Asian Women Leadership: A Cross-National and Cross-Sector Comparison 9780429655135, 0429655134

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of illustrations
Acknowledgements
List of contributors
PART I: Introduction
1. Introduction to Asian women leadership
Introduction
The challenge of conceptualizing leadership
Leadership literature on culture and gender
The importance of studying Asian women leadership
Organization of the book
References
PART II: Asian women leadership in academia
2. Leadership style and success experience of Chinese women academic leaders in China, Taiwan and the United States
Introduction
Significance of the study
Literature review
Research questions
Method
Results
Discussion and conclusion
References
3. Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings: Challenges and opportunities for Asian and Asian American women faculty leaders
Introduction
Higher education and the leaky faculty pipeline
Breaking the glass and bamboo ceilings
Method
Results
Discussion
Limitations and future directions
Acknowledgement
References
PART III: Asian women leadership in politics and social movements
4. The rise and downfall of dynastic female leaders in Asia
Introduction
The rise of dynastic female leaders
The downfall of dynastic female leaders
Conclusion
Notes
References
5. The “first” first lady of China and the “first Black” first lady of America in the media’s portrayal
Introduction
Literature review
Method
Results
Discussion and conclusion
References
6. Unnie comes out: Conceptualizing egalitarian leadership among South Korean women
Introduction
A new generation of South Korean feminists: Three collective actions
Leaderless democracy enabled by online media: How unnie
networked
Making the protest site personal and performative: How unnie
rallied the forces
Erasing individuality and presenting a united front as a symbolic
anonymous woman: How unnie comes out to protest
Discussion
Notes
References
7. Soong Ching-ling and Soong Mei-ling: For the love of one’s motherland
Introduction
Christian connections and historical context
Common beliefs and values of the two sisters
Fundamentally different values and beliefs of the two sisters
Conclusion
References
PART IV: Asian women leadership in news media
8. Female leadership in Vietnam: Traditional gender norms, gender quota policy and the media
Introduction
Vietnam’s historical, cultural and political background of feminism
Female leadership, gender equality in contemporary Vietnam: does the gender quota policy work?
What are the barriers to female leadership?
News media and female leadership
Conclusion
References
9. Women leaders in India’s newsrooms: Challenges and perspectives
Introduction
No country for women?
Walking the thin line: Lived experiences of senior journalists
Existing theories on female leadership
Status report: Where are the women?
Judged by colleagues: Perceptions and stereotypes
Catty, crazy, cold, or cool: Do gender stereotypes affect management decisions?
The big challenges: Harassed at work, harassed at home, and given
‘easy’ jobs
The silver lining: Things are changing?
Conclusion
References
PART V: Asian women leadership in business, non-profit organizations and rural communities
10. A pentadic analysis: The realism, idealism and mysticism of Chinese female leadership
Introduction
Review of literature
Method
Results
Conclusion
References
11. Gender and career development in nonprofit organizations: Comparative study of female leadership in China, South Africa and the U.S.
Introduction
Conceptual framework
Research design and method
Research
Discussion
Limitations and suggestions for further research
Conclusion
References
12. Cultivating leadership among Indian women in climate change adaptation
Introduction
Literature review on cultivating leadership among women
Assessments of regional differences
Discussion and conclusion
References
PART VI: Asian women leaders as immigrants and minorities
13. Breaking the bamboo ceiling and reframing success: Perspectives from professional Chinese immigrant women on work, life and leadership
Introduction
References
14. Asian American and Hong Kong Chinese women leaders
Introduction
Social and global contexts
Women as leaders
Comparison of US and Hong Kong women leaders
Influence of gender and ethnicity on leadership
Cultural values and lived experiences
Asian women leadership
References
15. Future outlook of Asian women leadership and research directions
Introduction
Future of women leadership research
Developing a new generation of Asian women leaders
References
Index

Citation preview

ASIAN WOMEN LEADERSHIP

This book is an interdisciplinary anthology grounded in scholarly research that offers a concise but in-depth examination and exposition of leadership that helps readers better grasp the basics of the various aspects of Asian leadership and examines the practices of Asian women leadership across sectors in Asian and western countries. While many leadership books effectively describe leadership styles and/or outline various approaches to leadership, this book focuses on Asian women leadership and illustrates performed styles, experiences, opportunities, challenges and management strategies across sectors ranging from higher education, business, nonprofit organizations, the media industry, politics and social movement to immigration, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. It can serve as a handy reference for aspiring women leaders, academic researchers, general readers and students who want to study Asian women leadership, work in Asian societies and/or work with Asians. Chin-Chung Chao is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. Her primary research interests span conflict management, leadership, intercultural communication, organizational communication and media communication. She served as president of the Association for Chinese Communication Studies (ACCS) in 2011/12 and chair of the Asian/ Pacific American Communication Studies Division (APACS) in 2012/13. In addition, she has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 2011–present) and the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (2015-present). Her research has won multiple awards. Louisa Ha is Editor-in-Chief of Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly and Professor, School of Media and Communication, and founder and leader of the Emerging Media Research Cluster at Bowling Green State University. Her 2007 edited book, Webcasting Worldwide, Business Models of an Emerging Global Medium, was the recipient of the 2007 AEJMC Robert Picard Book Award and the book has been translated into Chinese. Her latest edited book is The Audience and Business of YouTube and Online Videos. Her research interests are media management, media technologies, online videos and advertising, comparative communication and audience research.

‘The range of topics, geography, and social location of contributions in this collection about Asian and Asian American women’s relationship to leadership is remarkable and exciting. The editors have brought together authors who address issues across sectors, from academic to business to politics to non-profit organizations, and across cultures, from China to Vietnam to India to Korea to the U.S. The volume contributes to the great gaps in our awareness of Asian and Asian American women’s experiences and the differences they make in their approach to leadership. When are they viewed as legitimate in their exercise of power? Do they use their social locations as wives, activists, faculty members and editors, professionals, and heads of organizations in different ways, using different resources? Readers are invited to consider these and other questions, challenging assumptions about both women and leadership.’ —Lana F. Rakow, Professor Emerita, University of North Dakota, USA ‘It is an ambitious goal to prepare a new generation of Asian women leaders who are competent and independent with resources and networks. And this is an ambitious and groundbreaking study that reveals the diversity of and rich potential in studying Asian women leadership and the benefit to leadership study. Chapter 15 is a collection of the previous 13 studies, which are rich in content, persuasive arguments, distinct views and an optimistic attitude. It discusses how Asian women leadership contributes to knowledge of Asian women leaders as immigrant leaders, minority leaders, and disadvantaged leaders and how the Asian culture influences their leadership styles. It will also be inspirational for students of leadership, gender, society and culture.’ —Changfeng Chen, Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, China

ASIAN WOMEN LEADERSHIP A Cross-National and Cross-Sector Comparison

Edited by Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chao, Chin-Chung, editor. | Ha, Louisa, editor. Title: Asian women leadership : a cross-national and cross-sector comparison / edited by Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha. Description: First edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019014928| ISBN 9780367133092 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367133115 (pbk) | ISBN 9780429025815 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Leadership in women--Asia--Case studies. Classification: LCC HD57.7 .A7845 2020 | DDC 303.3/4082095--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019014928 ISBN: 978-0-367-13309-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-13311-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-02581-5 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Acknowledgements List of contributors

viii ix x

PART I

Introduction 1 Introduction to Asian women leadership Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

1 3

PART II

Asian women leadership in academia 2 Leadership style and success experience of Chinese women academic leaders in China, Taiwan and the United States Louisa Ha, Nicky Chang Bi and Fiouna Ruonan Zhang 3 Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings: Challenges and opportunities for Asian and Asian American women faculty leaders Lisa K. Hanasono, Julia M. Matuga and Margaret M. Yacobucci

9 11

28

PART III

Asian women leadership in politics and social movements 4 The rise and downfall of dynastic female leaders in Asia Mark R. Thompson

47 49

vi Contents

5 The “first” first lady of China and the “first Black” first lady of America in the media’s portrayal Chin-Chung Chao and Yahui Zhang

63

6 Unnie comes out: Conceptualizing egalitarian leadership among South Korean women Young Eun Moon and Hwan Hee Kim

77

7 Soong Ching-ling and Soong Mei-ling: For the love of one’s motherland Qi Wang

93

PART IV

Asian women leadership in news media

107

8 Female leadership in Vietnam: Traditional gender norms, gender quota policy and the media Hong Tien Vu

109

9 Women leaders in India’s newsrooms: Challenges and perspectives Dhiman Chattopadhyay and Sriya Chattopadhyay

125

PART V

Asian women leadership in business, non-profit organizations and rural communities 10 A pentadic analysis: The realism, idealism and mysticism of Chinese female leadership Yahui Zhang 11 Gender and career development in nonprofit organizations: Comparative study of female leadership in China, South Africa and the U.S. Ming Xie and Minghui Pang 12 Cultivating leadership among Indian women in climate change adaptation Peggy Christoff, Aideé Saucedo Dávila, Jasmeet Kaur and Jamie M. Sommer

143 145

159

173

Contents vii

PART VI

Asian women leaders as immigrants and minorities 13 Breaking the bamboo ceiling and reframing success: Perspectives from professional Chinese immigrant women on work, life and leadership Qi Tang 14 Asian American and Hong Kong Chinese women leaders Jean Lau Chin

191

193 207

15 Future outlook of Asian women leadership and research directions Louisa Ha and Chin-Chung Chao

218

Index

227

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

8.1 Percentage of male and female leader sources in news stories 12.1 Female literacy rate in India: Census 2011 12.2 Female labor force participation rate (LFPR) in India

115 182 185

Tables

3.1 Faculty members’ decision to seek academic leadership positions by gender and race 3.2 Comparing faculty groups’ levels of institutional barriers, interpersonal barriers, and discrimination 3.3 Summary of analyses investigating the mediation of institutional barriers, interpersonal barriers, and discrimination on the relationship between faculty groups and their decision to pursue an academic leadership position 4.1 National female dynastic leaders in east and south Asia 5.1 Study operationalization/coding book 8.1 Appearances of female/male leaders by work sector 12.1 Indicators for women’s leadership ranking by state

37 38

39 50 70 116 179

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to express our greatest appreciation to our book contributors without whom this book would not be possible. Also, this book combines four refereed articles published in a special issue on Chinese women leadership in China Media Research with modifications. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge China Media Research’s official permission to reprint the four articles. In addition, our thanks go to Dr Guo-Ming Chen, co-editor of China Media Research, who is highly supportive of Chinese and Taiwanese scholars in the USA and helped connect us with the publisher, Routledge. We would also like to show our gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for commenting on our book proposal, which greatly improved our book plan. Moreover, we are immensely grateful to Yongling Lam, our editor at Routledge, and Samantha Phua, senior editorial assistant at Routledge, who provided us with prompt responses and strong support that helped keep this book on the right track and ready for publication in a timely manner. Last, but not least, we are indebted to our family members, who are the very source of motivation for our academic pursuits.

