Female Leaders in Sports: The Glass

Ceiling in Intercollegiate

Athletics

Angela Lumpkin, Regan Dodd, and Lacole Hook

University of Kansas

What Is a Glass Ceiling?An unwritten, attitudinal, or

organizational bias toward or barrier to females that prevents them from advancement or progression into leadership positions.

A barrier based on prejudice and discrimination that excludes females from leadership positions at the highest level.1

1Eagly & Karau, 2002

Does a Glass Ceiling Exist in Intercollegiate Athletics?

About 1/3 of the athletic administrators in NCAA-member institutions are females.

Less than 1/5 of the athletic directors in NCAA-member institutions are females.

Does a Glass Ceiling Exist in Intercollegiate Athletics?

Are males believed to be more qualified to run the business of sports?

Do females possess the strategic and financial decision-making skills needed to be successful in sports?

Are females too emotional and nurturing to be athletic administrators?

Overview of PresentationStatement of the problemResearch questionsReview of the literatureData collection methodologyFindingsDiscussion of findingsConclusions

Statement of the Problem

Is there statistical evidence, based on the number and type of positions held in intercollegiate athletic administration, that females continue to be limited by a glass ceiling?

Research Questions1.Are there statistically significant

differences in the percentages of males and females who are athletic directors in institutions in each NCAA division?

2.Are there statistically significant differences in the percentages of males and females who hold the positions of deputy or executive athletic director, senior associate athletic director, associate athletic director, and assistant athletic director in institutions in each NCAA division?

Research Questions3.Are there statistically significant differences in the

percentages of males and females who are athletic directors, associate athletic directors, and assistant athletic directors in each NCAA division depending on whether each institution sponsors a football team?

4.Are there statistically significant differences in the percentages of males and females who are responsible for academic services, financial services, compliance, facility/event management, fund raising or development, licensing, marketing and promotions, media and communications (SID), and ticket operations, and who serve as head athletic trainers in each NCAA division?

Review of the

Literature

Two Role TheoriesSocial role theory suggests that prejudicial

hiring decisions may occur because of incongruity between the expectations about females and males as leaders in intercollegiate athletics.1

A role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders suggests an incompatibility between the female gender role and a leadership role by viewing females less favorably who are potential occupants of or currently occupy leadership roles.2

1Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011; 2Eagly & Karau, 2002

Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes limit females because they are judged versus the higher perceived status and normative position of males.1

Stereotypical gender roles may result in the hiring of males as athletic directors because of the perception that sports as a historical masculine domain and athletic directors are believed to need more masculine characteristics for success.2

1Eagly & Karau, 2002; 2Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011

Hegemonic Masculinity1

A theory that posits that male behavior is the culturally normative ideal.

Perception of the superiority of masculine over feminine characteristics.

Associated with physical strength, aggressiveness, bravado, emotional detachment, and competitiveness in sports.

1Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002

Homogenous Reproduction1

Occurs when athletic directors hire and promote individuals who are similar to themselves in attitudes, beliefs, and values.

One illustration is the networking effectiveness of the “old boys’ club” that systematically minimizes the intrusion of females into the decision-making inner sanctum of intercollegiate athletics.

1Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002

Agentic and Communal Qualities1 Agentic or

Masculine Qualities AmbitiousAssertiveCompetentConfidentDecisiveDominant

Communal orFeminine QualitiesConsiderateHelpfulKindSensitiveSupportiveSympathetic

1Atwater, Brett, Waldman, DiMare, & Hayden, 2004

Masculine and Feminine Qualities1

Over 75% of the male and female respondents state: Delegating, disciplining, strategic

decision-making, problem solving, and punishing are masculine qualities.

Recognizing and rewarding, communicating and informing, and supporting are feminine qualities.

1Atwater, Brett, Waldman, DiMare, & Hayden, 2004

Agentic and Communal Qualities1

Whenever a leadership role is defined with more agentic or masculine attributes, females in this leadership role are judged more negatively because their behaviors deviate from the female gender role expectation of being more communal or feminine.

