Developing the Leadership Capacity and Leader Efficacy of College Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Fields

Abstract

The current study examined the extent to which college women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors demonstrated differential levels of leadership capacity and/or leader efficacy than their non‐STEM, female peers. Data represented 14,698 women from 86 institutions of higher education in the United States. Results indicated similar levels of leadership capacity but significantly lower leader efficacy for women in STEM majors. Implications explore unique predictors of leader efficacy for women in STEM majors along with recommendations for changes to policy and professional practice that might address how the differential organizational contexts shape leadership development.

The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017

“…A high sense of self-efficacy can lead to persistence in STEM majors (Aryee 2017;Hardin and Longhurst 2016), and outcome expectations can be influential in predicting self-efficacy (Falk 2015). Mentors (MacPhee, Farro, and Canetto 2013;Wise 2007), advisors, peers, and faculty (Hogue 2012) can all have a deep impact on the level of selfefficacy (Charleston and Leon 2016;Dugan et al 2013). Gurski (2016) found that although women rated themselves lowest on their mathematics and science abilities, they rated themselves higher on critical thinking, problemsolving, and teamwork skills and suggests young women who persist have higher than average feelings of self-efficacy.…”

Exploring the Use of the Competing Values Framework in Engineering Education

“…However, there were no significant differences in the Collaborate quadrants or its items. The lower reported scores for women align with research that shows women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields show the same level of leadership capacity as women in other disciplines but report lower leader efficacy 38 .…”

Deepening Attention to Social Location in Building Leader and Leadership Efficacy

“…What is required is a clearer, deeper understanding of the factors that mediate the building of LSE, and in turn the larger leadership development process. We cannot solely rely on the tried and true, high‐impact approaches to building LSE, such as encouraging people to (a) engage in socio‐cultural conversations with peers (Dugan, Fath, Howes, Lavelle, & Polanin, ; Dugan, Komives, & Segar, ); (b) hold positional leadership roles (Dugan & Komives, ; Kodama & Dugan, ); or (c) pursue experiences with a reasonable chance of being successful (Bandura, ). These approaches must be situated in the context of one's social location.…”