Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Review

Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership:

A review of research
Laura J. Burton *
University of Connecticut, Educational Leadership, 249 Glenbrook Road, U-3093, Storrs, CT 06269, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Despite increased participation opportunities for girls and women in sport, they are
Received 24 July 2013 underrepresented in leadership positions at all levels of sport. The objective of this review
Received in revised form 3 February 2014 is to provide a multilevel examination of available scholarship that contributes to
Accepted 11 February 2014 understanding why there are so few women in leadership positions within sport. From a
Available online 13 March 2014 macro-level perspective, scholarship regarding the institutionalized practices of gender in
sport is examined. The meso-level review includes stereotyping of leaders, issues of
Keywords: discrimination, and gendered organizational cultures. Finally research reviewed at the
Gender
micro-level explores women’s expectations in leadership positions, occupational turnover
Leadership
intentions, and the influence of symbolic interactionism on women’s career advancement.
Sport
Review
In addition, the author identifies new research areas and additional recommendations for
how best to increase the number of women in leadership positions in sport.
ß 2014 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Female athletes now have greater opportunities for participation both in the U.S. interscholastic and intercollegiate
system (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012) and internationally (Smith & Wrynn, 2013); however, there is still progress to be made in
terms of equitable participation opportunities for girls and women throughout the world (Smith & Wrynn, 2013). Despite
increased sport participation opportunities for girls and women, they are underrepresented in all facets of leadership at all
levels of sport (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2012; Lapchick, 2012; Smith &
Wrynn, 2013). The objective of this review is to examine scholarship that has made contributions toward understanding why
there are so few women in leadership positions within sport. In addition, areas for new research and additional
recommendations for how best to increase the number of women in leadership positions in sport will be addressed.
Fink (2008) noted research examining gender issues in sport are ‘‘situated in multi-level, sometimes subtle, and usually
taken-for-granted structures, policies, and behaviors embedded in sport organizations’’ (p. 147). Therefore, a multi-level
perspective will be used to examine the lack of women in leadership positions in sport (Cunningham, 2008, 2010;
Cunningham & Sagas, 2006; Dixon & Cunningham, 2006). A multilevel perspective can help to better understand the
underrepresentation of women in sport leadership, as ‘‘sport organizations are multilevel entities that both shape and are
shaped by myriad factors’’ (Cunningham, 2010, p. 396).

* Tel.: +1 617 777 3391.

E-mail address: laura.burton@uconn.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.004
1441-3523/ß 2014 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
156 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

From a macro-level perspective, I explore scholarship regarding the institutionalized practices of gender in sport,
including social expectations and stakeholder expectations of leadership and the gendered nature of leadership expectations
within the domain of sport. At the meso-level I explore stereotyping of leaders, issues of discrimination, gendered
organizational cultures, including those unsupportive of work-family interface, and paradoxical practices of gender
normalcy that influence hiring and retention of women in leadership positions. Finally, at the micro-level I focus on women’s
expectations in leadership positions, occupational turnover intentions, and the influence of symbolic interactionism on
women’s career advancement. This review allows for examination of theoretical frameworks scholars have employed to
analyze the underrepresentation of women in sport organizations. However, in doing so, it is difficult to do justice to the
depth and breadth of scholarship within this area. Further, in an effort to capture the most current research advances in this
area, the majority of work presented in this review has been published in the last 15 years. Finally, it is important to note that
scholars have approached research examining the lack of women in leadership positions in sport from both positivistic and
post-positivistic approaches, and as such have used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

1.1. Sport leadership as masculine

Prior to beginning this review, it is important to situate sport as a gendered space. Anderson (2009) has argued that sport
‘‘actively construct boys and men to exhibit, value and reproduce traditional notions of masculinity’’ (p. 4), and that
competitive sport serves as a social institution principally organized around defining certain forms of masculinity as
acceptable, while denigrating others. Further, sport operates as a space to define and reproduce hegemonic masculinity, in
which one form of masculinity (i.e., exclusively heterosexual and physically dominant) maintains dominance by suppressing
all other forms of masculinity and subordinating women (Connell, 1995). This is important to note, as women are often
situated as ‘other’ in the social institution of sport, and the presence of women in sport, as athlete, coach, manager or leader,
is under constant scrutiny (Kane, 1995).
Connell (2009) advances an understanding of gender that moves beyond a focus on sex differences. She describes gender
as a social process and advocates for an examination of gender from a relational perspective. When considering
organizations and how organizations operate, scholars have recognized that gender can influence organizational practices,
such that images, cultures, interactions, and gender-appropriate behaviors are linked to socially constructed masculine or
feminine ideals within organizational operations (Acker, 1990, 1992; Britton & Logan, 2008). Ely and Meyerson (2000)
highlight that masculinities, or behaviors, actions and associations that are most often associated with men are perceived to
be superior to femininities, or those behaviors most often associated with women.
Therefore, any discussion of women’s leadership experiences in sport must include positioning gender as a fundamental
aspect of organizational and social processes. This aids the understanding of how and why gender is a powerful factor in the
social and organizational processes that define organizations, including sport organizations (Kihl, Shaw, & Schull, 2013).
Further, Shaw and Frisby (2006) noted the importance of recognizing that gender not only shapes identities but also operates
as an axis of power, playing an influential role in interactions, structures, and processes of sport organizations.

2. Macro-level research on women in leadership

A macro-level approach to examining the lack of women in leadership positions in sport recognizes that sport is a
gendered institution and that all processes in sport operate within a hegemonic masculine norm. As Acker (1990) described
in her work on gender and management, there is an assumption that work and organizational practices are gender neutral;
however, this assumption serves to reinforce masculine dominance including in the domain of sport. Noting how
institutionalized practices can reinforce discrimination, Cunningham (2010) described how agreed upon ways of operating
within an organization can become institutionalized and accepted. Sport organizations have institutionalized masculinity as
the operating principle within sport, identifying male activity as privileged, and reinforcing masculinity and masculine
behavior as the appropriate leadership qualities required in sport (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). As such, gender inequality has
operated as an institutionalized practice within sport organizations (Cunningham, 2008).

