the ability to provide both career and psychological func-
tions of mentoring. Overall, it is most important to consider what an indi-
vidual will need as a mentee and who might fulfill those needs as a mentor.

Sponsoring: having influence and a voice

Many may confuse sponsoring with mentoring. Although a mentor may be
a sponsor, a sponsor goes beyond the traditional career and psychosocial
support provided by a mentor. A sponsor is an individual in a decision-
making position who advocates, protects, and fights for a mentee’s career
advancement (Ibarra et al., 2010). Furthermore, a sponsor uses his or her
platform to publicly support the advancement of an individual who has
untapped talent or potential (Foust-Cummings, Dinolfo, & Kohler, 2011;
Hewlett, Peraino, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2011).
The position and power of a sponsor is critical because conversations
regarding opportunities for advancement occur at the leadership table,
where a sponsor can advocate for unrecognized talent. Sponsors can effec-
tively catapult a hopeful talent from unknown status to rising-star. Given
there are few women sport leaders, a talented female may go unrecognized
or discussed, remaining untapped without a sponsor. Researchers have
shown women begin their career behind and remain behind men, even with
men supporting their advancement (Ibarra et al., 2010). However, when a
women’s advocate has high organizational status, women are just as likely
as men to be promoted (Ibarra et al., 2010). Thus, more women need to
have sponsors and more women need to be at the leadership table.

Sponsor versus mentor: what is the difference?

While mentors may act as sponsors, the roles and positions differ from one
another. Kathy Hopinkah Hannah, a managing partner at KPMG LLP US,
notes the distinction between mentors and sponsors as “a mentor will listen
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 141

to you and speak with you, but a sponsor will talk about you” (Catalyst,
2011, p. 1). Additionally, Harris (2014) suggests mentoring relationship are
passive and low risk for the mentors, while sponsoring is a high-risk ven-
ture, especially sponsoring a talented rising woman, because senior male
leaders “don’t see obvious rewards for themselves. And there’s no reference
manual on how to go to bat for a rising female star” (p. 1). As previously
noted, a sponsor has significant decision-making power, usually holds a
higher-status organizational position, acts as an advocate, gives brutal con-
structive feedback, and puts his or her reputation on the line (Harris, 2014).
Distinct from a traditional mentor, a sponsor provides sophisticated coach-
ing and advice to stretch a role, position, or assignment to assist a mentee. In
contrast, a mentor does not put his or her prestige on the line for a mentee,
usually provides positive constructive feedback, may not have position or
power and the relationship may be behind the scene serving in the role as a
counselor. For example, in US intercollegiate athletics, an Assistant Athletic
Director can serve as a mentor to an Athletic Director but, by virtue of the
position, he or she is unlikely to be a sponsor for the Athletic Director.
As previously noted in this chapter, mentors can be male or female and
both have advantages and disadvantages. However, when men and women
are sponsored by men, the sponsors often have greater representation and
more opportunities to publicly endorse their mentees. This is because, in
most industries including sport, organizational decision-making structures
are male dominated. Thus, individuals with male sponsors are more likely
to receive exposure to greater resources and affluent networks. It is clear
from the underrepresentation of women as league commissioners, heads of
national and international governing bodies, intercollegiate and interscho-
lastic athletic directors, head coaches, and youth coaches that mentoring,
though necessary, has not been sufficient to help women leaders reach the
pinnacle positions in sport.

Sponsorship importance
Sponsors put their reputation on the line to open doors of opportunities and
raise the visibility of mentees, enhancing their recognition and credibility.
In addition, increased salaries and job satisfaction have been the results of
a sponsor (Hewlett, Marshall, & Sherbin, 2011). Sponsors do not advance
unqualified individuals; rather, they identify ‘high potential’ individuals
who may go unrecognized by the leadership team, many of whom are men
(Dinolfo, Silva, & Carter, 2012). By nominating a mentee for a promotion
or an opportunity supportive of a promotion, a sponsor provides instru-
mental career support (Friday, Friday, & Green, 2004).
Sponsorship is particularly important for women. Hewlett and colleagues
(2011) found men, compared to women, were 46% more likely to have a
sponsor. Without a sponsor, women are far more likely to be unsatisfied
142 Wells and Hancock

with their career progression (Rezvani, 2014), are less likely to be appointed
to top positions, and even more importantly, are less likely to apply for such
positions (Travis, Doty, & Helitzer, 2013). A sponsor may help challenge
a women to volunteer for an appropriate stretch assignment, rather than
waiting to be asked. Ibarra and colleagues (2010) noted women operate
under a meritocracy system believing that their hard work will advance their
career, but it takes more, ideally it takes a sponsor. Without sponsorship,
women are less likely to be appointed to top positions or ‘hot jobs’ (Silva,
Carter, & Beninger, 2012), and we know jobs in sport are ‘hot.’
As a sponsor, there is personal and professional satisfaction gained from
the relationship (Foust et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2011). Being able to iden-
tify and develop a mentee into a leader gives many sponsors a deep sense of
satisfaction. Building a legacy of developing talent for the future is also highly
valued by sponsors (Travis et al., 2013). As such, the growing network of high-
achieving loyal employees creates an in-depth understanding of the organiza-
tion, or more broadly the industry (Harris, 2014). Being or becoming a sponsor
can be instrumental to creating a culture of sponsorship where identifying and
developing talent becomes a recognized and appreciated skill set. In particular,
male sponsors of emerging female talent also reap an abundance of potential
rewards. For example, they become key agents of change and learn to work
effectively in increasingly diverse settings (Harris, 2014).
Once an individual has solidified a sponsor they should be sure to cre-
ate and maintain reasonable relationship expectations, regularly inform the
sponsor about accomplishments, freely discuss career opportunity hesita-
tions, and thank them for their support. They should also ensure that they
sponsor women once they are in a position to do so.

Summary
Think of networks, mentorships, and sponsoring as a pyramid (Figure 9.1).
Foundationally, it begins with a broad network, possibly inclusive of
professional colleagues who may or may not have diverse career interests,

Sponsorship

Mentorship

Networking

Figure 9.1 A conceptual pyramid of networking, mentorship, and sponsorship

 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 143

skills, values, and success. From that network, mentoring relationships are
derived. Mentors may provide career or psychosocial functions or both,
and may extend over years or be sustained for only a brief period of time.
Regardless of the function or duration of time, a mentor may become a
sponsor if the sponsor is in a position of decision-making power and is
willing to be an advocate. Ultimately, cultivating relationships to create a
network, and garnering mentors and sponsors are key factors to career suc-
cess and advancement.

References
Ackah, C., & Heaton, N. (2004). The reality of “new” careers for men and for
women. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2), 141–158.
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitu-
dinal, national study, thirty-seven year update – 1977–2014. Unpublished manu-
script. Retrieved from www.acostacarpenter.org
Adriaanse, J. A., & Crosswhite, J. J. (2008). David or Mia? The influence of gender
on adolescent girls’ choice of sport role models. Women’s Studies International
Forum, 31, 383–389.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits
associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89(1), 127–136.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a
boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 177–202.
ASPN. (2016). What is ASPN? Retrieved from www.aspn.com.au/about/
AWC. (2016). Alliance of Women Coaches. (2016). What is the alliance? Retrieved
from http://gocoaches.org/about/overview/
AWRA. (2016). AWRA e-mentoring program. Retrieved from www.australianwom-
ensport.com.au/content.aspx?file=47474|34175f
Baranik, L., Roling, E. A., & Eby, L. T. (2010). Why does mentoring work? The
role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3),
366–373.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). New-
comer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analysis review
of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
707–721.
Baugh, S. G., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2005). Boundaryless mentoring: An explora-
tory study of the functions provided by internal versus external organizational
mentors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 939–955.
Baumgartner, M. S., & Schneider, D. E. (2010). Perceptions of women in manage-
ment: A thematic analysis of razing the glass ceiling. Journal of Career Develop-
ment, 37(2), 559–576.
Bettie, J. (2003). Women without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Blackshaw, T., & Long, J. (2005). A critical examination of the advantages of inves-
tigating community and leisure from a social network perspective. Leisure Studies,
17, 233–248.
144 Wells and Hancock

