Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cshe20

Gender and leadership in public higher education

in South Asia: examining the individual, socio-
cultural and organizational barriers to female
inclusion

Md Asadul Islam, Dieu Hack-Polay, Mahfuzur Rahman, Amer Hamzah

Jantan, Francesca Dal Mas & Maria Kordowicz

To cite this article: Md Asadul Islam, Dieu Hack-Polay, Mahfuzur Rahman, Amer
Hamzah Jantan, Francesca Dal Mas & Maria Kordowicz (2023) Gender and leadership
in public higher education in South Asia: examining the individual, socio-cultural and
organizational barriers to female inclusion, Studies in Higher Education, 48:8, 1197-1215, DOI:
10.1080/03075079.2023.2187771

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2187771

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 16 Mar 2023.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 7001

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 48, NO. 8, 1197–1215
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2187771

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Gender and leadership in public higher education in South Asia:

examining the individual, socio-cultural and organizational
barriers to female inclusion
Md Asadul Islam a,b, Dieu Hack-Polay c,d, Mahfuzur Rahman e
, Amer Hamzah Jantanb,f,
Francesca Dal Masg and Maria Kordowicz e
a
BRAC Business School, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh; bUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang, Malaysia;
c
University of Lincoln (UK), Lincoln, UK; dCrandall University, Moncton, Canada; eLincoln International Business
School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK; fCity University Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; gDepartment of
Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study examines the personal, social, and organizational barriers facing Received 3 May 2021
women in university leadership positions in South Asia, building on the Accepted 19 January 2023
cases of Malaysia and Bangladesh. We discussed the topic through the
KEYWORDS
lens of interactionist feminist theory. Semi-structured interviews with 20 Personal barriers; social
female deans from 12 public universities in Malaysia and Bangladesh barriers; organizational
were conducted, followed by two focus group discussions with eight barriers; female deans; public
female deans. The results reveal that personal barriers such as family universities
duties, lack of technological knowledge, interest in taking leadership
positions, spousal support and poor time management, and lack of
spousal support represented the major barriers for female deans in
Bangladesh. Lack of interest in deanship was found to compound the
underrepresentation of women in dean roles. The participants identified
fewer socio-cultural barriers faced by Malaysian female deans, while
Bangladeshi participants met major issues. The organizational barriers
for female deans in public universities were reported. The findings hold
significant organizational and policy implications.

Introduction
Women’s position in the workplace has undergone significant improvements in the past five
decades, with more representation of women overall (Kirton and Greene 2015; Saeed, Riaz, and
Baloch 2022). However, for major roles in organizations, the glass ceiling remains problematic.
The United Nations (2018) stated there would be positive results (e.g. wise decision-making,
financial, organizational culture, and relational reasons, among others) (Madsen 2015) by recruiting
more women into leadership positions in universities’ higher hierarchies and supporting them to
remain long term. This view is prevalent in recent research findings where it was found that
women in leadership positions in many industries performed as well as their male counterparts
(Brandt and Laiho 2013; Fanta, Kemal, and Waka 2013; Mori and Towo 2017; Valcour 2012). Interest-
ingly, some studies found that women in managerial positions across different industries perform
better than males (Abdullah, Ismail, and Nachum 2012; Chapple and Humphrey 2014; Shepherd

CONTACT Dieu Hack-Polay [email protected] University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published
allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
1198 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

2017). However, even though the presence of female leaders in the workplace is on the rise, thereby
promoting their significant influence, they are still facing obstacles and difficulties in taking up lea-
dership positions across various industries (Baker and Cangemi 2016; Geiger and Kent 2017; Paoloni
et al. 2021).
Leadership roles within industries and institutions vary according to culture, government, inves-
tors, and shareholders. Numerous factors make it difficult for women to advance their careers in
organizations. Women may not be promoted within a business due to cultural and traditional stan-
dards, for example, surrounding women’s duties (Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb 2013). The unconscious bias
against women and the belief that women must deal with family issues can also have an impact
on a woman’s ability to advance in her career (Dal Mas and Paoloni 2020; Francesca Dal Mas,
Paoloni, and Lombardi 2019; Ellemers 2014). Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb (2013) argue that this may possibly
be because there are not enough role models for women in leadership positions, and there are not
enough mentors, networks, or resources available to them. Additionally, the societal expectations
placed on women don’t pertain to their employment (Yonjoo Cho et al. 2019).
Women’s underrepresentation is an issue that also involves academic positions. Academic insti-
tutions all over the world are still unsure of the best ways to address the gender imbalance, although
it has been decades since the issue was first brought to light. Many departments particularly those in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, appear to have seen no improvement in the
representation of women due to policies and processes that were put in place for that purpose
(Bystydzienski et al. 2017).
The situation in Asian universities doesn’t differ (Louise Morley and Crossouard 2016). Indeed,
these roles within the universities in countries like Bangladesh and Malaysia are still fulfilled
mainly by men, particularly that of vice-chancellor, pro- or deputy-vice-chancellor, treasurer, regis-
trar, dean and deputy dean (Bothwell 2017; Dhir 2015; Ethier 2016; Ngang, Prachak, and Saowanee
2013; Towni et al. 2021). Bothwell’s study (2017) claimed that only 18% of the working female popu-
lation were appointed to leadership roles in the 200 highest-ranking universities in 2016–2017,
including the roles of chief executive, vice-chancellors or presidents. This state of affairs can be ident-
ified globally. For example, only 2.3% of Japan’s vice-chancellors are women, followed by 3% in both
Kuwait and India, Turkey with 7%, 15% in Malaysia, and 29% in the UK, while Hong Kong doesn’t
have any female vice-chancellors (Forestier 2013; QS 2015). This situation has been identified as
being similar to other leadership positions in universities, such as the deputy vice-chancellor, the
registrar, the dean and the deputy dean; the number of women holding these positions is much
lower compared to the men. The significant shortage of women is also often encountered in the lea-
dership positions of universities in many other Asian countries, particularly India, Afghanistan, Nepal,
Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (Morley and Crossouard 2015; Louise Morley and Crossouard
2016). The literature has called for more research as well as concrete policies on this matter (Bystyd-
zienski et al. 2017; Louise Morley and Crossouard 2016)
Starting from this research gap, our study focuses on the public universities in Bangladesh and
Malaysia, where the number of women in leadership roles is a fraction of that of men (Ahad and
Gunter 2017; Sani 2018). Although more women are being promoted to leadership roles in many
other industries or private or public sectors of these countries, public universities continue to
have fewer women in leadership positions, particularly those of dean, deputy dean, vice chancellor
and deputy vice-chancellor (Ahad and Gunter 2017; Sirat, Ahmad, and Azman 2012). To date, in 2020,
only three women across twenty public universities in Malaysia are vice-chancellors, while only one
vice-chancellor and one pro-vice-chancellor among 46 public universities in Bangladesh so far (Sani
2018). A similar situation can be identified in the case of other leadership positions in public univer-
sities in both countries (Ahad and Gunter 2017; Hera 2020; Louise Morley, Berma, and Abdul Hamid
2017; Sani 2018).
Studies undertaken by Fagenson (1990), Morley (2013), Akpinar-Sposito (2013a), and Shepherd
(2017) ground that the lack of women holding leadership roles in public universities is due to indi-
vidual, cultural i.e. social, and organizational barriers they face in the leadership positions. However,
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1199

specific obstacles under these domains could be different in different countries. Thus, this study aims
to identify potential specific barriers across different settings. Given that women constitute half of
the population, building employee relationships and teamwork, the view is that their presence in
leadership should be increased (Gipson et al. 2017; Morley and Crossouard 2015). In this respect,
identifying and presenting the specific barriers faced by women leaders would be valuable for
policy makers to take initiatives for the minimization of such barriers. Therefore, investigating per-
sonal, social, and organizational barriers is theoretically and practically significant (Ahad and
Gunter 2017; Bagilhole and White 2008; Doherty and Manfredi 2006; Ngang, Prachak, and Saowanee
2013; Nguyen 2013). The study’s key research question is therefore framed as follows: what specific
barriers do women in dean positions face in academia in Malaysia and Bangladesh? To what extent
are these barriers linked to individual perspectives and the institutional and cultural domains?

Literature review
Interactionist feminist theory
Feminist symbolic interactionists view gender inequality as socially constructed (Jackson and Scott
2010). It is a product of the socialization process, which can be further exacerbated within specific
cultures. Through the process of socialization, gender roles and perceptions are crystalized, and indi-
viduals are expected to perform the function that society has ascribed them. In the context of gender
perception in South Asia, women are often molded in subaltern roles (Lewis 2005), which suggests
that they are aids to men as opposed to responsible independent social and psychological actors. In
this perspective, women who become assertive in society or are perceived to take this direction are
stigmatized and labeled as deviant. Examining the issues faced by South Asian women access to lea-
dership positions from the interactionist lens is appropriate because the often deployed theoretical
framework of the conflict model has significant shortcomings in this context. In fact, the conflict
model suggests a binary view of gender discrimination (men vs. women). Such a view places
much of women’s woes within the narrative of the persecution of women by men, ignoring the mul-
tifaceted and complex dynamic of gender discrimination. For example, other women could be as
much responsible for the marginalization of women who are perceived to be deviant. The interac-
tionist perspective looks to the core of socialization and social identity to find an explanation for
gender discrimination (Jackson and Scott 2010).