CONTRIBUTORS

Chin-Chung Chao is Associate Professor of communication at University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her primary research interests span conflict management, leadership, intercultural communication, organizational communication, and media communication. She served as the President of Association for Chinese Communication Studies (ACCS) in 2011–12 and the Chair of Asian/Pacific American Communication Studies Division (APACS) in 2012–13. In addition, she has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Taylor & Francis (2011–present) and Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (2015–present). Her research has won multiple awards. Louisa Ha is Editor-in-Chief, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly; Professor, School of Media and Communication, and Founder and Leader of the Emerging Media Research Cluster at Bowling Green State University. Her 2007 edited book, Webcasting Worldwide, Business Models of an Emerging Global Medium was the recipient of the 2007 AEJMC Robert Picard Book Award and the book has been translated to Chinese. Her latest edited book is The Audience and Business of YouTube and Online Videos. Her research interests are media management, media technologies, online videos and advertising, comparative communication and audience research. Nicky Chang Bi received her PhD from the School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University. Her research interests are Social Media, eWOM, Public Relations, Strategic Communication, and Health Communication. She is an assistant professor in the School of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Dhiman Chattopadhyay is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication & Journalism at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on how new mass media technologies can be used to create awareness

List of contributors xi

about social issues, and how breaking news on social media have affected journalistic practices. Before joining the academia, Dhiman was a journalist in India for 18 years, working as a news reporter, and later as a senior/managing editor with some of the country’s largest print and online news organizations. Sriya Chattopadhyay is a former journalist from India who has worked across four Indian cities as a reporter, chief sub-editor, and later as a senior editor /deputy editor with leading publications such as Entrepreneur-India, and Hindustan Times. A critical scholar, her research examines colorism and racism in India’s matrimonial advertisements, and the role played by online matrimonial websites as far as providing agency to women and other marginalized members in a family are concerned. She is an adjunct instructor at Shippensburg University. Jean Lau Chin is Professor at Adelphi University in New York, and is 2018 Fulbright Scholar as Distinguished Chair to the University of Sydney, Australia. She has held leadership roles as former Dean at Adelphi University. Currently, her scholarship is on global and diverse leadership which includes examining women and minority issues. She has published 18 books and many publications and talks. Her most recent is Global and Culturally Diverse Leaders and Leadership: Challenges for Business, Education and Society. She is the first Asian American to be licensed as a psychologist in Massachusetts and among the top 10 nationally. Active in service to the profession, she is currently Past-Chair, Council Leadership Team of the American Psychological Association and President of the International Council of Psychologists, and running for APA President 2020. Peggy (Peg) Spitzer Christoff is a Senior Lecturer in the College of Arts and Sciences at Stony Brook University. Her research is in the field of International Relations. She specializes in women's roles in scientific and technological developments in Asia. Lisa K. Hanasono is Associate Professor in the School of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Her research focuses on the ways that people communicate and cope with prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes. Jasmeet Kaur is a graduate student at Stony Brook University studying Public Policy and Contemporary Asian and Asian American Studies. Her current research interests include Women leadership, immigration policy, and international policy development. Hwan Hee Kim is a PhD candidate in the School of Communication and Media at Ewha Womans University. Her research interests converge on (new) media contents, cultural studies, feminism and family discourse in Korea. She uses both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, including text discourse and content analysis as well as in-depth interview methods.

xii List of contributors

Julia M. Matuga is a full professor and the Vice Provost for Institutional Effectiveness at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). She earned her BS in Education, MS in Education and her PhD in Educational Psychology from Indiana University, Bloomington. She has held several leadership positions at Bowling Green State University and is currently serving as the Co-Director for the Institutes Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership-National (IDEAL-N) and BGSU’s institutional liaison for the Mid-American Conference (MAC) Academic Leadership Development Program. Young Eun Moon is a PhD student in the Media Studies division at University of Oregon. She earned BA and MA degrees in journalism studies from Ewha Womans University in South Korea. Her research interests include politics and communication, with a particular focus on the implications of digital media platforms as the new distributors of political discourses. She is also interested in the relationship between digital media technology and gender, including patterns of new media usage as seen among women. Minghui Pang is Associate Professor and Director of the Department of Journalism, School of Journalism and Communication, Beijing Sports University and doctoral student of the School of Journalism and Communication of Beijing Normal University. Her research interests include communication and social development, media convergence. Aideé Saucedo Dávila holds a master’s degree in Political Analysis and Media from Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM). She specializes in international cooperation and global climate governance. Her lines of investigation are climate change, south-south cooperation and non-state actors. Jamie M. Sommer is a doctoral candidate in the College of Arts and Sciences at Stony Brook University. Currently, she is a research fellow at the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research (CUNCR) in Brussels. Her research is in the field of Sociology. She specializes in global-political economy, gender and development, and environmental sociology. Qi Tang is Associate Professor of the Department of Communications at Tennessee State University. Her primary research has focused on the creation and dissemination of the narratives/discourses of cross-cultural exchanges in computer-mediated environments. Her recent research has branched out to include the ebb and flow of interpersonal relationships experienced by immigrants in various settings. She is the member of National Communication Association. Her research has appeared in Journal of Asian Pacific Communication and Chinese Journal of Communication. Mark R. Thompson is Director of Southeast Asia Research Centre and Professor and Head of Politics at the Department of Asian and International Studies, City University of Hong Kong.

List of contributors xiii

Hong Tien Vu is Assistant Professor at the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. He received his doctoral degree from the School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on international communication, development communication, and the influence of technology on mass communication. Qi Wang is Associate Professor at Villanova University. She is interested in theorizing and observing interpersonal and intercultural communication in various contexts, with the goal of promoting individual, relational, and organizational wellbeing. Her research has won multiple awards and has appeared in top tier journals in the communication field. Ming Xie is a doctoral student at School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Ming currently holds a PhD in Cultural Anthropology from the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, China. She is particularly interested in intercultural communication, non-profit organization management and communication. Margaret (Peg) M. Yacobucci is Professor in the Department of Geology at Bowling Green State University. In addition to maintaining a strong research program on the evolution of fossil cephalopods, she has led a series of projects and initiatives that support the career advancement and leadership development of women faculty and faculty of color in STEM disciplines. She was recognized with the Women of Distinction Award from Bowling Green State University’s Center for Leadership. Fiouna Ruonan Zhang received her PhD from the School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University. Her areas of research are digital media psychology, selfie usage on social media, international parasocial relationship and Korean popular culture. She is Visiting Assistant Professor at Rollins College, Florida. Yahui Zhang is Professor of Communication Studies and Media, Wayland Baptist University. Her research interests include female leadership, representation of underprivileged groups, agency, and communication pedagogy.

PART I

Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION TO ASIAN WOMEN LEADERSHIP Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

Introduction The need for Asian women leadership research Although leadership is a global phenomenon, in the past few decades the study of leadership has been primarily western-oriented. As Hofstede put it, Eurocentrism is still a permeated ideology around the world and in every field of study. Since Eurocentricity has been recognized as a normal expression of culture globally and may deny or degrade other cultural perspectives, leadership studies on non-western cultures are greatly needed. In addition, the world has witnessed the rise of Asian societies as economic powerhouses in the last decades. The economic growth in this region has spurred unprecedented exchange and contact with the rest of the world, not only in travel, civic activities, and education but also in politics, religion, commerce, and management. The rapid increase in intercultural contact with Asian countries presents an urgent need for a better understanding of Asian management and leadership across sectors and cultures. With better education, women play an increasingly important role in leadership, and have career aspirations. The global #MeToo and women power movements also push the need for understanding the merits and limitations of women leadership. Therefore, this book aims to serve as an invitation for more culturally conscious discussions about women leadership in general and Asian women leadership across sectors in particular.

The challenge of conceptualizing leadership Leadership is a topic with universal appeal. According to Bass (1990), leadership is often considered one of the world’s oldest preoccupations because of its close relationship with power and influence. However, the concept of what leadership truly is remains

4 Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

vague because different theorists have proposed various perspectives (Dorfman, 1996). Burns (1978) concisely stated, “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomenon on earth” (p. 2). How could we choose the most useful concepts of leadership from the hundreds of articles and books? We reflected on the story of the blind men who were attempting to describe an elephant. Although every blind man provided a description of his part of the elephant, it was insufficient to understand the whole beast. Our challenge of conceptualizing leadership is rather the same, with the added difficulty that the elephant is walking. There are various perspectives of leadership among different fields from traditional societies to modern societies. Since it is a highly valued but complex phenomenon, leadership over the years has been defined in many ways. The common conceptualization is that leadership is a process whereby individuals (with or without titles) influence their groups of members to achieve their common goals. More specifically, leadership can be described as processes that not only influence members to recognize and agree with what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively but also facilitate individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared goals and visions (Yukl, 2002). Although frequent exchanges in all social sectors have brought about more and more commonalities, there still exist substantial discrepancies in leadership styles in Asian societies. As this book specifically addresses Asian women leadership, it is crucial to examine the relevant scholarship on culture and gender differences in relation to leadership styles.