1Eagly & Karau, 2002

Barriers to Career Advancement1

Failure of females to apply for jobs

Family combined with work responsibilities

Gender bias and discrimination in hiring

Gender bias preventing advancement

Gender stereotypesHomologous reproduction

Inequitable salaries (wage discrimination)

Isolation Job burnoutLack of female

mentors Old boys’ clubPerceptions that

females cannot manage budgets and lead

1Grappendorf, Lough, & Griffin, 2004; National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1989; Schein, 2006; Schneider, Stier, Henry, & Wilding, 2010; Smith, 2005; Weaver & Chelladurai, 2002; Young, 1990

Support from Athletic Director1

Creates a positive working environment.Serves as the key factor in the retention of

female athletic administrators.

1Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000; Pastore, Goldfine, & Riemer, 1996; Priest, 1990; Sagas & Cunningham, 2004b

Importance of Having Mentors1

Contributes to the success of female athletic administrators.

Benefits

AdviceDirectionEncouragementGuidanceIncreased knowledgeInside informationNetworking contactsProfessional advancementRecommendationsSelf-confidenceSupport

1Lehoullier, 2007; Smith, 2005; Weaver & Chelladurai, 2002; Young, 1990

Networking1

Athletic administrators (73.7%) agreed that networking contacts were more important in career advancement than a candidate’s experience.

Benefits

Career adviceEncouragementInformation about job

openingsInside informationProfessional

acceptanceProfessional

advancementSupport

1Young, 1990

Networking1

One way that males continue to control intercollegiate athletics is through external networking.

Females would benefit from having mentors with extensive external networks.

1Whisenant & Pedersen, 2004

Career Advancement

Successful athletic administrators need management competencies in personnel, business/finance, communication, and personal development with planning and administering the budget viewed as the most important competencies.1

Advancing from an assistant athletic director, associate athletic director, or senior associate athletic director is an almost essential career progression.2

1Judd, 1995; 2Grappendorf, Lough, & Griffin, 2004

Senior Woman Administrator“The Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) is the

highest ranking female in each NCAA athletic department or member conference. The designation of SWA is intended to encourage and promote the involvement of female administrators in meaningful ways in the decision-making process in intercollegiate athletics. The designation is intended to enhance representation of female experience and perspective at the institutional, conference and national levels and support women’s interests. Her daily responsibilities can include any department tasks and must include senior management team responsibilities.”1

1National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010b

How a SWA Is Viewed?Token woman.1 Token with little power and prestige.2

SWA in name only because they are not decision-makers (59% of SWAs in Division III).3

Title of SWA is “tacked on” (only 2.9% had responsibilities only as SWA).4

1Hoffman, 2010; 2Sagas & Cunningham, 2004b; 3Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; 4Smith, 2005

What SWAs Do?Supporting roles in compliance, academic

advising, life skills, and sports information.1

Advocating for women’s athletics, working to achieve gender equity, and serving as a role model.2

Serving in internal, communal roles such as athlete welfare or serving as role models.3

1Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; 2Hatfield, Hatfield, & Drummond, 2009; 3Tiell & Dixon, 2008

What SWAs Do?1

The primary responsibility of SWAs in Division I is compliance (32%); it is coaching in Division II (35%) and Division III (56%).

In Division I, females are 51.8% of the academic advisors and 49.3% of the compliance officers but only 26.8% of those responsible for marketing/promotions and 10.6% for those directing sports information or media relations.

1Claussen & Lehr, 2002

What SWAs Do?1

SWAs in Division I are more likely to perform agentic roles than those in Divisions II and III institutions, who are usually coaches.

SWAs (93%) in Division I institutions are more likely to serve as an assistant athletic director, associate athletic director, or senior associate athletic director.

SWAs in Divisions II (44%) and III (53%) are less likely to hold any other administrative title.

