Gender Leadership Imbalance in Academia: An Etiological Approach

Abstract

Whilst there has been an increasing trend of women holding academic positions in European Higher Tertiary Institutions (HTIs), leadership positions are held predominantly by men. The study draws on radical feminism theory with which its methodology is aligned by investigating the perceptions of both genders. To that end, the study categorizes the impediments holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling into endogenous and exogenous factors. By doing so, the authors are in a better position to recommend the implementation of policies and procedures to address this inequality and navigate towards achieving sustainable gender equality. The research was conducted using an online survey questionnaire administered among all academic and administrative staff of universities in the Republic of Cyprus, the country with the highest glass ceiling in the EU. The authors found that the binary genders differ in their perceptions of what keeps women from breaking the glass ceiling and that this is attributable to exogenous factors, namely, (a) the walls created by male leaders, reinforcing a feeling of marginalization and mansplaining; and (b) family obligations enhancing women’s experiencing a lack of time and burnout. Furthermore, the exogenous factors and the extremely gendered higher echelons of HTIs underpin the endogenous factor of self-sabotage, making women feel they would rather avoid the toxic leadership environment with its lack of professional credit, a view supported by radical feminism theory. The authors suggest practical policy implications to rectify the gender imbalance in leadership in HTIs and suggest directions for future research.

1. Introduction

Over the years, the attractiveness of the academic profession has changed. Academia is now considered ‘greedy work’, since it involves working long hours, rarely taking holidays, and trying to fulfill teaching, research, administrative, and service to the community responsibilities (Seldin 1987; Jense and Olsen 2023). The reasons for such changes are, firstly, that universities have proliferated and have become commercialist, bureaucratic, and market-oriented (Symeou et al. 2018). At the same time, the distinction between state, public, and private universities has become blurry as many universities have opened ‘campuses’ or branches in other countries to increase their financial sustainability, sometimes at the expense of providing a service to the community. Secondly, over the years, there has been an increase in the number of students enrolling in universities, with a gradual discernible change in students’ attitudes, focusing on utilitarianism (Cekić 2017). Thirdly, the notion of success for academics internationally has narrowed to mean citations, publishing in ‘top journals’, and succeeding in gaining external research funding. Fourthly, as universities have become more bureaucratic, academics must attend many more committee meetings than they used to and handle a heavier load of correspondence in a shorter time due to the culture surrounding electronic correspondence, with an expectation for immediate response. Fifthly, academics nowadays, unlike in the past, are expected to contribute to their society by serving governmental, professional, or community committees and to play an active role in societal affairs. Sixthly, academics are paid less than other comparable professions with equivalent education (Lyons and Ingersoll 2010). Finally, according to Karl Marx’s Proletariat, academics today are almost helpless against the contemporary academic industry, because they have become alienated from their work, are “deskilled, and their autonomy has diminished” (Jense and Olsen 2023, p. 165). Given the above challenges and bearing in mind the increase in women seeking academic positions, the focus of this study is to identify the reasons behind the gender leadership imbalance in HTIs.

Diachronically, research has illustrated that despite an increase in the rate of women’s participation in universities, this has not translated into a corresponding representation of access to leadership and decision-making for them (Morley 2013; European Union 2021). As demonstrated by She Figures (European Union 2021, 2025, whilst there has been some increase in the number of women holding full professorships over the years, women holding leadership positions are still underrepresented and are close to tokenism in most universities around the globe (Jones 2024). As Morley (2013) notes, this underrepresentation reflects “not only continued inequalities between men and women but missed opportunities for women to contribute to the future development of universities” (p. 3). Morley, however, fails to acknowledge that universities breed and educate future generations of legislators, businesspeople, educators, doctors, and professionals; thus, unless there is a change in the androgenic environment in the higher echelons of HTIs, it is unlikely that the pendulum will move towards gender balance in leadership.

Meza-Mejia et al. (2023) claim that there is horizontal segmentation of women in academia where they are allocated teaching roles or are “involved in organizing diversity workshops or taking on pastoral care roles in the department” (Walker et al. 2020, p. 2), while men are involved in areas such as research and management. In addition, there is vertical segmentation due to the scarcity of women in leadership roles in HTIs, thus reinforcing the glass ceiling (Morrison et al. 1987) in HTIs. The glass ceiling effect indicates that there are “structural impediments such as discrimination and gender bias that impede women’s access to top decision-making and managerial positions” (European Union 2021, p. 177; 2025).

The EU and the UN, via the Gender Equality Strategy (European Commission 2020a) and the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2015), respectively, have opened the gateway to address the underrepresentation of women in senior academic and decision-making positions in the EU. To raise awareness of the need to bring forward new ideas and innovative approaches that can better serve EU society in meeting its Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, the European Union has highlighted the issue of inclusive and diverse leadership (European Commission 2020b). In addition, the Council of the EU has invited Member States to increase the number of women, in leadership positions, in particular, in the public sector, industrial research, and technology (Council of the European Union 2005) and to develop targets for gender balance among professors (Council of the European Union 2015).