Barriers faced by women

Socio-cultural barriers
It is widely argued that the disadvantage faced by women derives primarily from the socio-cultural
system in most national contexts. According to Zahidi and Ibarra (2010), there is a strong cultural
prejudice for men to seek promotion as they are considered ‘natural’ leaders (Rapoport et al.
2001), an experience which is not often shared by women. Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb (2013) found that
women in society are discouraged to learn about the leadership processes which would develop
their leadership potential in organizations. Therefore, the social context creates barriers for
women in accessing these leadership positions. This view is also supported in the study of Morley
and Crossouard (2015), who found that, in several countries, social structures were not favorable
and often not even available to women wishing to access leadership positions. Abidin, Rashid,
and Jusoff (2009) found that social forces, for example, men’s attitudes, had a negative impact on
women accessing leadership positions in organizations. However, Abidin, Rashid, and Jusoff
(2009) found that only 8.52% of the 100 respondents in their study believed social factors had a
negative impact on women accessing leadership roles. Yet, Akpinar-Sposito (2013a) argued that
social contexts, such as religion, secularism, and political opinions have an impact on women
taking up leadership positions. This can be placed in the context of the gendering of leadership
1200 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

positions, whereby societal gender conventions are reflected within structural conditions for women
in professional leadership roles (Højgaard 2002).
Indeed, Peus, Braun, and Knipfer (2015) argued that among the different countries and cultures,
social barriers such as religion, local beliefs, attitudes of people, politics, and other social elements, all
had a negative impact on female leadership access. Similarly, Al-Kayed (2015), Almaki et al. (2016),
and Al-Asfour et al. (2017) also acknowledged that social barriers enforced negative attitudes of
men towards female leaders, as well as gender role stereotypes, along with political and local
norms having a negative impact on women accessing leadership roles in organizations around
the world, especially in Muslim countries. These findings are also consistent with Nguyen (2013)
and Ponnuswamy and Manohar (2014) who found largely similar results when it came to social bar-
riers. The negative perceptions about female leadership amongst people at different socio-political
levels has also been a crucial barrier to the lack of representation in the leading roles (Akpinar-
Sposito 2013a; Cubillo and Brown 2003; Nguyen 2013; Ponnuswamy and Manohar 2014; Unin 2014).
Cubillo and Brown (2003) found that male dominance in society has had a negative impact on
women accessing leadership positions within organizations. Almaki et al. (2016) also argue that
male dominance in society has had a significant negative impact on women who aspire to access
leadership positions because most of the males don’t like or agree with females in leadership pos-
itions. The same authors found that many women in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia consider that society
is still male-dominated and men are resistant to women leaders. In addition, Chiloane-Tsoka (2012)
also observed that male domination in society favors males taking leadership positions in various
organizations, which either diminishes the contribution of female leaders or largely limits their con-
tribution, as underlined by Almutairi. On the other hand, Vecchio (2002) argues that claims of ‘gender
advantage’ in leadership positions are overstated and can be the result of long-held gender stereo-
types driving reasoning and perceptions of others. He highlights the need to acknowledge context
and demographic differences and their impact on sex differences in leadership.
In this vein, Fouad et al. (2010) acknowledged that the educational environment within a society
has an impact on female leadership. In this respect, Mbepera (2017) has also acknowledged that a
lack of educational opportunities in societies can have a negative impact on female leadership devel-
opment from both social and organizational perspectives. This lack of educational support for
women creates obstacles for them in accessing leadership positions in organizations (Darkwah
2010), which is also supported in the research findings of Mittal and Dutta (2019). A lack of education
makes a person less aware of the processes of accessing leadership positions. This is also consistent
with the results of Morley (2013), who found that better education contributed to a rise in women
attaining leadership positions in different organizational contexts. In addition, the economic context
and status of countries and societies has also impacted women’s progress, particularly those that
limit the level of female representation in leadership roles, for example, in higher educational insti-
tutions (Nazemi, Mortazavi, and Borjalilou 2012).

Organizational challenges
According to organizations and even industries, the challenges for women employees can vary
(Almaki et al. 2016; M. A. Islam and Jantan 2017). Biased procedures for appointing and promoting
employees in universities are a significant barrier for women professors or other qualified females in
obtaining leadership positions, even though they have the qualifications to undertake the roles
(Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016; Northouse 2018; Sanderson and Whitehead 2016; Tate and Yang
2015). Furthermore, in some cultural contexts, such as Malaysia and Bangladesh, men have a propen-
sity to prefer to take directions from other men rather than women, which is a crucial barrier for
women to assuming leadership positions (Akpinar-Sposito 2013b; Bardy, Rubens, and Massaro
2015; Bassett 2009; Sanderson and Whitehead 2016).
Importantly, Sanderson and Whitehead (2016) underlined that internal recruitment and pro-
motional processes are normally created by men and made applicable to men, thus recreating
the structural disadvantages women face in gaining more senior roles. This may be further
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1201

compounded by the lack of organizational support such as strict rules and regulations, complicated
organizational promotional process, lack of training facilities, lack of female supportive policies, lack
of flexibility, and lack of career development opportunities (Catalyst 2002; Chabaya, Rembe, and
Wadesango 2009; Fuller, Fondeville-Gaoui, and Haagdorens 2010; Sanderson and Whitehead 2016).
Negative preconceptions about the abilities and attributes of females by both men and women
represent one more significant barrier preventing women from holding leadership positions in
organizations (Heywood 2018). According to Ellemers (2014), such stereotyping is harmful as it
limits women’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, and pursue professional careers. The
lack of role models (successful women leaders) amongst females working in organizations may
demotivate women from attempting to take on leadership roles (Catalyst 2002; Fuller, Fondeville-
Gaoui, and Haagdorens 2010; Sanderson and Whitehead 2016).
Furthermore, Al-Kayed (2015) reported that the inappropriate deployment of women in menial
(or insignificant) leadership roles creates challenges for women as they are not given meaningful lea-
dership positions in universities. This is also acknowledged by Almaki et al. (2016), who reported the
administrative burden for holders of leadership positions in universities creates barriers for the
women in those positions. Furthermore, Sirat, Ahmad, and Azman (2012) indicated that high work-
loads create challenges to creating a balance between family and the workplace for women. Sexual
harassment by colleagues is another common barrier faced women in different organization that
also discourage women from taking leadership roles (Bell, Mclaughlin, and Sequeira 2002; Fuller,
Fondeville-Gaoui, and Haagdorens 2010).

Individual challenges
There are some individual challenges that women face in taking up and working in leadership pos-
itions across the different industries. Bubshait (2012) found that lack of confidence – due to the
inability of the system to empower them through role modeling and equitable promotion – has
been identified as a key barrier for women taking up leadership positions, particularly in the univer-
sities of Saudi Arabia. This is also similar in the country of Uganda where Chabaya, Rembe, and Wade-
sango (2009) found that the challenges, for example, in the case of appointment or promotion into
the leadership positions, women considered themselves as unsuitable for the position because they
lacked confidence (Sanderson and Whitehead 2016). Similarly, Grogan and Shakeshaft (2011) discov-
ered that the lack of confidence among women in the educational institutions is one of the key chal-
lenges for women in taking up leadership roles. Consequently, having a poor self-image and lack of
confidence among potential female leaders are also major individual challenges that prevent them
in taking up leadership positions (Johns 2013; Moorosi 2010; Louise Morley 2013). Furthermore, in
most cases, lack of motivation and interest has caused women to refuse to take up leadership
roles, for example, in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and South Korea (Ahad and Gunter
2017; Al-Jaradat 2014; Almaki et al. 2016).
In a developing world cultural context, some women reject leadership positions due to their
responsibilities towards their families (Bubshait 2012; Derks, Van Laar, and Ellemers 2016). The adop-
tion of this attitude is occasioned by cultural stereotypes which assume that regardless of working in
organizational leadership as men, women still retain a significant proportion of household duties
(Kelleher et al. 2011; Phillion 2003). Some women fear is that their work will be viewed by others
as denying their traditionally ascribed roles as a mother and therefore create work-family conflicts
(Kim and Kim 2018; Moreau, Osgood, and Halsall 2005; Nazemi, Mortazavi, and Borjalilou 2012). In
the Asian cultural context, some women negatively believe that taking up leadership roles would
consume more of their time, resulting in reduced time to be spent with the family (Kelleher et al.
2011; Kim and Kim 2018; Phillion 2003), which may jeopardize conjugal and family relationships
(Chabaya, Rembe, and Wadesango 2009; Diehl 2014; Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016; Nazemi, Mor-
tazavi, and Borjalilou 2012).
Furthermore, women are also influenced by the negative perception of low benefits in leadership
positions, such as incentives and rewards, which has also been identified as a barrier (Akpinar-
1202 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

Sposito 2013a; Alzaidi 2008). Generally, employees expect to gain both financial and non-financial
benefits when they are appointed into leading roles because there is inevitably an increase in
responsibilities, duties and challenges. Hence, the difference in salary scales and the other
benefits between male and female leaders could be an issue and demotivate women’s access to lea-
dership positions in organizations (Akpinar-Sposito 2013a; Alzaidi 2008; Qian 2016). Thus, such indi-
vidual dissatisfaction amongst female employees could detract them from taking leadership
positions in the organizations. The individual challenges which have been identified could differ
from one female employee to another, depending on organizational enablers, industry, and country.