2.1. Organizational demography

Ely and Padavic (2007) call attention to the role organizational demography plays in perpetuating notions of who is
appropriate for particular positions, and therefore appropriate to perform particular work, within an organization. If
organizational demography is such that women generally perform some jobs and men others, for example, the stage is set for
communicating that women have aptitude and preferences for some kinds of work and men for other kinds (Ely & Padavic,
2007, p. 1136).
Men dominate leadership positions in sport organizations in the U.S. and internationally (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012;
International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2012; Lapchick, 2012; Smith & Wrynn, 2013). At the intercollegiate level
in the U.S., men hold the most powerful leadership position, that of athletic director of Division I Bowl Championship Series
(BCS) universities, hold a greater percentage of head coaching positions of women’s sports, and are nearly the exclusive
coaches of men’s sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Women hold fewer than 25% of senior leadership positions across all U.S.
professional sports leagues (Lapchick, 2012). The one exception is the Women’s National Basketball Association; however,
 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165 157

women only hold 33% of general manager positions within that league. Outside of the U.S., women are also less likely to hold
leadership positions in sport organizations, including in volunteer and professional level organizations (Claringbould &
Knoppers, 2008; International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2012). Within the Olympic movement, the
International Olympic Committee has for the first time met its self-imposed threshold of at least 20% of the board composed
of women members (Smith & Wrynn, 2013). However, within national Olympic governing bodies (NGBs), 85.3% of those
governing bodies are composed of all-male leadership teams, while 14.1% have male/female leadership teams, and only one
(.5%), Zambia, has an all-female leadership team (Smith & Wrynn, 2013). Based on these data, the organizational
demography of leadership positions in sport organizations is highly skewed to male leaders. This skewed gender ratio serves
to reinforce the notion of masculinity and masculine leadership as the norm in sport.
Gendering of sport organizations operates as an axis of power whereby men and masculinity are afforded power over and
above women, and through use of this power, women are marginalized from leadership roles or positions that wield such
power (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Within the U.S. intercollegiate sport system, women have lost leadership positions (e.g., head
coach and athletic director) since the passage of Title IX, and the power afforded by those positions as a result of increased
resources and opportunities provided to women’s athletic teams (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Power is also manifest through
a variety of organizational practices, that when unquestioned, become institutionalized and accepted as the natural order of
things (Ely & Padavic, 2007).

2.2. Hegemonic masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity serves as an operating principle within sport organizations that restricts women’s access to
leadership positions within sport. Whisenant, Pedersen, and Obenour (2002) examined the influence of hegemonic
masculinity on the rate of advancement of women and men to senior leadership positions in intercollegiate athletics. Their
findings support the influence of hegemonic masculinity in intercollegiate sport, as men maintain control of athletic director
positions at the highest level of intercollegiate sport (i.e., Division I) and have higher rates of organizational success (e.g.,
rates of career advancement) at this level when compared to women. Grappendorf and Lough (2006) also support the
influence of hegemonic masculinity within sport, as they detailed the continued underrepresentation of female athletic
directors in merged intercollegiate athletic departments. Further work also indicated that hegemonic masculinity
constrained women’s access to athletic director positions at the interscholastic level, as women held less than 15% of those
leadership positions (Whisenant, 2008).

2.3. Influence of power

Power also influences gendered relations in sport organizations; a phenomenon frequently examined through a
poststructural lens. Claringbould and Knoppers (2007) noted in their examination of affirmative action policies, and how
such policies are interpreted in sport organizations. Male leaders of the examined sport organizations discussed the
importance of women’s inclusion as members of Boards of Directors, however, these leaders failed to support any policy
changes that would increase the number of women on those Boards. Further, recruitment and selection of women followed a
gendered ‘fit’, that is, no young children, well educated, previous high level jobs, flexible personal schedules, and behaved
properly, as defined by the male leaders. Further, the women selected for leadership positions ‘‘were not openly feminist, and
they had experience with, knowledge about, and, commitment to their sport’’ (p. 504). These findings demonstrated how
male leaders used their power to maintain boundaries that allowed for male leadership to dominate and women’s
participation to be limited to those who fit the model of leader as defined by the men on those Boards.
Claringbould and Knoppers (2012) also examined the practices of ‘doing gender’ within the context of sport organizations
to help explore the skewed gender ratio within sport organizations. Discourse analysis was used within the frame of
liminality, which is the ‘‘practice of doing gender that individuals engage in without questioning underlying assumptions’’
(p. 405). They observed that perceptions of gender neutrality, gender normalcy and passivity contributed to the continued
underrepresentation of women in sport organizations. Discourses revealed perceptions of gender neutrality in
organizational processes with women and men receiving equal opportunities in all aspects of sport organizations. In
addition, there were perceptions of gender normalcy, as there was acceptance of inequality in board representation as
normal and an assumption that men should take on leadership roles and women should take on roles specific to women’s
issues. Finally, gender passivity was evident as male leaders of sport organizations recognized the skewed gender ratio of
leadership positions in sport organizations, but did nothing to address or change those ratios either through individual action
or organizational level policy changes.

2.4. Stakeholder influence

Stakeholder influence must also be examined at the macro-level, as stakeholder groups influence the operations of
organizations and influence the gendered norms of sport organizations. The work of Schull, Shaw and Kihl (2013) provided
support for this notion in their examination of the ‘‘gendered political processes’’ (p. 57) operating in the search for a new
athletic director in a gender-affiliated athletic department merger. Stakeholders interested in maintaining power in the
women’s athletic program actively supported the hiring of a male athletic director out of concern that if a female athletic
158 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

director was to be selected, she would be ‘‘eaten up alive’’ (p. 71) by members affiliated with the men’s athletic programs.
Also, as a result of the power and political influence enjoyed by those stakeholders aligned with the men’s athletic
department, they had access to key decision makers at the university, access to key financial supports of the university, and
important access to key constituents in the media. Finally, the criterion outlined to support the hiring of the new athletic
director, though appearing to be gender neutral, ‘‘privileged a certain type of masculinity in the sport context—a man who
values gender equity’’ (p. 76). Stakeholders associated with the women’s athletic program actively campaigned for a specific
type of male candidate instead of campaigning for a female candidate.

