The ‘Pipeline Theory’: A False Justification for the Underrepresentation of Women in Top Leadership Positions within Institutions of Higher Education by Kathryn Mattingly Flynn

The future of gender parity in positions of leadership remains uncertain. According to the 2018 Pew Research Center data, 78% of women and 59% of men say that the lives of Americans would improve if there were more women in leadership positions. Additionally, roughly six-in-ten Americans say there are too few women in top leadership positions, yet there seems to be a lack of unanimity among people on why women are underrepresented in those positions (Pew Research Center 2018). Conversely, 72% of women, compared to 42% of men, believe that women must do more to prove themselves to achieve a top leadership position (Pew Research Center 2018). Some institutions and their stakeholders admit that the pipeline is the cause of fewer women in leadership roles. The pipeline theory is frequently understood when discussing gender and diversity representation, or the lack thereof, within leadership positions. I will argue that the pipeline theory is a scapegoat to justify the underrepresentation of women in top leadership positions—deans, provosts, presidents, and board members—within American higher education institutions, but rather the influence of patriarchal stereotypes, norms, and biases are to blame. Additional caregiving responsibilities, gendered mottos such as “think leader, think male”, and pressured performativity are some of those imposed stereotypes, norms, and biases.

The ‘pipeline theory’ was first recognized in the 1970s by Walter R. Mahler to describe the shift in work and values at different stages of a specific organization (Luenendonk 2020). Over the past several decades, the pipeline theory “implies that the more women students, the more junior faculty, and the more women lower-level administrators, the more women will rise to the top” (Longman and Madsen 2014, 27). Furthermore, this theory states that “women and men are more or less the same in qualifications…[that there is] an absence of gender bias; no gender stereotypes will impede women’s progress…,organizational systems and structures work as well for women as they for men…[and] this theory presumes patience, the implication being that women’s equal representation at the top is just a matter of time” (Longman and Madsen 2014, 23). While research over several decades indicates that “the pipeline has been a pipedream” (Longman and Madsen 2014, 24), academic institutions continue to use the pipeline theory to justify the lack of women in top leadership positions. Longman and Madsen (2014) state “by promising women that their time will come, the pipeline has kept them quiet…. [women] have been socialized to accept the status quo, to believe that progress is inevitable if only [they] are prepared to be relentlessly patient” (27). Yet, the promise of equity is broken and continues to keep women beneath the patriarchy of leadership.  

Frequently, academic institutions will insist that if there were simply more qualified women in line for leadership positions then there would be more women representation. However, women are not missing from the start of the pipeline, they are not considered nor selected at the top of the career ladder. Women comprise only 33% of tenured or on the tenure-track faculty, with women who identify as Hispanic, Latinx, and Black or African American making up only 13%. (Flaherty 2016; American Association of University Professors 2020). Women cumulatively occupy less than 39% of deans, provosts, presidents, and seats on public institution boards (AAUW 2022; ACE 2022; Whitford 2021); those numbers decrease further when accounting for women of color and women who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community. Over the past forty years, women have obtained “more bachelor’s degrees than men…, more master’s degrees for the last 35 years, and more Doctoral [degrees] for the last 15 years…” (Fleck 2022). Women are earning the degrees required to advance their careers and are primed to enter the pipeline, but it is evident that more women are not rising to the top; some researchers and higher education leaders contribute that loss to leaks in the pipeline. These leaks are not the result of women not being in the pipeline for top leadership positions within academia, instead, the underrepresentation of women reflects multifaceted biases and stereotypes that are continuously upheld by institutions.

A prominent trajectory of leadership advancement within academia is a full-time tenured faculty position, then a position as dean, then provost, and president. Women are forced to conform and navigate their careers to fit the linear trajectory of advancement whereas men have more varied pathways, bypassing the usual steppingstones, and further limiting women’s opportunities and options. Unsurprisingly, women only occupy 39% of dean positions at top American research institutions of higher education, 38% of provosts, 30% of presidencies, and 37% of seats on public institutional boards (Flaherty 2021; Ford 2016; American Council on Education 2016; Whitford 2021).

To reach top-level leadership within institutions of higher education, obtaining a tenured faculty position is the foundation. An evident measure of securing tenured faculty status is the ability to publish articles in notable journals or book chapters. However, “women are disproportionately published less [and] receive less credit than male authors…” (American Association of University of Women 2022; Flaherty 2022). In one recent data set derived from over 9,700 research teams, “women were 13 percent less likely to be named on articles and 58 percent less likely to be named on patents than their male collaborators…” (Flaherty 2022). When women receive less credit for their work, it can be the result of implicit bias because there is no set of standards for the decision-making process. If women publish less, they are less likely to be considered for tenured promotion, therefore minimizing the opportunity of advancing into higher leadership roles—deans, provosts, presidents—within academia and restricting their career pathway. Northouse (2021) confirms that “while indeed women are in the pipeline…that pipeline is leaking” (396). In this example of women being disadvantaged, the pipeline is tenured faculty status, and the leakage is disproportionally favoring publications and research of men over women. It should also be noted that a 2021 research study from the EOS Foundation found that out of 130 Rank1 universities, no school has reached gender parity in full-tenured professors.