Women in leadership positions in education industry

In the international workplace context, women participating as leaders firstly started in the Western
region of the world. It has spread widely to Asian, African and South American countries. However,
representation of women in leadership positions is still limited even in western countries.
Generally, women are under-represented globally in leadership positions in the higher education
sector as well as other sectors, including corporate ones (Burkinshaw and White 2017; Elliot 2011;
Louise Morley 2013; Rosin 2001; Seltzer 2020). According to the European Union Commission,
women who are appointed to the executive boards of the largest companies registered in the
twenty-eight European countries reached 23.3% in April 2016, a rise of 6% from October 2015. Fur-
thermore, three-quarters of European countries have failed to meet the European Judicial diversity
target, where 50% of judges or legal practitioners should be women (King 2017). On the other hand,
in the USA, 51.5% women hold management-related occupations. However, only 44% of women
have the sub-category management and financial operations occupations (Catalyst, 2002; Bureau
of Labour Statistics 2017, USA ). According to Catalyst (2002), in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Com-
panies, proving women in leadership or higher positions are not few. However, in Australia, where
42% of workforces are women, only 10% of them are appointed as CEOs in the larger profit-making
companies, while among the key management positions, only 24% are made up of female employ-
ees (Cermak et al. 2018).
In the education industry of Australia, the proportion of female employees is 71%, however, only
34% of them are appointed as CEOs (Liddy and Hanrahan 2017). A similar picture has been identified
in the other industries in Australia regarding the existence of women in leadership positions (Liddy
and Hanrahan 2017). In the UK, the percentage of female academic staff is 45.3%, but their represen-
tation within the leadership management levels is only 27.5% (ECU 2018). Throughout 130 univer-
sities in UK, only 24.6% of the professors are female (Baker 2018). In 2016, only 29% of the vice-
chancellors of the UK universities were women; although there was a significant increase from
the previous three years of 2012–2015. During that period, there were only a total of nineteen
women who were appointed as university vice-chancellors in 130 universities in the UK. A similar
trend is identified in universities across the world. The female leadership positions in higher edu-
cational institutions, especially in universities, are outnumbered by the men in leadership positions
(Forestier 2013; Nguyen 2013; QS 2015). For instance, in India, only 3% of the vice-chancellors are
women, 25% in Australia (it was 28% in 2004), 2.3% in Japan, 3% in Kuwait, 7% in Turkey and
none in Hong Kong (Forestier 2013; Jarboe 2018; QS 2015)
Similarly, in other positions, for example, in the case of the dean, there are only 14.6% female
deans appointed in Pakistan, 6.5% in Kuwait, 19.7% in India, 5.6% in Bangladesh, 8.9% in Sri
Lanka, and 22% in Vietnam (Al-Mughni 1996; Batool, Sajid, and Rehman 2013). Since there is a
limited number of females appointed to take up leadership roles, e.g. deanship; previous studies
have recommended further research to be conducted so that the current challenges can be explored
and presented and thus, essential actions could be taken to improve equality in public universities
(Al-Mughni 1996; Morley and Crossouard 2015; Nguyen 2013; Shepherd 2017). However, all of them
acknowledged that the challenges could vary in nature between the countries and their industries
and even within individual organizations. Therefore, scholars studying women leadership have
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1203

recommended conducting more studies to explore barriers in relation to different countries. In this
respect, exploring personal or individual, organizational and social barriers faced by women leaders
in public universities in the selected countries would give us updated information regarding these
barriers. As a result, the current lack of understanding regarding the nature of the obstacles faced by
women in leadership positions of higher educational institutions would be fulfilled.

Women in educational leadership positions in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, the gender ratio is almost equal, with women representing 49.93% of the population.
The bulk of the population is in the youth group, with 47.17% of people belonging to the age group
of 15–44 years (Towni et al. 2021). Although the Bangladeshi Constitution claims that women and
men are equal, the literature depicts a different reality (Hossain and Rokis 2014; Islam 2006). From
a gender perspective, Bangladesh stands as a traditional country, which sees the expectation that
women should concentrate more on their family and caregiving responsibilities rather than their
professional careers. Family and workplace discrimination against women is pervasive (Miaji
2010), affecting women’s rights to food, education, employment, property, decision-making, and
independent thought (Hossain and Rokis 2014; Islam 2006).
Bangladesh is a patriarchal society that upholds a strong division of labor, restricts the movement
of women, and encourages them to undertake domestic duties for their families. Educated women
who got a university degree tend to go work for companies than stay at home or start their micro
businesses (Md Asadul Islam et al. 2019).
Still, higher education and university teaching is considered one of the most respectable and
prestigious jobs. In Bangladesh’s cultural and social traditions, university lecturers are greatly
respected (Hossain and Rokis 2014).
The analysis run by Towni et al. (2021) using faculty gender distribution data of top tertiary edu-
cational institutes of Bangladesh highlights factually the lack of women with the highest responsi-
bility roles with almost no presence at the top rungs of the ladder. This happens in STEM
(science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields but also in non-STEM departments.
Although the latest data underline a substantial gender parity at the bottom and entry-level of
the faculty career ladder, women rarely reach the top of the pyramid.
A study conducted by Hossain and Rokis (2014) stated how highly educated women working as
university lecturers choose their families over their careers more often. They do so to adhere to the
social norm that women should prioritize household duties than career progressions. They fre-
quently abandon their professional goals in favor of the welfare of their families due to social
pressure. Even with a full-time job, they still find ways to devote more time to family matters.
They maximize a few informal and adaptable institutional processes and spend more time at
home as a result.

Women in leadership positions in education industry in Malaysia

Malaysia is one of the fastest-growing southern Asian countries. In Malaysia, since 2011, national pol-
icies have aimed to have women holding at least 30% of decision-making roles by 2020. Such pol-
icies have been quite successful in increasing gender diversity. Malaysia’s education system is gender
blind (Tan, Chin, and Ratnavelu 2021). Still, women are under-represented in STEM fields and over-
represented in non-STEM sectors as there is no gender quota imposed on higher learning institutions
in Malaysia (Goy et al. 2018).
While choosing their university curricula, women seek competencies leading to potential jobs
where they don’t experience an inferior economic status. This aspect forces many women to
avoid STEM degrees, as women would be less credible as, for instance, field engineers than men
(Goy et al. 2018; Win and Win 2013).
In the Malaysian university sector, the introduction of international university rankings as a widely
used measure of higher education excellence has increased the sensitivity towards ratios and
numbers, which also includes female participation in faculties (Wan et al. 2017).
1204 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

A recent study conducted by Islam et al. (2022) investigated the barriers faced by women in acces-
sing and holding leadership positions in public universities in Malaysia by employing some semi-
structured interviews with 12 deans from six public universities in Selangor. The most significant bar-
riers identified were related to internal politics, male domination, lack of financial and non-financial
benefits, biases of top management personnel, lack of colleague support, and poor childcare facili-
ties (Ibrahim, Yussof, and Tibok 2016; Md Asadul Islam et al. 2022; Hack-Polay 2020).

