Women in Sports Leadership: Bridging the Gender Gap - Essay Sample

Introduction

For several years, sports leadership has been dominated by men; however, this trend has significantly changed. Scholars have been interested in the presented inequality in sports leadership by focusing on the factors that shape this occurrence. Although currently several women are seen in sports leadership, they still occupy specific specializations, which results in the concept of gender clustering that has dominated many fields in the labor market. Men have been commonly associated with the management of events, financial control, marketing interventions, and public relations while women have been linked with academics and compliance roles and activities in sports (Lumpkin et al., 2014). Studies in this area have presented the reasons associated with the trend. Some have been devoted to examining the history and changes that have occurred in sports leadership based on the gender aspect. Nevertheless, significant gaps in literature still exist, which warrant the need for further studies in this field. This paper is a comprehensive literature review on the issue of leadership and gender inequality in sports to determine the nature of further studies to be carried out to enhance the current knowledge.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Acosta and Carpenter (2014) noted that only 22.3% of women were part of the board of directors in athletics. When the assessment was narrowed down to Division I level, it was found out that the number of women working as directors dropped to 10.6%. The evidence tabled by Acosta and Carpenter (2014) is one of the examples that show how women have not been fully incorporated in sports leadership. The underrepresentation of women in athletics' leadership is a phenomenon that has dominated the sports activities and politics for an extended period. Careers with less traveling and limited commitment have been left to women. Although this move has been considered to favor women with family commitments, Lumpkin et al. (2014) argued that it is as a result of gender clustering in different jobs and positions as depicted across the labor market. Policies such as the Affirmative Action Standards require that the workplace should reflect the composition of the population (Lapchick & Baker, 2015). In this case, the representation in terms of gender is critical in the workplace. However, according to Lapchick and Baker (2015), Affirmative Action Standards have not been upheld at the directors' level of leadership in international and local athletics.

A study that was carried out by Quarterman et al. (2006) focused on the issue of gender inequality at the workplace including competitive areas such as management. The scholars found out that there has been a general increase in the number of women at the workplace but this was not reflected in a managerial position. Based on the findings of their assessment the number of female managers across different disciplines has not changed over the past decades. This trend was attributed to the existing factors that impede women from achieving the desired representations across different managerial positions. According to the assessment of the collected evidence, it was evident that competition, gender, stereotyping, and family obligations have affected a significant number of women from attaining the same level of representation to their male counterparts (Quarterman et al., 2006). The existence of these four factors as well as other unknown challenges has prevented women from occupying top positions in management including key areas such as sports. In line with the outcome of the study by Quarterman et al. (2006), it is evident that by eliminating these barriers, it will be possible for more women to be part of the management teams in different specialization and organizations including sports.

The issue of childhood, as well as social development orientation, has been associated with the nature of leadership representation. The difference that exists between the childhood activities for boys and girls shape preferences and choices, which in turn affect representation. Such a notion stemmed from the study that was carried out in line with sports leadership, which showed that most female managers played aggressive sports commonly dominated by boys during their childhood. According to Giuliano et al. (2000), childhood activities shape gender differences from the childhood stage that in turn affects the representation of women in leadership positions. At the same time, Giuliano et al. (2000) showed that women in the United States who have been successful in their administrative careers played football in their childhood when compared to their counterparts. The study ascertained how activities and games during childhood determine the nature of social skills, preferences, and experiences among individuals. It is this disparity in gender preferences and interests that have been considered as part of the contributing factors to the limited number of female leaders and administrators in sport management. Evidence that supports the existing variation in preference social development during childhood has been used to explain different gender aspects and behaviors (Cleveland et al., 2000).

Another element that has featured as a factor that prevents women from accessing leadership in sports is networking. Hardin and Whiteside (2012) argue that women do not have access to enough resources that could be used to support their endeavors, access opportunities, and network with other professionals in a particular field as seen with men. The study which was limited to sports information and position has been used to assess the issue of representation in sports career and leadership. According to Hardin and Whiteside (2012), the high number of men in a high leadership position has been considered as an advantage that only favors other men as opposed to women by creating networks and opportunities. The study tables the effect of "in-speak" among the already dominating men cluster as a discriminatory feature that prevents women from accessing leadership opportunities in sports. From the 200 women who participated in the research, 51% noted that having the right knowledge in sports was an advantage that placed women in the discussion tables on sports matters; however, access to such opportunities was considered limited. The exclusion of women in key discussions subsequently prevented them from having the opportunity to equally compete in leadership and other sport-related administrative endeavors (Hardin & Whiteside, 2012).