The She Figures (European Union 2021, p. 7) acknowledge that since 2012, an increasing number of academic institutions have adopted a “variety of measures to improve women’s participation in decision-making”. Yet the picture is not that optimistic for women academics reaching the higher echelons of their HTI. The Republic of Cyprus, where the current study took place, had the lowest percentage (13.3%) of women at the professorial level, with the highest glass ceiling and vertical segregation in the EU (European Union 2021, p. 194), a picture continuing in 2024. In the Foreword of the 2024 report it is stated that “the glass ceiling persists, with women holding less than one-third of higher academic positions and a mere 26% in decision-making as heads of institutions” (p. 2). More specifically, “as a proportion of all academic staff, women represent a considerably lower proportion of grade A staff (9%) compared to the proportion of men (16%)” (European Union 2025, p. 238), indicating that considerably fewer women than men make it to full professorial level.

In her degendering theory, Katuna (2019) explains that stereotypical frameworks are used to reinforce the gender essentialism that men and women are wired differently. However, she states that following this approach, one loses sight of the issue and does not offer solutions. Thus, the current authors will not be concentrating on the stereotypes already studied by other researchers but will be looking, firstly, to identify whether both genders consider the same impediments to be the ones holding back women from breaking the glass ceiling, and secondly, to classify those impediments into endogenous and exogenous factors. Exogenous factors are factors developing or originating outside an individual, by their close family, work environment, and society. Endogenous factors are those originating at the level of the individual. This, in fact, is the original contribution of the paper, because it goes beyond stating the stereotypes.

The occurrence of gender inequality in leadership positions and what underpins it can be found (a) in various reports of regulatory/professional/legislative bodies and (b) in empirical studies. The article draws on these two sources but goes a step further, classifying such impediments to leadership inequality into endogenous and exogenous factors. The distinction of etiological factors into endogenous and exogenous has been used in the present study because it has also been used in medicine (Lutz and Fekete 1996), psychology (Pfister et al. 2012), and business (Guney 2009). The distinction has been used by the present authors as it refines the classification of factors reported in the literature, and as explained by Hans (2023), contributes towards the development of efficient policies. Thus, by identifying the etiology of these impediments, the authors are in a better position to suggest academic and policy initiatives to rectify the inequality and contribute towards knowledge regarding the growth of the European Research Area (ERA), which is currently hindered (European Commission 2020a, p. 177).

The ‘leaky pipeline ‘and ‘glass ceiling’ phenomena can explain the underrepresentation of women researchers and women in full professorship positions (European Union 2021; 2025, p. 190). The former refers to the effect of women leaving the career pipeline at different stages of their careers, while the latter refers to structural impediments, such as discrimination and gender bias, that impede women’s access to top decision-making and managerial positions. The current research study is concerned with investigating the ‘glass ceiling phenomenon’ and the etiology of vertical segregation. Vertical segregation, in this case, refers to the concentration of men in ‘top’ decision-making positions. The impact of not having women in the leadership pipeline reinforces gender bias, supports men’s bids for leadership and maintains the status quo, thus creating what Ibara et al. (2013) termed ‘second-generation gender bias’.

Some researchers have supported the view that vertical segregation exists because of the following: (a) institutional cultures that exclude women, (b) societal perceptions of appropriate gender roles, and (c) unconscious gender biases that affect the assessment of women’s scientific performances (European University Association 2020). Thus, a lower proportion of women, relative to men, are awarded full professorship positions, which is considered a prerequisite for top-level decision-making positions, such as faculty leads, or university rectors.

2. Theoretical Foundations of the Study

Given the focus of the study reported here, the authors have drawn on radical feminism theory. According to Rowland and Klein (2013), radical feminism theory considers patriarchy as a universal value system. This system is created by men “in order to sustain and recreate male power and female subordination” (p. 15). It is argued that radical feminism theory is aligned with the study’s methodology described below.

Gender Equality is one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely, Goal 5, of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015), adopted by world leaders in 2015. More specifically, SDG 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower women and girls. Thus, having more women in leadership positions in HTIs is anticipated to provide women with equal opportunities and to help create a culture of equality, diversity, inclusiveness, and empowerment in institutions where knowledge is built. Gender equality is also highlighted in the Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, which emphasizes that inclusive and diverse leadership is needed to bring forward new ideas and innovative approaches that better serve EU society (European Commission 2020b). The European Union, to address gendered leadership in business, enacted the DIRECTIVE (EU) 2022/2381 (European Parliament and Council 2022), aiming to improve the gender balance among listed companies. In the HTI sector, the European Commission has found that the underrepresentation of women in senior academic and decision-making positions in the EU is a significant issue hindering the growth of the European Research Area (ERA) (European Commission 2020a); however, no suggestions have been made by the Commission to contribute towards gender equality in leadership positions in academia in Europe.

Many authors have already addressed the issue of why women ought to be part of the higher echelons of organizations, and in this case, HTIs. It has been proven over the years (Otto and Müller 2024) that having women in leadership roles not only improves the image of the entity but also is financially beneficial and improves governance as it enhances a more diverse and collective mindset (European Parliament and Council 2022). Kristinsson et al. (2024) as well as Tuniy et al. (2023) found that female leaders are more ethical than their male counterparts and have different leadership skills and traits than male leaders (Krambia Kapardis and Spanoudis 2024), thus justifying why women ought to share leadership positions with their male counterparts. Therefore, in this article, the authors will not be considering the benefits derived from gender-balanced leadership in academia, as this issue has already been discussed elsewhere.