Blake-Beard, S. D. (2001). Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs. Jour-

nal of Management Development, 20, 331–345.
Blake-Beard, S. D., O’Neill, R. M., & McGowan, E. M. (2007). Blind dates? The
importance of matching in successful formal mentoring relationships. In B. R.
Ragins & K. E. Kram (eds.) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory,
Research, and Practice (pp. 617–632). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boddy, J., Agllias, K., & Gray, M. (2012). Mentoring in social work: Key findings
from a women’s community-based mentoring program. Journal of Social Work
Practice, 26(3), 385–505.
Bower, G. G. (2009). Effective mentoring relationships with women in sport: Results
of a meta-ethnography. Advancing Women in Leadership, 29(3), 1–21.
Bower, G. G., & Hums, M. A. (2013). The impact of title IX on career opportunities
in intercollegiate athletic administration. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6(2),
213–230.
Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of
research. Sport Management Review, 18, 155–165.
Cannings, K., & Montmarquette, C. (1991). Managerial momentum: A simultane-
ous model of the career progress of male and female managers. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 44, 212–228.
Catalyst. (2011). Fostering sponsorship success among high performers and ­leaders.
Retrieved from https://linniecarter.com/files/2012/02/Fostering-Sponsorship-Success-
Among-High-Performers-Leaders.pdf
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do coworkers make the place? Conceptual
synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral social influences in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103.
Clarke, M. (2011). Advancing women’s careers through leadership development
programs. Employee Relations, 33, 498–515.
Chun, J. U., Litzky, B. E., Sosik, J. J., Bechtold, D.C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2010).
Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group & Organi-
zation Management, 35(4), 421–455.
Cullen, D. L., & Luna, G. (1993). Women mentoring in academe: Addressing the
gender gap in higher education. Gender and Education, 5(2), 125–137.
Dinolfo, S., Silva, C., & Carter, N. M. (2012). High Potentials in the Pipeline: Lead-
ers Pay it Forward. New York: Catalyst.
Dworkin, T. M., Maurer, V., & Schipani, C. A. (2012). Career mentoring for women:
New horizons/expanded methods. Business Horizons, 55, 363–372.
Ensher, E., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-
ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés’ support, satisfaction, and perceptions of
career success: A social change perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology,
15, 419–438.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for
managerial and professional employees. Group and Organization Management,
26, 283–311.
Fortune. (2016). 100 best companies to work for. Fortune. Retrieved from
http://learn.greatplacetowork.com/rs/520-AOO-982/images/GPTW_100Best_
List_2016.pdf
Foust-Cummings, H., Dinolfo, S., & Kohler, J. (2011). Sponsoring Women to Suc-
cess. New York: Catalyst.
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 145

Friday, E., Friday, S. S., & Green, A. L. (2004). A reconceptualization of mentoring

and sponsoring. Management Decision, 42, 628–644.
Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who is a
mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of
Management, 37 (1), 280–304.
Hancock, M. G., & Hums, M. A. (2016). “A leaky pipeline?” Perceptions of barriers
and supports of female senior-level administrators in NCAA Division I athletic
departments. Sport Management Review, 19(2), 198–210.
Harris, J. (2014). She breaks into the inner sanctum of top management, with
his sponsorship. Retrieved from www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140325211506–
275490660-she-breaks-into-the-inner-sanctum-of-top-management-with-his-
sponsorship
Hewlett, S. A, Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2011). The relationship you need to
get right: How to be an effective sponsor—and a good protégé—throughout your
career. Harvard Business Review, 89, 131–134.
Hewlett, S. A., Peraino, K., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2011). The Sponsor Effect:
Breaking through the Last Glass Ceiling. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Hums, M. A., & Sutton, W. A. (1999). Women working in the management of pro-
fessional baseball: Getting to first base? Journal of Career Development, 26(2),
147–158.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network
structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
422–447.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial
networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673–703.
Ibarra, H. (2010). Women are over-mentored (but under-sponsored). Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/ideacast/2010/08/women-are-over-mentored-but-un.html
Ibarra, H., Carter, N. C., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions
than women? Harvard Business Review, 9, 80–85.
IOC. (2016). Fact Sheet: Women in the Olympic Movement. Retrieved from https://
stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Women_in_
Olympic_Movement.pdf
James, E. H. (2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying
effects of human and social capital. Organization Science, 11(5), 493–508.
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2015). The effectiveness of workplace
coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 608–625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organiza-
tional Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer
relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1),
110–132.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in
mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(4), 779–790.
146 Wells and Hancock

Lapchick, R. E. (2015). The 2015 racial and gender report card: College sport.
Retrieved from www.tidesport.org/college-sport.html
LaPierre, T. A., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2012). Career advancement and gender
equity in healthcare management. Gender in Management: An International Jour-
nal, 27(2), 100–118.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.
Levine, R. B., Mechaber, H. F., Reddy, S. T., Cayea, D., & Harrison, R. A.(2013).
“A good career choice for women”: Female medical students’ mentoring experi-
ences: A multi-institutional qualitative study. Academic Medicine, 88, 527–534.
Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Structure and Action. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female
and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
86–101.
Macintosh, G., & Krush, M. (2014). Examining the link between salesperson net-
working behaviors, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Does gender
matter? Journal of Business Research, 67, 2628–2635.
McGuire, G. M. (2002). Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of infor-
mal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society, 16,
303–322.
McKeown, G. (2015). 99% of networking is a waste of time. Retrieved from https://
hbr.org/2015/01/99-of-networking-is-a-waste-of-time
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homo-
phily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Metz, I., & Tharenou, P. (2001). Women’s career advancement: The relative contri-
bution of human and social capital. Group & Organization Management, 26(3),
312–342.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 1102–1122.
Murrell, A. J., Blake-Beard, S., Porter Jr., D. M., & Perkins-Williamson, A. (2008).
Interorganizational formal mentoring: Breaking the concrete ceiling sometimes
requires outside support. Human Resource Management, 47, 275–294.
NACDA. (2016). Senior administrators mentoring institute. Retrieved from www.
nacda.com/nacda/nacda-mentoring-institute.html
NACWAA. (2016a). We champion women leaders. Retrieved from www.nacwaa.org/
NACWAA. (2016b). Mentor program. Retrieved from www.nacwaa.org/connect/
mentoring-networking/mentor-program
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks
and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science,
302, 1912–1914.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A compari-
son of men and women in form and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
 Networking, mentoring, sponsoring 147

Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring,
and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 63, 385–405.
Rezvani, S. (2014). The career-changing value of a sponsor. Retrieved from www.
selenarezvani.com/blog/142/The-Career-Changing-Value-of-a-Sponsor/
Rice, T. (2015). Sport professional stress the importance of networking. Retrieved from
http://sportsfitnessnetwork.com/2015/05/sport-professionals-stress-the-importance-
of-networking/
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Does having “the right stuff” matter? Gen-
der differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic
administrators. Sex Roles, 50(5), 411–421.
SBN. (2016). Welcome to the SBN. Retrieved from http://sportbusinessnetwork.com/
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.
Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of “Mr. X”: Analyzing gendered social pro-
cesses in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.
Silva, C., Carter, N. M., & Beninger, A. (2012). Good Intentions, Imperfect Exe-
cution? Women Get Fewer of the “Hot Jobs” Needed to Advance. New York:
Catalyst.
Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). What matters most? The rela-
tive role of mentoring and career capital in career success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 75(1), 56–67.
Sport New Zealand. (2016). Search for a resource. Retrieved from www.sportnz.
org.nz/managing-sport/search-for-a-resource/news/2016-recipients-women-in-
sport-governance-scholarships-and-mentor-programme
Steward, M., Walker, B., Hutt, M., & Kumar, A. (2010). The coordination strategies
of high-performing salespeople: Internal working relationships that drive success.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 550–566.
Travis, E. L., Doty, L., & Helitzer, D. L. (2013). Sponsorship: A path to the academic
medicine C-suite for women faculty? Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1414–1417.
US Department of State. (2016). Global sports mentoring program: The initiative.
Retrieved from https://globalsportsmentoring.org/global-sports-mentoring-program/
Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2006). Gender differences in creation of different types of
social capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28(1), 24–37.
WABN. (2016). EY women athletes business network. Retrieved from www.ey.com/
BR/pt/About-us/Our-sponsorships-and-programs/Women-Athletes-Global-
Leadership-Network-About
Whiting, V. R., & de Janasz, S. C. (2004). Mentoring in the 21st century: Using the
Internet to build skills and networks. Journal of Management Education, 28(3),
275–293.
Women Ahead. (2016). Women ahead: Mentoring. Retrieved from www.women-ahead.
org/mentoring-v2
Chapter 10

New leadership: rethinking

successful leadership of sport
organizations
Laura J. Burton and Sarah Leberman

Introduction
A shift in understanding of what the measures of successful leadership are is
required in order for leadership in sport organizations to be more inclusive
and open to differing views and objectives, as well as diverse individuals.
However, without a clear understanding of how success is conceptualized in
sport organizations, we cannot embark on more inclusive ways to exercise
leadership. In this concluding chapter, we explore how success is most often
defined in sport organizations and suggest other ways of conceptualizing
success that may assist in the quest for gender equity in sport leadership. We
challenge thinking on how existing structures operating in sport organiza-
tions can be adapted to better support all individuals and argue that funda-
mental change to structures is required in order to bring about meaningful
change to leadership in sport organizations. Further, we continue to urge
those in positions of power to be held responsible and accountable for pro-
viding more inclusive structures in order for more individuals to exercise
leadership in sport. We suggest that one way to achieve this is for sport
organizations to consider both adopting the quadruple top and bottom line
as a strategic guiding force and focusing on the United Nations Sustain-
able Development Goals, in particular Goal 5: Gender Equality and Goal 8:
Decent Work and Economic Growth.