Studies by Cunningham and Sagas (2008) also found out that women in sport leadership were paid lower than their male counterparts. The scholars found out that in the context of sport, female leaders were underpaid and marginalized than men. Similar findings have been documented in Welch and Sigelman (2007) based on the evidence from the analysis of the salaries of the male and female coaches of different athletics team in Universities. For example, male basketball coaches were found to be earning double what the female coaches earned for the same sport. The two studies indicated that even amid the inclusion of women in sports leadership, marginalization still exists in terms of salaries and remunerations. Cunningham and Sagas (2008) showed how men were more guaranteed their job security in sport leadership when compared to women. Additionally, it was evident that there is a significant disparity between the number of full-time coaches across different universities in terms of gender where men are more dominant than women. Welch and Sigelman (2007) argued that low payment could be the reason behind the skewed representations in terms of sport leadership. However, the concept of stereotyping and marginalization as depicted in other studies already discussed above could be at play.

Other studies have depicted a trend in the increase in the number of female head coaches in male teams at college and university level. NCAA Division II had only 29 females heading men's teams by 2012 compared to 278 males (Bracken & Irick, 2012). Bracken and Irick (2012) focused on the representation of gender among men's team leaders. In this study, it was evident that the increase in the number of female head coaches was limited to 'gender-neutral' sports as opposed to those considered to be aggressive. For example, cross country or track sports, volleyball, and less complex field events witnessed an increase in the number of female head coaches. In other cases, female leaders remained as assistant coaches and supervisors. Manley et al. (2010) highlighted that the increase in the number of female coaches is not something tangible since the change has only been witnessed with the 'gender-neutral' sports and teams. At the same time, the scholars argued that men's teams in complex and aggressive sports have remained under the leadership of male coaches (Manley et al., 2010).

Acosta and Carpenter (2012) conducted a longitudinal study that examined the representation of women in sports leadership. The findings depicted how for every five men there was only one woman in charge of either a male or female team. When it comes to institutional leadership a similar trend was equally established where the number of women was significantly low. The athletics directors showed a preference for hiring more men in leadership positions as opposed to women. Although the study did not table the reasons behind such disparity, it was evident that the inequality in sports leadership in terms of gender is a commonly evident phenomenon. The nature of most sport leadership positions has also been attributed to the existing disparity in gender representation. Carter and Blom (2009) argued that a coach position entails multiple performance requirements such as motivation, strategic planning, character establishment, monitoring and evaluation, skill development, planning, and training. In this case, this position is demanding and requires constant commitment for an extended period to build effective teams. A similar scenario is equally witnessed with institutional leadership. Therefore, Johnson et al. (2011) pointed out that the nature of most sport leadership positions combined with existing limitations exacerbates the disparity and inequality depicted by the current representation.

Research by Blom et al. (2011) as well as Bracken and Irick (2012) ascertained that women in sports leadership position significant challenges. For example, those who have managed to rise to the head coach level have faced discrimination and negative athletes' attitudes and perceptions. On the other hand, most of them have been limited to the track, cross-country, and swimming teams. The experiences of male and female sports leaders have shown the existence of variations. Norman (2010) investigated the nature of experiences of sports coaches in hockey, soccer, basketball, rugby, and volleyball. The scholar highlighted that on most occasions female coaches had to prove themselves to be accepted and given more long-term chances when compared to male head coaches. These female coaches had to overcome discrimination and opposition from the male coaches and other sport leaders in the institutions to rise and become heads. Such a problem originated from the harbored notion that sports leadership is a field dominated by men. Hardin et al. (2008) investigated a similar phenomenon among female sports journalists where the study showed how a significant percentage had developed the attitude of an 'outsider' while undertaking their roles.

According to Light (2013), the challenges that contribute to the gender-based disparity in sport leadership are diverse and synergistically exacerbate the ability of women to access these opportunities. While investigating the perception of stude...