According to Walker et al. (2020), there are several gender biases and gender stereotypes that hold back women from reaching leadership positions in HTIs. Some of the gender biases relate to a lack of acknowledgment of women’s competencies, lower recognition of women’s achievements (including citations), lower visibility of women in decision-making positions, and lower availability of effective networks. Other gender stereotypes relate to the asymmetry in work–life balance, particularly as women are often caregivers and may need to take a break from their academic career to have a family or help a family member (elder parents, spouse, or partner) with health issues. Moreover, when women take a maternity break, they fall behind male colleagues in publications, a factor rarely considered during promotion processes.

Sebastián-González et al. (2023) found that family obligations as well as family reasons hold back women academics from leadership positions who, in some cases, leave academia, creating the leaking pipeline phenomenon (Colwell and McGrayne 2020; Sebastián-González et al. 2023). Given that women in most cases have the primary responsibility for family obligations, they are likely to suffer from long working hours and burnout (Watts and Robertson 2011, p. 33). For decades, researchers have studied the impact of stress and burnout on the higher education sector (Gmelch et al. 1986; Watts and Robertson 2011). Academics are expected to teach, publish, acquire external funding, carry out administrative duties, contribute to their society, and to endeavor to have a high citation index. Other factors leading to stress and burnout are as follows: (a) reduced autonomy (Tytherleigh et al. 2005), (b) work overload with an increasing number of students in classrooms and/or more disruptive students (Watts and Robertson 2011), (c) expectation of responding to emails both in and outside of normal working hours, (Jerejian et al. 2013), and (d) inadequate social, organizational, physical or psychological resources to meet the increasing needs of students (Bakker and Demerouti 2014). Some researchers (Lackritz 2004; Bilge 2006; Jense and Olsen 2023) over the years have found that women suffer from severe stress and more emotional exhaustion than males, due to their efforts to juggle work and family. These triggers can cause women to feel as if everything around them is distorted or foggy, a stage of detachment and depersonalization.

In addition to family obligations and family reasons, tokenism creates another exogenous barrier for women. The term ‘tokenism’ was developed by Kanter (1977) and relates to the numerical distribution of women in organizations. Where there is a male-dominant culture, women are considered ‘token’, isolated, and forced into stereotypical “role traps which include the mother role, the seductress, the pet, and if the woman refuses to conform to any of these, the iron maiden” (Simpson 1997, p. 122). Paolone et al. (2024) advocated that employees perform better when they are not divided between dominants and tokens. To address the issue of tokenism, the European Union has enacted a Directive (European Parliament and Council 2022) that requires fixed gender quotas to be implemented for the underrepresented sex, to ensure that they hold at least 30% of non-executive director positions or at least 25% of all director positions of listed companies. This Directive, however, does not apply to HTIs.

Another exogenous factor is represented by the phenomenon of the ‘Men’s Club’ (Marshall 1995), which in effect excludes or operates as an informal barrier to women’s career progression in leadership or decision-making roles. Maddock and Parkin (1994) identified several ‘tactics’ used by males to exclude women from higher echelon positions; these include sexual innuendo, conversations dominated by sport, or simply belittling female colleagues. The ‘locker room’ or ‘Men’s club’ culture (Simpson 1997; Tuniy et al. 2023) has also been found in HTIs (Morley 2013; European Union 2021). Gaikwad and Pandey (2022) used intersectionality theory to demonstrate that because men and women have different identity dimensions and belong to different social groups, one group is marginalized by the other. Similarly, others (Van den Brink 2010; ENLEFGE 2012) argue that leaders (often men) may unconsciously support the careers of those like themselves (the ‘gatekeeper’ phenomenon). Therefore, given the dichotomy of gender roles, men are likely to prefer those like them (Marshall 1995; Simpson 1997). These ‘boys room alliances’ create boundaries and hurdles, strengthen the glass ceiling, and reinforce a chilly climate (Astin and Sax 1996; Goldberg 1999; National Academy of Sciences 2006) and a patriarchal environment for women at work.

Maranto and Griffin (2011) advocated that the chilly climate faced by women in academia reinforces the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions and creates toxicity at the HTI (Smyth 2017; Henke 2021). The former author explains that universities have become toxic because, as he explains, they suffer from ‘pathological organizational dysfunction’ (POD). As he argues, universities, due to the tenets of “neoliberalism-marketization, competition, audit structure, and metrification” (Smyth 2017, p. 5) consider students as consumers (Lamprianou et al. 2019) who choose between various products and brands and become non-human. At the same time, universities are deemed just another commodity in the market, seeking ‘status, rankings, citations’ (Berg et al. 2016, p. 171), where academics are expected to continue to chase the goalposts that are constantly moved by management. Thus, academics become isolated and individualistic, and “work long hours with the elision of impediments between work and home” (Smyth 2017, p. 10), with limited checks and balances on the power of the upper echelons (Pelletier et al. 2019).