Methodology
This paper is an exploratory piece of research which draws on data from a comparative study of barriers
(individual, social and organizational) faced by women in public universities in Bangladesh and Malay-
sia. Hence, this qualitative approach was based on semi-interviews and focus group discussion (online
focus group discussion). According to the nature and objectives of the research, this study used the
purposive sampling strategy to include participants in the interviews and focus discussions. This is
because the study only aims to include those who face challenges in leadership positions in public uni-
versities in Bangladesh and Malaysia (N. Cohen and Huffman 2007; Uwizeyimana and Mathevula 2018).
Purposive sampling is suitable when the researcher needs to collect information from the respondents’
perspectives based on the judgment of their possession or typicality of the certain characteristics being
sought (L. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011; Hora 2014). This sampling technique is applied in this
study because it has been the most significant non- probabilistic type of sampling that facilitates
researchers in identifying the main participants. This sampling framework has been selected to
include participants with in-depth information about a particular issue that is under research (Emmel
2013; Omona 2013; Unin 2018). Therefore, using this sampling strategy, the researchers only selected
female deans so that the challenges faced by them in leadership positions can be effectively examined.
The 12 semi-interviews conducted with 12 participants in Malaysia were recorded with respon-
dent consent. The interviews with eight Bangladeshi participants in both semi-structured interviews
and focus group discussions were not recorded as the participants did not grant permission.
However, interviewers were allowed to take notes. Researchers carefully followed the ethical pro-
cedures by obtaining consent from all participants. Participants were requested to select suitable
venues for interviews; however, the focus group discussions were performed through the Skype
Conference. All the participants were sent objectives of the research with the information on the
option of withdrawing from the interview at any time. For reasons of anonymity, participants’
names were removed and number-coded.
All the transcripts and memos (Birks, Chapman, and Francis 2008) were printed out and coded
through the thematic analysis to identify the main themes that best fit the research questions. Tran-
scripts from interviews were sent to the participants to confirm or amend their responses where
necessary. Moreover, the participants in the focus group discussions were told about the points men-
tioned in the memos to confirm their responses (Birks, Chapman, and Francis 2008) to gain confi-
rmability (i.e. trustworthiness). The collected qualitative data were coded and analyzed
thematically, aimed at making sense of the opinions of the participants regarding individual, organ-
izational and social barriers by identifying the themes (Saldana 2015).
The framework for the study is summarized in Figure 1.
Manual analysis was applied due to the smaller size. Through manual coding, we have identified
emerging themes and categories for the analysis and discussion, presented in the next section.

Results
The description of the main themes emerging from the data was compiled according to the key vari-
ables and is depicted in Table 1.
The themes outlined that female deans in Bangladesh face more barriers than Malaysian female
deans in public universities. The most common and most mentioned barriers among female deans in
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1205

Figure 1. Research design.

Table 1. Main themes deriving from the data analysis.

Barriers Bangladesh (8 participants) Malaysia (12 participants)
Individual barriers - Family responsibilities (8/8) - Family responsibilities, (12/12)
- Lack of Interest (8/8) - Lack of Interest (12/12)
- Lack of confident (5/8), - Lack of confidence (4/12)
- Lack of technological knowledge (3/8) - Lack of technological Knowledge (4/12)
Social barriers - Negative Attitude of People (8/8) - Religion (lack of religious knowledge) (4/12)
- Male Domination (8/8) - Male Domination (2/12)
- Local culture (8/8), - Negative Attitude of People (2/12)
- Prejudice (7/8)
- Lack of Security (5/8)
Organizational - Internal Politics, (8/8) - Internal Politics, (12/12)
barriers - Male Domination, (8/8) - Too many responsibilities, (12/12)
- Too many responsibilities, (8/8) - Lack of support from colleagues, (12/12)
- Negative Perception of Colleagues, (8/8) - Negative Perception of Colleagues, (12/12)
- Biasness of Top Management, (8/8) - Male Domination, (6/12)
- Difficulty to Manage Colleagues, (8/8) - Complicated Promotion Criteria, (5/12)
- Lack of support from colleagues, (8/8) - Difficulty to Manage Colleagues, (4/12)
- Complicated Promotion Criteria, (8/8) - Biasness of Top Management, (3/12)
- Sexual Harassment (5/8) - Lack of Benefits (Financial and Non-Financial), (3/
12)
- Lack of Benefits (Financial and Non-Financial),
(3/8)

the two countries are mostly similar. Therefore, more common and most mentioned barriers by par-
ticipants have been analyzed below.

Individual barriers
Family responsibilities
Women always often perform dual duties originating from the family and workplace. Therefore, they
face a considerable challenge in fulfilling the organizational duties, which require strong
1206 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

commitment and dedication to overlooking family responsibilities. Hence, many potential women
leave the position to concentrate on rearing children and performing other jobs in families. All
the participants in this study unanimously agree that family responsibilities are the most challenging
barriers for women in taking leadership positions in universities. Participant 1 (Bangladeshi)
explained that:
Every female regardless of organizational position and qualification performs family responsibilities due to social
or cultural context but also due to the mental peace and commitment to family. As a result, many potential and
current female leaders leave their positions.

Participant 8 outlined that:

Making balance between the organizational and family responsibilities is very much difficult for females because
they are more emotional than the males. Hence, most female colleagues don’t want to take the leadership pos-
itions, although they have qualification, skills, and even political support.

Most opinions are found from the Malaysian female deans. Participant 2 (Malaysian), states that:
As a leader, I face more challenges because I have to juggle with family; thus, I do a lot more than the norm that
is expected of a female lecturer. Family responsibilities pressure me to step down earlier than the tenure due to
peer pressure (a colleague stepped down from her position so that she can contribute more to her family). So,
you understand how family responsibilities are dragging us.

Participant 9 (Malaysia) opined that family responsibilities are key challenges for women if they want
to take leadership positions in universities. Participant 9 added that:
We have responsibilities to children, parents and siblings that we cannot ignore while males can ignore easily.
Therefore, many female colleagues don’t take dean positions.

Lack of interest
Every participant in this study from two countries stated that the lack of motivation and intention
among female lecturers or professors to take leadership positions in universities is a crucial chal-
lenge. Therefore, they don’t want to take leadership positions.
Participant 3 (Bangladeshi) stated that:
Some of my colleagues don’t like to take leadership positions because they don’t find any motivation to take
these roles as these increase duties and obligations. This is a great challenge to increase the number of
females in the leadership positions in this university. I think it’s similar in other universities because I don’t
see many women are taking leadership roles.

The opinion stated by Participant 3 is similar to others. However, Participant 6 opined that:
I understand there are barriers, but some responsibility lies with some of the women because of their self-sat-
isfaction to stay where they are. For example after professorship one of my female colleagues was encouraged to
contest for a deanship but she declined because she wasn’t interested. So, the problem is very much related to
us women as too.

On the other hand, Participant 2 (Malaysian) added that:

I select the leaders for different projects but it’s frustrating that some ladies don’t want to take the leading pos-
ition due to some excuses.

Participant 10 (Malaysian) outlines that:

Some lecturers/professors (candidates), I see they are very good and can lead but if I inquire about their willing-
ness to apply for positions in leadership, they aren’t interested in holding the positions.

Apart from the above barriers, the participants in this study also identified lack of confidence and
lack of technological knowledge are also major barriers for women to encounter in leadership pos-
itions in universities.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1207

Social barriers
The social context of the two countries is mostly similar according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
Moreover, the majority of the populations in the two countries are Muslims. However, the results
show that Bangladeshi females face more social barriers than Malaysian females. It is because
almost all the participants from the Bangladeshi universities in this study agree that there are
some crucial social barriers that block women for taking and holding leadership positions. While
the majority of the participants from Malaysian universities dismissed the claim by a few participants
regarding social barriers, such as religion (lack of religious knowledge), male domination in society
and negative attitudes of people. On the other hand, all the participants agree that the social barriers
are severe in Bangladesh for women in leadership positions.

Negative popular attitude

All the participants from Bangladeshi universities reported that the negative attitudes of local people
create barriers for women in leadership positions. However, several participants from Malaysian uni-
versities opined there are some people with negative attitudes towards female leadership but some
participants dismissed this claim.
Participant 5 (Bangladeshi) added that:
There are both males and females in our society who show a negative attitude towards women leaders. I per-
sonally experienced that. While I don’t care, others do. Therefore, many potentials tolerate these unexpected
situations that I face from the people in my community.

Participant 7 (Bangladeshi) also opined that

Some people without any knowledge of our capability speculate that we are going to fail. So, they show nega-
tive attitudes and undermine women. You can imagine how embarrassing for the women concerned.

Patriarchy
Bangladesh is a male-dominated country, while Malaysia is not much (doesn’t mean a complete
absence of patriarchy) that is already established. From this perspective, it has been right that Ban-
gladeshi females face problems of male domination in every sector to strive for leadership positions.
Participant 3 asserted that:
Men like to work under men rather than women. Therefore, they create policies and rules so that males are pre-
ferred rather than females. Thus, they support men in taking leadership positions.

Participant 8 opined that:

Normally all universities in Bangladesh appoint Deans through election or selection. Hence, if there are more
men than women, then men are going to support men. So, many of us don’t apply. I’ve taken the position
here after a huge struggle that I took as a huge challenge and I don’t believe many will go through this
difficult challenge.

Local culture
Local culture is identified as one of the major barriers faced by women in leadership positions in Ban-
gladeshi universities while no Malaysian female deans reported it as a problem. Participant 2 (Ban-
gladeshi) outlined:
We have a tendency to support the local people even if they don’t have sufficient skills and qualification to take
and lead the position. This tendency is a severe problem when the election is held for dean position. Women are
therefore far behind the men.