2.5. Institutionalized discrimination

Using institutional theory as their theoretical frame, Walker and Sartore-Baldwin (2013) argued that intercollegiate
sport, in particular men’s intercollegiate sport, is a cognitive institution, defined as ‘‘norms socially accepted by the people
and are so embedded within the institution of the organization that the thought of change cannot be fathomed’’ (Walker &
Sartore-Baldwin, 2013, p. 306). Attempting to better understand why there are so few women coaching men’s sports at the
intercollegiate level, they described the institutionalized nature of gender-based discrimination of women in coaching, as
male coaches were unable to fathom how women would possibly be accepted into coaching positions leading male team
sports. As such, intercollegiate sport focuses on maintaining the social norm of women as not acceptable coaches of men’s
teams. Noting that men’s intercollegiate sport is one of the last social institutions to exclude women, Walker and Sartore-
Baldwin argued that such gender restrictive practices threaten the long-term viability of intercollegiate sport. They
highlighted the need for stakeholders and decision makers to recognize this gender exclusivity and to implement change so
as to maintain the viability of the institution of intercollegiate sport.

3. Meso-level level research on women in leadership

Gender is embedded in organizational practices at the interactional and structural levels, as well as at the individual level
(Acker, 1990). Gender as a practice in organizations is viewed as ‘‘institutionalized and widely recognized but also is
dynamic, emergent, local, variable, and shifting’’ (Martin, 2003, p. 351). Therefore, in order to understand how organizational
processes contribute to gender inequity and disparity within organizations, it is important to understand the practice of
gender within organizations (Martin, 2003). Claringbould and Knoppers (2012) noted, ‘‘the invisibility or seemingly
common sense nature of these gendered constructions often masks how they are sustained and challenged by practices at all
levels of an organization’’ (p. 405).

3.1. Organizational operations

When considering meso-level factors, scholars have examined structure, governance, policies, and various other
organizational operations. In particular, Shaw and Frisby (2006) noted the importance of examining power and how power
influences the experiences of women in sport organizations. Ely and Padavic (2007) indicated that power is linked to gender
within organizations in at least three different ways. First, power connects to gender in the structure of organizations, as men
who are overrepresented in higher status jobs have higher pay and more status within organizations. In addition, power is
demonstrated through social practices that perceive men as powerful and women as compliant, and therefore positions and
tasks are constructed to favor men. Finally, power can be used in the process of gender identity formation within the
organization such that external forces of power ‘‘endorse particular meanings of gender, and internal pressures dictate the
degree of one’s compliance’’ (Ely & Padavic, 2007, p. 1131).
Following the link to power and gender within the structure of sport organizations, Yiamouyiannis and Osborne (2012)
examined where women were positioned within the major governing body of U.S. intercollegiate sport (i.e., the National
Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA). They found that women continue to be underrepresented in positions of power or
influence, including a lack of women on executive leadership committees (less than 25%), and even fewer women at the
director level (less than 18%). In addition, women were not represented on committees governing men’s sports, yet men
held over half of the positions on the Committee on Women’s Athletics (Yiamouyiannis & Osborne, 2012). As noted earlier,
Acosta and Carpenter (2012) have conducted other organizational demographic work within U.S. intercollegiate sport.
Such work allows researchers to note where and in what capacity women hold leadership positions, in addition to
understanding practices and policies at the organizational level that constrain women’s advancement to senior level
positions.
Scholars who have examined the practice of gender at the level of the organization are demonstrating that sport
organizations are based on a masculine conception of operating such that men are perceived as powerful and women are
compliant (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Shaw (2006) noted in her examination of sport organizations in the United Kingdom, the
social processes adopted by the organization, including humor, informal networking, and use of dress codes sustained
masculine work practices. The structure of a volunteer grassroots sport organization board of directors demonstrated that
men and women held positions appropriated based on gendered assumptions. Women on the board were responsible for
clerical work and home/kitchen duties, while the men handled facility management and maintenance (Sibson, 2010). Within
intercollegiate athletic administration, women athletic administrator duties followed a more stereotypical feminine
 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165 159

approach toward work focused on caring for student-athletes (Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000). Work by Adriaanse and
Schofield (2013) noted that on a majority male board of directors for a national sport organization, men controlled all of the
significant positions (external relations, strategic decisions, finances) and the sole female on the board held the position of
marketing director.
Organizational policies and procedures can influence the gender composition of leadership within organizations (Ely &
Padavic, 2007). When examining recruitment and selection and how perceptions of fit influenced the hiring of women onto
boards of directors for national sport organizations, Claringbould and Knoppers (2007) demonstrated that incumbent male
board members were able to maintain control of and therefore power over the board by both ‘‘affirming and negating
affirmative action policies and policing ‘fit’ during recruitment and selection processes’’ (p. 503). In addition, women
applying for those positions did not question the criteria used for selection even as they struggled to comply with the
demands made by the male board members.
Work-family and family-work balance scholars have also examined how the organizational practices of sport
organizations can be gendered. This work has most often focused on the experiences of women in coaching and examines
organizational structures, policies and procedures supported by organizations (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Dixon & Bruening,
2007; Dixon & Sagas, 2007). An integrated theory of work-family conflict in sports, Dixon and Bruening (2005) highlight
organizational level constraints women face that include job pressures and job stress, work and hours of scheduled work,
and the work-family culture of an organization. At an organizational level, the demands of coaching and the expectations of
spending many hours in the office contributed to significant work-family conflict for female head coaches (Dixon & Bruening,
2007). Similarly, women noted staying in current head coaching positions longer when they received organizational support
(i.e., supportive athletic directors) to help manage work and family obligations (Bruening & Dixon, 2008). Organizational
practices that failed to support the balance of work and family obligations placed greater burdens on women than men
within those organizations.