Leadership success within the dominant paradigm:

‘winning at all costs’

Winning at all costs: reinforces a model that privileges men

We argue that the ‘winning at all costs’ model, as a measure of organizational
success in sport, serves to reinforce hegemonic masculinity and male privilege
in sport leadership. With an emphasis on winning over all else, leaders can
perpetuate systems and structures that are inclusive only for a certain few. As
an example, the emphasis on US football as the primary source of revenue
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 149

generation in the US intercollegiate system at the highest level of play (i.e.,

Division I Football Bowl Subdivision) negatively impacts women in sport
leadership, as women are often excluded from athletic administrative posi-
tions that support football and are thus denied opportunities to work with
the sport deemed most important to the success of the organization. The
highest level of leadership, athletic director, is often perceived as out of reach
for women, as women are denied access to football administration and there-
fore are denied access to learning how to lead and manage the most com-
plex and revenue-intensive areas of the organization (Grappendorf & Lough,
2006). Similarly, women were absent in the leadership of Rugby Union in
New Zealand until late 2016 when Dr Farah Palmer as Chair of the Māori
Rugby Board was appointed to the board of the NZRU, and apart from
Raelene Castle, CEO of the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs Rugby League
club, are also absent from Rugby League in Australia—two sports closely
associated with the national identities of these countries.
The priority to win encourages coaches and administrators to spend
the majority of their time working, whether that is time in the office,
travel with teams, or recruiting new athletes. The expectations to pri-
oritize work over all other aspects of life has a negative impact on the
work–life interface, as time spent either in the office or out ‘on the road’
has a negative impact on family and personal needs (Dixon & Bruening,
2005, 2007). With this emphasis, only those who have partners who are
able to take on the majority of domestic and family responsibilities, or
those who are not in relationships, are able or perhaps willing to make
such significant personal/family trade-offs to meet work requirements.
This model most often benefits men with stay-at-home partners, who can
serve as primary caretakers of their personal and family needs. Increas-
ingly, women with stay-at-home partners are also able to be successful
within this paradigm. However, such a system devalues the importance
of active participation in family life and importantly holistic enrichment
in one’s own life.
It is important to note that we should not assume that all men want to
make these trade-offs to prioritize work over personal and family needs.
In recent research conducted by Gallup (2016), a larger percentage of men
(78%) who aspire to senior leadership roles (e.g., CEO) than women (72%)
would be discouraged from seeking that position if it required working more
than 60 hours per week. Therefore, organizational structures that prioritize
excessive work hours and demand that work is privileged above family and
personal needs must be changed to enable and value different ways of work-
ing, which benefit both women and men. Anecdotally it has been speculated
that motherhood makes women less interested in seeking senior leadership
positions. However, research by Lean In and McKinsey Company (2015)
suggests that motherhood can make women more ambitious, and they feel
well placed to be successful in high-profile leadership roles. Women are also
150 Burton and Leberman

less likely than men to leave organizations, particularly at the senior level
(Lean In and McKinsey & Company, 2015).
Second-generation bias is also evidenced in the ‘winning at all costs’ model of
success. Second-generation bias is described as “powerful but subtle and often
invisible barriers for women that arise from cultural assumptions, organizational
structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men
while putting women at a disadvantage” (Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013, p. 64).
Organizational practices within sport leadership also support gendered career
paths and gendered work. Leaders in sport organizations who aspire to gain
higher status positions are often expected to move to new positions that provide
greater challenges and opportunities to demonstrate success (e.g., win champi-
onships, generate profits). These new positions are likely to require movement
to a new part of a country or internationally. Such moves often assume there
is a ‘trailing spouse’ and family that is willing and able to move. As noted by
Ibarra et al. (2013) in their work describing second-generation bias, men typi-
cally are able (and expected) to move to enhance their careers and their families
(partner, children) are expected and will follow. This same dynamic does not
always apply to women, and women are more likely to pass up opportunities for
career advancement if such advancement requires moving their families (Ibarra
et al., 2013). Further, Leberman and Hurst (2017) describe this as a linear career
approach, “where a person aspires to organizational advancement characterized
by upwards mobility, greater responsibility, and increased pay, all of which are
more consistent with the way the careers of men tend to develop” (p. 255).
The ‘winning at all costs’ model may also deter some women from seek-
ing advancement to positional leadership in sport organizations. The ways
in which men and women value career success in general may favor men in
this model. Though financial rewards and promotion are important factors in
career success for both men and women, research to date from different parts
of the world suggests that women also focus on the concept of life success
(Bostock, 2014; Heslin, 2005; Ituma, Simpson, Ovadje, Cornelius, & Mordi,
2011). This includes maximizing congruence between their work and personal
lives, having quality work and personal relationships, as well as personal hap-
piness and contentment (Leberman & Hurst, 2017). Gallup (2016) research
suggests, however, that what men and women are seeking from the workplace
is not as different as expected or conventionally assumed, and that changes to
the workplace will benefit all employees. They suggest that “it is not enough to
hire the right ‘numbers’ to improve diversity. An organization’s culture should
be mission rich; support and expect high performance; and appreciate, develop
and recognize people for their unique talents and strengths” (p. 74).

‘Winning at all costs’: contributing to ethical impropriety

If we take a more reflective view of leadership in sport organizations, we
can critically evaluate how leadership is rewarded and who and what is
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 151

privileged in these dominant paradigms of leadership. This type of critical

analysis allows us to examine why we continue to see failings of leadership,
including ethical scandals that have a negative impact on all those involved in
sport. Under the current paradigm of sport leadership, we contend that success
in sport organizations is most often defined by objective measures including
win–loss statistics and generating revenue in profit-driven, high-performance
sport organizations. Success evaluated only through the lens of ‘winning at all
costs’ can create environments that focus leadership and leadership outcomes
on objective measures only, and can lead to and/or contribute to unethical
practices in sport organizations. With a focus on winning, often winning at
all costs, leadership may take on more destructive forms (e.g., pseudotrans-
formational leadership, personalized charismatics, toxic leaders) that result in
structures, systems, rewards and organizational norms which value winning
(and profit generation) above any other organizational goals.
Several scholars have critiqued the publically espoused organizational goals
of the national governing body for US intercollegiate sport—the NCAA. One
of the core values of the organization reads, “The collegiate model of athletics
in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social
and athletics experiences” (NCAA, 2016, n.p.). However, in sports which
generate the most revenue for the university (i.e., football and men’s basket-
ball), the majority of the players on those teams (i.e., black men) graduate at
significantly lower rates than the male student population (Southall, Eckard,
Nagel, & Randall, 2015). Similarly, inappropriate behavior by male athletes
with respect to women is often minimized when these athletes are associated
with high-profile sports and teams, such as Football in the US, Soccer in the
UK, Rugby Union in New Zealand and Rugby League in Australia. If win-
ning is the only or most significant measure of organizational success, societal,
broader organizational, and individual needs at all levels of sport organiza-
tions can get distorted or worse, lost. This focus on winning is not merely
emphasized at the highest level (i.e., international/professional competition),
but permeates all levels of sport including amateur and youth sport.
We witness this in the challenges and issues facing individuals leading
US-based youth sport organizations, from the increased incidents of injuries
in youth soccer (football) and declining participation in US football as a
result of concerns regarding concussions. In many countries the win at all
costs mentality drives youth sport coaches away, athletes (and unfortunately
parents/guardians) to disregard resultant injuries, burnout, and other nega-
tive health and psychological development-related problems in the quest for
championships (see, e.g., Bergeron et al., 2015; Strachan & Davies, 2015;
Walters, Schluter, Oldham, Thomson, & Payne, 2012).
In the US intercollegiate model, a focus on winning and revenue gen-
eration in a non-for-profit model has resulted in an emphasis on resource
allocation to football at the expense of other men’s and all-women’s sports
(Grasgreen, 2014). At the international/professional levels of sport, the win
152 Burton and Leberman

at all costs model of success has led to massive corruption (e.g., FIFA), state-
sponsored doping of athletes (e.g., Russia’s ban from 2016 Summer Olym-
pics for track and field events), and denial and then delayed response to
addressing head trauma incurred by athletes (e.g., NFL).

Alternative leadership success paradigms

beyond winning
As discussed throughout this book, women contribute to sport on a daily
basis in a myriad of ways, but more often than not their leadership is not
seen, let alone recognized. Their contributions are often ‘disappeared’
(Fletcher, 1999). When this leadership cannot be counted it is consid-
ered less important than the positional leadership which is publically vis-
ible. When women are in positions of leadership they are visible, can be
counted and given the context within which they operate, are measured
as being successful along the same criteria as their male counter parts
in sport—winning. Women in sport want to win just as much as men,
however, the ‘winning at all costs’ paradigm, similar to the economic
profitability motive of big business, comes at a real cost. So what happens
if sport teams do not win—the coach may be sacked, funding reduced or
withdrawn, and CEOs may lose their jobs. This singular focus on win-
ning detracts from the other contributions that sport makes to individuals
and society—are these less important than winning? How are they valued
and if your team does not win, does this equate to poor leadership? Con-
versely, can the assumption be made that organizations that do win rep-
resent ‘good’ leadership? The challenge we have is to identify those other
measures of success which are often neglected within sport, and arguably
are much more important to long-term sustainability than a ‘winning at
all costs’ approach.