1Tiell & Dixon, 2008

What SWAs Do?1

SWAs had the least decision-making authority in marketing, development, promotions, and sponsorships.1

The lack of involvement by SWAs in financial decision-making may be due to a glass ceiling that prevents them from being involved in these key areas.2

Males’ control over these external areas dealing with financial resources preserved the status quo of hegemonic masculinity.1

1Claussen & Lehr, 2002; 2Pent, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2007

  Athletic Directors Associate Athletic Directors

Acosta & Carpenter1

30 in Division I43 in Division II128 in Division III

 

Lapchick, Hoff, & Kaiser2

Division I (8.3%) Division II (15.5%) Division III (27.4%)

Division I (31.1%) Division II (42%) Division III (46.1%)

NCAA3 205 (18.9% of total)Increase of 2.9% since 1995-1996

624 (34.3% of total) Decrease from 36.6%

1Acosta & Carpenter, 2010; 2Lapchick, Hoff, & Kaiser, 2011; 3National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010a

Female Athletic Directors and Associate Athletic Directors in NCAA-Member Institutions

Number and Gender of Athletic Administrators in NCAA-Member Institutions1

Percent # of Administrators

Gender of Athletic Director

Number of Administrative Positions by Gender

16.82% 3 administrators Male 1 female assistant/associate and 1 male assistant/associate

12.34% 4 administrators Male 1 female assistant/associate and 2 male assistant/associates

11.27% 2 administrators Male 1 female assistant/associate

4.83% 1 administrator Male  

4.83% 4 administrators Male 2 female assistant/associates and 1 male assistant/associate

4.47% 5 administrators Male 1 female assistant/associate and 3 male assistant/associates

4.29% 2 administrators Male 1 male assistant/associate

3.58% 3 administrators Female 1 female assistant/associate and 1 male assistant/associate

2.86% 2 administrators Female 1 female assistant/associate

1Acosta & Carpenter, 2010

1Smith, 2005; 2Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008

Job Titles for Females in Athletic Administration in NCAA-Member Institutions

  Division I

Division II

Division III

Athletic director1   20.6%  Senior associate athletic director/SWA2 31.6% 9.0% 7.0%Senior associate athletic director/SWA1 28.6%    Associate athletic director/SWA1 20% 8.8%  Associate athletic director1 20%    Assistant athletic director/SWA1   11.8%  Assistant athletic director/SWA2 2.0% 25.6% 18.9%Assistant athletic director1 14.3%    Coach/SWA1   11.8%  Compliance coordinator/associate athletic director/SWA1

  5.9%  

Compliance coordinator/assistant athletic director/SWA1

  5.9%  

Various other titles1 17.4% 20.3%  

Females in Athletic Administration1

Only 19.3% (down from 21.3% in 2008) of athletic departments are headed by a female.

The average number of female administrators by NCAA division in 2010:1.71 in Division I1.08 in Division II1.20 in Division III

1Acosta & Carpenter, 2010

Females in Athletic Administration1

Between 2008 and 2010, males were hired into 541 more jobs in athletic administration resulting in females now holding 536 fewer jobs.

In 13.2% of the athletic departments, there are no females in the administrative structure.

1Acosta & Carpenter, 2010

Most Frequently Held Positions by Females in Athletic Administration in

20101

Academic advisor/counselorBusiness managerAssociate or assistant athletic trainerCompliance coordinator or officerLife skills coordinator

1National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010a

Methodology

Data were collected from the websites of each NCAA-member institution.

The genders of the individual holding the positions of athletic director, senior woman administrator, deputy or executive athletic director, senior associate athletic director, associate athletic director, and assistant athletic director, and responsible for academic services, financial services, compliance, facility/event management, fund raising or development, licensing, marketing and promotions, media and communications (SID), ticket operations, and head athletic trainer were identified.

Data Analyses

Frequencies were calculated to find the percentage of males and females holding each position.

Chi Square test of proportions and paired sample T-tests were used to test for significance at the p <. 05 level.