3.2. Organizational culture

Further research has focused on the how gender equity practices and policies are implemented and supported by sport
organizations. Shaw and Penney (2003) noted that organizations implemented gender equity policies in order to secure
organizational funding, but such policies failed to address inequitable gendered operational processes. Further, the culture of
organizations adopting such policies may be far from embracing values and norms of gender equity and may see the
adoption of gender equity policies as ‘‘a chore to implement, a funding hoop, a constantly changing imposition from a
funding body, or a politically correct way to create positive public relation’’ (Hoeber, 2004; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001; Shaw &
Penney, 2003; as cited in Shaw & Frisby, 2006, p. 496).
Organizational culture, as defined by Schein (1996), is ‘‘the set of shared, taken-for- granted implicit assumptions that a
group holds and that determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to its various environments’’ (p. 236).
Organizational culture also impacts women’s experiences in sport organizations, as ‘‘cultures of similarity that marginalize
women are institutionalized within sport organizations’’ (Cunningham, 2008, p. 137). The institution of sport is a hegemonic
masculine system that operates to reinforce masculine dominance (see Anderson, 2009). As such, the organizational culture
of a majority of sport organizations in the U.S. and internationally support and perpetuate norms, values, and behaviors that
reinforce hegemonic masculinity. Though there is empirical support for an ‘‘organizational culture that values diversity and
capitalizes on the benefits such differences can bring to the workplace’’ (Cunningham, 2008, p. 137), there are few sport
organizations that embody these characteristics (Cunningham & Fink, 2006).
Work by Spoor and Hoye (2013) indicated that an organizational culture valuing gender equity and top management
support for gender equity had more positive organizational outcomes for women, and men, within an organization,
including stronger organizational commitment and intentions to stay in the organization, when compared to gender
equitable policies. Their findings demonstrated no support for equitable human resource practices having an impact on
women’s positions in the organization, noting ‘‘perceptions that top management genuinely support gender equity had a
consistent effect on participants’ psychological relationship with the organization compared to the presence of equity-HRM’’
(p. 13). In addition, organizational practices that supported women had a similar impact on men’s organizational
commitment and intention to stay. This finding suggests that providing support for women can have a more significant
impact on the entire organization (Spoor & Hoye, 2013).
In their model examining diversity management in U.S. intercollegiate athletic departments, Fink, Pastore, and Reimer
(2001) noted that a majority of intercollegiate athletic departments operate in cultures that value similarity, and the
majority members of such cultures support the norms, values, and beliefs of White, Christian, able body, heterosexual men.
As such, women and other minority groups exist as ‘other’ within intercollegiate athletic department cultures. In addition,
intercollegiate athletic departments in the U.S. are ‘‘culturally distinguished by high incidents of work overload for coaches,
administrators, and support staff’’ (Dixon et al., 2008, p. 137). This type of culture places a high demand on the time necessary
to do work, which can have differential impacts on the ability of men and women to balance the demands of work and family.
The challenge of being able to successfully integrate work and family obligations has led many women to leave their careers
in sport organizations (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Inglis et al., 2000). Importantly, Dixon and colleagues (2008) found that
when examining the availability and usage of family supportive work benefits in intercollegiate athletic departments that
the departments were not offering nor were they encouraging the right types of family support benefits for their employees.
160 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

In addition, intercollegiate athletic administrators noted only modest support for work-life supportive cultures in their
athletic departments (Dixon et al., 2008).
Social processes, as a component to organizational culture, can also be analyzed to better understand the informal,
everyday practices taking place within an organization (Acker, 1990). Shaw (2006) examined social processes in the context
of two sport organizations to highlight and examine these processes ‘‘as an integral, influential element of gender
relations’’(p. 511). In her findings, Shaw noted that informal networks were an important social process within these
organizations, with both an old boys’ network and old girls’ network having influence within the organizations. Shaw noted
that the women’s network ‘‘overall influence was of perhaps less consequence within the organizational settings than those
of men’’ (p. 522); that is, the women’s network influence did not inhibit men from obtaining positions within the
organization based solely on gendered assumptions, as was the case with the men’s network influence on women. Dress
codes, another way culture is expressed in an organization, were also gendered within these organizations, as men wore
neckties perhaps to demonstrate a more formal businesslike attitude while women wore more casual tracksuits (Shaw,
2006). Use of humor, specifically around the topic of gender equity was also noted in both organizations and served to
undermine organizational sanctioned gender equity programs in one of the organizations observed.
Hoeber (2007) probed deeper into understandings of gender within organizational culture and values, noting that shared
values and norms within an organization have multiple meanings for stakeholders. Differences in understanding of gender
equity were defined by an individual’s stakeholder group, sex, or sport affiliation. In her findings, Hoeber (2008) explained
that ‘‘meanings of gender equity were not clearly defined by these subcultures’’ (p. 69) of a Canadian sport organization. For
some women in the organization, there was a perception that gender equality was women’s responsibility, yet not all women
shared this view. In addition, gender equality was seen by other stakeholders to be a conditional equality, which ‘‘supported
maintaining the status quo so as not to pose a threat to existing advantages experienced by some men’s teams and male
athletes’’ (Hoeber, 2008, p. 68). Gender equity had multiple meanings and these meanings were contradictory within the
organization.
Kihl, Shaw, and Schull (2013) describe how the culture of a sport organization is gendered and based on beliefs about
women and men, and that ‘‘both genders can be influenced positively and negatively by those beliefs and assumptions’’ (p.
148). A deeper reading of gender and culture based on the contention that ‘‘gender is not just about women being
marginalized by men’’ (p. 148) was explored in the merging of separate men’s and women’s athletic departments into a
single department (Kihl et al., 2013). In this merging of departments, the women’s athletic program was in a position of
power as a result of the University’s support for Title IX, which led to resistance from the men’s athletic program, as the
culture of the men’s program resisted strong female leadership and oversight within intercollegiate athletics (Kihl et al.,
2013). Cultural integration within this merger was complex because such integration was ‘‘characterized by political
behaviors associated with gender identities’’ (p. 154). Attempting to reengineer or develop a new culture is challenging in
this context, as stakeholders resist new organizational policies and practices within the creation of a new organizational
identity (Kihl et al., 2013). As Kihl and her colleagues emphasized, it was important to recognize the influence of gender on
the organizing process of this merger. At times each department held power and at times each department’s power was
threatened, and when threatened, gender was identified as the central feature of these threats.