Success beyond winning: what would an alternative

model look like?
If using the ‘winning at all costs’ model to demonstrate success in sport
organizations is detrimental to sport in general, and to women in leadership
in particular, we should consider alternate models to measure success in
sport (e.g., success beyond winning). Of course we acknowledge that sport
is based on the concept of competition, and to remove winning from sport
is not realistic, desirable or necessary. What we are calling attention to and
believe needs to be reconciled through leadership in sport, is the singular
emphasis on winning or the ‘winning at all cost’ model. Sport, provides
much more to individuals and collectively to society, when it is considered
outside of the ‘winning at all cost’ model, as noted in work provided by the
United Nations.
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 153

Before proposing a new model of ‘success beyond winning’, we want to

acknowledge the critically important work that takes place in the context of
sport for development and peace models (SDP). Broadly defined, SDP models
use “sport to exert a positive influence on public health, the socialization of
children, youths and adults, the social inclusion of the disadvantaged, the
economic development of regions and states, and on fostering intercultural
exchange and conflict resolution” (Lyras & Peachey, 2011, p. 311). We rec-
ognize that the focus of SDP programs have and will continue to measure
‘success beyond winning’ and that SDP programs are providing benefits to
individuals and groups internationally that cannot be captured by measuring
success in the context of winning/losing and/or profit/losses. In the model to
follow, we are not proposing that sport leadership follow a SDP model, but
we do recognize that SDP can provide opportunities for those leading other
types of sport organizations to rethink success beyond winning.
To help guide us in shifting the focus to a new model, one that holds to a
‘success beyond winning’ model, we look to the work being done through the
United Nations. In 2000, the UN provided a long-term vision and plan for
a better world entitled the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ that included
the following goals (poverty eradication, universal primary education, gen-
der equality, child mortality reduction, improving maternal health, combat-
ing HIV/AIDS and other diseases, environment sustainability, and global
partnership for development). As an extension of the work introduced in
2015 are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Table 10.1). The
purpose of the SDGs “is to have a globally agreed holistic approach to the
three major pillars of sustainable development: economic development …;
social inclusion meaning gender equality, human rights and the reduction
of inequalities; and environment sustainability” (Sachs, 2015, pp. 56–57).
Sport plays a prominent role in meeting these goals:

Sport is also an important enabler of sustainable development. We rec-

ognize the growing contribution of sport to the realization of devel-
opment and peace in its promotion of tolerance and respect and the
contributions it makes to the empowerment of women and of young
people, individuals and communities as well as to health, education and
social inclusion objectives.
(UN, 2015)

The opportunity to shift the focus of success to a model as outlined by the UN

provides greater opportunity for women to exercise leadership, both positional
and non-positional. In fact, one of the 17 SDGs is to achieve gender equality
and empower all women and girls. Sport is ideally suited for this objective:

Gender equality and changes in norms and attitudes towards it can

be promoted in sport contexts, where sport-based initiatives and
Table 10.1 UN sustainable development goals

# Goal Description
1 No Poverty End poverty in all its forms
everywhere
2 Zero Hunger End hunger, achieve food
security and improved
nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture
3 Good Health and Well Being Ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at
all ages
4 Quality Education Ensure inclusive and quality
education for all and promote
lifelong learning
5 Gender Equality Achieve gender equality and
empower all women and girls
6 Clean Water and Sanitation Ensure access to water and
sanitation for all
7 Affordable Clean Energy Ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable and
modern energy for all
8 Decent Work and Economic Promote inclusive and
Growth sustainable economic growth,
employment and decent work
for all
9 Industry, Innovation and Build resilient infrastructure,
Infrastructure promote sustainable
industrialization and foster
innovation
10 Reduce Inequality Reduce inequality within and
among countries
11 Sustainable Communities Make cities inclusive, safe,
and Cities resilient and sustainable
12 Responsible Growth and Ensure sustainable consumption
Consumption and production patterns
13 Climate Action Take urgent action to combat
climate change and its
impacts
14 Life Below Water Conserve and sustainably use
the oceans, seas and marine
resources
15 Life On Land Sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, halt
and reverse land degradation,
halt biodiversity loss
16 Peace, Justice and Strong Promote just, peaceful and
Institutions inclusive societies
17 Partnerships for the Goals Revitalize the global
partnership for sustainable
development
Note: Retrieved from www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 155

programmes have the potential to equip women and girls with knowl-
edge and skills that allow them to progress in society.
(UN, 2015, n.p.)

If sport organizations adopted the UN model of sustainable development

and shifted emphasis to success beyond winning, then the economic ration-
ale and organizational practices would need to follow. Within business there
are parallel objectives to sustainable development as demonstrated in corpo-
rate social responsibility initiatives (CSR). The rationale for CSR has been
well made in the business literature, suggesting that there is a need to move
away from a purely economic model of business focused exclusively on prof-
its to one that includes social, cultural, and environmental s­ ustainability—
referred to as the quadruple bottom line (Werbach, 2009). Much of the
CSR research refers to the triple bottom line which conflates social with cul-
tural issues (see, e.g., Marques-Mendes & Santos, 2016; Mostovicz, Kak-
abadse, & Kakabadse, 2009), but together with Laszlo and Laszlo (2011)
we would argue that these dimensions are quite different, with the inclusion
of cultural issues going some way to acknowledging intersectionality, so
often ignored in both research and practice, yet crucial in moving toward
gender equity in organizations. In addition to the quadruple bottom line,
Laszlo and Laszlo (2011) advocate for the quadruple top line, which focuses
on the organization’s value add of their service and/or product to their sec-
tor, rather than only considering the return on investment (the bottom line)
of the service and/or product.
Driven by the strategic leadership of the organization, in most cases the
board, structural change can be achieved to secure sustainable and ethical
outcomes over the long term (Laszlo & Laszlo, 2011; Mostovicz et al.,
2009). By adopting an integrated holistic approach which focuses on social,
cultural, financial, and environmental sustainability, fundamental changes
in overall organizational structures are likely to occur. Recent research in
Australia and New Zealand indicates that organizations are aware of the
SDGs (Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, 2016). The
most important goals identified were Gender Equality, Good Health and
Wellbeing, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Industry Innovation and
Infrastructure, and Climate Action. The key challenge for organizations
was to match desired priorities with concrete action plans. When examin-
ing gender and CSR in this context, research has shown that corporate
boards that have women serving as directors are more likely to engage in
CSR activities (Harjoto, Laksmana, & Lee, 2015; Jain & Jamali, 2016).
As organizations acknowledge the benefits to CSR engagement, findings in
this area have highlighted the importance of women in leadership positions
to help maximize these benefits (Kaspereit, Lopatta & Matolcsy, 2016).
Most of the CSR research in sport has focused on professional sport and
the reasons for engaging in CSR (see, e.g., Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Hamil &
156 Burton and Leberman

Morrow, 2011). An exception is the work by Palmer and Master’s (2010)

with Māori women in sport leadership. They indicate that many Māori
businesses seek to focus on the quadruple bottom line, but that achieving
this is a challenging process.
Returning to the conceptual model introduced in the introduction, we
posit that structural change could be achieved more expediently by sport
organizations adopting a quadruple top- and bottom-line approach, with
a particular focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals of Gender
Equality and Decent Work and Economic Growth. This would neces-
sitate a paradigm shift away from the focus of ‘winning at all costs’ to
one where the multiple benefits of sport to individuals and society are
recognized (see Figure 10.1).

Context Quadruple
Socio-cultural STRUCTURE
(posional leadership) Top & Boom
Organizaonal
Personal Line

Structural liming factors UN Sustainable

Instuonal pracces Development
Gender bias
Lack of recognion of
Goals
interseconality 5 - Gender Equality
Upward 8 - Decent Work
mobility Decrease
and Economic
(to posional (change slow) Growth
leadership) Increase
(change fast)
Sporng context
BEYOND winning
Agency enhancing factors
Development programs

AGENCY
(non-posional leadership)

Figure 10.1 Structure-Agency quadruple top and bottom line conceptual model to

redress the underrepresentation of women in sport leadership © Sarah
Leberman and Laura J. Burton

Men and women in power: need for those voices

to make change
As was described in the final section of Chapter 3, one of the ways that
institutional change occurs is through advocacy by those in positions of
power. Within sport organizations, men hold the majority of leadership
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 157

positions at all levels of sport throughout the world (Lapchick, 2016).