Leadership literature on culture and gender Cultural values guide people’s behavior, and leadership styles reflect cultural values. Research has also shown that cultural values influence leadership behaviors (e.g. Chao, 2017). For instance, according to Martin and Nakayama (2007), cultural values are the worldview of a cultural group or the core symbols of a particular identity. For example, individualism is often cited as one of the most important Euro-American values, as reflected in the emphasis on participative leadership. In the case of Asian societies, although studies show that the current generation is more individualistic than earlier generations, the traditional value of collectivism is still the core symbol of most Asian cultures and social structures, as reflected in the preference for authoritarian leadership (Wu and Stewart, 2005). Overall, most scholars agree that values form the core of culture and that cultural values impact on leadership styles. For example, in the last decades there has been a dramatic increase in globalization throughout the world, which has led to a need for leaders with a greater understanding of cultural differences and increased competencies in cross-cultural or/and intercultural communication and practice. It is also a well-known fact that women are significantly under-represented in major leadership positions, with the barriers women encounter in their management hierarchy dubbed the glass ceiling. With regard to the relationship between gender and leadership styles, many studies indicate that there is a significant difference between male and female leadership styles (Eagly and Johnson, 2001). According to Chao (2009), male supervisors tend to adopt a transactional leadership

Introduction to Asian women leadership

5

style, which means giving tangible rewards when subordinates do something right and punish them if they do something wrong. Female supervisors, by contrast, tend to use a transformational leadership style, which means achieving the company’s major goals by actively interacting with subordinates, encouraging employee involvement in decision making, sharing authority and information, respecting employee self-value, and encouraging employees to love their jobs. Bass and Avolio (1997) indicated that the development tendency of U.S. organizations may contribute to the exhibition and emphasis of women leadership styles. Female leaders may use more transformational leadership skills than male leaders, which make a positive impact on the performance of an individual, group, and organization. Morgan (2006) also remarked that organizations shaped by male value systems emphasize logical, linear modes of thought and action and drive for productivity at the cost of network and community building. In contrast, organizations that are shaped by female value systems tend to “balance and integrate the rational-analytic mode with values that emphasize more empathic, intuitive, organic forms of behavior” (p. 131). Leadership styles have also been examined in various cultures. For example, Yokochi (1989) reported that the top leaders in several large Japanese firms rated by followers as more transformational also had higher ratings on their followers’ level of effectiveness. Furthermore, according to Earley and Gibson (1998), a number of cross-cultural studies have shown that collectivists tend to have a stronger attachment to their organizations and subordinate their individual goals to collective goals. Indeed, many leaders in collectivist cultures highlight the importance of maintaining long-term relationships as well as in-group solidarity (Elenkov, 1998). The aforementioned central values of collectivist cultures are some of the main orientations associated with transformational leadership. That is, a transformational leader is anticipated to build followers’ identification with a collective vision as well as enhance motivation and performance among followers (Jung, Bass, and Sosik, 1995). By contrast, to satisfy their own self-interests, people with high individualism place higher priority on individual achievement and also personal rewards based on satisfying transactional agreements. The person or self is defined as an independent entity. These characteristics match the transactional leadership model since they are typically more focused on short-term results. In sum, research has indicated that culture and gender have effects on the leadership process.

The importance of studying Asian women leadership This book is a collection of research on Asian women leadership with a crossnational and cross-sector perspective. While Asia has made enormous economic progress in the past few decades and Asian women’s participation in economic and political activities has resulted in promoting their social status and leadership, the role of Asian women’s leadership in their countries and abroad has not received sufficient attention. Gender inequality and under-recognition of women leadership and competences are deeply rooted and widely spread in Asian cultures. These cultural values and religious beliefs give women an inferior status in their daily

6 Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

lives, which is a serious obstacle to the appointment of Asian women to major leadership roles. That is, Asian women’s roles as mothers and wives are still strongly advocated as the essential duty for women in many parts of Asia. There is thus an immediate need to examine cultural differences with a gender perspective when researching Asian women leadership. Asia is significantly different from western countries where the mainstream of research studies on women in leadership have been conducted (Marvin and Grandy, 2012).

Organization of the book This book combines four (modified) refereed articles published in a special issue on Chinese women leadership in China Media Research (which the editors have received permission to reprint) and invited chapters from scholars with expertise in women leadership research from Asia and the United States. The aim of the book is to produce an interdisciplinary anthology grounded in scholarly research that offers a concise but in-depth examination and exposition of leadership to help readers better grasp the basics of the various aspects of Asian leadership and examine the practices of Asian women leadership across sectors. While many leadership books effectively describe leadership styles and/or outline various approaches to leadership, this book focuses on Asian women leadership and illustrates performed styles, experiences, opportunities, challenges, and management strategies across sectors in almost all major Asian countries, in the United States and in comparison with other countries such as South Africa. In this book, chapter 1 offers an introduction to what Asian women leadership means and the significance of studying Asian women leadership. Chapter 2 qualitatively examines Chinese women leaders in academia (as communication journal editors and academic association leaders) in China, Taiwan, and the U.S. Through a national survey in the United States, chapter 3 investigates how institutional barriers and interpersonal biases differentially impact the leadership goals of faculty who are AAAW, Asian/Asian American men (AAAM), White, and non-Asian/Asian American faculty members of color (NFOC). Chapter 4 presents a detailed discussion of South and Southeast Asian national women leaders’ dynastic succession to political power, which was often organized by the followers of the deceased or persecuted male politicians. These women leaders were portrayed as the rightful political heirs to their husbands or male relatives’ charisma but often were later seen to have betrayed these national virtues. Grounded in the theoretical concept of framing, chapter 5 compares the coverage of the two high-profile women, Liyuan Peng, who is the “first” First Lady in China, and Michelle Obama, who is the “first black” First Lady, in the States through a quantitative content analysis of articles in prominent newspapers published in China and the United States. Chapter 6 explores the opportunities—including horizontalism and leaderlessness—afforded to women participating in social movements in South Korean society via the unique characteristics of digital media. Chapter 7 is a historical study identifying the roots of the common Christian but also distinct political belief and value systems of two Chinese sisters, Soong Ching-ling, and Soong Mei-ling, who not only exerted great influence in China and Taiwan but,

Introduction to Asian women leadership

7

importantly, changed the relationship between China and the world as the wives of the Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai-Shek respectively. Shaped by Confucianism doctrines and reinforced by the media, chapter 8 analyzes the challenges female leaders face from multiple perspectives—including historical, cultural, and institutional—in both the public and private sectors in Vietnam. Chapter 9 discusses the challenges faced by women editors across India’s newsrooms and the changes they have witnessed over the years as far as treatment of women journalists is concerned. Through a pentadic analysis of narratives featured in the documentary Makers China, chapter 10 excavates the act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose of 11 Chinese female leaders to shed light on the driving forces of their leadership. Through in-depth interviews, chapter 11 explores the impacts of social, cultural, and organizational context on career advancement of female leaders in nonprofit organizations. To predict the likelihood that women will become vital voices in climate change adaptation projects throughout India, chapter 12 compares several factors that can facilitate leadership among rural women in different regions in India. With narratives from three professional Chinese immigrant women on work and leadership, chapter 13 re-examines the meaning of leadership as it is applied to women with a focus on the intersectionality of gender, race, and ethnicity. Chapter 14 examines leadership styles, and the social and organizational contexts, lived experiences, and social identities as Asian women that might influence their leadership in Hong Kong and the United States. Finally, chapter 15 reviews the lessons learned from the 13 studies presented in the book and discusses the contribution of Asian women leadership research as part of immigrant leadership, minority leadership and disadvantaged group leadership research to enrich the study of leadership. Overall, the book first provides a unique focus on Asian women leadership across sectors (academic, business, regions, politics, immigrants, etc.). Second, the book looks at leadership in most major Asian cultures (China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.), which make it a rich learning experience and allows readers to appreciate cultural similarities among the Asian societies while recognizing important but often subtle differences. Third, the book not only presents a thorough exposition of Asian women leadership but also draws comparisons with female leadership in western societies and discusses the possibilities for intercultural encounters. Finally, the book is designed to blend social science-based academic rigor with a strong sense of practicality so that readers may find the content relevant to their everyday relational practice in business and private life.

References Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leader development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

8 Chin-Chung Chao and Louisa Ha

Chao, C. C. (2017). The Chinese female leadership styles from the perspectives of trait and transformational theories. China Media Research, 13(1), 63–73. Chao, C. C. (2009). Cultural values and anticipations of female leadership styles in non-profit organizations: A study of Rotary clubs in Taiwan and the United States. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG. Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural research. In B. J. Punnett and O. Shenkar (eds), Handbook for international management research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (2001). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism/collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24, 265–304. Elenkov, D. (1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133–156. Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (4), 3–18. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2007). Intercultural communication in contexts (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Marvin, S., & Grandy, G. (2012). Doing gender well and differently in management. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(4), 218–231. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wu, M., & Stewart, L. (2005). Work-related cultural values and subordinates’ expected leadership styles: A study of university employees in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 195–212. Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: transformational and transactional. San Diego, CA: United States International University. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PART II

Asian women leadership in academia

2 LEADERSHIP STYLE AND SUCCESS EXPERIENCE OF CHINESE WOMEN ACADEMIC LEADERS IN CHINA, TAIWAN AND THE UNITED STATES Louisa Ha, Nicky Chang Bi and Fiouna Ruonan Zhang

Introduction Most studies about inequity in women leadership focus on the public and commercial sectors (Koenig, Eagley, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Even when talking about gender inequity in academia, research either concentrated on the domination of men in senior academic ranks and administrative leadership (Dean, Bracken, & Allen, 2009) or on the Matilda effect, which shows the under-recognition of women (e.g. Rossiter, 1993) and women’s disadvantages in citations (e.g. Knobloch-Westerwick & Glynn, 2013). However, academic leadership is not limited to administrative or scholarship productivity but also relates to who sets the agenda and direction in the field. Journal editors and leaders in academic associations play an important role in this regard. Chinese women journal editors are rare in the field of communication despite the increasing number of Chinese women faculty members. Researchers of this study interviewed six Chinese women editors serving (currently or formerly) major communication journals and communication academic association leaders who are senior scholars in China, Taiwan, and the United States. This study examines the leadership styles of these Chinese women editors and academic association leaders and how they perceived their roles in promoting communication research in China and other non-western countries. Especially of interest was their leadership style, success factors, and how they overcame the challenges of an academic environment dominated by male senior scholars and journal editors. Their success in balancing family and career means they can serve as role models for other female scholars and shed light on how to foster women’s research productivity to achieve gender equity in the academe.

Significance of the study The significance of this study is that it uniquely focuses on Chinese women’s academic leadership as journal editors and academic association leaders, not just

12 Ha et al.

administrative leaders in higher education as in previous studies (e.g. Chesterman, Ross-Smith, & Peters, 2003). By focusing on scholarly accomplishments, we elevate the study on the role of women in academia to a higher level, contributing new knowledge and setting new directions and advancement in the field. All of the women academic leaders we examined also had administrative experience or are current administrative leaders in their units. Chinese women make good subjects for the study of gender equity in academia because the traditional Chinese cultural expectation is that women take care of the family, give birth, and raise children, which can hinder the upward mobility of women in academia. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic study on Chinese women’s academic leadership, and this is the first to offer a Chinese woman’s perspective to illustrate how female scholars struggle as academic leaders in the field and look at their view of the development of a field that is still dominated by male scholars. It contributes to the leadership literature by showing how women rise up to leadership positions in scholarship and become decision makers in a field such as communication that has increasingly more women. In addition, this study offers a cross-country perspective by interviewing Chinese women editors and academic association leaders in mainland China, Taiwan, and the U.S. We focused on women in the position of editor-in-chief/sole editor or academic association president because they are the ones making final decisions, determining the journal’s or association’s direction, and managing the editorial staff. Because these editors and academic association leaders are also accomplished women scholars, their career success means they can serve as role models for other women scholars.