3.3. Stereotypes

As described earlier, external sources of power can influence gender identity formation within an organization by
endorsing particular meanings of gender (Ely & Padavic, 2007). Leadership stereotypes are created external to sport
organizations, but also operate at the organizational level to influence women’s experiences in leadership. The concept of
leader prototype can serve as a hindrance to women in sport organizations (Cunningham, 2008). A prototypical leader of a
sport organization should demonstrate more masculine managerial roles than feminine managerial roles (Burton, Barr, Fink,
& Bruening, 2009). Women are less likely to be considered for positions of leadership, as these positions are perceived to
require stereotypical masculine attributes and behaviors. In addition, when women are in leadership positions, they are
unfavorably evaluated because they demonstrate attributes and behaviors perceived as incongruent with their prescribed
gender roles (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Burton, Grappendorf, and Henderson (2011) examined leadership stereotypes within
the context of intercollegiate sport and noted that though women were perceived as having the potential to be successful in
leadership positions in intercollegiate athletics, they were considered unlikely to be hired for such positions over equally
comparable men. Within coaching, perceptions of masculine attributes (e.g., dominant, aggressive, independent) were
considered more consistent with head coaches when compared with feminine attributes (e.g., affectionate, sympathetic,
tender) (Aichers & Sagas, 2010). Additional work by Hovden (2010) demonstrated that discourses regarding the selection of
leaders in sport organizations supported gendered images of corporate, heroic leaders. Further, Shaw and Hoeber (2003)
reported that women needed to prove their ability as leaders against their male counterparts in national sport organizations
in England, and that managers admitted to giving more challenging interviews to women as there was an assumption that
they would be less suited for those positions.
Knoppers and Anthonissen (2008) also highlighted how dominant discursive practices have served to marginalize
women in leadership positions in sport. Male managers described the importance of instrumental (more masculine)
leadership and the importance of passion for sport displayed by men in the organization. In addition, discourses revealed a
lack of overt acknowledgment by male managers of the male dominated construction of sport organizations. Claringbould
 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165 161

and Knoppers (2008) noted that when women were token members of boards of directors in sport organizations they tried to
‘‘avoid engaging in what they perceived to be negative stereotypical behavior associated with women and adapted to the
dominant behavior styles of the men’’ (p. 89).
Despite the indication that leadership in sport is perceived to require more stereotypical masculine attributes or is more
closely linked with more stereotypical male gender roles, research within the intercollegiate athletic administration context
does not support a preference for male leaders. Athletic administrators perceived that both male and female leaders would
provide positive organizational outcomes when leading athletic departments (Burton & Peachey, 2009; Welty Peachey &
Burton, 2011).

3.4. Access and treatment discrimination

Discrimination, both access and treatment discrimination, occur at the organizational level and negatively impact women
in leadership positions in sport organizations. Access discrimination operates by excluding members of certain groups from
entering the organization, while treatment discrimination occurs when individuals from certain groups receive fewer
organizational resources than they would legitimately deserve (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Several
scholars have followed Knoppers’ (1987) work of applying the concept of homologous reproduction as a framework to
explore the obstacles constraining women’s experiences in coaching and leadership positions in sport. Homologous
reproduction operates within an organization when those in power maintain their influence by allowing only those who
have similar characteristics to gain access to positions of power and influence within the organization (Kanter, 1977).
Women have been excluded from the hiring process in sport as a result of homologous reproduction and denial of access as a
result of the ‘old boys’ network (Aicher & Sagas, 2009; Hoffman, 2011; Lovett & Lowry, 1988; Regan and Cunningham, 2012;
Stangl & Kane, 1991; Whisenant, 2008; Whisenant, Miller, & Pedersen, 2005; Whisenant & Mullane, 2007).
Borland and Bruening (2010) explained that for African-American women coaching at the assistant level, access
discrimination negatively impact their opportunities for head coaching positions in three ways: few minority administrators
in a position to make hiring decisions, limited candidate pools for open head coaching positions, and heterosexism.
Additional research has found that women are continually denied access to coaching opportunities within men’s sports
(Walker & Bopp, 2010; Walker, Bopp, & Sagas, 2011).
Women are also impacted by treatment discrimination in sport as they are denied access to rewards, resources, or
opportunities on the job that they legitimately deserve (Aicher & Sagas, 2009; Cunningham & Sagas, 2007). When examining
the work experiences of women in intercollegiate athletics in the U.S., there was evidence to support that women in the
Senior Woman Administrator position were denied opportunities to engage in important oversight roles in budgeting and
leading men’s sports programs which negatively impacted their abilities to build skill sets toward positions of athletic
director (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; Hoffman, 2010; Pent, Grappendorf, &
Henderson, 2007; Tiell, Dixon, & Lin, 2012). Further, when examining the experiences of minority women in coaching,
Borland and Bruening (2010) noted that Black female coaches felt constrained to specific roles within coaching; they
described their role as one of being the ‘‘designated recruiter’’ (p. 414).

4. Micro-level research on women in leadership

Research at the micro-level of analysis focuses on individuals and how they make meaning of their experiences, their
expectations, understandings of power, policies, and procedures operating at the organizational level. The micro-level can
also explore the assumptions made by individuals in how they interact within an organization, and also the self-limiting
behaviors individuals engage in within their work.
At the micro-level, scholars have used discourse analysis to help understand women’s experiences in leadership and
explore forces restraining women from advancement in sport organizations. The focus of this research is based on an
understanding of ‘‘how constructions of gender are embedded in organizational discourses instead of primarily in structures
or the human or social capital of individual women themselves’’ (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, p. 405).
Shaw and Hoeber (2003) used discourse analysis to better understand perceptions of women and men’s abilities to lead
and manage in sport organizations. Their findings indicated that senior management and leadership roles were dominated
by discourses of masculinity and that employment roles that were less valued in sport organizations were associated with
women and discourses of femininity. Women’s barriers to coaching positions were not always the result of organizational or
structural constraints, but were evident in the everyday interactions they encountered with men in coaching. Norman
(2010a) examined the experiences of women coaching at an elite level in the U.K. and described how ‘‘female coaches often
feel as though they have to prove themselves as effective coaches to men who question or trivialize their presence’’ (p. 513).

4.1. Human and social capital

Additional work at the micro level of analysis has examined the human and social capital of women working in sport
organizations. An individual accrues human capital through education, job training, on the job experiences, and the like, and
accrues social capital resources through a network of relationships with peers, supervisors, and subordinates (Sagas &
Cunningham, 2004). When considering how human and social capital impact men and women’s career advancement, social
162 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

capital was more influential for men advancing in sport organizations than it was for women (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004).
Also, the differences on the impacts of social capital for men and women’s careers can negatively impact women’s career
aspirations and intentions to advance in sport (Cunningham & Sagas, 2002). Walker and Bopp (2010) examined why there
are so few women coaching men’s sports and described how women do not have access to the necessary social capital (i.e.,
networks and mentors) to help make coaching opportunities available to them. This was identified as a significant constraint
on their ability to gain access to coaching positions in men’s sports.