When men in sport leadership advocate for and provide opportunities
for women in sport leadership, especially in areas where there have been
few women historically (e.g., senior leadership in men’s professional
sport, international sport governing bodies), it makes a meaningful dif-
ference to all women. Importantly, women who have obtained positions
of power and leadership in sport organizations must not only provide
opportunities to women within their organizations, but also advocate
more broadly for changes to the structures within which they operate.
Women in leadership positions in sport organizations must be aware of
and resist the narrative that there is only one seat at the table for women
and that one ‘token’ woman is able to speak for all women in the organi-
zation. Research would suggest that to make a meaningful difference in
organizations there needs to be at least three women on a board (see,
e.g., Adriaanse & Schofield, 2014; Torchia, Calabro, & Huse, 2011). As
discussed in Chapter 6, quotas are one means of ensuring more women
are on boards. However, what is unclear is whether mandating this legis-
latively is having a positive impact on organizations. Recent research by
Korn Ferry (2016) highlights Catalyst (2015) data which indicates that
in Norway women currently make up 35.5% of board members on stock
index companies, where mandatory quotas of 40% women on boards
was introduced in 2008. Finland and France also have mandatory quotas
and currently have female representation of 29.9% and 29.7% respec-
tively. However, this approach has not worked in Italy, which set a 33%
target and is currently sitting at 6%.
It is useful to remind readers that the benefits of diversity are well
researched as highlighted in the introduction. This is reinforced by a recent
Korn Ferry (2016) report that highlights five key organizational benefits
from having women represented at the highest level of organizations from
the board down. They are:

• Better corporate performance—it makes a positive difference to the

financial bottom line.
• A more innovative working culture—this is of critical importance in the
fast-paced world of sport.
• Help in closing the growing skills gap—drawing on the expertise of
women broadens the talent pool.
• Better connections for organizations to their customers—participation
in sport by girls and women in growing, as is consumption of sport at
all levels. Women control about 70% of consumer spending so hav-
ing their voice represented in decision making can only be good for
organizations.
• Improvements in brand image—and providing women as role models in
leadership positions.
158 Burton and Leberman

Gallup (2016) identifies 10 areas in which organizations can focus on to

“attract, engage and retain a female workforce” (p. 75), whilst recognizing
that addressing these areas will benefit the organizations in terms of diver-
sity more generally, applying to both women and men.

1 Review performance management systems to enable employees to play

to their strengths and engage in meaningful work.
2 Hire, develop, and reward great people managers who enable others to
maximize their potential, achieve performance outcomes, engage their
teams, and actively pursue a diversity hiring agenda.
3 Create trust and transparency to make flexibility work by advocating
flex policies and using them. “True flexible working arrangements do
not give workers permission to slack—they give employees freedom to
succeed” (p. 78).
4 Communicate and activate organizational values and mission. “Women
are more apt to see work and life as one holistic entity … They care
about values, and they care about purpose and cause” (p. 78).
5 Develop a culture of coaching.
6 Rehire, re-engineer, and retain—an organization that is loyal and
makes work ‘work’ for its employees, at different stages of their lives is
valued.
7 Pay attention to strengths over stereotypes.
8 Build a culture of well-being.
9 Encourage people to get to know one another. Women in particular
value friendships at work and indicate they are missing out on oppor-
tunities to build meaningful relationships.
10 Make your organization child friendly. For mothers the greatest influ-
ence of whether to stay at work or not is their children.

The other very important strategy is to focus on accountability and not

only collecting data, but also sharing of results (Lean In and McKinsey &
Company, 2016).
When women are included in leadership positions, unfortunately, they
can face undue burdens based on lower legitimacy perceptions. When com-
pared to powerful men, powerful women are less likely to be perceived as
legitimate authorities (Vial, Napier, & Brescoll, 2016). Perceptions of legiti-
macy can be further reduced for women in high-status positions that are
gender incongruent (e.g., sport organizations) if they make a mistake in the
role of leader (Brescoll, Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010). An additional chal-
lenge for women in leadership is that their legitimacy can be compromised
when their leader behaviors highlight power differentials between them and
subordinates (Vial et al., 2016). When we consider that sport organizations
in general, and leadership positions in particular, continue to be dominated
by men, these challenges to women’s legitimacy in leadership positions can
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 159

be significant because being a leader in a sport organization continues to be

seen as gender incongruent for women (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tam-
kins, 2004). Men in leadership positions who support developing women as
leaders must work with women and other individuals in the organization to
mitigate questions of legitimacy for women in leadership.
Research is increasingly suggesting that changing the way organizations
are structured and how they are led is important to both women and men
(Lean In and McKinsey & Company, 2016). The main reason both women
and men (42%) do not want to be a top executive is their perceived inabil-
ity to manage their work–life interface, followed by the level of politics
involved (39%; 40%) and not being interested in the type of work (35%;
37%). Thirty-two percent of women, compared with 21% of men indicated
that they did not want the pressure. Interestingly, more men (21%) than
women (15%) indicated that senior roles were not consistent with who they
were and 13% of both women and men were not confident they would be
successful (Lean In and McKinsey & Company, 2016). What this means is
that if sport organizations fundamentally change their structures to focus
on both the quadruple top- and bottom-line, not only will this ensure more
women and diversity at the strategic level, but also it will benefit everyone
in the organization.

Conclusion
For the last 40 years we have seen numerous attempts to increase the num-
ber of women in sport leadership positions across the world, both legisla-
tive and voluntary, but overall progress has been glacial. It is now time to
make significant structural changes which address the three key issues we
have identified as reasons that continue to contribute to the lack of women
in these senior positions—institutional practices; gender bias; the lack of
recognition of intersectionality—and change the paradigm from one which
focuses on ‘winning at all costs,’ to one that recognizes and celebrates the
value of sport beyond winning (see Figure 10.1). We urge you to consider
how adopting this approach within your organization can start today. We
cannot wait another 40 years for gender equity in sport leadership. As schol-
ars and advocates we must challenge the dominant paradigm of ‘winning
at all costs,’ and demonstrate that all people can and do benefit from a
‘success beyond winning’ model in sport, and that the future of sport leader-
ship must reflect the knowledge, passion and commitment of all individuals
involved in sport.

References
Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2014). The impact of gender quotas on gender
equality in sport governance. Journal of Sport Management, 28(5), 485–497.
160 Burton and Leberman

Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. (2016). Pathways to the

Sustainable Development Goals: Annual review of the state of CSR in Australia
and New Zealand 2016. Retrieved from http://accsr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/
dlm_uploads/2016/06/ACCSR-State-of-CSR-Report-2016.pdf
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in
professional sport: Internal and external factors. Journal of Sport Management,
23(4), 717–742.
Bergeron, M. F., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., Côté, J., Emery, C. A., ... &
Malina, R. M. (2015). International Olympic Committee consensus statement on
youth athletic development. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 843–851.
Bostock, J. (2014). The Meaning of Success: Insights from Women at Cambridge.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost the
fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychologi-
cal Science, 21(11), 1640–1642.
Catalyst (2015). 2014 Catalyst census: Women board directors. Retrieved from
www.catalyst.org/
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2005). Perspectives on work-family conflict in
sport: An integrated approach. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227–253.
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching I: A top-
down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377.
Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power and Relational Practice at
Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gallup (2016). Women in America: Work and life well-lived. Retrieved from www.
gallup.com/topic/category_leadership.aspx
Grappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and
perspectives from female NCAA Division I athletic directors of both separate and
merged athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related Topics Journal,
2, 6–20.
Grasgreen, A. (2014). Weighing value in sports. January 6. Retrieved from www.
insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/06/temple-cuts-highlight-cost-big-time-football
Hamil, S., & Morrow, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the scottish pre-
mier league: Context and motivation. European Sport Management Quarterly,
11(2), 143–170.
Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 641–660
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for
success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 113–136.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard
Business Review, 91(9), 60–66.
Ituma, A., Simpson, R., Ovadje, F., Cornelius, N., & Mordi, C. (2011). Four
“domains” of career success: How managers in Nigeria evaluate career outcomes.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3638–3660.
Jain, T., & Jamali, D. (2016). Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate
governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An Inter-
national Review, 24, 253–273.
 New leadership: rethinking successful leadership 161

Kaspereit, T., Lopatta, K., & Matolcsy, Z. (2016). Board gender diversity and
dimensions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management and Sus-
tainability, 6(2), 50.
Korn Ferry. (2016). The real gap: Fixing the gender pay divide. Retrieved from www.
kornferry.com/institute/reports-and-insights/
Lapchick, R. (2016). Gender report Card: 2016 International Sports Report Card
on Women in Leadership Roles. The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport,
University of Central Florida, USA. Retrieved from www.tidesport.org/women-s-
leadership-in-international-sports.html
Laszlo, A., & Laszlo, K.C. (2011). Systemic sustainability in OD practice: Bottom
line and top line reasoning. OD Practitioner, 43(4), 10–16.
Lean In and McKinsey & Company (2015). Women in the workplace 2015.
Retrieved fromwww.mckinsey.com/global-themes/women-matter
Lean In and McKinsey & Company (2016). Women in the workplace 2016.
Retrieved fromwww.mckinsey.com/global-themes/women-matter
Leberman, S. I., & Hurst, J. (2017). The connection between success, choice and
leadership for women (pp. 254–267). In S. R. Madsen (ed.) Handbook of Research
on Gender and Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lyras, A., & Peachey, J. W. (2011). Integrating sport-for-development theory and
praxis. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 311–326.
Marques-Mendes, A., & Santos, M.J. (2016). Strategic CSR: An integrative model
for analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 363–381.
Mostovicz, I., Kakabadse, N., & Kakabadse, A. (2009). CSR: The role of leadership
in driving ethical outcomes. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Business in Society, 9(4), 448–460.
NCAA (2016). NCAA core values. Retrieved from www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-
core-values
Palmer, F. R., & Masters, T. M. (2010). Māori feminism and sport leadership:
Exploring Māori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13, 331–344.
Sachs, J. D. (2015). Achieving sustainable development goals. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Ethics, 8(2), 53–62.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Randall, M. H. (2015). Athletic suc-
cess and NCAA profit-athletes’ adjusted graduation gaps. Sociology of Sport Jour-
nal, 32(4), 395–414.
Strachan, L., & Davies, K. (2015). Click! Using photo elicitation to explore youth
experiences and positive youth development in sport. Qualitative Research in
Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(2), 170–191.
Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards:
From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2), 299–317.
United Nations (2015). Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved
from www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/home/sport/sportandsdgs
Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female lead-
ers and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27,
400–414.
Walters, S. R., Schluter, P. J., Oldham, A. R. H., Thomson, R. W., & Payne, D. (2012).
The sideline behaviour of coaches at children’s team sports games. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 13(2), 208–215.
Werbach, A. (2009). Strategy for Sustainability: A Business Manifesto. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Appendix