Literature review Women’s disadvantage in leadership stereotype The discrimination against women for leadership positions in the workplace has been attributed to the leadership stereotype. Eagly and Karau’s (2002) role congruity mismatch theory suggested that women are not chosen or expected to fill leadership positions because leaders are believed to have masculine attributes and women do not fit the role expectations. Masculine leadership role expectations increased the expectation of failure and decreased the expectation of success for female leaders as Koenig, Eagly, Mitchel, and Ristikari’s (2011) meta-analysis of 69 leadership studies concludes: “Women are the targets of two forms of prejudice against them as leaders: a deficit in the ascription of leadership ability to them and, compared to that of men, a less favorable evaluation of their agentic leadership behavior” (p. 617). Their meta-analysis identified three paradigms to explain women’s disadvantage in leadership: 1) think manager—think male, 2) agency-communion, and 3) masculinity–femininity paradigms. Because women do not fit the masculine expectation of managers and are viewed as communal, collegiate, and nurturing and not agentic in completing the tasks of leadership, coupled with the common belief in a masculine need for success, women are less likely to be given leadership roles and are not expected to be successful as leaders. As a result, women leaders, particularly

Chinese women academic leaders 13

newcomers taking on male-dominated roles, can encounter resistance, especially from men (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Comparing the results of studies in different countries, they also suggest that role incongruity for women leaders is greater in eastern than western nations. Their meta-analysis also found that the presence of women leaders changes perceptions of leadership. Female college students with more women professors as role models reduced their implicit associations of leadership qualities with men and communal qualities with women. Hence it can be inferred that if more women play leadership roles in academia, especially as editors or academic association leaders, there will be greater acceptance of women’s ability as scholars and academic leaders and more respect given to women in the sector.

Expectations of women as faculty members and scholars In addition, there are different expectations of women faculty members. They often have heavier student loads (Hart & Cress, 2008) and mentoring and advising responsibilities (Bird, Litt, & Yong, 2004). Moreover, there is evidence that students expect a more intensive, time-consuming teaching approach from women faculty members (Sprague & Massoni, 2005). Among the different stages of life, parenthood in particular impact men’s and women’s employment experiences differently (Kaufman & Uhlenberg 2000). Men are more motivated to succeed in their career by having children as they anticipate greater financial responsibilities. But women would be expected to take a step back from their work and focus on raising the children. At the same time, scholars have argued that faculty members of different gender allocate their discretionary time to research differently (Massy & Zemsky 1994). Because women with children have less discretionary time than men and childless women, they are likely to allocate a smaller percentage of their work week to research (Winslow, 2010). The different priorities and expectations can prevent married women with children from fully dedicating their time to scholarly research.

Gender inequity in academia Van den Brink & Benschop (2012) use the metaphor of the seven-headed dragon to describe the multiple faces of gender inequity practices in the academe. They considered recruitment of new faculty members and promotion to full professor as the main sources of inequity. In general, there are two main approaches to studying gender inequity in the academia. One is to identify the barriers to women’s success, as stated above; the other is to identify exemplar cases to explain success (e.g. Chao, 2011; Chao & Ha, 2009; Chesterman et al., 2003). Those who use the former approach consider the problem to be structural barriers, social role expectations of men as leaders, leadership stereotypes with male characteristics, and women’s lack of leadership aspirations and lack of confidence (Chesterman et al., 2003). Those who use the latter approach suggest that women academic leaders’ success can be attributed to their collegiality, support from senior colleagues and the critical mass of other women

14 Ha et al.

in power. Women leaders emphasize the importance of collaboration and consultation over hierarchical management (Chesterman et al., 2003), their transformational leadership style and better conflict resolution skills (Chao, 2011) and use technology to help them multi-task (Chao & Ha, 2009). In addition, servant leadership advocated by Greenleaf & Spears (2002) is needs-focused and other-oriented, emphasizing listening, empathizing, healing, and stewardship. Women are more likely to adopt such leadership styles in running organizations (Spears, 2002). The environmental/structural approach to explaining women’s disadvantage in academic careers has been termed deficit theory (Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006). This theory argues that the work environment is unfavorable for women in academia, especially in the scientific field, which is dominated by men and intellectually highly demanding. Negative work experiences such as sexual harassment and gender discrimination are commonly used to explain why women do less well in science. Gender discrimination is the unequal distribution of resources such as pay or work space. Settles et al.’s (2016) study found that women faculty members who reported a negative environment were less satisfied with the job and with research productivity. While one could say that the perceived negative environment caused lower productivity and job satisfaction, one could also say that those who were not as productive or as satisfied with the job were more likely to perceive the environment as negative. To determine the real cause of low research productivity and facilitate the research productivity of women scholars, researchers need to move beyond surveys and employ a more qualitative, in-depth study of women scholars with high research productivity to probe the reasons for their success. Another approach to explaining women’s poorer scholarship performance is looking at women’s weaknesses—being easily distracted and giving research lower priority. This approach puts the blame more on women themselves. Winslow (2010) studied the time allocation of female faculty members versus male faculty members and found women devoted more time to their teaching and did not stay on track in their research time, while men were more focused. She contended that women faculty spend a greater percentage of time on teaching because teaching obligations have fixed start and end times that more easily accommodate children’s schedules. Research time can be enormous and hard to control. Men faculty are not expected to take care of children and can prioritize research over teaching and spend more time on research, resulting in higher research productivity than women.

The Matilda effect explanation for men’s advantage over women in academia In the study of gender differences in scholarship and productivity, one gender-related pattern is the Matilda effect proposed by Rossiter (1993), in which scholarly achievements are credited to men more than women and men are more recognized than women. The discrepancy is most acute in the sciences, which are severely dominated by men in both number and seniority. A study of research awards by 13 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) societies by Lincoln et al. (2012)

Chinese women academic leaders 15

illustrated the Matilda effect by highlighting the disproportionate award allocation to men scientists despite a large pool of eligible women scientists. Women, though more likely to receive an award in 2001–2010 than 1990–2000, were mostly given less prestigious awards such as those for teaching or service. The disparity between men and women actually increased if the focus was on research scholarship awards. Part of the explanation was the large number of men chairing the selection of research awards. When women were the award committee chairs, the likelihood of women winning awards became higher. Another method of probing the Matilda effect is by examining the citation of scholars. Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn (2013) analyzed the citations of male and female scholars in two major communication journals using social scientific approaches (Journal of Communication and Communication Research) and found that men were more frequently cited than women. In the communication field, the experiment of Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, and Huge (2013) on graduate students’ perception of research quality based on International Communication Association conference communication research abstracts found the same Matilda effect: women scholars’ works were perceived as lower in quality than those of men scholars. Their study revealed that Asian participants rated women authors’ work quality significantly lower than men authors’. Gender role attitudes explained much of the differences in the ratings, but there was also an interaction effect between research topic and author gender on the ratings, supporting the role-congruity hypothesis. It should be noted that although the difference was statistically significant, the absolute difference was only 0.3 on a five-point scale for the male author advantage. The main difference was shown in the interest in collaboration. Graduate students were more interested in working with a male scholar on a “male” topic such as political communication and computer-mediated communication than a female scholar on the same topic.

An alternative explanation to the Matilda effect and breaking the glass ceiling In comparing citations of men and women scholars in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2009–2014, Ha et al. (2016) found that when men and women scholars both worked on popular topics of the time such as media technology, they were similarly highly cited, which differs from the role congruity of “male” topics suggested by Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn (2013). Yet they also found that many women scholars chose the less cited “female” topics such as gender issues in communication, which limited their probability of being cited. So while the odds for citations are lower for women in general, it is more due to topic choice than gender. Although the topic choice or interest can be affected by the social constraints and environment in which the scholar works, women scholars and the academia must also realize that not all research topics generate the same interest and make wise choices in developing their research career. While demonstrating the existence of glass ceilings for women in academia is important, it is even more important to develop ways of breaking the glass ceiling and overcoming the constraints women scholars experience by presenting them with role models. Using

16 Ha et al.

real-life examples of women academic leaders can serve this purpose and provide a roadmap for other women scholars. Chao’s (2011) study of Rotary Club female leaders showed that successfully managing family/work life balance was key to achieving their leadership role for married women leaders in Taiwan. Support from their spouses was also noted as a common factor. All women leaders being interviewed said they waited until their children were grown up before they took on leadership positions. Many women leaders were aware of their modeling role for other women and consciously supported other women to participate in and take on leadership responsibilities in organizations. Academic associations are another type of non-profit organization, so we might expect a similar pattern. However, a significant difference between academic leaders and other organizational leaders is the intellectual credentials required of women academic leaders. They do not only need to display leadership skills, they also need to have intellectual capabilities indicated by their research productivity.

Research questions Past research has shown how women were disadvantaged in academic leadership and research productivity by the structural barriers and Matilda effect and identified certain successful women leadership styles, but whether these apply to Chinese women already in academic leader positions and how they overcome the barriers have not been studied. Hence we pose the following research questions in our study: 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

How do women scholars overcome the glass ceiling to become academic leaders? What attributes do they perceive they have that led to their success? How do women scholars balance their career and family obligations? What leadership style do women scholars use in managing both male and female colleagues, authors, reviewers, and staff? Are there differences between male and female leadership styles in the academic gatekeeping process and managing academic organizations? Do women academic leaders receive different treatment based on their gender? Do Chinese women academic leaders believe the Matilda effect pertains in the field of communication? Why or why not? As editors and academic leaders, they have had more exposure to the behavior of other scholars as well as their own experience. Their insights may further understanding of the reasons for the lower visibility and recognition of women scholars. How do Chinese women academic gatekeepers (editors) and association leaders see the future in the field of communication and their role specifically in the development of communication research in China? What is the Chinese women academic leaders’ advice to women scholars hoping to become future academic leaders?