4.2. Self-limiting behaviors

Sartore and Cunningham (2007) noted that frameworks put forward to understand the lack of women in leadership in
sport organizations were not addressing ‘‘the emotional and cognitive processes of women as they encounter disparate
acceptance and treatment within the male-dominated sport domain’’(p. 245). They put forward a call to better understand
how women respond to such adversity. The framework proposed by Sartore and Cunningham (2007) described how
‘‘ideological gender beliefs may serve to inhibit women within sport organizations through internal identity comparison
processes that may subsequently result in the unconscious manifestation of self-limiting behaviors’’ (p. 259).
Scholars who have examined the potential of women’s self-limiting behaviors have primarily explored women’s
experiences in coaching. Women in the role of assistant coach, when compared to men in that role, have reported decreased
interest in obtaining head coaching positions. Further, men reported higher levels of head coaching self-efficacy and
anticipated higher levels of satisfaction, rewards, and positive approval from others in the role of head coach (Cunningham,
Doherty, & Gregg, 2007). This supports other research indicating that women had lower aspirations for head coaching
positions when compared to men, and had lower intentions to look for head coaching positions in the future (Cunningham &
Sagas, 2002; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003; Sagas, Cunningham, & Ashley, 2003; Sagas, Cunningham, & Pastore, 2006).
These limited aspirations could be the result of overt and/or subtle gender discrimination experienced by women in coaching
positions (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007).
Walker and Bopp (2010) revealed that women believed that ‘‘women coaching men must be more concerned with being
male-like and fitting in than with portraying the natural qualities of being a woman and a coach’’ (p. 58). Others discussed
that there is a lack of interest on the part of women to seek out positions coaching men, as there is an understanding that
pursuing these positions is not a ‘‘rational approach to upward mobility in their careers’’ (p. 59). Additional work regarding
the experiences of elite coaches supported findings regarding self-limiting behavior by women as a result of the gendered
practices imbedded in coaching and the lack of respect they receive for their contributions to the coaching domain (Norman,
2010b). Women ‘‘are less attracted and less likely to remain in coaching’’ (p. 101) as a result of the construction of sport as a
masculine domain and the lack of recognition of women’s contributions to the field of coaching.

5. Suggestions for future research

The multi-level review of scholarship that has examined the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in
sport organizations provides an opportunity to identify potential avenues for additional research. Further research at the
macro-level could follow the work put forward by Walker and Sartore-Baldwin (2013). By examining intercollegiate sport as
a cognitive institution within the context of institutional theory, change can occur through core constituencies (e.g.,
organizational stakeholders). That is, as stakeholders within the institution present diverse thoughts and alternatives to the
current institution, the possibility for change can occur and cognitive institutions can be altered (Walker & Sartore-Baldwin,
2013). Examining the impact of core constituents who have advocated for change and have altered cognitive institutions can
provide researchers and practitioners with insights into how such practices will work.
As noted in the macro-level research section of this review, stakeholders influence the operations of organizations and
influence the gendered norms of sport organizations. The changing perceptions of core constituents (i.e., fans) regarding
increased acceptance of LGBT athletes can lead to changes within organizational practices (Cashmore & Cleland, 2012). There
is also evidence of challenges to the influence of masculine hegemony in sport (Anderson & Kian, 2012), which can influence
how gender operates as an organizing principle in leadership in sport organizations.
Scholars conducting meso-level research should continue to evaluate organizational practices including how members of
the organization are challenging gendered organizational practices. The ‘‘common sense nature’’ (Claringbould & Knoppers,
2012, p. 405) of gendered organizational practices must be further explored to better understand how these practices are
resisted and challenged at all levels of an organization. Further, the research reviewed here focused on women in leadership.
However, expanding the analysis of scholarship to include examination of gender in leadership provides a more complete
understanding of the challenges faced by both women and men in leadership positions. Kihl et al. (2013) challenged scholars
to examine how both women and men use gender as an organizing principle around issues power. Our understanding of how
gender is used as an organizing principle influencing organizational practices will be crucial to enhancing our understanding
of how to make organizational practices more gender equitable. As noted by Kihl et al. (2013), gendered practices within
organizations are not always operating to constrain women, so there must be a more complete appreciation for how gender
is used by both men and women in regard to issues of power within organizations (Kihl et al., 2013).
Additionally, scholars should highlight how a culture supporting gender equitable organizational practices can enhance
the work experiences of all employees of sport organizations. Previous research has examined how LGBT employees can
 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165 163