Moving the conversation

forward: future research
directions

In the process of writing this book, a number of areas for future research
have been identified to help us better understand the topic of women in
sport leadership. The list provided below is by no means exhaustive; rather,
it provides a starting point for scholars. Based on the existing research we
suggest that, in general, future research is required to better understand
how leadership is conceptualized within sport organizations in particular
through more in-depth qualitative and potentially ethnographic studies.
Similarly, adopting a broader range of alternative methodologies would
provide deeper insights into the issues at play, together with a consideration
of wider theoretical models of leadership. Currently most of the published
research is dominated by research conducted within the US intercollegi-
ate sport system, yet there is a need for a broader understanding of issues
beyond the United States, particularly from countries outside of North
America, Europe, and Oceania. We have limited understanding of women
in sport leadership in Asia, Africa, and South America.
The following is a list of areas we have identified as worthy of further
research, listed in no particular order:

• Leadership as practice and need for this to be studied in sport.

• What are sustainable outcomes in sport?
• Longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the conceptual model pre-
sented in Figures 1.1 and 10.1—do the programs designed to increase
agency have influence and change the structure? If these programs do
affect change, what is the process.
• There is a need to understand the impact of quotas more widely. Ques-
tions to explore include: Have quotas impacted on the day-to-day lived
experience of girls and women in sport in terms of interest, funding,
media coverage and coaching? Why has it worked in some countries
better than others and what are the key factors to making quotas work?
• Longitudinal research on the impact of mentoring and sponsoring in
sport. Much of the research is from the business context.
• Do women in leadership positions bring other women through and do
they change the culture? There is a need for in-depth qualitative studies
 Appendix 163

of sports organizations where this may occur and also where women
make up the majority, if not all of the leadership team.
• Understanding who applies for leadership roles, who constitutes the
selection panel, who is selected for interview and who is appointed—
this is still a black box and limits our ability to target interventions at
the appropriate point in the process.
• To what extent is mobility required to take on leadership roles in sport?
Do the experiences in the sport domain mirror those in business, which
suggest the structure benefits men with willing partners who are pre-
pared to move.
• In-depth case studies of sport organizations leading the way and which
showcase the benefits of diversity and model something different than
wining at all cost.
• In all research take an intersectionality approach as the experiences of
women are not homogenous and need to reflect the diversity of women
engaged in sport.
• Research required at all levels of sport from youth sport through to the
international level, from not-for-profit through to corporate business.
• Longitudinal research on the impact of sport leadership programs for
young women—are they important and more importantly do they make
a difference? Are they accessible to all or only a privileged few?
• What are other conceptualizations of leadership in sport that represent
the myriad of ways that women exercise leadership often hidden from
the public domain and therefore not able to be counted? How do we
make this leadership visible and show that there is not only one form of
leadership that is valued?
• Aside from examining the experiences of women coaches in the US
sports system, we are not aware of research to date that has explored
self-limiting behaviors of women in sport leadership positions.
• Future research should examine how to encourage cultural changes
within sport organizations, how to develop and empower male allies,
and explore other techniques for the de-institutionalization of barriers
to women in sport leadership.
• The glass cliff has not been examined empirically in the field of sport
management, but may provide an interesting avenue to explore wom-
en’s experiences in sport leadership.
Index

Note: page numbers in italic type refer to Tables; those in bold type refer to Figures.
access discrimination 25 Bahrain 2
accountability 108–109, 158 Bajaj, M. 119
Acker, J. 34 Bandura, A. 78
Adriaanse, Johanna A. 83–97 Barr, C. A. 40
advocacy-based covering 69, 70 baseball 43, 63–65
affiliation-based covering 69, 70 basketball 43; gender and leadership
affirmative action see quotas 43, 98; gender, and recruitment and
agency 10, 11, 11, 156 selection 36–37; girls’ 38; masculine
Alliance of Women Coaches 134 culture 37
Anderson, D. F. 42 beliefs, and institutionalization 33
Anderson, E. D. 39, 48 bias 4, 5, 12, 18, 47–54, 57–58, 126;
Anderson, J. C. 116, 118 recommendations for reduction
appearance-based covering 69, 70 55–57; second-generation 54–56,
Aronson, J. 54 150; see also stereotypes
ASPN (Australian Sport Performance Black Ferns women’s rugby team,
Network) 133 New Zealand 5
Association of Summer ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign 67
Olympic International board chair positions: women in 2, 20,
Federations 86 84, 84, 85
association-based covering 69, 70 board director positions 21, 22, 157;
athletic director positions 19–20, 34, women in 2, 20, 84, 84, 85
38, 40–41, 52, 149 Boden, Jim 63–64
athletics: female athletes’ perceptions Bopp, T. 36, 37
of peer leadership 99, 104–112; male Brescoll, V. L. 50
athletes’ inappropriate behavior Brighton Declaration 21, 86, 94
towards women 151 Brighton Plus Helsinki Declaration 83,
Australia 2; impact of quotas on sport 86, 94
governance 84, 90–91, 92–94, Bruening, J. E. 22, 40
95; mentoring programs 135; pay Bryant, Michael J. 62–82
equality 2; pay inequality 3; Rugby Buffalo Bills 43
League 43, 149, 151 Building Leadership in Young Women
Australian Sport Performance Network Through Sport Project (BYWLTS)
(ASPN) 133 program 121
Australian Women and Recreation Burton, Laura 1–32, 34, 40, 47–61, 52,
Association (AWRA) 135 148–161
authority 8, 12 Buss, Jeanie 74
 Index 165

Cain, Susan 118–119 Crouch, I. 63

Caithness, Kate 2 CSR (corporate social responsibility)
Canada 2, 26 155–156
Canadian Association for the culture see organizational culture
Advancement of Women in Sport and Cundiff, J. L. 50
Physical Activity (CAAWS) 6 Cunningham, G. B. 38, 39, 41, 56, 57,
Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs Rugby 68, 70–71
League club 43, 149 Czech, D. R. 106
Caple, Jim 63–65
Carter-Francique, A. R. 66 Darvin, Lindsey 33–46
Casado, Marisol 2, 83 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Castle, Raelene 43, 149 (Sustainable Development Goal 8)
CEDAW (Convention on the 148, 154, 155, 156
Elimination of all Forms of ‘defensive othering’ 70
Discrimination Against Women) 86 Derks, B. 9
CGF (Commonwealth Games DFID (Department for International
Federation) 2–3, 86 Development), UK: Building
Charter of the United Nations 86 Leadership in Young Women
Chelladurai, P. 120–121 Through Sport Project (BYWLTS)
chief executive positions: women in 2, program 121
84, 84, 85 Digital Storytelling (DST) programs
China 2 122–123
Chun, J. U. 137 disability, and intersectionality 5
Clarendon, Layshia 62 discourse analysis 25–26
Claringbould, I. 19 discrimination 16–17, 41–42
Clarke, M. 133 diversity: benefits of 3–5, 23, 42–43,
class, and intersectionality 5 56, 70–71, 85, 157–158; see also
coaching positions: development intersectionality
programmes for young women 123– Dixon, M. A. 22
124; and gender 22, 34, 38–39, 42, doping 152
43, 106; Olympic level 35; women, in double bind 51, 52, 53, 55, 103, 106,
men’s sports 37; see also head coach 107, 111–112
positions Drago, R. 99, 106
coercive power 18; see also power DST (Digital Storytelling) programs
Committee on Women’s Athletics 19 122–123
Commonwealth Games Federation Dufur, M. J. 41
(CGF) 2–3, 86
communication leadership 108–109 Eagly, A. H. 40, 107
conceptual framework 10–12, 11 Edwards, M. 9–10
conferences, legacies of 21–22 Eitzen, D. S. 48
Connell, R. 17, 91 Ellemers, N. 9
context 10 Ely, R. 57, 74
Convention on the Elimination of all Emotional Intelligence (EI) 137
Forms of Discrimination Against emotional labor 107
Women (CEDAW) 86 emotional relations 91, 91, 92, 93
Cooky, C. 122, 124, 125 Equal Employment Opportunity
corporate social responsibility (CSR) Commission, USA 3
155–156 Ernst & Young Global (EY) 133
corruption 152 ethics, and the ‘win at all costs’ model
‘covering’ techniques 69, 70, 77 150–152
Crenshaw, K. 65, 66 ethnicity: and intersectionality 5; see
cricket 3, 36 also race; women of color
166 Index