Chinese women academic leaders 17

Method Because of the limited number of qualified participants, we decided to use an in-depth informant interview method to collect the opinions, experiences, and advice of our exemplars—Chinese women academic leaders who either are or have been editors of major association academic journals published in China, Taiwan, and the U.S. or presidents of major academic associations. The three locations were selected to provide a larger pool of Chinese women academic leaders and also to shed light on differences in academic environment in different locations. The communication field is actually more populated by women scholars than men scholars, although men are more likely to be in senior positions as full professors (Knobloch-Westerwick & Glynn, 2013). The small number of former or current Chinese women editors and academic association leaders that we could identify as eligible to participate in the study already showed the paucity of women in these positions. Only 10 individuals met the criteria needed in the study. Notably, there are no former or current woman communication journal editors in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Zone despite the Chinese University of Hong Kong having published two communication journals for more than a decade. After receiving their university’s institutional review board’s approval to conduct the study, the researchers tried to contact each of the 10 individuals. A total of six women scholars agreed to participate in the study within the project’s time limit. Those who participated were: Chen Chengfeng of Tsinghua University, People’s Republic of China (president of the Chinese Association for History of Journalism and Mass Communication中国新闻史学会); Wang Run Ze of People’s University, People’s Republic of China (editor, Journalism Evolution, 新闻春秋); Louisa Ha of Bowling Green State University, U.S.A. (editor, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly); Bey-Ling Sha of San Diego State University, U.S.A. (editor, Journal of Public Relations Research); Su Herng of National Chengchi University, Taiwan (former and incoming editor, Mass Communication Research 新聞學研究); Liu Yu-li, former president of Chinese Communication Association and also president of the Taiwan Communication Society. All of them are full professors at their university. The participants were interviewed by the second or third author of the study via Skype, Wechat, or email or face to face, according to the preference of the interviewee. All interviews lasted at least 45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed. Their comments were quoted verbatim (translated into English when those were conducted in Chinese) but anonymously, and we would only refer to them as Professor A, B, C, D, E, F in the results. All of the participants are married with children and a working husband.

Results Rise to academic leadership positions The women scholars who became journal editors are highly productive in the communication field. Their rich experience in research and management led them to these positions. They have published numerous research articles in many top

18 Ha et al.

journals and are familiar with the trends of the area they specialize in. They are all senior professors at the university they serve. All of them have administrative experience. Professor E said there were many reasons why she was chosen as editor: I was promoted as a full professor at that time and I often published journal articles. I got many research awards and was very familiar with the ecology of academic research and editorial work. Therefore, I was elected as the editorin-chief of the journal. Professor C believed that her broad research interests and expertise in research methodology were the attributes that prepared her as a journal editor: Because I have very broad research interests, much broader than most people. In the past I thought I am not as specialized as my colleagues. Now I think it is actually a good attribute for an editor. Because it is very important to know a lot of methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative, and also appreciate quantitative and qualitative research. Not just know them, but to have an open mind to appreciate both. Professor D also said that her reputation for honesty was another reason why she was elected as journal editor: People will appreciate that honesty, because you don’t want someone who says a manuscript is wonderful, but really it’s not. I think I also have the reputation of being someone who is fair. In the sense that I would not, you know, accept something just because it’s from a friend, and I would not reject something just because it’s not from a friend. For academic association leaders, management skills seem to be particularly important in securing their appointment. Professor A said, “… for the people who voted me as their leader, one of the reasons was that I was the vice president of the association for ten years. I have been in a management position for a long time … ” Their accumulated networks, contacts, sources, and experience in either the industry or academia are also critical assets. Equally vital is a willingness to serve and commitment to the task. When asked about what strengths led her to being elected as president, Professor F said, As for my strength is, I think, I would not say strength, because I think, I’m willing to serve. I think first of all, willing to serve. Willingness to devote (to the position) is very important. All the women journal editors interviewed perceived their role to be research mentors for authors and the scholarly community; while the leaders of Chinese

Chinese women academic leaders 19

communication associations aimed to give Chinese scholars a platform to connect with each other and promote and make Chinese research visible internationally.

Balancing family and career Most of the interviewees admitted to the pressure of their workload. For the editors, in addition to their own research, they had to deal with administrative work such as responding to author queries, contacting authors and reviewers, reviewing manuscripts and issuing editorial decision letters. Some of them also had to deal with governmental organizations such as auditing institutions. In addition, they had the obligation to continue their research. Many of them said they were expected to publish every year. Professor A said, There is an expectation of a certain number of publications that you need to produce annually … . It is an invisible source of pressure, pushing you to publish papers, both domestically and in international journals. Another interviewee said she published four books in five years. Collaboration with other scholars is one secret of her productivity. However, all of them talked about fulfilling their family obligations, especially as mothers caring for children. Professor E said, I have a husband and a daughter … . My daughter is still in high school, so she had a lot of pressure around her college entrance exam. I must help her in her studies, pick her up from tutoring and deal with her stress. It was very hard for me … . My husband was very busy. He has completely no time to take care of the family. I’m responsible for my daughter’s study and life. Professor A also said that she was under a lot of pressure to look after her son when he was little: “Sometimes I had to take my son to conferences. He would sit in a seat in the corner and wait for me.” From the interviews we found that having a supportive spouse impacted positively on their scholarly achievement. All the interviewees said that their husband helped them with household chores such as cooking and generally shared the burden. Professor C admitted, “Without his support, I probably wouldn’t have had the courage to take on the job, because there’s a lot of work.” Professor D said, I think it’s helpful that I have a spouse. My husband is an equal partner in the household and does a lot of stuff in our house if you think about traditional gender roles, he does a lot of things that are traditionally done by women, like the cooking, grocery shopping, that kind of stuff. That’s definitely a life-saver.

20 Ha et al.

However, that kind of balance is hard to achieve without paying a price. When asked how she balanced work and private life, Professor F stated, “The answer is … I have very little sleep. Sleep less. I think it’s not very healthy. I don’t encourage people to do it. This is the only way I can manage … .” Professor C admitted the heavy workload took away her time with her children but it also made her a better time manager and prioritize quality time with her children. She said, “Whenever I am with them, not with my work, I really know that I need to make good use of the time by having more interaction, listening to them, talking to them more.”

Conflict management and leadership style When asked about differences in leadership style between men and women, some of the interviewees said they thought personality differences were greater than gender differences. However, others thought that men were more likely to use more “masculine” ways to engage with others. Professor E said that “some of the male editors are strong-minded … and subjective. They have favorite topics [which influence] manuscript rejection and acceptance, or special issues.” To handle conflict, she uses a more harmonious way to communicate with staff and authors. All of the interviewees thought that their leadership style was consultative, communicative, and collaborative and was effective for them. Professor C said, You have to win respect. The way of winning [respect] is to collaborate with them. If they know you respect them, so they are more likely to respect you. And patience is also very important. Sometimes people may not be as patient as you are, and you need to be patient and find the right way and right time to work on issues. Professor D gave an example of how her editor leadership style is consultative: For example, before I desk reject a manuscript for lack of fit in the journal, I consult with the associate editor and the senior associate editor … . Here is what I’m thinking about desk rejecting, what are your thoughts? I welcome their opinions. Although Professor F said she had not found any leadership style differences between men and women, she emphasized how she always communicates with everyone, which represents servant leadership. She said, [I] communicate, inform, and interact, and also consult, consult with (others) … and am always transparent, and always respectful. Not only respectful to the seniors, but respectful to all members. That means I’m willing to listen. If you do this, nobody will say any bad word against you. You make people feel comfortable. You make people feel you’re reliable and do things to serve their interests.

Chinese women academic leaders 21

Some of the interviewees had experienced gender discrimination in conflict situations under their leadership. Professor A said: When I first took the position, people would think I am a woman, and there’s a power difference between people … . I felt this in both places I worked, men are more … not rude … not quite that … but aggressive. One time a male colleague of mine argued loudly with me, and I responded back to him. I don’t think he was treating me like a woman, forgetting that he should treat women more gently in tone. Personally, I have my gender identification and I don’t like people talking to me in a rude, harsh, and authoritative manner. But after a long time, now, I don’t feel anything wrong with that. I am used to it. Professor D also thought that some people, especially older men, were disrespectful towards her leadership. But she didn’t think it was totally gendered. Similarly to Professor C, she said, The senior male authors, they are not as nice to me as other senior female scholars. Senior female scholars are most supportive … but some male scholars, they may think I am not doing it their way, especially favoring senior scholars. I do not favor senior scholars. I just look at the work, I don’t care who they are. Overseas Chinese woman academic leaders face even more pressure. One interviewee said that she felt under a lot of pressure for being a double minority editor— i.e. a Chinese woman editor of an English language journal in the U.S. She said, I feel a lot of pressure to make sure I do a good job. If I did a poor job, other people will probably not have the chance to do it. Because people will have the stereotype [in their mind] that a minority cannot edit a journal, can’t have the authority to edit a journal; they might also believe that women cannot lead a major journal. So you’ll have to break the stereotype for them. When being asked about the advantages of women as academic association leaders, some of them said that women are more detailed-oriented, more dedicated, and more patient than men. Professor A also said, “I think women are more openminded, which is contrary to typical gender stereotype. Women will not be bitter over one mistake. But men will.” However, others did not perceive any particular advantage to having women as journal editors. “Female” is just the natural identity that they possess and should embrace. Professor D said, I can go with all the gender stereotyping. Oh yeah, women are more caring and so on. Even when I reject a manuscript, I care and make sure people understand why. I can accept the stereotype, well, you know, women are more detail-oriented and so on. When I write a decision letter, I don’t just go by what the reviewers say, I always personally read the manuscript and often

22 Ha et al.

catch things the reviewers missed. But those things are what they are. Are they because of me being who I am? Or are those things because of me being female? Or maybe both? Because female is part of who I am.