enhance organizational effectiveness within cultures valuing diversity in intercollegiate sport (Cunningham, 2011a, 2011b;
Cunningham & Melton, 2011). There must be further exploration of how organizational effectiveness is demonstrated at all
levels of sport in cultures valuing gender equity. Work in this area has noted that women’s presence on boards of directors,
holding influential leadership positions, coupled with active support by influential men in leadership positions was
associated with sport organizations demonstrating gender equality in sport governance (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013).
Scholars also need to explore perceptions of leadership and leadership effectiveness within the context of sport
organizations. Previous work has indicated that perceptions of leader effectiveness are not different based on the sex of the
leader (Burton & Peachey, 2009; Welty Peachey & Burton, 2011); however, more work is needed to better understand
gendered perceptions of leadership within sport organizations as these gendered perceptions influence organizational
practices including leadership selection (Hovdon, 2000; Schull et al., 2013; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003)
In addition, an emerging line of research has advanced the concept of the Glass Cliff for women in leadership (Haslam &
Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Haslam, 2005). This work examines how women are perceived to be more appropriate leaders for
organizations during times of crisis (Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, Bongiorno, & Renata, 2011). Further, this work has shown that
when women were placed in precarious leadership positions, the likelihood of leadership failure increased. If women are
more likely to be selected for positions with a higher likelihood of failure, this can serve to reinforce preexisting stereotypes
regarding the inability of women to be effective leaders (Brescoll, Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010). The concept of the Glass Cliff
has not been explored within sport, yet this may be an issue that women are facing in leadership positions at all levels of
sport.
Scholars conducting research at the micro-level of analysis should continue to examine the impact of gender roles and
stereotyping of leadership positions on women’s perceptions of their leadership abilities in sport organizations. As noted in
the framework put forward by Sartore and Cunningham (2007), macro and meso-level influences can impact women’s
perceptions of their abilities and therefore their aspirations toward leadership positions in sport organizations. There is a
noted absence of research on women’s aspirations for leadership positions within sport organizations.
In addition, at all levels of analysis (macro, meso, and micro), we need to examine the intersection of race, sexual
orientation, class, and disability on gender and how that intersectionality influences women’s opportunities for leadership
positions in sport (Fink, 2008; Knoppers and Anthonissen, 2008). Despite calls for examining ‘‘how other social relation
variables (i.e., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) intersect to produce marginalizing discourses’’ (Fink, 2008, p. 147), this
continues to be an area that requires greater attention from scholars. The challenge of examining intersectionality from a
methodological perspective may contribute to the lack of research in this area (Bowleg, 2008). When considering
intersectionality research, the ‘‘notion that social identities and social inequality based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex/
gender (and one could add a host of other identities such as class, disability status, etc.) are interdependent and mutually
constitutive (i.e., intersectional) rather than independent and unidimensional poses a variety of thorny methodological
challenges’’ (Bowleg, 2008, p. 312). However, despite these challenges, scholars looking to advance our understanding of the
underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in sport must take up this challenge. Scholarship in, among others
areas, women’s studies, Black feminist studies, sociology, and critical theory can guide the process of conducting
intersectionality research in this area (Bowleg, 2008; see Anderson & McCormack 2010; Seal, 2012)

6. Conclusion

The depth and breadth of scholarship examining the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in sport
organizations illustrates the complexity of the issue. Despite the quality of scholarship put forward and the practical
implications discussed by scholars in the field, women continue to face challenges and obstacles when seeking leadership
positions in sport organizations. However, as research in this area has evolved, scholars are encouraging more complex
examination of how gender is operating within sport organizations (e.g., Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013; Kihl et al., 2013;
Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Scholars must also continue to recognize that gender as an organizing principle in sport
needs to be considered along with other forms of identity, including race, sexual orientation, class, and ability (Fink, 2008).

References

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569.
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitudinal, national study, thirty five update 1977–2012. Retrieved from http://
www.acostacarpenter.org/.
Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analysing gender dynamics in sport governance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 14, 498–513.
Aicher, T. J., & Sagas, M. (2009). An examination of homologous reproduction and the effects of sexism. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 3(3),
375–386.
Aicher, T. J., & Sagas, M. (2010). Are head coaches in intercollegiate athletics perceived as masculine? An evaluation of gender stereotypes and the effect of sexism
on intercollegiate coaches. Gender Issues, 27(3-4), 165–174.
Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of sport. Sport Management Review, 12(1), 3–14.
Anderson, E., & Kian, E. M. (2012). Examining media contestation of masculinity and head trauma in the national football league. Men and Masculinities, 15(2), 152–
173.
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2010). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and American sporting oppression: Examining black and gay male athletes. Journal of
Homosexuality, 57(8), 949–967.
Borland, J. F., & Bruening, J. E. (2010). Navigating barriers: A qualitative examination of the under-representation of black females as head coaches in collegiate
basketball. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 407–420.
164 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165

Bowleg, L. (2008). When black lesbian woman 6¼ black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research.
Sex Roles, 59, 312–325.
Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost the fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations.
Psychological Science, 21(11), 1640–1642.
Britton, D. M., & Logan, L. (2008). Gendered organizations: Progress and prospects. Sociology Compass, 2(1), 107–121.
Bruening, J. E., & Dixon, M. A. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching II: Managing role conflict. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 471.
Bruening, J. E., & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Situating work–family negotiations within a life course perspective: Insights on the gendered experiences of NCAA division I
head coaching mothers. Sex Roles, 58, 10–23.
Burton, L., & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport,
2(2), 245–259.
Burton, L. J., Barr, C. A., Fink, J. S., & Bruening, J. E. (2009). Think athletic director, think masculine? Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles within
athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61, 416–426.
Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice
against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.
Cashmore, E., & Cleland, J. (2012). Fans, homophobia and masculinities in association football: Evidence of a more inclusive environment. The British Journal of
Sociology, 63(2), 370–387.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2007). Finding a ‘normal’ woman: Selection processes for board membership. Sex Roles, 56, 495–507.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2008). Doing and undoing gender in sport governance. Sex Roles, 58, 81–92.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2012). Paradoxical practices of gender in sport-related organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5), 404–416.
Claussen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision-making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 215–228.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Connell, R. (2009). Gender. Cambridge. UK Polity.
Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145.
Cunningham, G. B. (2010). Understanding the under-representation of African American coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 395–
406.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011a). Creative work environments in sport organizations: The influence of sexual orientation diversity and commitment to diversity. Journal
of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1041–1057.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011b). The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport
Management Review, 14(4), 453–461.
Cunningham, G. B., & Fink, J. S. (2006). Diversity issues in sport and leisure: Introduction to a special issue. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 455–465.
Cunningham, G. B., & Melton, E. N. (2011). The benefits of sexual orientation diversity in sport organizations. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 647–663.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects of human capital for male and female division I basketball coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 73(4), 489–495.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2006). The role of perceived demographic dissimilarity and interaction in customer-service satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36(7), 1654–1673.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2007). Examining potential differences between men and women in the impact of treatment discrimination. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37(12), 3010–3024.
Cunningham, G., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. (2003). Coaching self-efficacy, desire to become a head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences
between NCAA assistant coaches of women’s teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34(2), 125–137.
Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of
women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56, 365–372.
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2005). Perspectives on work–family conflict in sport: An integrated approach. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227–253.
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching I: A top-down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377.
Dixon, M. A., & Cunningham, G. B. (2006). Data aggregation in multilevel analysis: A review of conceptual and statistical issues. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 10(2), 85–107.
Dixon, M. A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational support, work-family conflict, and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 236–247.
Dixon, M., Tiell, B., Lough, N., Sweeney, K., Osborne, B., & Bruening, J. (2008). The Work/Life Interface in Intercollegiate Athletics: An Examination of Policies.
Programs, and Institutional Climate. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2(2), 137–159.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
0033-295X.109.3.573
Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Advancing gender equity in organizations: The challenge and importance of maintaining a gender narrative. Organization, 7(4),
589–608.
Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121–1143.
Fink, J. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding comments. Sex Roles, 58, 146–147.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Managing diversity in division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport
Management, 15(1), 10–50.
Grappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and perspectives from female NCAA division I athletic directors of both separate and
merged athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related Topics Journal, 2(2), 6–20.
Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role stereotyping: A qualitative analysis of senior woman administrators’ perceptions
regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 26–45.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experience, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and
failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530–546.
Hoeber, L. (2004). Putting organizational values into practice: Gender equity for athletes in a Canadian university. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis) Vancouver, BC:
University of British Columbia.
Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps between meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 14(3), 259–280.
Hoeber, L. (2008). Gender equity for athletes: Multiple understandings of an organizational value. Sex Roles, 58(1-2), 58–71.
Hoeber, L., & Frisby, W. (2001). Gender equity for athletes: Rewriting the narrative for this organizational value. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(3), 179–
209.
Hoffman, J. (2010). The dilemma of the senior woman administrator role in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 53–75.
Hoffman, J. L. (2011). The old boys’ network. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 5(1), 9–28.
Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders–prisoners of gender? The gendering of leadership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of
Sport Policy, 2(2), 189–203.
Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K., & Pastore, D. (2000). Multiple realities of women’s work experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women’s Sport and Physical
Activity Journal, 9(2).. 1-27.
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.sydneyscoreboard.com/.
Kane, M. J. (1995). Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: Exposing sport as a continuum. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(2), 191–218.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic.
 L.J. Burton / Sport Management Review 18 (2015) 155–165 165