Results

Table 1 Percentages of Females in Top Athletic Administrator Positions

*p <. 05

  Athletic Director

Deputy or Executive Athletic Director

Senior AssociateAthletic Director

Associate Athletic Director

Assistant Athletic Director

Div. I 

6.2%*  21.9%*  32.2 %* 

 30.7%*  29.2%*

Div. II 

15.2%*  N/A 

 47.1%  40.2%*  38.9%*

Div. III 

28.4%* N/A  29.4%*  46.3%  37.1%* 

Answering the Research Questions

There is a statistically significant difference between the percentage of males and females who are athletic directors in each institution in each NCAA division suggesting the perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity, homogenous reproduction, and possible gender bias and discrimination in hiring and preventing advancement.

Statistically Significant Differences by Gender

Deputy/executive athletic director in Division ISenior associate athletic director in Divisions I

and III Associate athletic director in Divisions I and II Assistant athletic director in all three divisions Males remain the primary decision makers in

intercollegiate athletics.

Table 2 Female Administrators at Institutions with and without Football Teams

*p <. 05

  Athletic Director Associate Athletic Director

Assistant Athletic Director

Division IFootball Bowl Subdivision

 5.9%*

 30.0%*

 23.2%*

Division IFootball

Championship Subdivision

 5.6%*

 31.0%*

 31.7%*

Division INon-Football

 7.7%*  31.4%*  31.1%*

Division IIFootball

 11.6%*  40.7%*  40.6%*

Division IINon-Football

 19.7%*  39.5%*  37.0%*

Division IIIFootball

 20.2%*  48.2%*  36.7%*

Division IIINon-Football

 39.1%*  43.3%*  37.6%*

Statistically Significant Differences by Gender

There are statistically significant differences between the percentages of males and females who are athletic directors, associate athletic directors, and assistant athletic directors in each NCAA subdivision regardless of the existence of a football team.

There are greater percentages of female athletic directors in institutions in all three NCAA subdivisions that do not sponsor football teams than in those with football teams.

Table 3 Percentage of Females in Athletic Administration Positions

  Athletic Director

Senior Woman Admin-istrator

Academics Finance Compliance Facility and

Event Mgmt.

Div. I 6.2%* 100% 56.8%* 42.3%* 55.9%* 9.1%*

Div. II 15.2%* 100% 64.1%* 70.6%* 52.6% 18.4%*

Div. III 28.4%* 100% 49.2% 57% 53.5% 21.5%*

*p <. 05

  Fund Raising

Licensing Marketing Media Tickets Head Athletic Trainer

Div. I 16.7%* 16.3* 21.3%* 6.9%* 22.5%* 13.2%*

Div. II 24%* 0 18.9%* 13.3%* 41.5% 31.7%*

Div. III 37.7% 0 35%* 12.4%* 71.4% 36.9%*

*p <. 05

Table 3 Percentage of Females in Athletic Administration Positions

Statistically Significant DifferencesAcademic services: Divisions I and IIFinancial services: Divisions I and IICompliance: Division IFacility/event mgmt.: Divisions I, II, and IIIFund raising or development: Divisions I, II, and

IIILicensing: Division IMarketing and promotions: Divisions I, II, and IIIMedia and communications (SID): Divisions I,

II, and IIITicket operations: Division I Head athletic trainers: Divisions I, II, and III

Conclusions

Are Women Cracking the Glass Ceiling?

There are a higher percentage of female athletic directors, senior associate athletic directors, and assistant athletic directors in Division II and Division III, and especially if the institution does not sponsor a football team.

Although the average number of females in athletic administration in Division I is higher than in the other two divisions, the domination by males persists in each position by division.

Are Females Still Tokens?

The data suggest that more females in Division II and Division III are often the only female athletic administrator.

SWAs are more likely to be coaches and less likely to be key decision-makers in Division II and Division III.

These findings confirm those of other studies including Acosta and Carpenter.

Does Gender Bias Remain?

Females are much more likely to be responsible for academics and compliance in all three divisions.

This finding supports the results of several other studies that those responsible for academics and compliance are stereotypically females.

Is the Glass Ceiling Concrete?

Males at all three NCAA divisions are much more likely to be responsible for facility/event management, fund raising or development, licensing, marketing and promotions, media and communications (SID), and ticket operations and serve as the head athletic trainer.