Participant 6 (Bangladeshi) argued that:

1208 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

Our cultural context doesn’t welcome women leaders although we have a female prime minister and opposition
leaders in parliament. Local people either educated or illiterate, male or female have a negative idea regarding
women in leadership. This demotivates women causing many to leave the role.

Prejudice
Prejudice about women leaders is a significant barrier for Bangladesh women contending for leader-
ship positions. Participant 1 (Bangladeshi) outlined:
Some people claiming to be religious or atheist hold prejudice about women. They think giving promoting
women to leadership would be harmful for the organization or department. This is absurd to think in the
context of universities, which are the highest place for education and aim to remove prejudice.

Participant 7 (Bangladeshi) expressed the same:

In Bangladesh, many people don’t have clear knowledge regarding religious issues. Sometimes they are given
wrong ideas about women leadership by many preachers of different religions. Thus, from childhood, people
think women cannot be leaders and if they take lead positions, they’ll fail. Even some educated women have
this misconception and don’t apply for leadership positions.

Lack of security
Lack of security as a barrier for women leaders is reported by 7 participants out of 8 in Bangladesh.
Participant 4 outlined that:
Our society is not safe for a woman but as a dean I have to move around to perform different responsibilities or
take part in seminars, symposiums or talk shows; but I cannot do this all the time because of security issues.

Participant 6 (Bangladeshi) reported that:

When you take a position, some people who will be jealous and try to hurt you. In our society women’s safety is
taken sometimes lightly. It’s more dangerous for women because they’re more isolated.

Organizational barriers
Interestingly, this study identifies that organizational barriers faced by female deans in Bangladeshi
and Malaysian public universities are more common than individual and social barriers. The main
barriers mostly cited and common among participants from two countries have been analyzed
below.

Internal politics
Every participant reported internal politics is a significant barrier for female deans in accessing and
staying in the leadership positions for example dean positions in universities.
Participant 3 (Bangladeshi) explained that:
It’s easier for women to become deans when there’s no election for deanship because there is dirty politics and
women like to concentrate on other things rather than this. Thus, internal politics in our university is a strong
barrier for women to be a dean when there’s an election for the role.

The participants from Malaysia reported similar issues. Participant 10 (Malaysian) suggested that:
Male lecturers and professors mostly don’t like women in leadership; thus, they may create a blockade for the
females. However, many of them leave their intention to be the leader. Therefore, it is a problem. However, many
women overcome these hassles and become deans.

Male domination
The male domination in the universities is major in the leading positions. Therefore, it is a barrier for
women in leadership positions. In this respect, Participant 6 (Bangladeshi) argued that:
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1209

There are more male faculty members in universities. Therefore, they dominate in society.

Participant 6 (Malaysian) added that:

My university is very male dominated. It’s challenging for men to have the women as their bosses. So, they don’t
support women candidates to deanship.

Too many responsibilities

Too many responsibilities reported by all the participants as major barriers for women to be a dean
and even to continue as a leader. Participant 8 opined that:
Whenever you are a dean, you must do a lot of jobs that aren’t similar when you are a professor. Therefore, many
women cannot cope with these extra duties and they leave and others who are potential don’t like to take the
position. It is quite difficult for us in Bangladesh to achieve a balance between family and work when we take
extra duties.

In this respect, the participants from Malaysian public universities also opine similar aspects. Partici-
pant 5 stated that:
Some female friends in the university resent taking the dean position due to overburdening duties and poor pay
for women compared to males.

Participants from both countries reported other organizational barriers that create challenges for
women leaders in the organizations. These include negative perception of colleagues, top manage-
ment biases, difficulty to manage colleagues, lack of support from colleagues, complicated pro-
motion criteria and lack of benefits. Sexual harassment was also reported to be a barrier for
women’s progression to leadership. This was advocated by 5 of 8 participants Bangladeshi
participants.

Discussion and implications

This study explored barriers under the three main categories from the female deans in public univer-
sities in Bangladesh and Malaysia. Several obstacles faced by female deans confirmed the findings
from previous research. In terms of the individual and socio-cultural barriers, female deans from
both countries in the current study face almost the same and common identified barriers in the
current literature. For example, many family responsibilities, lack of interest, lack of confidence,
and lack of technological knowledge are common among the females as well as deans. Many
women are not much confident to take challenging jobs in Bangladesh with a lack of interest,
while they are also not much technically savvy. Similar findings can be identified in the literature
(Almaki et al. 2016; Alzaidi 2008; Bubshait 2012; Derks, Van Laar, and Ellemers 2016; Qian 2016).
This study found several socio-cultural barriers for women in Bangladeshi public universities while
interestingly fewer substantial social barriers in Malaysia for women. This is a significant finding
because both countries are largely Muslim, but the socio-cultural contexts have important differ-
ences. We could find in the literature that Bangladesh is more traditional in seeing women in leader-
ship positions (Hossain and Rokis 2014; N. Islam 2006). Therefore, there are stronger barriers to be
faced. Malaysia seems more progressive, given the presence of policies aiming at improving
female presence in decision-making roles. While in Bangladesh, seeing women in certain decisive
roles is still difficult, Malaysia is pushing women to lead STEM roles, especially in physics and engin-
eering (Goy et al. 2018; Tan, Chin, and Ratnavelu 2021; Wan et al. 2017). Our study revealed socio-
cultural barriers in Bangladesh, e.g. negative popular attitude, male-dominated culture, prejudice,
and lack of security that are consistent with previous studies (Ahad and Gunter 2017; Morley and
Crossouard 2015; Morley, Berma, and Abdul Hamid 2017). However, the findings regarding the
non-social barriers in relation to Malaysian society are consistent with the literature (Abidin,
Rashid, and Jusoff 2009; Almaki et al. 2016; Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb 2013; Zahidi and Ibarra 2010).
1210 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

Hence, this study grounds a significant foundation for future research to validate the findings
through the research, including more extensive while it also contributes to the current literature
citing that there are few social barriers for women in leadership positions in Malaysia.
The organizational barriers found by examining the participants’ experiences are quite similar in
the contexts of Bangladeshi and Malaysian public universities. The findings are consistent with the
extant literature (Al-Kayed 2015; Almaki et al. 2016; Burkinshaw and White 2017; Massaro, Bardy, and
Pitts 2012; Sanderson and Whitehead 2016; Sirat, Ahmad, and Azman 2012).
Notwithstanding the barriers, the participants in this study feel successful in their career. Their
determination has been found to be the prerequisite for success. However, if these barriers are mini-
mized through effective policy frameworks, the number of women in leadership positions in univer-
sities could increase significantly. Hence, this study has significant implications for policymakers in
Bangladesh and Malaysia – and by extension in South Asia. The study has unveiled key barriers
that should be reduced to ease women’s path to leadership, which can lead to greater organizational
effectiveness.
Overall, our findings confirm that women’s disadvantage in higher education leadership in Ban-
gladesh and Malaysia is highly socially-constructed, being significantly influenced by culture and the
institutional setup, thus confirming our theoretical framework of feminist interactionism (Jackson
and Scott 2010). The study adds to the literature on barriers (individual, organizational and social)
to female academicians’ advancement in higher education. It illuminates the experiences of
female academicians taking management positions in South Asian countries. Such specific knowl-
edge is critical to develop gender equality initiatives, which must start from a deep examination
of the socio-cultural context. Policies may include work-life balance support and aids like childcare,
maternity permits, flexibility and smart or remote work. While these aids may be relevant to support
female academics in overcoming the difficulties of balancing their role as mothers, wives, caregivers
and female professionals, more is needed. Testimonials, mentoring, and leadership programs led by
successful female managers and academics may promote a culture of female leadership in academia
by inspiring young ladies and girls to not give up their dreams. Moreover, besides policies made at a
national level, our study encourages initiatives made by single institutions to promote a more
diverse and inclusive environment. Those institutions willing to take the lead in backing and
suggesting dedicated policies will also likely be rewarded by results and ratios, even in the perspec-
tive of international certifications like it is currently happening in Malaysia (Wan et al. 2017).

Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study contribute to the existing knowledge of the barriers faced by
women in the public universities of developing Asian countries like Bangladesh and Malaysia. In
the absence of such research in a comparative form in the Bangladeshi and Malaysian contexts,
this study helps to narrow the knowledge gap by providing barriers that hinder female faculty
members’ leadership and management aspiration. The conclusion can be made that there are
some barriers in both countries, but if the respective policymakers reduce them, the number of
women will increase, and their inclusion would be positive for institutional success.
However, the findings presented in this study cannot be generalized because of the small sample
size and other limitations. For example, when the data was being obtained, the personal qualities
and characteristics of the interviewer, such as age, body language, the time and location of the inter-
view, together with the fact that the interviewees were extremely busy people, could have had some
effect on the quality and fullness of the responses (Moloney et al. 2017). Moreover, since our study
took place in developing countries where the wealth of the population is not equally distributed,
results may have been biased by the background and personal situation of the female participants
– namely, the family of origin, the place of residence (some crowded modern cities versus some
remote and underdeveloped areas) the eventual overseas experiences in western countries, …
While our results may represent one first milestone to foster more research and practical actions,
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1211

non-binary gender research is needed for a more in-depth understanding of the impact of gender
and possible implications.
Another critical factor is that the content of the questions asked in the interviews and focus group
discussions might have touched on sensitive personal issues. Moreover, answers may have been
vague or not completely truthful due to concerns over their careers and safety, although the
issue of confidentiality was confirmed and relayed to the participants clearly and regularly. Future
research could be conducted quantitatively using the barriers identified in this study for generaliz-
ation. Respondents in other leadership roles could be involved in future research to highlight issues
faced by women when in management, such as executive and administrative barriers, as well as
those of a personal nature, across other organizations or industry environments. Future studies
could also ponder on how leadership styles may vary from one individual to another and catalogue
successful leadership styles adopted by women in higher education, in order to formulate good
practice models that could serve both aspiring women and men for leadership positions in univer-
sities (Jacobson, Palus, and Bowling 2010).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The research was partly funded by Research Management Centre (RMC), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) (Grant Number:
9632500).

ORCID
Md Asadul Islam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2420-3705
Dieu Hack-Polay http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1038-5018
Mahfuzur Rahman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3386-9613
Maria Kordowicz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1405-9607

References
Abdullah, S., K. N. K. Ismail, and L. Nachum. 2012. “Women on Boards of Malaysian Firms: Impact on Market and
Accounting Performance.” SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2145007
Abidin, Z. Z., A. A. Rashid, and K. Jusoff. 2009. “The ‘Glass Ceiling’ Phenomenon for Malaysian Women Accountants.”
Asian Culture and History 1 (1): 38–44. doi:10.5539/ach.v1n1p38.
Ahad, L. R., and H. Gunter. 2017. “Women in Leader Roles Within Higher Education in Bangladesh.” Management in
Education 31 (3): 135–40. doi:10.1177/0892020617721147.
Akpinar-Sposito, C. 2013a. “The Glass Ceiling: Structural, Cultural and Organizational Career Barriers for French and
Turkish Women Executives (halshs-00834098).”.
Akpinar-Sposito, C. 2013b. “Women in Management Research: Theoretical Perspectives.” 4eme Franco-Tchèque Trends in
International Business 1–12.
Al-Asfour, A., H. A. Tlaiss, S. A. Khan, and J. Rajasekar. 2017. “Saudi Women’s Work Challenges and Barriers to Career
Advancement.” Career Development International 22 (2): 184–99. doi:10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0200.
Al-Jaradat, M. K. M. 2014. “Challenges Facing Women Academic Leadership in Secondary Schools of Irbid Educational
Area.” International Education Studies 7 (5): 147–60. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n5p147.
Al-Kayed, L. 2015. “Leadership Challenges for Women Managers in Public Universities in Saudi Arabia.” Global Journal of
Human-Social Science: Arts & Humanities 15 (4): 1–11.
Al-Mughni, H. 1996. “Women’s Organizations in Kuwait. Middle East Report. ” https://merip.org/1996/03/womens-
organizations-in-kuwait/.
Almaki, S. H., A. D. Silong, K. Idris, and N. W. Abd. Wahat. 2016. “Challenges Faced Muslim Women Leaders in Higher
Education.” Journal of Educational and Social Research 6 (3): 75–86. doi:10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p75.
Alzaidi, A. M. K. 2008. “Secondary School Head Teachers’ job Satisfaction in Saudi Arabia: The Results of a Mixed Methods
Approach.” Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences 5 (1): 161–85.
1212 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

Bagilhole, B., and K. White. 2008. “Towards a Gendered Skills Analysis of Senior Management Positions in UK and
Australian Universities.” Tertiary Education and Management 14 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1080/13583880701814124.
Baker, S. 2018. “Data Bite: Share of Female Professors now Virtually a Quarter Milestone may be Taken as Evidence That
Gender Equality in Academia is Improving, Albeit Slowly.” Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/data-bites/data-bite-share-female-professors-now-virtually-quarter.
Baker, D. J., and D. J. Cangemi. 2016. “Why Are There So Few Women CEOs and Senior Leaders in Corporate America?”
Organization Development Journal 34 (2): 31.
Bardy, R., A. Rubens, and M. Massaro. 2015. “The Systemic Dimension of Sustainable Development in Developing
Countries.” Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 12 (1): 22–41. doi:10.1179/1477963314Z.
00000000033.
Bassett, D. 2009. “The Overview for Part One.” In Women Leading Education Across the Continent, edited by H. C.
Sobehart, 9–11. London: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Batool, S. Q., M. A. Sajid, and M. U. Rehman. 2013. “Gender and Higher Education in Pakistan.” Middle East Journal of
Scientific Research 15 (6): 780–9. doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.15.6.2190.
Bell, M. P., M. E. Mclaughlin, and J. M. Sequeira. 2002. “Discrimination, Harassment, and the Glass Ceiling: Women
Executives as Change Agents.” Journal of Business Ethics 37 (1): 65–76. doi:10.1023/A:1014730102063.
Birks, M., Y. Chapman, and K. Francis. 2008. “Memoing in Qualitative Research.” Journal of Research in Nursing 13 (1): 68–
75. doi:10.1177/1744987107081254.
Bothwell, E. 2017. “Female Leadership Advances Slowly in World’s top Universities.” Times Higher Education. https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/female-leadership-advances-slowly-in-worlds-top-universities.
Brandt, T., and M. Laiho. 2013. “Gender and Personality in Transformational Leadership Context.” Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 34 (1): 44–66. doi:10.1108/01437731311289965.
Bubshait, A. I. 2012. “Women’s Leadership in Saudi Universities: Required Skills and Current Obstacles.” European Journal
of Social Sciences 36 (1): 69–77.
Bureau of Labour Statistics. 2017. Employment and Wages, Annual Averages 2017. Accessed 22 November 2021. https://
www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annualannualaverages/ 2017/home.htm#:~:text=In%
202017%2C%20BLS%20derived%20totals,by%20UI%20or%20by%20UCFE.
Burkinshaw, P., and K. White. 2017. “Fixing the Women or Fixing Universities: Women in HE Leadership.” Administrative
Sciences 7 (3): 1–14. doi:10.3390/admsci7030030.
Bystydzienski, J., N. Thomas, S. Howe, and A. Desai. 2017. “The Leadership Role of College Deans and Department Chairs
in Academic Culture Change.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (12): 2301–15. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1152464.
Catalyst. 2002. “Women in Leadership: A European Business Imperative.” https://www.catalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/01/Women_in_Leadership_A_European_Business_Imperative.pdf.
Cermak, J., R. Howard, J. Jeeves, and N. Ubaldi. 2018. “Women in leadership: Lessons from Australian Companies Leading
the Way.” https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-in-leadership-lessons-from-
australian-companies-leading-the-way.
Chabaya, O., S. Rembe, and N. Wadesango. 2009. “The Persistence of Gender Inequality in Zimbabwe: Factors That
Impede the Advancement of Women Into Leadership Positions in Primary Schools.” South African Journal of
Education 29 (2): 235–51. doi:10.15700/saje.v29n2a259.
Chapple, L., and J. E. Humphrey. 2014. “Does Board Gender Diversity Have a Financial Impact? Evidence Using Stock
Portfolio Performance.” Journal of Business Ethics 122 (4): 709–23. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1785-0.
Chiloane-Tsoka, E. G. 2012. “Cultural Observations Facing Women Managers : A South African Perspective.” Gender and
Behaviour 10 (2): 4949–73. doi:10.10520/EJC128220.
Cho, Y., J. Park, S. J. Han, and Y. Ho. 2019. “‘A Woman CEO? You’d Better Think Twice!’.” Career Development International
24 (1): 91–108. doi:10.1108/CDI-03-2018-0078.
Cohen, P. N., and M. L. Huffman. 2007. “Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap.”
American Sociological Review 72 (5): 681–704. doi:10.1177/000312240707200502.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Cubillo, L., and M. Brown. 2003. “Women Into Educational Leadership and Management: International Differences?”
Journal of Educational Administration 41 (3): 278–91. doi:10.1108/09578230310474421.
Dal Mas, F., and P. Paoloni. 2020. “A Relational Capital Perspective on Social Sustainability; the Case of Female
Entrepreneurship in Italy.” Measuring Business Excellence 24 (1): 114–30. doi:10.1108/MBE-08-2019-0086.
Dal Mas, F., P. Paoloni, and R. Lombardi. 2019. “Wellbeing of Women Entrepreneurs and Relational Capital: A Case Study
in Italy.” In The Wellbeing of Women in Entrepreneurship, edited by M. T. Lepeley, K. Kuschel, N. Beutell, N. Pouw, and E.
L. Eijdenberg, 232–43. London: Routledge.
Darkwah, A. K. 2010. “Education: Pathway to Empowerment for Ghanaian Women?” IDS Bulletin 41 (2): 28–36. doi:10.
1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00120.x.
Derks, B., C. Van Laar, and N. Ellemers. 2016. “The Queen bee Phenomenon: Why Women Leaders Distance Themselves
from Junior Women.” The Leadership Quarterly 27 (3): 456–69. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.
Dhir, K. 2015. “On Being A Dean: The Challenge of Academic Leadership.” Fundamatics. https://fundamatics.net/article/
on-being-a-dean-the-challenge-of-academic-leadershi/.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1213