It is time to acknowledge that the underrepresentation of women in top leadership positions within institutions of higher education is an intersectional system that works for white, cisgendered, wealthy, men, not a pipeline problem. Intersectionality, coined by Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw, corrects not just for historical sexism and heterosexism but also racism and classism. It is vital to understand the experiences, challenges, and biases all women face from various demographics and how those barriers contribute to their scarcity in leadership. The pipeline theory is an outdated excuse. Instead, examples such as ignoring intersectionality, gender stereotypes bolstered by other women, imbalanced caregiving responsibilities, engagement in performativity, and the women’s power gap—which I have discussed elsewhere—reveal why only approximately 39% of women are in top leadership positions within academia.

Chisholm-Burns et al. (2017) posit the statement, “Why [do] the presence of women make such an impact? Because increased diversity is needed to combat homogeneity of ideas, as “too much sameness stifles critical thinking and breeds complacence and overconfidence” (313). The uniformity of ideas, actions, and policies over the past 200-plus years has already created stagnation within academic institutions. There is not a “one size fits all” remedy that can be geared towards every woman seeking to advance their career into leadership, which is why it is so critical to have a diverse representation of women leaders. Scholarly research confirms that numerous women of all backgrounds are in the pathway to leadership, yet both conscious and unconscious biases, as well as gender stereotypes and norms, contribute to impeding that advancement. Institutions of higher education need to acknowledge, understand, and remedy their participation in upholding traditional patriarchal actions already granted to them. They need to reevaluate their policies, missions, and leaders to combat the uniformity of the status quo. Higher education institutions and their stakeholders can no longer rely on the pipeline theory as it is a false justification for the underrepresentation of women in top leadership positions.

 About the author

Kathryn Mattingly Flynn is a PhD candidate in the Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation program at the University of Kentucky. She holds a M.A. in Curriculum and Instruction and a B.A. in Secondary English Education from the University of Kentucky. Prior to pursuing a PhD, Kathryn was an English teacher for middle and high school students. Her scholarly focus takes a philosophical approach to the question of equitable representation within higher education. She concentrates on the moral imperative to encourage and include more women in leadership positions within American institutions of higher education. In this work, she does not solely focus on gender, but evaluates the underrepresentation of women through the lens of intersectionality.

References

Marie Chisholm-Burns, Christina Spivey, Tracy Hagemann, Michelle Josephson, “Women in Leadership and The Bewildering Glass Ceiling”, AM J Health-Syst Pharm 74, no. 5, (2017): 312-324.

Colleen Flaherty, “Study Finds Gains in Faculty Diversity, But Not on the Tenure Track”, last modified December 6, 2022, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/12/06/study-finds-true-faculty-diversity-possible-2050

Colleen Flaherty, “Academe’s Sticky Pay Parity Problem”, last modified February 24, 2021,  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/24/women-make-just-24-percent-research-universities-top-earners

Colleen Flaherty, “Science’s Women Ghostwriters”, last modified June 23, 2022, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/23/study-womens-credit-science-doesnt-match-contributions

Anna Fleck, “Gender Gap Persists at All Levels of Leadership in US Universities, Report Finds”, last modified May 3, 2022, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/gender-gap-us-universities-leadership

Ford, L., “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back? Strengthening the Foundations of Women’s Leadership in Higher Education”, Politics, Groups, and Identities 4, no. 2, (2016): 499-512.

“Full-Time Women Faculty and Faculty of Color”, AAUP online, December 2020, https://www.aaup.org/

“Gender Tracking in Higher Education”, AAUW online, November 2022, https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/gender-tracking-in-higher-ed/

Karen Longman, Susan Madsen, Women & Leadership in Higher Education (Information Age Publishing, INC, 2014).

Martin Luenendonk, “The Leadership Pipeline Model: Building the Next-Generation Leaders”, last modified July 25, 2020, https://www.cleverism.com/leadership-pipeline-model/.  

Peter Northouse, Leadership Theory and Practice (Sage Publications Inc, 2021).

“Social Trends”, Pew Research Center online, May 2018, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends Emma Whitford, “College Boards Are Still White and Male, Report Shows”, last modified December 2, 2021, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/12/02/new-report-shows-slow-diversification-college-boards