Evans, Dan 63, 64 gender discrimination see

expert power 18; see also power discrimination
external mentors 137–138; see also gender equality: and discourse analysis
mentoring 25–26; sport as a vehicle of 3–4, 153,
external networking 133; see also 155; terminology 4
networking Gender Equality (Sustainable
Development Goal 5) 148, 154, 155,
family-work interface 22, 23, 149, 159 156
Federation of International Basketball gender equity: benefits of 3–5, 23;
Association 2 terminology 4
Federer, Roger 63 gender quotas see quotas
female athletes: perceptions of peer gender regimes 90–91, 91, 92–94
leadership 99, 104–112 gender stereotypes 47, 49–50, 55,
feminist theory 10 104, 126; mismatch with leadership
Fertman, C. I. 116, 117 stereotypes 51–53; and role congruity
FIFA 48, 85, 86, 89, 152 theory 40–41; and stereotype threat
Fink, J. S. 16, 40, 48 53–54, 56–57
Finland 157 gender targets 87, 88
Fletcher, J. K. 107, 108 General Assembly of Norwegian Sport
football: gender and leadership 42, 89
43; injuries in youth football 151; Gill, K. S. 42
revenue generation from 148–149 Girls on the Move program, Scotland
formal mentoring 136–137; see also 124
mentoring glass ceiling 36, 39–40
formal networks 131–132; see also glass cliff 53
networking glass wall 36–38, 40
France 157 Global Sports Mentoring Program
Frey, J. H. 48 (GSMP) 135
Frey, M. 106 Goffman, E. 69
Friel, Lisa 42 golf 2
functional practices, and gender governing bodies: and gender 53; IOC
inequity 21 targets for women in leadership
positions 2; underrepresentation of
Gallup 157–158 women 19
Garnets, L. D. 68 Gracia, L. 125
gender: and coaching positions Grappendorf, Heidi 47–61
22, 34, 38–39, 42, 43, 106; and GSMP (Global Sports Mentoring
intercollegiate sport, USA 18–19, Program) 135
24, 34–35, 52; and international
federations (IFs)/international Hammon, Becky 43, 44
sports federations 2, 35, 84–85, Hancock, Meg G. 130–147
85; and the International Olympic handball 2
Committee (IOC) 2, 20, 35, 48–49; Hannah, Kathy Hopinkah 140–141
and leadership development 118–120; Hansen, D. M. 120
and mentoring 139–140; and national Harris, J. 141
sport organisations (NSOs) 53, 84, head coach positions: and gender 34;
84; and organizational culture 16, recruitment and selection practices
21, 22–23; and power 17–19; and 38–39
recruitment and selection 18, 22, HeforShe 6
36–39, 42, 52, 53, 56; and sport 17, Heilman, M. E. 51
19–21, 34, 41; and sport policy 5; see Hennighausen, L. 99
also men; women; young women Henry, I. 90
 Index 167

HERA; Everyday Goddess program, 85; targets and quotas 83, 90;
New Zealand 122 underrepresentation of women 19,
Herek, G. M. 68 84–85, 85
heterogeneous networks 132; see also International Golf Federation 2
networking International Handball Federation 2
Hewlett, S. A. 141 International Netball Federation 36
hierarchical leadership 110–111 International Olympic Committee
hiring decisions see recruitment and (IOC) 86; gender and leadership 2,
selection 20, 35, 48–49; gender targets 2, 84,
Hoeber, L. 41 89–90, 95; see also Olympic Games
Holmes, R. H. 107–108 International Paralympic Committee 86
homogenous networks 132; see also International Sports Report Card on
networking Women in Leadership Roles, 2016 2
homologous reproduction 25, 38–39; International Swimming Federation 2
see also recruitment and selection International Triathlon Union (ITU) 2, 83
Hong Kong 43, 44 International University Sports
Hovden, J. 52 Federation 86
Hudson, Dawn 42 International Working Group on
human capital 26, 39–40 Women and Sport (IWG) 87
humor 21, 24 interpersonal skills 106
Hurst, J. 9–10, 150 intersectionality 4–5, 12, 62–67;
identity management techniques
Ibarra, H. 57, 132, 142 69–70; and minority stress 67–69,
Idrottslyftet (Lift for Sport) program, 70; and organizational performance
Sweden 123 70–71; sport industry perspectives
influence 8, 9 71, 74–77, I72–73; strategies for
informal mentoring 136; see also success 78–79
mentoring introversion 118–119
informal networks 131–132; see also Isaacson, Anna 42
networking Italy 157
informational power 18; see also power IWG (International Working Group on
injuries 151, 152 Women and Sport) 87
institutionalized practices 4, 5, 12,
16, 33, 42–44; barriers in 36–42; Johnson, M. 106
definition 33–34; men as leaders Johnson, S. K. 116, 117, 120
34–36
intercollegiate sport, USA 10, 151; Karau, S. J. 40
athletic director positions 19–20, Kay, K. 12i
34, 38, 40–41, 52, 149; and Kelinsky, L. R. 118
diversity 23; and gender 18–19, Kellerman, Barbara 8
24, 34–35, 52; and social capital Kent, R. G. 106
26; treatment discrimination 25; Kerr, B. 36
underrepresentation of women in 4, Kihl, L. A. 18–19
19, 20–21 Kim, E. 116
internal mentors 137–138; see also Knoppers, A. 19
mentoring Kolb, D. 57
International Association of Athletics Komives, S. R. 116, 117
Federation 2 Korn Ferry 157
International Cricket Council 36 KPN 9
international federations (IFs)/ Kumamoto Commitment to
international sports federations 86; Collaboration 22
gender and leadership 2, 35, 84–85, Kwarcheck, S. 10
168 Index

lack of fit model 51 17, 19–20, 23, 26, 38, 41, 47, 48,
Ladies European Tour 43 102–103, 104, 105–106, 108, 111,
Ladkin, Donna 7–8 112
Larson, R. W. 120 Masters, T. M. 25, 156
Larsson, L. 123–124 McEnroe, John 63
Laszlo, A. 155 McKinsey 149
Laszlo, K. C. 155 McNae, R. 119
LaVoi, N. 66 Meckbach, J. 123–124
leaderful practices 8, 9 Melton, E. Nicole 42, 62–82
leadership: exercising of 5; men: as advocates for change 157;
institutionalization of men 34–36; benefits of gender equity 23;
nature of 7–8; and role congruity institutionalization of as leaders
theory 40–41; and values 6–7; see 34–36; and structural change 6; see
also sport leadership also gender; masculinity
leadership development 5, 57, 74–75, mentoring 5, 130, 134–136, 142,
78–79, 111, 112; and gender 142–143; and gender 139–140;
118–120; models of 116–117, 117, outcomes 139; types of mentor
120; and participation 120–122; 138–139; types of relationship
young women 116–127 136–138
leadership positions: and Meyer, I. H. 67
institutionalized practices 33–44; Millennium Development Goals 153
women in 2–3, 4–5, 9, 18, 20–21, 22, Miller, W. 36
42–43; see also positional leadership; minority stress 67–69, 70
sport leadership minority women: treatment
Lean In 149 discrimination 25
Leathwood, C. 125 Mita, D. L. 119
Leberman, Sarah 1–32, 116–129, 125– MLB (Major League Baseball) 43,
126, 148–161 63–65
legitimacy, of women leaders 158–159 mobility, as a requirement for
legitimate power 18, 19; see also power leadership 150
lesbian administrators 69 Moneta, G. 120
LGBT administrators 69 Montreal Toolkit 22
LGBT community 67 Moreau, M.-P. 125
LGBT employees, USA 3, 56 motherhood, and leadership 149
Lift for Sport (Idrottslyftet) program, Mullane, S. P. 38
Sweden 123 Murphy, S. E. 116, 117, 120
likability 106
London Olympics, 2012 1, 35 N4A (National Association of
Longerbeam, S. D. 116, 117 Academic Advisors for Athletics) 135
Lough, N. 52 National Association for Athletics
Compliance (NAAC) 135
Mainella, F. C. 116, 117 National Association of Academic
Major League Baseball (MLB) 43, Advisors for Athletics (N4A) 135
63–65 National Association of Collegiate
Male Champions for Change 6 Directors of Athletics (NACDA) 134,
Māori people 6; treatment 135
discrimination 25; women in sport National Association of Collegiate
leadership 68, 69, 156 Women Athletic Administrators
Martin, Louise 3 (NACWAA) 133–134, 134–135
Martin, P. Y. 41 National Basketball League Players
masculinity: and role congruity theory Association (NBAPA) 43
41; in sport 48; and sport leadership National Football League (NFL) 42–43
 Index 169