Diehl, A. B. 2014. “Making Meaning of Barriers and Adversity: Experiences of Women Leaders in Higher Education.”
Advancing Women in Leadership 34: 54–63. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=
101774549&site=ehost-live%5Cnhttp://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=
AN&K=101774549&S=R&D=ehh&EbscoContent=
dGJyMNLe80SeprA4yOvqOLCmr02eqK5Srqi4S7OWxWXS&Content.
Doherty, L., and S. Manfredi. 2006. “Women’s Progression to Senior Positions in English Universities.” Employee Relations
28 (6): 553–72. doi:10.1108/01425450610704498.
ECU. 2018. “How Far Have Women Come in Higher Education?” Advance HE. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/blogs/far-women-
come-higher-education/.
Ellemers, N. 2014. “Women at Work.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1): 46–54. doi:10.1177/
2372732214549327.
Elliot, C. 2011. “Women in Leadership: Contextual Dynamics and Boundaries.” Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/books/women-in-leadership-contextual-dynamics-and-boundaries/416267.article.
Emmel, N. 2013. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach. London: Sage.
Ethier, M. 2016. “The Women Deans Of Europe: Leading The Fight For Gender Equality.” Women in Business School,
Poets & Quants. https://poetsandquants.com/2016/10/03/female-deans-europe-leading-fight-gender-equality/.
Fagenson, E. A. 1990. “At the Heart of Women in Management Research: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches
and Their Biases.” Journal of Business Ethics 9 (4): 267–74. doi:10.1007/BF00380326.
Fanta, A. B., K. S. Kemal, and Y. W. Waka. 2013. “Corporate Governance and Impact on Bank Performance.” Journal of
Finance and Accounting 1 (1): 19. doi:10.11648/j.jfa.20130101.12.
Forestier, K. 2013. “‘Manifesto for Change’ for Women in Higher Education.” University World News. https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20130313132344590.
Fouad, N. A., G. Hackett, P. L. Smith, N. Kantamneni, M. Fitzpatrick, S. Haag, and D. Spencer. 2010. “Barriers and Supports
for Continuing in Mathematics and Science: Gender and Educational Level Differences.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 77 (3): 361–73. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.004.
Fuller, A., N. Fondeville-Gaoui, and L. Haagdorens. 2010. “More Women in Senior Positions : Key to Economic Stability
and Growth.” European Institute for Gender Equality. https://eige.europa.eu/library/resource/eige.000509847.
Geiger, A. W., and L. Kent. 2017. “Number of Women Leaders Around the World has Grown, but They’re Still a Small
Group.“ Pew Research Center Gender & Leadership. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/women-
leaders-around-the-world/.
Gipson, A. N., D. L. Pfaff, D. B. Mendelsohn, L. T. Catenacci, and W. W. Burke. 2017. “Women and Leadership.” The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 53 (1): 32–65. doi:10.1177/0021886316687247.
Goy, S. C., Y. L. Wong, W. Y. Low, S. N. M. Noor, Z. Fazli-Khalaf, N. Onyeneho, E. Daniel, S. A. Azizan, M. Hasbullah, and A.
GinikaUzoigwe. 2018. “Swimming Against the Tide in STEM Education and Gender Equality: A Problem of
Recruitment or Retention in Malaysia.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (11): 1793–809. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.
1277383.
Grogan, M., and C. Shakeshaft. 2011. Women and Educational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hack-Polay, D. 2020. “It’s Time for Organizations to Look at How they Deal with Equality. People Management.“
Accessed 14 September 2022. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/its-time-for-organizations-
to-look-at-how-they-deal-with-equality.
Hera, N.J. (2020). Lack of Women in Leadership Positions in Bangladesh: What Can be Done? doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.30104.
75529
Heywood, L. 2018. “Third-Wave Feminism and Representation.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Feminism and Sport, Leisure
and Physical Education, edited by L. Mansfield, J. Caudwell, B. Wheaton, and B. Watson, 463–77. London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK.
Højgaard, L. 2002. “Tracing Differentiation in Gendered Leadership: An Analysis of Differences in Gender Composition in
Top Management in Business, Politics and the Civil Service.” Gender, Work & Organization 9 (1): 15–38. doi:10.1111/
1468-0432.00147.
Hora, E. A. 2014. “Factors That Affect Women Participation in Leadership and Decision Making Position.” Asian Journal of
Humanity, Art and Literature 1 (2): 97–117. doi:10.18034/ajhal.v1i2.287.
Hossain, D. M., and R. Rokis. 2014. “Working Women’s Strategy for Work-Care Balance: The Case of University of Dhaka,
Bangladesh.” Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 20 (3): 77–104. doi:10.1080/12259276.2014.11666191.
Howe-Walsh, L., and S. Turnbull. 2016. “Barriers to Women Leaders in Academia: Tales from Science and Technology.”
Studies in Higher Education 41 (3): 415–28. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.929102.
Ibarra, H., R. Ely, and D. Kolb. 2013. “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers.” Harvard Business Review 91 (9): 60–6.
Ibrahim, D., K. Y. S. K. M. Yussof, and R. P. Tibok. 2016. “Between Work Responsibilities and Family Obligations: A Study
on the Management of Work-Life Integration among Academics.” International Business Management 10 (18): 4336–
41.
Islam, N. 2006. “The Status of Women in Bangladesh: Is the Situation Really Encouraging?” Research Journal of Social
Sciences 1 (1): 56–65.
1214 M. A. ISLAM ET AL.

