1 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome

Literature Review Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome Kristi Britton University of the Pacific December 2012

2 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome Women face many challenges to entering leadership positions, both in education and other fields. One of the issues is the Queen Bee Phenomenon, a situation in which a woman in an authority or leadership position takes measures to sabotage other women trying to move up in the organization. Women often do not support each other in their professional lives. They do not create situations in which they are willing to mentor and encourage their fellow women. The female gender and leadership styles are another roadblock women face in their professional journey. Additionally, there are multiple barriers that women in particular face as they attempt to move up in their workplaces. These include discrimination, social identity beliefs and the challenge for women to find an acceptable work-life balance. Queen Bee Phenomenon The Queen Bee phenomenon has become a part of popular culture. There are urban dictionary definitions, movies, books, articles, and countless other references that refer to the idea of the Queen Bee as a woman who holds other women back or finds ways to block them on the ladder to success (Cummins, 2012). Staines, Travis and Jayaratne (1973) found that women felt that if they could make it as a woman, without help, then so could other women. The Queen Bee is frequently created as a bitch who stings other women if her power is threatened (Mavin, 2008, p. S75). Cummins (2012) asserts that the Queen Bee feels that she rose to the top of her organization by her own strength and savvy. Queen Bees are non-mentors and definitely not supportive of other women (Cummins, 2012). She has also worked hard to achieve high rank in the organization, and this is associated with high pay and social success (Cummins, 2012). These Queen Bees are senior women in masculine organizational cultures who have fulfilled their career aspirations by dissociating themselves from their gender while simultaneously contributing to the gender stereotyping of other women (Derks, Ellemers, van Laar, & de Groot, 2010, p. 519). Several psychological research studies regarding women in the workplace, identified Queen Bees as those who achieve career success by derogating other women while simultaneously emphasizing their own career commitment and masculine qualities (Ellemers, et al., 2004; Staines, Tavris & Jayaratne, 1974). Ginn (1989) also determined that the Queen Bee phenomenon

3 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome revolved around power and these women felt there was not enough for everyone, increasing the need for these women to eliminate or downplay their female subordinates. Queen Bees commit acts toward other woman such as: setting others up in negative ways, creating situations in which to sabotage them, ensuring that they do not get not credit for their work, or disrespecting some of the unwritten rules of connectedness in the workplace (Briles, 1996). Gupton and Slick (1996) noted that newly appointed female administrators went into their positions with the expectation that they would experience resistance from men but were completely caught off guard by the antagonistic way the women reacted to their leadership. Benton (1980) also reported that the Queen Bee phenomenon contributes to the lack of support women are able to elicit from their female colleagues. According to Benton (1980), Queen Bees are women in positions of authority and power who purposely deny other women leadership opportunities in order to protect their own standing. Additionally, the Queen Bee blames individual women for not supporting other women (Mavin, 2008, p. S75). Discussions of the findings about the Queen Bee phenomenon have concluded that women are their own worst enemies, and that it is not men, but women who stand in the way of the advancement of women in the workplace (Derks, et al., 2011). Evidence for the Queen Bee syndrome comes from studies showing female rather than male employees to be particularly critical of the career commitment, assertiveness, and leadership skills of their female colleagues (Ellemers et al., 2004, Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006; Mathison, 1986; Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008, Staines, et al., 1973 ). Not only is the Queen Bee phenomenon a cause of gender discrimination in the workplace, it is an important consequence of workplace experiences, particularly the gender discrimination women experience in their careers (Derks, et al., 2011). There is a fair body of research which shows that females in positions of authority do discriminate against their own gender. (Staines, et al., 1974) Derks, et al. (2011) argued that Work settings in which women experience a high degree of gender prejudice and discrimination may lead women to comply with existing gender stereotypes to a degree that they concern other women (e.g., other women are less career oriented than men). In such contexts, setting oneself

4 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome apart from other women (I am, by exception, very career oriented) is a strategy that can successfully improve the prospects for individual women. (p. 521) Womens Support and Competition of Each Other Mavin (2008) asserts that while solidarity behaviour involves social processes between women at a collective level, it places the emphasis of change upon individual senior women, expected to support and align themselves with other women (p. S77). The expectation is that women should help and promote each other within the organization, while the expectation for men is that they will compete against each other for the best jobs (Mavin, 2008). Women who do not support other women and join the competition for higher career advancement, are viewed as hostile and unfriendly (Derks, et al., 2011). There is also a recommendation that women who aspire to advance into management positions within their organizations, should have proactive, high profile senior women as role models and mentors(Mavin, 2008, p. S77). This can be problematic for women trying to fulfill this recommendation. Although it has been noted that sometimes women who achieve positions of power are motivated to improve career opportunities for other women and serve as their role models, it is not the majority (Ellemers et al., 2004). More frequently, women in positions of power oppose rather than support attempts to improve the position of their female subordinates (Ellemers et al., 2004; Staines et al., 1974). In his research study on the views of equity that female administrators hold regarding other female administrators, Matthews (1995) categorized four separate points of view: activists, advocates, isolates and individualists. Women categorized as activists cared passionately about issues of gender equity and actively supported efforts to correct the imbalance of women in educational administration. Advocates supported women, joined advocacy organizations, and expressed the view that women bring unique strengths to school administration. Isolates detached themselves from issues related to inquiry; most didnt believe that sex discrimination really existed, and, in most cases, never gave this issue much thought or even saw it as a problem. Lastly, individualists believed the