The Matilda effect and gender equality in academia Most of the women academic leaders we interviewed did not see much gender inequality in their scholarly work. This is probably because they are all accomplished scholars who have already achieved recognition in their field. They saw individual differences as more important than gender differences. None of them believed in the Matilda effect and they considered that the blind-referee journal review process in the communication field puts them on an equal footing with men. Citations depend on the importance and popularity of the research topic. There is no pipeline issue in the supply of women communication scholars. According to the interviewees, in mainland China women faculty already outnumbered men faculty. In Taiwan, there are more women communication graduate students than men. But female senior scholars are much fewer than male senior scholars in both countries. Interviewee F said, “It depends on the universities. I didn’t count. I think probably there are more female scholars. In the academic world, it’s not obvious. I don’t think there is inequity.” Other interviewees also said that their personal opinion did not matter much because the research showed a gender inequity in academia. They may be the exceptional few that achieved success. However, the interviewees did see inequity for women in academia in relation to academic administrative leadership roles. When it comes to positions of power in administration, some saw men as having an advantage over women. Professor E said, Gender inequity will sometimes happen when electing administrative directors … . It is easier for males to become administrative directors or deans, relatively speaking, much less so for women. With the publication of papers, I don’t think females are less favoured than males. It depends on the importance of research topics and the quality of the research. Professor F said, Gender inequity is not obvious in the academic world. But for higher-ranking administrative posts, I mean, for instance, president of the university, vice president of the university, then I do see that there are some kinds of gender inequity there. For instance, in Taiwan, there are 12 top universities … . These universities, only one or two universities, presidents are women … even vice presidents, you see more men than women. Similarly, in mainland China, most senior administrators are men. Despite communist China having one of the highest rates of female workforce in Asia (WorldBank, 2018), this does not translate into women leadership roles. Women

Chinese women academic leaders 23

can be members of faculty. But it is much harder for them to be in senior positions. Professor A thought the reason for this was that women must work harder than men to stand out in the current society. Another reason was different levels of motivation to work in academic jobs. Most men who chose an academic career aimed at academic achievement, while most women chose it because the career is a socially desirable pathway for women. Professor B said, [People] might think it is good for women to be university teachers so they can take care of their family … . Therefore, in the long run, women with this priority will publish less in the field, making the proportion of women’s publications less than men’s publications. It is very unlikely you would hear people say to a man that if you work in the university it will be good for your family, but people, especially parents, say this to women. One interviewee also found that some employers would not consider their family obligations and expected more work from them. Professor B remarked on the difference in physical strength between men and women related to their work: Being a professor requires a lot of physical strength. I don’t know about others, but for me, and a lot of Chinese women, if you talk for too long, it’s likely that you feel breathless … . China definitely doesn’t have Matilda effects. The problem with China regarding the gender issue is that males and females are “too equal.” Just a joke. But I think women are so liberated in the Chinese job market that people forget women have families to take care of.

Outlook of the field of communication Due to these women’s academic and administrative positions, they paid close attention to trends of the field of communication. Professor F said cross-disciplinary research and cross-national research are very important. She also mentioned big data as one of the major trends in the field. Another interviewee thought that the training in methodology and theory was not sufficiently rigorous: It’s very important for us to spread our new ideas to other fields because in order to increase the impact of the communication field you also want to influence other fields. I think political communication has been doing a good job in influencing political science and media psychology kind of having an influence on psychology people. But I think there are many areas in communication that can have an impact on other fields. All the women academic leaders thought that publishing in English-language journals is beneficial for Chinese communication scholars to build visibility and the impact of their research in the world. They encouraged Chinese scholars to submit more manuscripts to English language journals.

24 Ha et al.

Advice to aspiring women scholars for leadership position All interviewees stressed the importance of both academic credentials and networking skills, including in particular a broad knowledge of both Eastern and Western academic development. Most of them would encourage anyone who would like to be an academic leader to step up for the position. Professor F thought that women faculty members would be selected for leadership roles if they have the necessary networks, resources, and accumulated experience. Professor E said, In order to become a chief editor, in addition to having a certain academic ability, you have to participate in international academic conferences, contribute more to foreign (English) journals, be familiar with the operation of Western academic journals and the academic requirements, strengthen academic horizons, enrich academic networks, increase the understanding of the field of communication. Some of the interviewees said that they encourage both men and women to become editors. However, they recommend that female faculty members aspiring to be editors should become full professors before taking up such a position. In addition, academic and administrative leadership positions involve a large amount of work, so individuals should be prepared for this. In general, senior scholars are very hard working people. Professor C said, Working as editor, I learn a lot about senior scholars … they are very diligent and hardworking. I found that communication with scholars is best in the late evening and early morning … . They work at least 12 hours a day. You can find them at any time.

Discussion and conclusion This exploratory study on Chinese women academic leaders confirms previous research on women’s leadership style in that women academic leaders appear to thrive on a transformative, collaborative, consultative, and servant leadership style rather than an authoritative or charismatic leadership style (Chesterman et al., 2003). They worked hard to earn the respect of and gain support from their staff and colleagues. The study adds to the literature by revealing the important role of preparation backed by strong credentials for women to break through the glass ceiling around these sorts of position: research awards, a solid publication record, administrative experience, and special attributes such as being fair, knowledgeable, and resourceful. The women academic leaders in the study were proud of being the “chosen few” in the field representing these leadership capacities. They are also well aware that they may serve as role models for other women and also other scholars regardless of gender.

Chinese women academic leaders 25

All our participants believed that they deserved their leadership positions because of their hard work and dedication to their career. Their emphasis on balancing career and family needs, especially raising children, and appreciation of the support of their spouses shows the feminine and traditional side of these Chinese women leaders. It reflects the desire these scholars have to accommodate traditional expectations of women as good mothers and while also negotiating another identity as successful academic leaders. Critical in this was the partnership with their spouses, which is consistent with the results of Chao (2011). A supportive spouse and good marriage seem to foster the career success of these women scholars. Young female scholars who plan on getting married and having children should seek spouses willing to be equal partners at home, sharing the cooking and/or cleaning responsibilities. This is similar to being a successful man with a supportive spouse. Although none of the Chinese women academic leaders we interviewed believed in the Matilda effect or gender inequity in scholarly publication, they observed some discriminatory practices between men and women in how manuscripts were treated, how failures were handled by men and women differently, and how some senior male scholars did not treat them with respect and challenged their decisions. Unlike getting work published and heading academic associations as a volunteer, achieving employment in one of the higher administrative roles is still an uphill battle for women scholars. There is no shortcut to academic leadership according to the Chinese women academic leaders in this study. Hard work, persistence, and dedication to scholarship are the best preparation for women scholars who wish to become academic leaders. A passion for research was a shared feature of these women leaders, unlike the women faculty members who were portrayed as prioritizing teaching and family in studies such as Winslow (2010). When women’s credentials are as strong as or even stronger than men’s and leadership opportunities arise, it would appear that they have a high chance of being chosen. They would be considered well qualified and their more considerate, nurturing, and detail-oriented characteristics would be considered an advantage for editorial and academic association leader posts. But they must also be willing to take on these leadership roles. When their children are young, women tend to hesitate to take on leadership roles that are time-consuming and stressful. Women scholars have to keep up their research productivity so that they have a good record when it comes to being considered for a leadership position. Once their children are grown up or more independent, women can then fully devote themselves to a leadership role. This, rather than inequity, may be the gender difference in the career path for Chinese women who want to both have a happy family and attain leadership positions in the academic world.

References Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work”. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 194–206. Chao, C. C. (2011). Climbing the Himalayas: A cross-cultural analysis of female leadership and glass ceiling effects in non-profit organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 32(8), 760–781.

26 Ha et al.

Chao, C. C., & Ha, L. (2009). Leadership styles and conflict management strategies of prominent US female cable industry leaders. In A. Albarran, P. Faustino, & R. Santos (eds), The Media as a Driver of the Information Society: Economics, Management, Policies and Technologies. Lisbon, Portugal: Media XXI. Chesterman, C., Ross-Smith, A., & Peters, M. (2003). Changing the landscape? Women in academic leadership in Australia. McGill Journal of Education, 38(3), 421–436. Dean, D. R., Bracken, S. J., & Allen, J. K. (2009). Women in academic leadership: Professional strategies, personal choices. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Ha, L., Jiang, W., Bi, C., Zhang, R., Zhang, T., & Wen, X. (2016). How online usage of subscription-based journalism and mass communication research journal articles predicts citations. Learned Publishing, 29, 183–192. Hart, J. L., & Cress, C. M. (2008). Are women faculty just “worrywarts?” Accounting for gender differences in self-reported stress. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1–2),175–193. Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 78(3), 931–949. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect—Role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3–26. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320. Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: Departments and the “academic ratchet”. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 1–22. Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 47–58. Spears, L. C. (2002). Introduction: Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (eds), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sprague, J., & Massoni, K. (2005). Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can’t count can hurt us. Sex Roles, 53(11/12): 779–793. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven‐headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(1), 71–92.

Chinese women academic leaders 27

Winslow, S. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender and Society, 24(6), 769–793. World Bank (2018). Labor force participation rate, female (% female). Retrieved from http s://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?locations=CN

3 BREAKING THE BAMBOO AND GLASS CEILINGS Challenges and opportunities for Asian and Asian American women faculty leaders Lisa K. Hanasono, Julia M. Matuga and Margaret M. Yacobucci

Introduction Gender inequities persist across faculty ranks and in academic leadership positions in the United States. Although women are earning more than 50% of all undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral degrees, the American Council on Education (2017) reports that women from all racial backgrounds are less likely than men to secure full-time tenuretrack faculty positions, win tenure, and reach prestigious administrator and faculty leadership positions. Compared to men, women faculty members tend to earn lower salaries (American Association of University Professors, 2018), are more likely to be targets of sexual harassment and misconduct (Johnson, Widnall, & Benya, 2018), perform more service work (e.g. Hanasono et al., 2018), and tend to be cited less frequently in peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Dion, Sumner, & Mitchell, 2018). A closer examination reveals remarkable racial disparities that intersect with gender inequities among faculty and administrators. A growing body of scholarship is investigating the many systemic issues and challenges that women faculty of color experience in higher education (e.g. Muhs, Niemann, González, & Harris, 2012). However, a relatively smaller amount of research has focused specifically on Asian and Asian American women (AAAW) faculty. In this chapter, we investigate key barriers and facilitators to the career advancement of AAAW, as they tend to face unique institutional and cultural challenges along their career trajectories, and they are vastly underrepresented among upper faculty and administrator ranks. AAAW graduate students earned approximately 11.7% of doctoral degrees granted to women during the 2015/16 academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017a). When considering both men and women graduate students, AAAW earned 6.2% of all conferred doctoral degrees during the same academic year. However, AAAW comprise only 4% of all faculty members and only 2% of all full professors (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Moreover, AAAW rarely reach high-ranking

Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings

29

leadership positions in academia. For example, Hartlep (2014) reported that only 1% of endowed professors were AAAW, and Huang and Yamagata-Noji (2010) found that AAAW represented less than 0.3% of presidents and chancellors in higher education. Why do these racial and gender inequities persist? Moreover, what can institutions of higher education do to break the proverbial bamboo and glass ceilings to more effectively support the career advancement of AAAW faculty leaders? In this study we examine how institutional barriers and interpersonal biases differentially impact the leadership goals of faculty who are AAAW, Asian/Asian American men (AAAM), White, and non-Asian/Asian American faculty members of color (NFOC). After reporting the findings from a national survey on academic leadership, we provide recommendations for institutions of higher education and directions for future research on the career advancement of AAAW faculty.