Kihl, L. A., Shaw, S., & Schull, V. (2013). Fear, anxiety, and loss of control: Analyzing an athletic department merger as a gendered political process. Journal of Sport
Management, 27(2), 146–157.
Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest, 39(1), 9–22.
Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2008). Gendered managerial discourses in sport organizations: Multiplicity and complexity. Sex Roles, 58(1-2), 93–103.
Lapchick, R. (2012). The racial and gender report card. Retrieved from http://www.tidesport.org/racialgenderreportcard.html.
Lovett, D., & Lowry, C. (1988). The role of gender in leadership positions in female sport programs in Texas colleges. Journal of Sport Management, 2(2), 106–117.
Martin, P. Y. (2003). Said and done versus saying and doing gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3), 342–366.
Norman, L. (2010a). Feeling second best: Elite women coaches’ experiences. Society of Sport Journal, 27(1), 89–104.
Norman, L. (2010b). Bearing the burden of doubt: Female coaches’ experiences of gender relations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(4), 506–517.
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more? An analysis of NCAA senior woman administrators’ participation in financial decision
making. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1(2), 157–174.
Regan, M. R., & Cunningham, G. B. (2012). Analysis of homologous reproduction in community college athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 6(2), 159–170.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management,
16(2), 81–90.
Ryan, M. K., Alexander Haslam, S., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis-think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager-
think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Does having the right stuff matter? Gender differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic
administrators. Sex Roles, 50(5), 411–421.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Ashley, F. B. (2003). Coaching self-efficacy, desire to become a head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences
between NCAA assistant coaches of women’s teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34(2), 125–137.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and female assistant coaches: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Sex Roles, 54, 695–705.
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Quest, 59(2), 244–265.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229–240.
Schull, V., Shaw, S., & Kihl, L. A. (2013). If a woman came in. . .she would have been eaten up alive: Analyzing gendered political processes in the search for an
athletic director. Gender & Society, 27, 56–81.
Seal, E. (2012). Understanding complexity in disability sport: The potential of feminist philosophies and intersectionality. Psychology of Women Section Review, 14,
34–40.
Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the Back of Mr X: Analyzing gendered social processes in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.
Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 483–509.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport
organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4), 347–375.
Shaw, S., & Penney, D. (2003). Gender equity policies in National Governing Bodies: An oxymoron or a vehicle for change? European Sport Management Quarterly, 3,
78–102.
Sibson, R. (2010). I was banging my head against a brick wall: Exclusionary power and the gendering of sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 379–
399.
Smith, M., & Wrynn, A. (2013). Women in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games: An analysis of participation and leadership opportunities. Ann Arbor, MI: SHARP
Center for Women and Girls. Retrieved from http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/research/sharp-center.
Spoor, J. R., & Hoye, R. (2013). Perceived support and women’s intentions to stay at a sport organization. British Journal of Management http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8551.12018
Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since title IX: The case of
homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(1), 47–60.
Tiell, B. S., Dixon, M. A., & Lin, Y. (2012). Roles and tasks of the senior woman administrator in role congruity theory perspective: A longitudinal progress report.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 247–268.
Walker, N. A., & Bopp, T. (2010). The underrepresentation of women in the male-dominated sport workplace: Perspectives of female coaches. Journal of Workplace
Rights, 15(1), 47–64.
Walker, N., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institutionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men
think? Journal of Sport Management, 27, 303–315.
Walker, N., Bopp, T., & Sagas, M. (2011). Gender bias in the perception of women as collegiate men’s basketball coaches. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 5(2), 157–176.
Welty Peachey, J., & Burton, L. J. (2011). Male or female athletic director? Exploring perceptions of leader effectiveness and a (potential) female leadership
advantage with intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 64(5), 416–425.
Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male dominance in interscholastic athletics: A case of homologous reproduction. . . or not? Sex Roles, 58(11-12), 768–775.
Whisenant, W. A., & Mullane, S. P. (2007). Sport information directors and homologous reproduction. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
2(3), 252–263.
Whisenant, W. A., Pedersen, P. M., & Obenour, B. L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex
Roles, 47, 485–491.
Whisenant, W., Miller, J., & Pedersen, P. M. (2005). Systemic barriers in athletic administration: An analysis of job descriptions for interscholastic athletic directors.
Sex Roles, 53, 911–918.
Yiamouyiannis, A., & Osborne, B. (2012). Addressing gender inequities in collegiate sport examining female leadership representation within NCAA sport
governance. SAGE Open, 2(2), 1–13.
Copyright of Sport Management Review is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.