Turning our attention next to endogenous factors and utilizing Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1886) comment that the ‘worst enemy one can meet will always be himself’, it is worth identifying the internal factors holding women back from leadership positions. It has been found that high-achieving women who are underrepresented are more likely to be made to feel worthless, or, as expressed by Clance and Imes (1978), led to believe they are intellectual phonies. This is also likely to be found in an academic androgenic and extremely gendered environment (Reynolds 2021). Women in such cases will experience self-sabotage (Condry and Dyer 1976; Horner 2010), a theory also recently supported by Vennes (2023), who found that women fear success, lack self-esteem, and are passive and non-aggressive. Blackmore (2017, p. 65) found that because leaders have ‘masculine’ characteristics, women do not want to be seen as ‘non-feminine’; thus, they are more anxious than males about taking up leadership roles in case they fail, or because they fear that being a leader means they will be alienated, become lonely and be in conflict (Carlson and Kacmar 2000) with their colleagues. Ibara et al. (2013) have argued that due to gender bias, the lack of leadership opportunities provided to women, and the mismatch between how women are seen and the qualities and experiences associated with leaders, there is a need for a fundamental ‘identity shift’. In addition to self-sabotage, women themselves sabotage other women (Brock 2010).

It should be noted that in cultures and working environments that are not ‘gender-sensitive’, there may be a lack of arrangements that are “compatible with family commitments; incidents of sexual harassment, bullying, gender-based violence; and gender differences in individual choices and behavior” negatively affecting career progression (European Union 2021, p. 192). Galán-Muros et al. (2023), in addressing the above challenges faced by women academics, put forward several suggestions. More precisely, they suggest that (a) governments need to complement general gender policies for society as a whole with specific policy instruments for higher education with a long-term approach; (b) universities ought to promote hiring and promotion policies and practices that equally rely on quantitative and qualitative performance indicators to better capture the female contribution; (c) women should be provided with increased opportunities for accessing leadership positions in universities, (d) systems need to be developed and implemented to collect longitudinal data disaggregated by gender on staff hiring, (e) women should be supported during pregnancy or family leave due to caring responsibilities; daycare and breastfeeding facilities at work promoted; flexible working schedules provided, and teaching adapted for parents with children or older parents; positive actions implemented to support moms or carers to pursue academic careers, through taking care of mental health, disseminating and enforcing protocols against discrimination and harassment, and not overloading women. Suboticki and Lagesen (2021) have stated that in Norway, regulators have made the universities gatekeepers. Norwegian universities are required to report annually on improvement in the gender balance in permanent positions, a positive action that led, in 2020, to the highest average percentage of women professors in the EU (NSD 2021). Suboticki and Lagesen (2021) believe this has addressed the passive behavior of heads of departments who were not willing to encourage more women in leadership positions. Such policies ought, perhaps, to be implemented in androgenic environments where males holding leadership roles are not willing to “move the needle” and have more women in higher echelons of HTIs, a view which aligns with radical feminism theory.

By surveying both binary genders, the study provides a more complete test of radical feminism theory in academic leadership.

Following the above review of the theoretical and empirical foundations of the study, the following research questions are addressed in this paper:

• Do both genders consider the same impediments as holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling and expressing their interest in holding leadership positions in their HTI?
• What do survey participants perceive to be the endogenous and exogenous factors that best explain what holds women back from breaking the glass ceiling in HTIs?

3. Methodology

Cyprus was selected to be studied since it is the European country with the highest glass ceiling in academia (see European University Association 2020; European Union 2021, 2025). As shown in the 2024 She Figures report (European Union 2025) whilst there was a minor improvement in the Decision-Making category for Cyprus from 36.8 to 38 points, its overall Gender Glass Ceiling Index decreased from 62.8 in 2021 to 62.7 in 2024, with Cyprus being the country with the highest glass ceiling in academia. By reviewing the 13 HTIs websites, the authors can confirm that, at the time of writing, there is only one female rector and one female vice-rector in the 13 HTIs (i.e., in 39 decision-making positions in total, there are only two women).

Unfortunately, there is no publicly available information on the number of academics and administrators working in the 13 HTIs in the Republic of Cyprus. In addition, there is no publicly available information on their gender, research and academic specialization, nor is there information on their academic rank or administrative position held. The only data available are those provided in the She Figures report (European Union 2021, 2025) and on each HTI’s website. Hence, the authors have adopted a census-type approach web-survey rather than a sample approach for answering the research questions.

Web surveys and online questionnaires have become amongst the most used modes of self-administered surveys internationally. Web-surveys are less expensive, easier to administer, allow broad participation, ensure anonymity and confidentiality of respondents, and enable the collection of significant quantitative data (Couper 2000; Dillman 2000; Dillman et al. 2009; Cooper and Schindler 2011). Finally, respondents can complete the survey at their convenience, which minimizes interviewer bias and potentially increases response rates due to anonymity, particularly for sensitive topics such as this one. Online (panel) questionnaires were also used by EIGE to measure gender gaps (EIGE 2022) and gender mainstreaming in relation to COVID-19 recovery (EIGE 2023). To provide an adequate application of radical feminist theory, the study’s methodology addressed the perceptions of academic leadership among both binary genders.

