‘When I look in the bathroom mirror, I see all the women standing behind me’: An evaluation of a leadership development program for women in STEMM

Abstract

Leadership development programs (LDPs) are one response to the under-representation of women in leadership positions. This article evaluates Homeward Bound, a 12-month LDP for women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) fields that culminates in a three-week voyage to Antarctica. We evaluate the extent that the program supports key features of LDPs for women – including creating a safe, women-only environment, providing professional networking opportunities and using intersectional approaches. We argue that remote locations generate challenges that must be considered in LDP design and implementation. Findings are widely applicable and can inform LDPs in multiple contexts.

Leadership development programmes: part of the solution or part of the problem of women’s under-representation in leadership?

“…As highlighted in the Introduction, companies around the globe currently implement LDPs as a response to the persistent gender leadership gap (Nash and Moore, 2021). However, one-size-fits-all LDPs are criticised for their failure to address the issue of women’s under-representation in leadership (Brue and Brue, 2016).…”

“…In a similar vein, Sugiyama et al (2016) concluded that standardised programmes frequently promote an agentic and transactional conception of leadership, meaning that they overemphasise the role of the leader in driving business performance without acknowledging the unique barriers faced by women because of gender bias. These programmes often adopt a fix-the-women approach, which encourages women to demonstrate stereotypically masculine leadership traits, such as assertiveness and authority, as the only way to be perceived as effective leaders (Nash and Moore, 2021).…”

“…As argued by Nash and Moore (2021), even though companies around the globe formally commit to address the gender leadership gap through the implementation of leadership development programmes (LDPs), gendered organisational processes and practices often undercut these initiatives. Brue and Brue (2016) note that one-size-fits-all LDPs continue to fail in addressing the issue of women’s under-representation in leadership.…”

Expanding collaborative autoethnography into the world of natural science for transdisciplinary teams

“…The Homeward Bound program has been extensively evaluated and critiqued for diversity, equity, and inclusion elsewhere. 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 …”

A Collaborative Model for Leadership Education in High-Potential University Women Students

“…According to Ely et al [30] women's leadership training is criticized for creating artificial environments which are not congruent with the mixed teams that women must lead. Other positive perspectives of analysis point out that WLDPs invite women to share the professional experiences that otherwise, would not be shared for fear of being rejected in mixed programs [31]. Madsen and Andrade [29] highlight that the design, development, and content of effective women-only programs, must be based on two points: current leadership research and theory [32]; and the background and experience of stakeholders with experience in leadership, gender, adult learning, and organizational change [33].…”