Higher education and the leaky faculty pipeline Although the underrepresentation of AAAW faculty is not new (e.g. Chan, 1989; Ruttiman, 2009), significant cuts to public funding for higher education and the paucity of tenure-track job openings, along with barriers like institutional, interpersonal, and implicit biases, problematic policies, and a lack of sustainable support for faculty development and retention, have punctured larger holes in an already leaky pipeline to the rank of full professor and academic leadership positions (American Council on Education, 2017). In the United States, tenure affords unique privileges affiliated with academic freedom, job security, and professional prestige. Tenure is often a necessary (though insufficient) prerequisite for faculty members to advance their careers to become distinguished research and teaching professors, university administrators, and prominent leaders of professional academic organizations. Unfortunately, opportunities for career advancement along the tenure track have diminished in recent decades. The American Association of University Professors (2018) reported that only 27% of all faculty positions are tenure track. Moreover, women faculty members and faculty members of color, including AAAW, tend to occupy non-tenure track positions at a disproportionately higher rate than White men (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), thus limiting their ability to earn tenure and advance their careers along traditional pathways to academic leadership and administrator positions. The National Center for Education Statistics (2017b) indicates that 34.4% non-tenuretrack faculty members are White men while 65.7% are people of color and White women. Noting the scarce numbers of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women at the rank of full professor and campus presidents, Chen and Hune (2011) reported that AAPI women faculty representation “stalls very early in the pipeline, namely in being hired and at tenure” (p. 163), thereby reducing their likelihood of attaining the status of full professor and upper administrative positions. Researchers have identified a collection of structural and individual factors that can help minoritized faculty members thrive in academia despite the leaky pipeline, such as mentoring, professional development, and institutional transformation (e.g.

30 Hanasono et al.

Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2015). Academic leadership represents one promising factor that can catalyze faculty members’ career advancement. In addition to enhancing their visibility and professional reputations, faculty members who successfully serve as academic leaders—ranging from program coordinators, graduate directors, committee chairs, and faculty senators to department chairs, school directors, and upper administrator positions—can gain valuable skills and experiences needed for promotion and career mobilization (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). In addition, some academic leadership positions provide appealing benefits like higher salaries, travel stipends, staffing support, social capital, and expanded facility space. Despite these potential rewards, not all faculty members aspire to become institutionally recognized academic leaders. Although some prohibitive factors are individually situated, such as a person’s preference to allocate their time and energy to research and writing instead of academic leadership activities and initiatives, many barriers remain which are rooted in structural, cultural, and systemic biases. In the next section we explain how glass and bamboo ceilings may be working in concert to reduce AAAW’s likelihood of pursuing academic leadership opportunities.

Breaking the glass and bamboo ceilings The glass ceiling Noting gender inequities and disparities in numerous workplace contexts, scholars define the glass ceiling as a systemic—and often invisible—set of barriers to career advancement (American Council on Education, 2017; Coleman, 1998; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987; Baxter & Wright, 2000). Jackson and O’Callahan (2009) explained: A glass ceiling exists when the following four criteria are met: (a) a gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee; (b) a gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome, (c) a gender or racial inequality in the changes of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportion of each gender or race currently at those higher levels, and (d) a gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career. (p. 471) This metaphor became part of the United States’ cultural vernacular in the 1980’s after Hymowitz and Schellhardt (1986) published an article on the glass ceiling in the Wall Street Journal. In 1991, the United States’ government established the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (FGCC) which produced reports that (a) identified structural barriers that prevented women from reaching the upper echelons of organizations and corporations and (b) provided recommendations for breaking the glass ceiling (Martin, 1991, 1992). Some of the FGCC’s (1995) recommendations included the creation and implementation of work/life and family-friendly policies,

Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings

31

holding organizational leaders accountable for making substantial progress in hiring, promoting, and retaining women and minoritized professionals, regularly training organizational members on topics and skills related to diversity, establishing mentoring programs, strengthening data collection and reporting practices, and responding more effectively to anti-discrimination violations. Nearly 30 years have passed since the establishment of the FGCC, yet the glass ceiling remains largely intact across numerous industries and organizations, including those in higher education (American Council on Education, 2017; Jackson & O’Callahan, 2009). Researchers have identified myriad macro and micro barriers that collectively form a formidable and often impenetrable glass ceiling for many minoritized faculty members. Bain and Cummings (2000) explained, “The procedures for advancement in academia were decided long ago when universities were the exclusive province of males” and that “old-boy networks may not only reinforce male-friendly norms but also lead to gender bias in key decisions” (p. 499). For centuries, many universities lacked policies that supported paid or unpaid parental leave, stop-the-tenure-clock options, and spousal hiring (Hollenshead, Sullivan, Smith, August, & Hamilton, 2005). Beyond policies, institutional practices and norms may systematically disadvantage minoritized faculty members, such as scheduling university functions, retreats, and meetings in the evenings and at weekends when childcare is not readily available or expecting faculty to attend recruitment events, professional development training, or meetings that conflict with religious holidays. Inequitable workloads, especially pertaining to committee work and service, can place additional burdens on faculty who are women and people of color (Columbia University, 2018). Moreover, faculty members of color and women may experience career-damaging harassment, workplace bullying, and discrimination (e.g. Lampman, 2012; Stockdale & Bhattacharya, 2009). Longstanding social theories that define leadership and workplace competence through masculine characteristics like being dominant, competitive, and forceful (e.g. Frankforter, 1996; Powell, 1988) may reinforce gender biases that place White men in academic leadership positions over women and faculty of color. Li (2014) explained this double-bind: Because of this predominantly male culture and environment, women are judged on traits stereotypically associated with men, such as toughness and aggressiveness. This results in women being viewed as ineffective leaders when using more feminine managerial styles or criticized for not being feminine enough when displaying more masculine management styles. (p. 144) When internalized, these biases and assumptions could also render faculty members of color and women facuty more reluctant to pursue leadership opportunities. The glass ceiling provides a firm framework for identifying gender inequities along faculty career trajectories. However, some scholars argue that it fails to account fully for the unique complexities and barriers of people with intersecting marginalized identities including women of color and AAAW. Parallel to

32 Hanasono et al.

prominent critiques regarding White feminism (e.g. Brewer & Dundes, 2018; Crenshaw, 1989), the literature on the glass ceiling is largely centered on the voices, experiences, and narratives of White middle-class women, thereby marginalizing how systemic and often invisible barriers impact women of color, nonbinary people, and those from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds.

The bamboo ceiling Informed by the unique racialization of people of Asian descent, including AAAW, a growing area of scholarship focuses on a related—yet distinct—concept called the bamboo ceiling. In short, the bamboo ceiling refers to the set of institutional, cultural, and social biases and barriers that prevent Asians and Asian Americans from elevating their professional status to more prestigious positions and executive-level leadership roles in organizations and companies (Hyun, 2005). Scholars have investigated how Asian cultural values, such as a deference to authority figures, self-effacement, collectivism, collaboration, and conflict avoidance (Kim, Yang, Atkinson, Wolfe, & Hong, 2001), can disadvantage some Asians and Asian Americans who are climbing corporate and organizational ladders at workplaces that embrace many Americentric ideals and norms that value individualism, extroversion, and assertiveness (e.g. Woo, 1999). Researchers have also found that organizational members’ anti-Asian biases and stereotypes can harm Asian and Asian American professionals’ career advancement prospects (e.g. Berdahl & Min, 2012). Unfortunately, discriminatory and biased behaviors often lack documentation and corrective disciplinary action. For example, although approximately 31% of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI’s) acknowledged that they had experienced discrimination at the workplace (Gallup, 2005), “only 2 percent of all charges in the private sector and 3.26 percent in the federal sector are filed by AAPI’s” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008, p. 3). Some institutions, industries, and organizational leaders render invisible the unique barriers and biases Asians and Asian Americans face due to the model minority myth and eliding approaches to operationalizing which people “count” as a racial minority group. Since the 1960s, people in positions of power have falsely claimed that Asian Americans are a “model minority,” positing that as a racial minority group, Asian Americans have successfully overcome systemic barriers to rise to equal or greater financial, social, and educational levels as White Americans (Pettersen, 1966; U.S. News and World Report, 1966; Wu, 2002). A closer examination of the data, however, reveals a lack of empirical evidence to support the model minority stereotype (e.g. AAPI Data, 2018; Li and Wang, 2008). Moreover, scholars assert that the model minority is highly problematic as it masks the heterogeneity of Asian American identities and experiences, mounts undue pressure and expectations on Asian Americans to be successful, creates unwarranted wedges and conflicts between Asian Americans and other racial minority groups, and can foster feelings of fear and yellow peril among those in racially privileged positions (Chow, 2017; Kawai, 2005; Kiang, Huynh, Cheah, Wang, & Yoshikawa, 2017). In postsecondary institutions, implicit and explicit endorsements of the model minority myth continue to render invisible people of Asian descent from discourses,

Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings

33

programs, and initiatives that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, because they are not perceived to be disadvantaged or marginalized (Museus & Kiang, 2009; Suzuki, 2002). Furthermore, some institutions do not “count” Asians and Asian Americans as racial minorities because they are not quantifiably underrepresented in certain industries and disciplines. For example, due to relatively larger numbers of Asians and Asian Americans in science, technology, and math, the National Science Foundation (NSF) does not consider people of Asian descent as “underrepresented;” therefore the NSF often excludes Asians and Asian Americans from diversity-oriented initiatives and grant projects (Teranishi, Maramba, & Ta, 2012). However, just because the sheer head count of Asians and Asian Americans has increased does not mean that the industries’ and organizations’ larger systems of power, racial biases, and structural barriers have been dismantled. As previously discussed, the rising number of Asians and Asian Americans at undergraduate, graduate, and junior faculty levels does not result inevitably in greater representations in the upper echelons of universities and colleges. The bamboo ceiling provides a framework to discuss institutional and interpersonal barriers that prevent people of Asian descent from career advancement. One important critique, however, is that it fails to adequately account for the ways that intersecting identities—including gender—may further complicate career trajectories and the paths to academic leadership. Given their racial and gender positions, AAAW often experience both glass and bamboo ceilings in career advancement. Taking an intersectional approach, scholars acknowledge the multiple barriers that AAAW face due to their gendered and racialized identities (Fernandez, 1998). For example, Li (2014) explained: The ‘glass ceiling’ and ‘bamboo ceiling’ are insufficient proxies for understanding the experiences of Asian American women. The concept of the glass ceiling focuses on the experiences of women irrespective of race … The barriers Asian American women face are not only distinct, but also more than the sum of the discrimination faced by women and Asian Americans. (pp. 146–147) There is a clear need to explore barriers to academic leadership through an intersectional lens. Drawing from research on the glass and bamboo ceilings and academic leadership, we pose the following two hypotheses and one research question: H1: AAAW, Asian/Asian American men (AAAM), and NPOC will be less likely to intend to pursue academic leadership positions than their White men and women colleagues. H2: Institutional and interpersonal barriers will mediate the relationship between racial and gender differences in the decision to pursue academic leadership positions. RQ1: To what extent will AAAW, AAAM, and NPOC differ in their intention to pursue academic leadership positions?