A questionnaire was developed and pilot-tested amongst a number of academics interested in the topic. The questionnaire was then approved by the Cyprus National Bioethics Committee and was administered using LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH n.d.). The link to the questionnaire was shared by the Chair of the Cyprus Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation on Higher Education in Cyprus with all the local rectors. The rectors were asked to distribute the Limesurvey link to all their university’s academic and administrative staff, with nobody being excluded. The survey was administered in mid-May to mid-June 2024, for 4 weeks. A total of 337 questionnaires were received, and no responses were excluded. The reasons administrative staff were also invited to participate in the study are as follows: (a) administrative staff in public sector HTIs are eligible to participate and vote for a rector and vice-rector, and (b) leadership policies in HTIs also affect the career progression of administrative staff. Thus, if a holistic approach is to be taken, both administrative and academic staff should be able to participate in the survey to ensure fair representation of all staff.

The questionnaire was designed following the literature review using closed-ended questions, covering perceived barriers to leadership, and institutional culture. The variables used were mainly ordinal and nominal with responses represented with a Likert scale.

The analysis was performed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data analysis incorporated both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to uncover patterns and trends, particularly concerning gender disparities in leadership roles. Descriptive statistics included frequency tables and measures of central tendency and dispersion. For inferential analysis, parametric methods such as t-tests were used, with non-parametric techniques such as the chi-square test of independence applied where assumptions were not met.

Factor analysis was also conducted to simplify data, identify underlying dimensions among correlated variables, and reduce the number of observed variables. Factor loadings are crucial in factor analysis, representing the correlation between the observed variable and the factor. Factor loadings |λ| ≥ 0.70 are considered very strong, indicating that the variable is highly correlated with the factor and are usually considered ideal in many fields. For sample sizes up to 300, absolute loadings of 0.40–0.50 may be acceptable, but higher loadings (|λ| > 0.60) are still recommended for clearer interpretation. Finally, it is expected that the resulting factor solution should explain at least 50% of the total variance (Hair et al. 2014). To evaluate the internal consistency of the scale, the authors used the commonly accepted standardized Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with alpha >0.7 indicating a good value for the scale (Hair et al. 2014).

This paper only covers results relating to the research questions above. The next part of the paper presents the inferential statistics and factor analysis of the data gathered to respond to the two research questions.

4. Results

The demographic profile of the participants shows that 67.5% of the respondents were women and 32.5% men. Perhaps this discrepancy is attributable to the fact that gender inequality may well be more of an issue among women than men in Cyprus. The proportion of administrative staff was 45%, while academics comprised 55%. Most of the respondents were married or living in a domestic partnership/civil union (69.4%), with more than half (59%) having dependents (i.e., children or elder parents) to care for. More specifically, 71% of the respondents had children under the age of 18.

In responding to the first research question regarding the impediments perceived by both genders to be holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling and applying for leadership positions in their HTI, parametric inferential statistics (i.e., t-tests) were used and if specific conditions were not met, non-parametric tests (i.e., chi-square test of independence1) were used. Initially, the authors checked whether there was a statistical difference between the genders concerning their family status, dependents under 18, dependents other than children, and the university’s legal status (i.e., state or private). Using either t-test or chi-square test, it was found that in all cases, there was no statistical difference between the genders with respect to family status (χ² = 1.994, df = 1, p-value = 0.158); number of dependents under the age of 18 (t = 0.996, p-value = 0.336); dependents other than children (t = 1.266, p-value = 0.207), and legal status of their university (χ² = 2.553, df = 1, p-value = 0.110). In all cases the p-value was higher than 5%. Thus, the tests on response to the research questions were performed based only on gender.

Taking a snapshot view of the results and by looking at

Table 1. Impediments perceived to be holding back women from expressing their wish to hold leadership positions.

		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Chi-Square Value	p-Value
Family obligations	Men	6	9	18	53	22	34.331	0.0001 ***
	Women	6	7	8	101	102
	Total	12	16	26	154	124
Professional burnout	Men	13	21	43	25	6	48.223	0.0001 ***
	Women	3	30	47	92	52
	Total	16	51	90	117	58
Lack of time	Men	11	15	37	37	8	51.614	0.0001 ***
	Women	6	20	24	105	69
	Total	17	35	61	142	77
Lack of belief in their own abilities	Men	20	36	30	18	4	25.918	0.0001 ***
	Women	21	57	37	88	21
	Total	41	93	67	106	25
Dissatisfaction because of lack of professional credit	Men	20	34	28	22	4	40.079	0.0001 ***
	Women	8	42	53	91	30
	Total	28	76	81	113	34
The belief that leadership environments are toxic and want to avoid them	Men	15	35	28	27	3	28.956	0.0001 ***
	Women	7	49	52	83	33
	Total	22	84	80	110	36
The belief that leadership is a man’s role	Men	33	39	21	12	3	4.439	0.350
	Women	67	94	26	32	5
	Total	100	133	47	44	8
The belief that men already in leadership roles put up walls hard to overcome	Men	18	34	27	23	6	16.457	0.002 ***
	Women	12	67	48	70	27
	Total	30	101	75	93	33
The belief that women are ignored and marginalized	Men	26	37	20	20	5	32.496	0.0001 ***
	Women	14	55	52	87	16
	Total	40	92	72	107	21
The belief that there is mansplaining	Men	24	28	30	20	6	29.994	0.0001 ***
	Women	10	55	63	66	30
	Total	34	83	93	86	36
Women sabotage women	Men	13	17	37	25	16	10.097	0.039
	Women	18	56	60	71	19
	Total	31	73	97	96	35

Notes: The degrees of freedom for all tests are equal to 4. *** p-value < 0.01.