Islam, M. A., and A. H. Jantan. 2017. “The Glass Ceiling: Career Barriers for Female Employees in the Ready Made
Garments (RMG) Industry of Bangladesh.” Academy of Strategic Management Journal 16 (3). doi:10.2139/ssrn.
3414583.
Islam, M. A., A. H. Jantan, A. Hunt, H. Hashim, and C. W. Chong. 2022. “Exploring Barriers Faced by Women Leaders in
Accessing and Holding Leadership Positions in Public Universities in an Emerging Country.” International Journal of
Business Innovation and Research 27 (1): 121–42. doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2022.120442.
Islam, M. A., A. H. Jantan, A. Hunt, M. F. Rahman, and M. M. Abdullah. 2019. “Exploration of Barriers Faced by Female
Graduate Entrepreneurs in Bangladesh.” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7 (2): 1000–14. doi:10.9770/jesi.
2019.7.2(15).
Jackson, S., and S. Scott. 2010. Theorising Sexuality. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Jacobson, W. S., C. K. Palus, and C. J. Bowling. 2010. “A Woman’s Touch? Gendered Management and Performance in
State Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (2): 477–504. doi:10.1093/jopart/
mup017.
Jarboe, N. 2018. “Women Count: Leaders in Higher Education 2018.” https://womencountblog.files.wordpress.com/
2018/11/womencount-report-2018_web-version_new-final.pdf.
Johns, M. L. 2013. “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Structural, Cultural, and Organizational Barriers Preventing Women from
Achieving Senior and Executive Positions.” Perspectives in Health Information Management 10 (Winter): 1e.
Kelleher, F., F. O. Severin, M. Samson, A. De, T. Afamasaga-Wright, and U. M. Sedere. 2011. Women and the Teaching
Profession: Exploring the Feminisation. Commonwealth Secretariat.
Kim, J. J., and S. J. Kim. 2018. “Women’s Leadership in Family Business Organizations.” In Korean Women in Leadership,
edited by Y. Cho and G. N. McLean, 141–58. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
King, K. 2017. “Three-quarters of Countries Fail to Meet European Judicial Diversity Target.” Legal Cheek. https://www.
legalcheek.com/2017/10/three-quarters-of-countries-fail-to-meet-european-judicial-diversity-target/.
Kirton, G., and A.-M. Greene. 2015. The Dynamics of Managing Diversity. A Critical Approach. London: Routledge.
Lewis, D. 2005. “African Gender Research and Postcoloniality: Legacies and Challenges BT – African Gender Studies A
Reader.” In African Gender Studies a Reader, edited by O. Oyěwùmí, 381–95. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Liddy, M., and C. Hanrahan. 2017. “Fewer Women run top Australian Companies Than men Named John — or Peter, or
David.” ABC Net Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-08/fewer-women-ceos-than-men-named-john/
8327938.
Madsen, S. R. 2015. “Why Do We Need More Women Leaders in Higher Education?” https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=marketing_facpub.
Massaro, M., R. Bardy, and M. W. Pitts. 2012. “Supporting Creativity Through Knowledge Integration During the Creative
Processes. A Management Control System Perspective.” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 10 (3): 258–67.
Mbepera, J. G. 2017. “The Organizational Factors Influencing Women’s Under-Representation in Leadership Positions in
Community Secondary Schools (CSSs) in Rural Tanzania.” Kedi Journal of Educational Policy 14 (2): 79–100.
Miaji, A. B. 2010. Rural Women in Bangladesh: The Legal Status of Women and the Relationship Between NGOs and
Religious Groups. Lund University ed. Lund: Lund Studies in History of Religions.
Mittal, V., and J. Dutta. 2019. “Important Aspects of Women Empowerment in Assam and India.” Arts and Social Sciences
Journal 10 (June): 437–46. doi:10.4172/2151-6200.1000437.
Moloney, W., P. Boxall, M. Parsons, and N. Sheridan. 2017. “Which Factors Influence New Zealand Registered Nurses to
Leave Their Profession?” New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 43 (1): 1–13. https://search.informit.org/doi/
10.3316/informit.310511224053365.
Moorosi, P. 2010. “South African Female Principals’ Career Paths: Understanding the Gender Gap in Secondary School
Management.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (5): 547–62. doi:10.1177/1741143210373741.
Moreau, M. P., J. Osgood, and A. Halsall. 2005. “The Career Progression of Women Teachers in England: a Study of
Barriers to Promotion and Career Development.”.
Mori, N., and G. Towo. 2017. “Effects of Boards on Performance of Local and Foreign-Owned Banks in Tanzania.” African
Journal of Economic and Management Studies 8 (2): 160–71. doi:10.1108/AJEMS-06-2016-0090.
Morley, Louise. 2013. “The Rules of the Game: Women and the Leaderist Turn in Higher Education.” Gender and
Education 25 (1): 116–31. doi:10.1080/09540253.2012.740888.
Morley, Louise, M. Berma, and B. D. Abdul Hamid. 2017. “Managing Modern Malaysia: Women in Higher Education
Leadership.” In The Changing Role of Women in Higher Education: Academic and Leadership Issues, edited by H.
Eggins, 137–54. Cham: Springer International.
Morley, L., and B. Crossouard. 2015. “Women in Higher Education Leadership in South Asia: Rejection, Refusal,
Reluctance, Revisioning.” https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/national-
policies/report-women-higher-education-leadership-south-asia.
Morley, Louise, and B. Crossouard. 2016. “Women’s Leadership in the Asian Century: Does Expansion Mean Inclusion?”
Studies in Higher Education 41 (5): 801–14. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1147749.
Nazemi, S., S. Mortazavi, and S. Borjalilou. 2012. “Investigating Factors Influencing Women’s Inclination in Adopting
Managerial Positios in Iranian Higher Education.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business 4
(7): 722–32.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1215

Ngang, T. K., B. Prachak, and T. Saowanee. 2013. “Leadership Soft Skills of Deans in Three Malaysian Public Universities.”
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (21): 1182–6. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.012.
Nguyen, T. L. H. 2013. “Barriers to and Facilitators of Female Deans’ Career Advancement in Higher Education: An
Exploratory Study in Vietnam.” Higher Education 66 (1): 123–38. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9594-4.
Northouse, P. G. 2018. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Omona, J. 2013. “Sampling in Qualitative Research: Improving the Quality of Research Outcomes in Higher Education.”
Makerere Journal of Higher Education 4 (2): 169–85. doi:10.4314/majohe.v4i2.4.
Paoloni, P., F. Dal Mas, M. Massaro, A. Barcellini, and E. Orlandi. 2021. “An Organizational Model for Female Leadership in
Healthcare. The National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO Foundation) Experience During the Covid-19
Pandemic.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gender Research ICGR 2021, edited by E. T. Pereira, C.
Costa, and Z. Breda, 228–37. Reading: Academic Conferences & Publishing International.
Peus, C., S. Braun, and K. Knipfer. 2015. “On Becoming a Leader in Asia and America: Empirical Evidence from Women
Managers.” The Leadership Quarterly 26 (1): 55–67. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.004.
Phillion, J. 2003. “Obstacles to Accessing the Teaching Profession for Immigrant Women.” Multicultural Education 11 (1): 41.
Ponnuswamy, I., and H. L. Manohar. 2014. “Breaking the Glass Ceiling- A Mixed Methods Study Using Watkins and
Marsick’s Learning Organisation Culture Model.” Asian Women 30: 85–111. doi:10.14431/aw.2014.09.30.3.85.
Qian, M. 2016. “Women’s Leadership and Corporate Performance (No. 47).” https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
publication/179587/ewp-472.pdf.
QS. 2015. “The Invisible Women in Higher Educational Leadership.” QS. https://www.qs.com/the-invisible-women-in-
higher-educational-leadership/.
Rapoport, R., L. Bailyn, J. K. Fletcher, and B. H. Pruitt. 2001. Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and
Workplace Performance. Jossey-Bass.
Rosin, H. 2001. “Why Doesn’t Marissa Mayer Care About Sexism?” Slate. https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/07/new-
yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-does-she-care-about-sexism.html.
Saeed, A., H. Riaz, and M. S. Baloch. 2022. “Pursuing Sustainability Development Goals Through Adopting Gender
Equality: Women Representation in Leadership Positions of Emerging Market Multinationals.” European
Management Review, 1–14. doi:10.1111/emre.12532.
Saldana, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
Sanderson, R. E., and S. Whitehead. 2016. “The Gendered International School: Barriers to Women Managers’
Progression.” Education + Training 58 (3): 328–38. doi:10.1108/ET-06-2015-0045.
Sani, R. 2018. “Empowering More Women in Higher Education.” New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/education/
2018/04/352834/empowering-more-women-higher-education.
Seltzer, N. 2020. “The Economic Underpinnings of the Drug Epidemic.” SSM – Population Health 12: 100679. doi:10.1016/
j.ssmph.2020.100679.
Shepherd, S. 2017. “Why are There So Few Female Leaders in Higher Education.” Management in Education 31 (2): 82–7.
doi:10.1177/0892020617696631.
Sirat, M., A. R. Ahmad, and N. Azman. 2012. “University Leadership in Crisis: The Need for Effective Leadership
Positioning in Malaysia.” Higher Education Policy 25 (4): 511–29. doi:10.1057/hep.2012.10.
Tan, M. S. A., O. H. Chin, and K. Ratnavelu. 2021. “AIP Conference Proceedings.” AIP Conference Proceedings 2319 (1):
150002. doi:10.1063/5.0037025.
Tate, G., and L. Yang. 2015. “Female Leadership and Gender Equity: Evidence from Plant Closure.” Journal of Financial
Economics 117 (1): 77–97. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.01.004.
Towni, S. N., A. Arisha, N. N. Rahman, I. I. Rasul, M. Hossain, and L. Iftekhar. 2021. “Gender Distribution in Academic
Leadership: An Exploratory Study of Top Universities of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2021
World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council, WEEF/GEDC 2021, November, 231–240.
Unin, N. 2014. “Learning to Lead for Malay Women in Higher Education.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 141:
654–9. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.114.
Uwizeyimana, D. E., and N. S. Mathevula. 2018. “Factors Contributing to Female Educators’ Underrepresentation in
School Management Positions in Lulekani Circuit, Limpopo Province, South Africa.” International Journal of Indian
Culture and Business Management 16 (1): 71–98. doi:10.1504/IJICBM.2018.088597.
Valcour, M. 2012, October. “Unblocking Women’s Paths to the Boardroom.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/
2012/10/unblocking-womens-paths-to-the.
Vecchio, R. P. 2002. “Leadership and Gender Advantage.” The Leadership Quarterly 13 (6): 643–71. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(02)00156-X.
Wan, C. D., D. Chapman, S. Hutcheson, M. Lee, A. Austin, and A. N. Ahmad. 2017. “Changing Higher Education Practice in
Malaysia: The Conundrum of Incentives.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 2134–52. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.
1134475.
Win, N. L., and K. M. Win. 2013. “Perceptions of Academics on Women in Engineering Education and Work Place.” Journal
of Institutional Research South East Asia 11 (1): 28–41.
Zahidi, S., and H. Ibarra. 2010. “The Corporate Gender Gap Report 2010.” https://www.jpn.up.pt/pdf/corporate2010.pdf.