34 Hanasono et al.

Method Participants Our sample consisted of 547 full-time faculty members (54.5% women, 45% men, and 0.5% nonbinary) at 24 colleges and universities across the United States. Participants worked at public four-year universities and colleges (n = 382), private four-year universities and colleges (n = 152), and medical schools or colleges (n = 5). Eight participants did not specify their home institution. Among those who indicated their race or ethnicity, participants self-identified as Asian or Asian American (n =63), Arab (n = 5), Black (n = 14), Latinx (n = 18), Native American (n = 2), multiracial (n = 3), or White (n = 442). To test our hypotheses, we grouped participants into six groups: AAAW (n = 32), AAAM (n = 31), non-Asian/Asian American women of color (NPOCW, n = 26), non-Asian/Asian American men of color (NPOCM, n = 16), White women (n = 243), and White men (n = 199). Our sample included a range of faculty ranks (18.2% non-tenure track, 25.2% assistant professors, 24.6% associate professors, 25.2% full professors, 1.7% administrators, and 5.1% not specified or other). We recruited participants through campus-wide email announcements and individual email invitations.

Procedure Participation in this IRB-approved study consisted of completing one online questionnaire. After indicating their informed consent, participants were invited to respond to a set of survey items related to this study and some additional questionnaires that are part of a larger research project. In addition, participants provided information about their demographics. At the end of the 10 to 15minute survey, we provided a debriefing page that thanked participants for their time and shared the contact information of the first author and her institution’s IRB.

Measures Unless noted otherwise, all survey items were measured using a five-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). All variables demonstrated a sufficient level of reliability (α > .70). Demographic information was collected using open-ended forms where we asked participants to self-identify their positionality (e.g. “Please indicate your gender: _______.”). Because there were only three nonbinary participants, we unfortunately could not examine their responses as a distinct category of analysis. However, in an effort to include their responses, we included them as part of non-dominant gender groups (i.e. AAAW, POCW, and White women). Information about this study’s measures are provided below.

Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings

35

Academic leadership decision During the survey, we invited participants to indicate if they intended to pursue an institutionally recognized leadership position in the next three years. Our specific survey prompt read: Throughout their careers, faculty members pursue a variety of formal university leadership positions. For example, a faculty member may aspire to become a department chair, program director, graduate coordinator, committee chair, school director, or a college or university administrator. Faculty members may also aim to pursue university leadership positions like the president of their institution’s Faculty Senate, Faculty Union, or another major faculty organization. Are you interested in pursuing a specific faculty leadership position in the next 3 years? Participants could answer this question in the affirmative or negative. We recoded their responses as a binary variable (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Institutional barriers We used four items from an adapted version of Lent, Brown, Nota, and Soresi’s (2003) scale, rooted in social cognitive career theory, to measure the degree to which participants experienced institutional barriers along the path to academic leadership. A subscale of the questionnaire was created originally to measure the extent to which employees perceive their institution is supportive of leadership development and advancement. Thus, sample items included “my institution has clear policies that inform members how they can obtain this leadership position” and “my institution has fair practices in determining who is selected to serve in this leadership position.” To reframe this variable so that it focused on institutional barriers instead of support, we reverse-coded each item. Therefore, higher quantitative scores indicate more institutional barriers (e.g. that the policies to obtain a leadership position are not clear and that the institution does not have fair leadership selection practices). Although institutional barriers (M = 2.66, SD = .78, α = .74) was not significantly correlated with discrimination, r = -.006, p >.05, there was a positive correlation between institutional barriers and interpersonal barriers, r = .53, p < .001.

Interpersonal barriers Similarly, we utilized four items from an adapted version of Lent et al.’s (2003) scale to measure interpersonal barriers to leadership development and advancement. This subscale originally measured perceptions about interpersonal support. Sample items include, “I have a mentor who could help me succeed in this university leadership position,” “my institution’s administrators are supportive of my desire to pursue this leadership position,” and “I have access to people who can provide me

36 Hanasono et al.

with social support.” We also reverse-coded each item so that higher quantitative scores indicate more interpersonal barriers (i.e. a lack of mentors and social support). As noted above, interpersonal barriers (M = 2.39, SD = .74, α = .73) was positively correlated with institutional barriers. Interpersonal barriers also exhibited a positive correlation to discrimination, r = .22, p < .001.

Discrimination Finally, we included three items to measure the degree to which faculty members experienced workplace discrimination based on their gender, race, and rank. Sample items include, “I have received unfair treatment at my institution due to my gender” and “I have received unfair treatment at my institution due to my race.” Overall, participants reported moderately high levels of discrimination, M = 3.20, SD = 1.62, α = .73.

Results Given the dichotomous nature of participants’ decision to pursue a leadership position in the next three years, we performed chi-square tests of independence, as well as Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) to test this study’s mediation hypotheses. First, we report general findings related to participants’ intention to pursue academic leadership, and then we explain how the decision varied by race and gender. Second, we report the findings of our mediation analyses.

Patterns in the decision to pursue an academic leadership position Overall, 251 participants (45.9%) expressed an interest in pursuing a leadership position in the next three years. When asked to identify the specific leadership position, responses included a wide range of institutional roles such as provost, associate dean, faculty senate, graduate coordinator, department chair, and program director. The remaining 296 participants (54.1%) indicated that they did not plan to pursue a faculty leadership position. A closer examination of the data revealed how our outcome variable differed by race and gender. Table 3.1 presents descriptive statistics regarding racial and gender differences in participants’ leadership decision. When examining gender alone, we found no significant differences in faculty members’ proclivities to become academic leaders, χ2(1) = .02, p = .88. However, when we took an intersectional approach and examined the impact of race and gender, the results became more nuanced. Our first hypothesis predicted that AAAW, AAAM, and NPOC faculty members would be less likely to intend to pursue academic leadership positions than their White male and female colleagues. To test this hypothesis, we first recoded participants into two groups (i.e. Group 1 included AAAW, AAAM, and NPOC, and Group 2 included White men, WM, and women, WW) and then performed a chi-square test of independence. Contrary to our predictions in H1,

Breaking the bamboo and glass ceilings

37

TABLE 3.1 Faculty members’ decision to seek academic leadership positions by gender and race

Group

N

No

%

Yes

%

Asian/Asian American women Asian/Asian American men Non-Asian women of color Non-Asian men of color White women White men Subtotal: All men Subtotal: All women Total

32 31 26 16 243 199 246 301 547

13 14 13 5 136 115 134 162 296

40.6% 45.2% 50.0% 31.3% 56.0% 57.8% 54.5% 53.8% 54.1%

19 17 13 11 107 84 112 139 251

59.4% 54.8% 50.0% 68.8% 44% 42.2% 45.5% 46.2% 45.9%

our results indicated that faculty of color (Group 1) were more likely than White faculty members (Group 2) to want to pursue an academic leadership position, χ2 (1) = 6.631, p= .01. Approximately 57.1% of faculty members of color answered the leadership in the affirmative, compared to 43.2% of their White colleagues. Cramer’s V was .11, p = .01. Our research question asked to what extent would AAAW, AAAM, and NPOC faculty differ in their intention to pursue academic leadership positions? To answer this question, we examined exclusively the responses of faculty members of color. After selecting their cases for analysis, we performed another chi-square test of independence. The results suggest that AAAW, AAAM, NPOCW, and NPOCM faculty members did not differ significantly in their intention to seek an academic leadership position in the next three years, χ2(3) = 1.55, p = .67.

Explaining the decision to pursue academic leadership opportunities After establishing that faculty members of color were generally more inclined than White faculty members to want to pursue academic leadership positions, we tested H2 to determine if institutional barriers and interpersonal barriers (including discrimination) mediated these group differences. We utilized Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS macro, because it is a powerful tool that allows researchers to perform mediation analyses with nominal predictor variables, multiple continuous mediators, and dichotomous outcome variables. Moreover, its bootstrapping procedures allow this type of analysis to remain robust to common assumptive violations like normally distributed outcome variables (Hayes, 2017). As a multinomial variable, faculty members’ racial and gender groups (AAAW, AAAM, NPOCW, NPOCM, WM, and WW) served as the predictor variable for participants’ dichotomous decision to seek an academic leadership position (0 = no, 1 = yes). We entered the

38 Hanasono et al.

TABLE 3.2 Comparing faculty groups’ levels of institutional barriers, interpersonal barriers,

and discrimination Group

Asian/Asian American women Asian/Asian American men Non-Asian women of color Non-Asian men of color White women White men Subtotal: All women Subtotal: All men Total: All participants

Institutional barriers

Interpersonal barriers

Discrimination

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

2.74 2.95 2.71 2.79 2.63 2.63 2.64 2.69 2.66

.63 .71 .87 .78 .79 .79 .78 .78 .78

2.29 2.54 2.57 2.44 2.36 2.40 2.36 2.43 2.39

.67 .70 .77 .51 .70 .82 .70 .78 .74

3.05 3.22 3.22 3.57 3.62 2.71 3.55 2.80 3.20

1.17 1.77 1.69 2.22 1.72 1.33 1.67 1.47 1.62

three continuous mediator variables (i.e. institutional barriers, interpersonal barriers, and discrimination) using Hayes’ PROCESS macro on SPSS with 95% confidence intervals and 5,000 bootstrap samples. The results are presented in Table 3.3. Overall, the model was statistically significant, Model LL(4) = 142.47, p