, below, it is evident that women tend to agree or strongly agree that family obligations, lack of time, burnout, and lack of professional credit are their biggest perceived impediments in breaking the glass ceiling. Aiming to identify if both genders consider the same factors as impediments for women in breaking the glass ceiling, a chi-square test of independence between gender’s opinions was conducted (see Table 1). The perceived impediments showing a statistically significance difference between the two genders were:

• family obligations,
• professional burnout,
• lack of time,
• lack of belief in their own abilities,
• lack of professional credit,
• toxic leadership environments
• walls put up by men in leadership
• marginalization of women, and
• mansplaining.

In response to the first research question,

Table 2. Factors that affect women taking on leadership roles: independent samples t-test for genders’ opinions.

	Mean Score			T	Sig.
	Men	Women	Total
Family obligations	3.70	4.28	4.07	−5.171	0.001 ***
Lack of time	3.15	3.94	3.68	−6.562	0.001 ***
Professional burnout	2.91	3.71	3.45	−6.700	0.001 ***
Dissatisfaction because of lack of professional credit	2.59	3.42	3.16	−6.540	0.001 ***
The belief that leadership environments are toxic and want to avoid them	2.70	3.38	3.18	−5.386	0.001 ***
The belief that there is mansplaining	2.59	3.23	3.02	−4.809	0.001 ***
The belief that women are ignored and marginalized	2.45	3.16	2.93	−5.448	0.001 ***
The belief that men already in leadership roles put up walls hard to overcome	2.68	3.15	3.00	−3.526	0.001 ***
Lack of belief in their own abilities	2.54	3.14	2.96	−4.468	0.001 ***
Women sabotage women	3.13	3.08	3.11	0.402	0.688
The belief that leadership is a man’s role	2.19	2.17	2.20	0.196	0.845

Notes: *** p-value ≤ 0.01.

(below) shows in descending order the women’s perspectives on the impediments perceived to be holding them back from expressing their wish to take up leadership roles as opposed to the views held by their male counterparts. Thus, the impediments listed above as holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling were significantly more likely to be agreed to by women rather than men. However, concerning the beliefs that leadership is a man’s role and women sabotage women, men’s and women’s beliefs did not significantly differ.

As shown in Table 2, statistically, women believe more than their male counterparts that family obligations, lack of time, professional burnout, lack of professional credit, toxic work environment, mansplaining, women’s marginalization, walls put up by men in leadership, and lack of belief in their abilities are impediments which make it difficult for them to break the glass ceiling. Interestingly, men do not appear to believe as much that these are impediments (except for family obligations and lack of time) that women face in breaking the glass ceiling in HTI. Thus, both men and women agree that the top two impediments for women are family obligations and lack of time. The ratings by men are uniformly lower than women, except for the last two, namely, that women sabotage women and the belief that leadership is a man’s role. This gap in the perceptions of men and women best explains the persistence of the glass ceiling in HTI and the fact that men in the higher echelons of HTIs hold different views than their women counterparts, except for the two aforementioned beliefs. Thus, where there is a patriarchal working environment and men hold leadership roles, they will have different views from women regarding the impediments holding women back from leadership roles. Consequently, men are not in a position to make constructive suggestions for effective policies to address gender inequality in leadership. In order to address the second research question, namely, the endogenous and exogenous factors perceived by the survey participants that hinder women from breaking the glass ceiling, a series of assumptions were examined, and appropriate data analyses conducted. To explore the relationships among the variables and to distinguish between exogenous and endogenous factors, factor analysis was employed (Hair et al. 2014). Specifically, principal components analysis (PCA) with direct oblimin rotation (Benson and Nasser 1998) was used, as this oblique rotation method is well suited for psychological, social, or behavioral research, where the underlying constructs are expected to be correlated.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (Sample size = 337).

	Mean	Std. Deviation
Family obligations	4.07	1.012
Lack of time	3.68	1.113
Professional burnout	3.45	1.105
The belief that leadership environments are toxic and want to avoid them	3.18	1.137
Dissatisfaction because of lack of professional credit	3.16	1.159
Women sabotage women	3.11	1.146
The belief that there is mansplaining	3.02	1.176
The belief that men already in leadership roles put up walls hard to overcome	3.00	1.172
Lack of belief in their own abilities	2.96	1.201
The belief that women are ignored and marginalized	2.93	1.164
The belief that leadership is a man’s role	2.20	1.099

Note: The mean and SD are based on a Likert scale 1: Strongly disagree with the statement to 5: Strongly agree with the statement.

summarizes in descending order the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the eleven variables. Given that (a) none of the variables were detected with a very strong correlation, (b) the dataset under study had sufficient size and no outliers were detected, (c) Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.839 (11 items), and (d) Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p-value was less than 0.0001, it is suggested that the dataset was suitable for factor analysis.

As mentioned above, to detect the number of components, the principal components method with the direct oblimin method was used. The analysis suggested three components (Figure 1 and

Table 4. Factor analysis (principal component analysis with oblique rotations) with absolute loadings.