5 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome individual, male or female, took precedence over the group. They did not promote women nor did they believe in any kind of countermeasures to correct the sexual imbalance in school leadership. (p. 247-8)

Activists and advocates demonstrate positive and supportive feelings towards other women in educational administration. Isolates and individualists demonstrate attitudes that result in diminishing the value of other female administrators, feeling detached from them, and believing that they were unworthy of their help (Funk, 2004, p. 6). While many senior female executives and administrators exhibit isolate and individualist principles, OLeary and Ryan (1994, p. 72) found that women subordinates expect their women bosses to be more understanding, more nurturant, more giving and more forgiving than men (Mavin, 2008, p. S78). It is a rude awakening for many women attempting to climb the career ladder to be disappointed by their superiors lack in those areas. In addition, Valentine and Godkin (2000), also refer to more than one study showing that subordinates also tend to view female managers as overly emotional, sensitive, and indecisive when confronted with difficult work situations (Pounder and Coleman, 2002, p.126). This directly correlates to Jeanquart-Baron and Sekarans (1994) study in which they found that female subordinates trusted their male supervisors significantly more than female supervisors (Pounder 2002). This leads into the sexism that exists in the workplace. Chesler (2001) argues women are harder on each other than they are on men. This is in agreement with Ely (1994) who contends that between women there is a patriarchal divide-and-conquer tactic and it is one that works, female-female competition is subtle, deep, tension producing and wracking within male-dominated organizations (Mavin, 2008, p. S77). Chesler (2001) also claims that women are just as competitive as men, but that this competition is directed almost always towards each other. Keller and Moglens (1987) view is that women deny the fact that there is competition between women but then contradict themselves by stating that it is unavoidable in practice. This is further complicated by womens inclinations to deny that they are participating in competition (Mavin, 2008).

6 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome Another term that must be addressed when discussing this topic is horizontal violence. This term is attributed to Paulo Freire. He was a champion of the poor and disenfranchised in South America, who explored the effects of oppression on minorities in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Funk, 2004, p. 2). Within his work, he used the term horizontal violence to indicate the curious behavior of members of oppressed groups who lash out at their peers when responding to oppression instead of attacking their oppressors (Funk, 2004, p. 2). Considering that women who are identified as Queen Bees feel that they are oppressed in their organizations, this term is extremely applicable to these issues.

Leadership Styles and Gender Characteristics There are gender-biased perceptions of how women and men lead and manage. Women are often stereotyped as nurturing, caring, kind, and probably rather soft in their approach. The alternative stereotype for men is that they are aggressive, decisive, firm and probably an authority figure (Coleman, 2003, p. 14). Pounder and Maivin (2002) found that Osland, Snyder and Hunter (1998) have noted US research indicating that both men and women equate successful management with male characteristics (p. 126). In leadership research, gender is commonly separated from sex. Gender is often viewed as a set of qualities that can be labeled as male or female (Bem, 1974; Gray, 1989, 1993; Pounder 2002). Many researchers assert that male gender qualities are characterized as aggressive, independent, objective, logical, rational, analytical, decisive, confident, assertive, ambitious, opportunistic, and impersonal female gender qualities [are] described as emotional, sensitive, expressive, cooperative, intuitive, warm, tactful, receptive to ideas, talkative, gentle, empathetic and submissive(Pounder, 2002, p.5). This furthers the belief that male and female gender qualities facilitate the argument that male gender qualities are oriented towards the more impersonal, task oriented or transactional approach to leadership while female gender qualities tend towards a more nurturing, relationships oriented style of leadership that underlies the transformational approach (Pounder, 2002, p. 5). Additionally there is argument in the