National Olympic Committees 2, Padavic, I. 74

20, 86, 90; see also International Palmer, F. R. 22, 25, 156
Olympic Committee (IOC); Olympic Parks, Rosa 119
Games participation: and leadership 98–99,
national sport organisations (NSOs): 120–122; women and girls 1–2
and gender 53, 84, 84; Netherlands pay equality 3
19; and quotas 83 peer leadership, young women’s
Native American perspective on power perceptions of 99, 100–101, 102,
8–9 104–112
NBA 43, 44; Lean in Together 6 peer mentors 138–139; see also
NBAPA (National Basketball League mentoring
Players Association) 43 place, sense of 6–7
NCAA 151; underrepresentation of political intersectionality 66–67
women 19, 98 positional leadership 9, 12, 110–111;
netball 35–36, 85 see also leadership positions
Netherlands 22 positive action see quotas
networking 5, 21, 24, 41, 130–131, power 8–9, 12, 27; and gender 17–19;
142, 142–143; network types power relations 91, 91, 92, 93
131–132; outcomes 133; in sport Pride movement 67
131, 133–134 production relations 91, 91, 92, 93
New Zealand 22; Black Ferns Puerto Rico 2
women’s rugby team 5; leadership
development for young women quadruple top and bottom line 156,
119–120, 122; majority of women 156
in delegation, 2016 Rio Olympics ‘Queen Bee’ syndrome 9–10
2; mentoring programs 135; Rugby quotas 11, 12, 83–84, 87–90, 94–95,
Union 149, 151 157; impact of 90–94, 91
NFL (National Football League) 42–43
Ng, Kim 63–65 race: and intersectionality 5; see also
Nordstrom, Helena Alterby 43 ethnicity
norms 75; and institutionalization 33 racial bias/stereotypes 54, 56
Norway 4, 11, 84, 88–89, 157 Raelin, J. 7, 9
Rauscher, L. 122, 124, 125
Olushola, J. 66 recruitment and selection 25; and
Olympic Games: 2012 London gender 18, 22, 36–39, 42, 52, 53, 56;
Olympics 1, 35; 2016 Rio Olympics and intersectionality 74–75; see also
2, 17, 152; and women’s sports homologous reproduction
1–2; see also International Olympic referent power 18; see also power
Committee (IOC) Regan, M. 38
operational practices 21, 150; see also Rehm, C. J. 116
institutionalized practices Reid, M. 36
organizational culture: and bias religion, and intersectionality 5
56; and gender 16, 21, 22–23; representational intersectionality 66
and institutionalization 33; and respect 106
intersectionality 75–76 reward power 17–18; see also power
organizational factors in gender Ricketts, J. C. 116, 117
inequity 21–25 Rio Olympics, 2016 2, 17, 152
organizational performance: benefits of Roberts, Michelle 43
diversity 3–5, 23, 42–43, 56, 70–71, Robinson, L. 90
85, 157–158 Rogers, J. 99
Osteen, L. 116, 117 role congruity theory 40–41, 51, 52
Owne, J. E. 116, 117 role models, female 56, 78–79
170 Index

Roosevelt, Eleanor 119 sport: and gender 17, 19–21, 34, 41; as
Rorem, A. 119 a social institution 47–48; as a vehicle
Rudd, R. D. 116, 117 for gender equality 3–4, 153, 155
Rudman, L. A. 51 Sport Business Network, UK 133
Rugby League, Australia 43, 149, 151 Sport Development Programmes (SDPs)
Rugby Union, New Zealand 149, 151 124
Russia 152 sport for development and peace (SDP)
models 153
Sagas, M. 36, 38, 39 sport leadership 102–104; ‘win at
San Antonio Spurs 43 all costs’ model 148–152, 159;
Sartore-Baldwin, M. 37 alternative success paradigms
Sartore, M. L. 57, 68 152–153, 154, 155–156; and
Schaeperkoetter, Claire 33–46 communication 108–109; current
Schein, E. H. 75 scholarship in 16–27; and external
Schofield, T. 90–91, 92–94, 95 behaviors 109–110; future research
Schull, Vicki D. 18–19, 98–115 162–163; hierarchical 110–111;
Scotland: leadership development for individual level research 17, 25–26,
young women 124 27; and masculinity 17, 19–20,
SDP (sport for development and peace) 23, 26, 38, 41, 47, 48, 102–103,
models 153 104, 105–106, 108, 111, 112;
SDPs (Sport Development Programmes) organizational-level perspective on
124 21–25, 27; and participation 98–99;
second-generation bias 54–56, 150 peer leadership 99, 100–101, 102,
self-limiting behaviors 26 104–112; positional 110–111;
sexuality, and intersectionality 5 and power 17–19; social-oriented
Sharapova, Maria 63 106–108, 109–110; socio-cultural
Shaw, S. 5, 18–19, 41, 125–126 perspective on 19–21, 27;
‘Shift: Shift your body, Shift your mind’ task-oriented 105–106; transactional
program, New Zealand 122 105–106; underrepresentation of
Shipman, C. 121 women in 2–3, 4–5, 9, 20, 34, 35–44,
shyness 119 48–49, 83, 84–85, 85, 98–99,
Simmons, Christine 74 102–103; young women’s perceptions
Sinclair, Amanda 6–7 of 99, 100–101, 102, 104–112;
Situational Attribution Training 56 see also institutionalized practices;
Smith, C. 69–70 positional leadership
Smith, G. A. 78 Sport New Zealand 135
Smith, J. C. 78 sport policy, and gender 5
Smith, Kathryn 43 SportAccord 86
social capital 26, 39–40, 131 status incongruity theory 51
social categorization framework 66 Stauffer, K.D. 99
social institution, sport as 47–48 Steele, C. M. 54
social learning theory 78 stereotypes 47, 49–50; of leadership
social networking 133; see also 16, 24, 40–41, 47, 50–53, 55; and
networking role congruity theory 40–41, 51; and
social processes 21, 23–24 stereotype threat 53–54, 56–57
social role theory 47, 49–50 Stevenson, B. 121
social-oriented leadership 106–108, stigma consciousness 68
109–110 structural intersectionality 66
softball 38 structure 10, 11, 11–12, 156
South America 35 surfing 2
sponsoring 5, 130, 140–141, 142, Sustainable Development Goals 148,
142–143; importance of 141–142 153, 154, 155
 Index 171

Sweden: leadership development for Williams, Serena 62–63

young women 123–124 win at all costs model 148–152, 159
swimming 2 Windhoek Call for Action 21–22
Sydney Scoreboard 22, 83, 84, 84–85, WNBA 66–67
85, 87, 89, 94 women: as advocates for women 9–10;
symbolic relations 91, 91, 92, 93 in board chair positions 2, 20, 84,
84, 85; in board director positions
task-oriented leadership 105–106 2, 20, 84, 84, 85; in chief executive
tennis 62–63 positions 2, 84, 84, 85; in leadership
Theberge, N. 34 positions 2–3, 4–5, 9, 18, 20–21,
Title IX, USA 1, 34–35 22, 42–43; underrepresentation
Torre, Joe 63, 64 in intercollegiate sport, USA 4,
transactional leadership 105–106 19, 20–21; underrepresentation in
treatment discrimination 25 international federations
triathlon 2, 83 (IFs)/international sports federations
19, 84–85, 85; underrepresentation
UK: mentoring programs 135; in sport leadership 2–3, 4–5, 9, 20,
networking 133; pay inequality in 34, 35–44, 48–49, 83, 84–85, 85,
cricket 3 98–99, 102–103; see also gender;
United Nations (UN): ‘Advancing women of color; young women
Gender Equality through Sports: Women 2000 and Beyond: Women,
2030 Agenda’ 3–4; Millennium Gender Equality and Sport (UN)
Development Goals 153; Sustainable 86–87, 94
Development Goals 148, 153, Women Ahead (UK) 135
154, 155; Universal Declaration of Women Athletes Business Network
Human Rights 86 (WABN) 133
US Women’s National Team Soccer 3 women of color: in sport 62–63; in
USA: benefits of diversity 3; female sport leadership 67, 74
Olympic coaches 35; majority of Women Win (WW) 122–123
women in delegation, 2016 Rio Women’s National Basketball
Olympics 2; networking 133–134; Association 20
see also intercollegiate sport, USA Women’s Olympics see Olympic Games,
2012 London Olympics
Valavanis, Alisha 74 women’s sports, male leadership in 35
values 6–7, 33 Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) 35
Van Emmerik, I. J. H. 131 WomenSport International 87
Van Laar, C. 9 Wood, R. 88
Van Linden, J. A. 116, 117 work-family interface 22, 23, 149, 159
Vescio, T. K. 50, 99 World Curling 2
Voelker, Dana K. 121
voice 8, 9 Yoshino, K. 69–70
young women: leadership development
WABN (Women Athletes Business 116–127; perceptions of peer
Network) 133 leadership 99, 100–101, 102, 104–
wage discrimination 3 112
Walker, Nefertiti 33–46, 69, 70 Young Women in Leadership (YoWil)
Wells, Janelle E. 130–147 program, New Zealand 119–120
Whelan, J. 88 Yuen-ting Chan 43, 44
Whisenant, W. A. 38
Wijnen, E. 122–123 Zambia 20
Wildschut, M. 122–123 Zucker, Gillian 74