	Variable Name	Component’s Factor Loadings
		1	2	3
1.	Family obligations	0.404	0.736	0.058
2.	Professional burnout	0.307	0.793	0.326
3.	Lack of time	0.248	0.877	0.204
4.	Lack of belief in their own abilities	0.261	0.392	0.703
5.	Dissatisfaction because of lack of professional credit	0.367	0.512	0.668
6.	The belief that leadership environments are toxic and want to avoid them	0.411	0.424	0.640
7.	The belief that leadership is a man’s role	0.449	0.122	0.601
8.	The belief that men already in leadership roles put up walls hard to overcome	0.905	0.219	0.341
9.	The belief that women are ignored and marginalized	0.928	0.254	0.389
10.	The belief that there is mansplaining	0.862	0.377	0.292
11.	Women sabotage women	0.186	0.061	0.558
	Proportion of variance	39.761	14.046	10.404
	Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.822
	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p-value = 0.0001 Bold numbers indicate the factor loadings retained for each component

). Figure 1 presents the scree plot of the analysis that shows a sharp decline in eigenvalues from Component 1 to Component 2, and then a moderate decline to Component 3, forming an “elbow” shape. In addition, according to Kaiser (1960), components with eigenvalues greater than 1 should be retained, an approach commonly used alongside the scree plot to determine the appropriate number of factors in exploratory factor analysis. The total variance explained by the three components is equal to 64.211%. The retained factor loadings for the first component are between 0.862 and 0.905 and explain 39.76% of the total variance. For the second component, the absolute factor loadings are between 0.736 and 0.877 and explain 14.046% of the total variance, and finally, for the third component, the factor loadings are between 0.601 and 0.703 and explain 14.404% of the total variance.

5. Discussion

The survey results provide a comprehensive etiological account of the impediments to leadership positions as perceived by the 337 participants at 13 universities in the Republic of Cyprus. The original contribution of this paper is that, unlike other researchers, the present authors have not only concentrated on finding the barriers/impediments perceived by women holding them back from breaking the glass ceiling but have also looked at men’s perceptions and have identified the existence of a gap, supporting radical feminism theory. This finding is in line with Friedrich Nietzsche’s view that “men and women have the same emotions, but at a different tempo: that is why men and women never cease to misunderstand one another” (Faber 2008, p. 61). As supported by radical feminism theory, men are much more likely to hold leadership positions in HTIs, and are therefore responsible for implementing good practices and policies to address the gender imbalance. Therefore, it is important to know what they perceive are the impediments holding back women from breaking the glass ceiling, an issue not investigated by other researchers.

As to the first research question referring to the impediments holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling and expressing their interest in holding leadership positions in their HTI, the data analysis shows that these are perceived differently by women and their male counterparts. In agreement with other researchers, it has been found that the impediments are as follows: family obligations and lack of time (Sebastián-González et al. 2023), professional burnout (Watts and Robertson 2011; Jense and Olsen 2023), dissatisfaction because of lack of professional credit (Jense and Olsen 2023), the belief that leadership environments are toxic and should better be avoided (Sulkowski et al. 2019), that there is mansplaining, and that women are ignored and marginalized (Simpson 1997; Maranto and Griffin 2011). The same was found to be the case with the belief that men already in leadership roles, as radical feminism would predict, put up walls that are hard to overcome (Van den Brink 2010; ENLEFGE 2012; Tuniy et al. 2023) and that women lack belief in their own abilities (Clance and Imes 1978). Thus, the findings are in line with previous research results and provide support for radical feminism theory.

In answering the second research question, namely, what are the perceived endogenous and exogenous factors, it is worth noting that the exogenous factor (Component 2) relates to the family obligations women have and their ‘duty’ to balance it with their professional demands, in agreement with Sebastián-González et al. (2023). This further contributes to professional burnout in women (Jense and Olsen 2023). Thus, the first exogenous obstacle suggested by this study is the difficulty of balancing professional and family obligations. The second exogenous factor was found to be the walls put up by males, who make women feel marginalized and perceive that there is mansplaining (Component 1). This finding is in agreement with Van den Brink (2010) and ENLEFGE (2012), who advocated that males holding leadership positions put up walls for women who wish to break the glass ceiling; thus, women feel marginalized (Gaikwad and Pandey 2022), and there is mansplaining—once again supporting radical feminism theory.

Regarding endogenous factors holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling, it was found that women lack belief in their abilities, there is a lack of professional credit, and they view the leadership environment as toxic, thus, they want to avoid it (Component 3). These findings are in agreement with other research (Walker et al. 2020), which found that women are disposed to believe that they lack ability, feel intellectual phonies (Clance and Imes 1978), need acknowledgment of professional credit, and view the higher echelons of HTIs as toxic and wish to avoid them (Blackmore 2017). Whilst toxicity may be considered as having its source exogenously, it is how one perceives it to exist; thus, in this case, it is considered to be endogenous as it is a personal perception. In addition, p in agreement with Simpson (1997), in cultures where there is a male-dominant culture or an extremely gendered (Krambia Kapardis and Spanoudis 2024) environment, women are made to feel they are not capable of leadership and believe they are intellectual phonies, i.e., the impostor syndrome (Clance and Imes 1978).