7 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome research on gender and leadership asserting female leaders are more transformational than male leaders (Rosener, 1990; Pounder 2002). Pounder (2002) defines transformational leadership as having the following characteristics. First, the leader has an idealized influence or charisma. This means that the leader has a vision and sense of mission, creates pride, earns respect, trust and creates a climate of optimism. Second, the leader demonstrates inspirational motivation. This means that the leader is a model and communicates his/her vision. The leader also establishes individual consideration. This means that the leader coaches and mentors others, provides appropriate feedback, and connects members needs to the organizations mission and vision. Finally, the leader creates intellectual stimulation. This means that the leader inspires followers to change old ways of doing things and modify old values and beliefs (Pounder 2002). Pounder defines transactional leadership as utilizing the following characteristics. The leader uses contingent reinforcement or contingent rewards. This means that the leader rewards followers contingent upon their success in achieving specific performance goals. Another area utilized by transactional leaders is active management by exception. This means that the leader actively seeks those that are not performing to the expected levels and takes corrective action. The final aspect is passive management by exception. This means that instead of actively seeking issues with employees performance, the leader takes action only when the problems present themselves (Pounder 2002). Barriers There are many internal and external barriers that include physical, emotional, social factors, women face in their pursuit of leadership positions. In her research, Schmuck (1986) found that 70% of female school administrators reported they experienced obstacles to their careers simply because they were women and 74% reported having negative role modelshalf of whom were women. 57% said they were not part of a network of professional support, and only 17% declared they did not need or want such support. (Funk, 2004, p. 4)

8 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome In their study on the leadership styles of effective female administrators in higher education, Hough and Holland (2011) asked women in top level administrative positions to answer questions about barriers they face. In the study, 86.3% of the participants felt that family life issues are barriers to top level positions for women; 75.8% believed that sex stereotyping is a barrier; and 66.1% stated that lack of role models is a barrier to top level administrative positions in higher education. In their study, Hough and Holland (2011) noted that other women in leadership are seen as a strong contextual barrier. This barrier is not related to the lack of female role models, but rather to the lack of female mentors. It conveys the message that women in power will discriminate and compete against other women instead of supporting them (Hough and Holland, 2011). Coleman (2003) found that women principals were more likely than men to feel that they have to prove themselves (p. 5). These women also believe that they have to work harder than men to earn their place. Hough and Holland (2011) also reported that the lack of role models and other women, Queen Bees, represent a barrier rather than a support system for female administrators. In a 1992 U.S. Department of Education study, the following issues were cited as contributing to the lack of advancement of women in administration: Lack of secondary principal and superintendent placement; lack of mentors, sponsors, and role models; guilt feelings about the implications of advancement; lack of encouragement from other women; cultural, social, emotional, mobility, and attitude barriers; dual demands of work and home; more maturity at entry time is against advancement; desire to stay in positions longer for experience; lack of networking skills; often male-oriented training; limited interviewing skills; lack of recognition of acceptable differences in leadership styles. (Hicks, 2000, p. 2)

Social Identity Although as a society we have made significant strides towards equal opportunities for women over the past century, the disparity between men and women still exists. Society continues to hold certain inherent beliefs about women that limit their access to positions of power. Charles and Davies (2000)

9 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome found that there is evidence that the cultural association of power and authority with masculinity makes it difficult for women to hold positions of power because of the contradictions between their gender identity and the masculinity of power (p. 545). In addition, Valentine and Godkin (2000) note a substantial body of work that suggests women face socially prompted stereotypes about masculinity and femininity that undermine their credibility as organizational leaders (Pounder and Coleman, 2002, p. 126). Derks, et al.(2011) contend that the Queen Bee phenomenon is a result of social contextual circumstances and in particular the social identity threat that women experience in companies that discriminate against women (p. 530). They suggest that women who show evidence of the Queen Bee phenomenon do not do so because of their inherent predisposition to compete with other women, but because they see this as a way to pursue their ambitions in sexist organizational cultures (Derks, et al., 2011). Although sexism does indeed exist in many organizations, Schmucks (1995) research that showed that some women in educational leadership disagree. They deny that they have encountered any discrimination against themselves, believe that they are exceptions to the rule, contend that they are obviously different from other women, and fervently assert that they have never been victims of sex or gender discrimination (Funk, 2004, p. 10). Bells (1995) research concluded that female school administrators straddle two distinct groups. They are members of a majority (women in education) and they are also members of a minority (women school administrators). Women school administrators are on the fringe of both of these groups and are not members of either or to both. She argues that the experiences of females in school administration encompass the effects of authority and influence as leaders and the isolation they feel as women in a male-dominated occupation (Bell, 1995). Work-Life Balance Being a principal or any other leader in education is a demanding role that takes an emotional and physical toll on individuals. These leaders face the day to day demands of working with large numbers of staff and students, dealing with difficult situations, and working the long hours that are required. There is

10 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome an additional burden on women, who are still likely to take on the weight of the overall domestic responsibilities. The difficulties of balancing work and home have an impact on women who become principals (Coleman, 2003). Shakeshafts (1989) research supports these beliefs. She concluded that: Home and family responsibilities provide obstacles for women in administration in two ways: the woman not only must effectively juggle all of her tasks, she must also contend with the bulk of male school board presidents and superintendents who erroneously believe that not only is she unable to manage the balancing act but that it is inappropriate for her to even attempt it. (p. 113)