Females are much less likely to be hired for these positions.

Persistence of a Glass Ceiling: Reasons Why Few Females Are

Athletic Directors1

Cannot manage programs with football.Lacked experience in business and finance.Lacked connections in old boys’ network.Became content with #2 or lower positions. Left the profession (seeking balance in lives).Stopped applying because were not hired.

1Sander, 2011Currently four in FBS and only a total of nine ever.

Questions?

Angela LumpkinDepartment of Health, Sport, and Exercise SciencesE-mail: alumpkin@ku.eduPhone: 785-864-0778

ReferencesAcosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2010). Women in intercollegiate

sport: A longitudinal study — thirty three year update. Retrieved from http://www.acostacarpenter.org/

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., Waldman, D., DiMare, L., & Hayden, M. V. (2004). Men’s and women’s perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles, 50, 191-199.

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.

Claussen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 215-228.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

ReferencesGrappendorf, H., Lough, N., & Griffin. J. (2004). Profiles and

career patterns of female NCAA Division I athletic directors. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 243-261.

Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role stereotyping: A qualitative analysis of senior women administrators’ perceptions regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 26-45.

Hatfield, L. M., Hatfield, L. C., & Drummond, J. L. (2009). The perceived role of senior women administrators in NCAA Division I institutions. Sport Journal, 12(4). Retrieved from http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/perceived-role-senior-women-administrators-ncaa-division-i-institutions

Hoffman, J. (2010). The dilemma of the senior woman administrator role in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 53-75.

ReferencesInglis, S. Danylchuk, K. E., & Pastore, D. L. (2000). Multiple

realities of women's work experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 9(2), 1-26.

Judd, M. R. (1995). A gender comparison of competencies important for success in college athletic administration. Physical Educator, 52(1), 8-13.

Lapchick, R., Hoff, B., & Kaiser, C. (2011). The 2010 racial and gender report card: College sport. Retrieved from http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2010/2010_College_RGRC_FINAL.pdf

Lehoullier, J. (2007). What is the role of mentoring in the professional lives of female intercollegiate athletics directors? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (Order No. 3252753).

ReferencesNational Collegiate Athletic Association. (1989). NCAA women’s

study. Mission, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010a). NCAA study shows slow progress with women and minority hiring. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2010/Association-wide/NCAA+study+shows+slow+progress+with+women+and+minority+hiring_05_19_10_NCAA_News

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010b). Senior woman administrator. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Gender+Equity+and+Title+IX/SWA

ReferencesPastore, D. L., Goldfine, B., & Riemer, H. (1996). NCAA college

coaches and athletic administrative support. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 373-387.

Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more? An analysis of NCAA senior woman administrators participation in financial decision making. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1, 157-173.

Priest, L. (1990). A time to plant — What administrators can do for coaches to increase retention rates. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 61(3), 56.

Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004a). Does having “the right stuff” matter? Gender differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic administrators. Sex Roles, 50, 411-421.

References

Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004b). The impact of supervisor support on perceived career outcomes of the senior woman administrator. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 229-242.

Sander, L. (2011, February 27). In the game, but rarely no. 1. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Despite-Decades-in-the-Game/126507/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Schein, V. E. (2006). Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management Review, 22, 6-18.

Schneider, R. C., Stier, W. F., Jr., Henry, T. J., & Wilding, G. E. (2010). Senior women administrators’ perceptions of factors leading to discrimination of women in intercollegiate athletic departments. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 16-34.

References

Smith, M. D. (2005). Women in athletic administration: “A time for change!” factors affecting the career paths of female administrators and directors of intercollegiate athletics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (Order No. 3195908).

Tiell, B., & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Roles and tasks of the senior woman administrator (SWA) in intercollegiate athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2, 339-361.

Weaver, M. A., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). Mentoring in intercollegiate athletic administration. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 96-116.

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.

Young, D. (1990). Mentoring and networking: Perceptions by athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 71-79.