Thus, in answering the second research question, it can be argued that exogenous factors, such as the walls created by the men in leadership positions and family obligations, reinforce the marginalization and exclusion of women in leadership, thus facilitating the existence of endogenous factors, with such women feeling that they are not acknowledged and given credit by their male counterparts.

Robustness and reliability tests were undertaken. More specifically, (a) Cronbach’s alpha to measure internal consistency, (b) Bartlett’s test of sphericity to test whether the correlation matrix is suitable for factor analysis, and (c) the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test to measure sampling adequacy for factor analysis. In addition, independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests further validated the findings, showing consistency among the respondents.

Policy Implementations and Study Limitations

An original contribution of our research is the identification of the etiology of the impediments holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling in HTI, whereas other researchers have concentrated on studying the stereotypes (Katuna 2019). In answering the second research question, the authors initially identified and synthesized all the theories put forward diachronically. Secondly, the data analyses enabled us to group the impediments into endogenous and exogenous factors. The exogenous factors include (a) walls created by male leaders, reinforcing marginalization and mansplaining, and (b) family obligations and burnout due to the long working hours. The endogenous factors were found to be women’s lack of belief in their abilities, which reinforces an impostor syndrome, fear of failure, and self-sabotage, thus discouraging women from seeking leadership positions. Grouping the impediments into endogenous and exogenous facilitates the formulation of policies to move the needle towards gender leadership balance.

The authors acknowledge a limitation of the study, in that it relates to one EU Member State only. However, this is the country with the highest glass ceiling, and the challenges faced by women academics in Cyprus may well be relevant to other countries. Another limitation of the study is the fact that the quantitative analysis could have been coupled with qualitative insights to add more depth to the study.

The research findings have both practical and academic implications as they can be used in practice by HTIs and regulators as well as future researchers. Having identified the etiology of the gender leadership imbalance, an HTI will be able to implement policies and procedures to address gender equality and empower women and girls. By doing so, they will be able to also address second-generation gender bias (Ibara et al. 2013) and academics can incorporate gender leadership imbalance in their teaching. By addressing this issue in HTIs where the next generations’ lawyers, accountants, politicians, etc., are trained, inadvertently, we will be addressing the issue at its core.

Drawing on the findings, the authors put forward several policy suggestions to address the imbalance in leadership in HTIs. It is suggested at a macro-level to implement effective hard and/or soft laws. More specifically, it is suggested that (a) the DIRECTIVE (EU) 2022/2381 ought to be extended to cover HTIs not just publicly listed companies, and (b) HTIs ought to implement long-term gender balance policies, quotas for leadership positions, transparent hiring practices, caregiving support policies through flexible or virtual work schedules, and other anti-discrimination protocols. In addition, implementing Norway’s requirement for universities to report progress on gender balance, underscores the importance of institutional accountability and inclusive organizational cultures as well as encouraging HTIs to implement and enforce effective policies. Finally, by addressing the exogenous factors, it will be easier to deal with the endogenous factors. At a micro-level, it is suggested that by implementing empowering and mentoring policies to address women’s confidence and self-reliance, women will not self-sabotage themselves and will be better equipped to address toxicity in the higher echelons of HTIs. More specifically, Ibara et al. (2013) recommend (a) educating women and men about second-generation gender bias, (b) creating safe “identity workspaces” to support transitions to bigger roles, and (c) anchoring women’s development efforts. By doing so and creating a sense of leadership purpose, this will enable an identity shift in women to address the endogenous factors.

6. Conclusions

Gender equality is encapsulated in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025. Despite progress, the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership remains a pressing issue in Europe and globally. Whilst previous researchers have found that women do not break the glass ceiling due to stereotypes, the present study documents that because leadership is predominately in the hands of males and males perceive the impediments holding women back from breaking the glass ceiling to be different from the impediments perceived by women, it is made almost impossible for women to break the glass ceiling. This is because males most frequently implement policies and legislation.

In view of the above gap in the literature, the study draws on radical feminism theory that is aligned with the methodology used and the empirical results obtained, enabling mapping of the etiology of gender imbalance impediments. More specifically, it was found that due to the walls created by men in leadership, the reinforcement of marginalization and mansplaining, in combination with family obligations and burnout due to the long working hours, women are discouraged from voicing their interest in holding leadership roles—a feeling reinforced by impostor syndrome, fear of failure, and self-sabotage.

As proposed in this paper, for women academics to be able to break the glass ceiling in HTIs, a multifaceted approach is necessary. There is a need for government intervention through the implementation of gender-specific policies and legislation for academia. At the individual level, support ought to be provided through empowering and mentoring leadership development programs for women. In addition, each HTI ought to be accountable annually regarding the effectiveness of the policies implemented.

Addressing gender inequality in academic leadership requires coordinated efforts at the societal, institutional, and individual levels. Creating a supportive, inclusive environment achieves two important aims. Firstly, it empowers women to overcome systemic impediments and thrive in leadership roles, driving progress in the academic and broader societal contexts. Secondly, it has positive impacts on the thinking of potential future leaders. Finally, the authors urge replication of the findings reported above in other countries.