Conclusion The research on women in leadership shoes the need to further examine relationships between women how these relationships affect women leaders. It seems imperative to find out how the Queen Bee Syndrome affects women pursuing leadership positions in education. While 76% of the teachers in the United States are women, only 50% of school principals are women. (Litmanovitz, 2011) The Association of California School Administrators cites that only 16% of Californias superintendents are women. (http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/AboutACSA/CommitteesGroups/WLN/WLN.aspx?css= print) 60% of college graduates are women, yet in the corporate world only 16% of executives are women. (Litmanovitz, 2011) It is imperative to find out why these disparities exist and to find ways to narrow the gap between male and females in leadership positions. Some women do reach the ranks of high level school administrators. Learning from their success illuminates how we might design solutions to ensure that women who so desire can go beyond the classroom (Litmanovitz, 2011, p.2). Why do some female administrators achieve success while others do not? One hole in the research is looking at how these successful women made it to the top in spite of the barriers. Another hole is to look at how

11 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome female-female professional relationships evolve as one or both women attempt to move into higher level positons.

12 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome References Bell, C. (1995). Women in school administration: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 51(8), 811-848. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4 (2), 155-162. Benton, S. (1980). Women administrators for the 1980s: A new breed. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 43(4), 18-23. Charles N. and Davies, C. A. (2000). Cultural stereotypes and the gendering of senior management. Sociological Review, 12, 544-567. Chesler, P. (2001). Womens Inhumanity to Woman. New York: Thunders Mouth Press, Nations Books. Coleman, Marianne. (2003). Gender and school leadership: The experience of women and men Secondary principals. Paper presented at UNITEC, Auckland. Cummins, Helene. (2012). Queen bees and mommy tracking: Hows an academic woman supposed to get ahead? Advancing Women in Leadership, 32, 1-22. Derks, Belle., Ellemers, Naomi., van Laar, Colette., and de Groot, Kim. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519-535. Ellemers, N., Van Den Huevel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., and Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the Queen Bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 72(3), 617-626. Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-208. Funk, Carole. (2004). Female leaders in educational administration: Sabotage within our own ranks. Advancing Women in Leadership. Garcia-Retamero, R. and Lopez-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55(1), 51. Ginn, L. W. (1989). A quick look at the past, present, and future of women in public school administration. Research in Education. (RIE Document Reproduction no. ED 3310498). Gray, H. L. (1989). Gender considerations in school management: masculine and feminine leadership styles. In Riches, C. and Morgan, C. (Eds). Human Resource Management in Education, in Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gray, H. L. (1993). Gender issues in management training. In Ozga, J. (Ed.). Women in Educational Management, Buckingham: Open University.

13 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome Hicks, Anna. (2000). Scarlett leads the schoolhouse: does being southern matter? Advancing Women in Leadership. Hough, Mayra A. and Holland, Glenda. (2011). Leadership styles of effective female administrators in higher education. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(2), 1-10. Jeanquart-Barone, S. and Sekaran, U. (1994). Effects of supervisors gender on American womens trust. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 253-254. Keller, E. F. and Moglen, H. (1987). Competition: a problem for academic women. A Feminist Taboo? New York: The Feminist Press. Litmanovitz, Miki. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Women in educational leadership. The Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011 online editon. Matthews, E. N. (1995). Women in educational administration: Views of equity. In D. M. Dunlap and P. A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women Leading in Education, (pp. 247-265). Albany: State University of New York Press. Mathison, D. L. (1986). Sex differences in the perception of assertiveness among female managers. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(5), 599. OLeary, V. and Ryan, M. M. (1994). Women bosses: counting the changes or changes that count. In M. Tanton (Ed.). Women in Management: A Developing Presence. London: Routledge. Osland, J. S., Snyder, M. M., and Hunter, L. (1998). A comparative study of managerial styles among f female executives in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(2), 54-74. Park, D. (1996). Gender role, decision style and leadership style. Women in Management Review, 11(8), 13-17. Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., and Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Womens strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237. Pounder, James S. (2002). Do women really make better leaders than men?: An update. Hong Kong Institute of Business Studies Working Paper Series, Paper 34. Pounder, James, S and Coleman, Marianne. (2002). Women- better leaders than men? In general and educational management it still all depends. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 3/4. Schmuck, P. A. and Schubert, J. (1995). In D. M. Dunlap and P. A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women Leading in Education, (pp. 274-287). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Foreward. In D. M. Dunlap and P. A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women Leading in Education, (pp. xi-xiv). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

14 Women in Leadership: Reflections on the Effects of the Queen Bee Syndrome Staines, G., Tavris, C., and Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The Queen Bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7(8), 55. Valentine, S. and Godkin, L. (2000). Supervisor gender, leadership style, and perceived job duties. Women in Management Review, 15(3), 117-129.