Women CIOs in Higher Education
A Forthcoming Research Report
Research Bulletin
October 16, 2012
Elizabeth Clark, Boston College
Overview
In our contemporary world, technology is ubiquitous and plays an increasingly important role in
our everyday lives. IT affects and influences broad, diverse segments of society, and higher
education is no more immune to its impact than any other field. At the same time, organizations
that design, implement, and maintain technology solutions do not necessarily reflect the
diversity of the populations they serve. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported by the National
Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) in Women in IT: The Facts illustrated
that in 2009, white women made up just 18% of the overall IT workforce in the United States,
while Asian women represented 4%, African American women 2%, and Hispanic women
1
1.5%. Clearly, women’s presence in the IT workforce lacks population proportionality,
regardless of race or ethnicity.
A lack of proportional representation grows even more evident when scrutinizing the upper
echelons of IT organizations. CIOs—those at the top of IT organizational hierarchies—make
decisions about their organizations’ composition and culture, and yet they constitute the least
diverse segment of IT’s overall population. Across industries, the position of CIO has long been
the domain of white men. The recently released Harvey Nash CIO survey reported that women
2
constitute only 8% of the global CIO population (9% in the United States). Additionally, the
NCWIT report included survey data showing that women still hold just 9% of IT management
positions (CEO, CIO, CTO, VP, director, strategist, architect) in Fortune 500 companies,
3
continuing a trend that has persisted for years. These data are certainly compelling and raise
the question of how well homogenous IT organizations run by a dominant social group can
serve far more diverse user populations. This picture of IT organizations raises some doubts
about the profession’s fairness, as well as whether the needs of those using technologies can
truly be understood and met. Implications for the labor force raise another concern. In the
decade ending in 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects a 19.9% increase in core
4
technology occupations, compared to only 10% across the rest of the labor force. If so few
women participate in the IT profession, how much will they be losing out on the major workforce
growth that this field has to offer?
IT has become a crucial component of our lives and the workforce. That the IT profession lacks
proportional representation of women worries many. Most research and statistics on IT
organizations and workers, however, either examine aggregate data or concentrate on a
corporate perspective. Although IT organizations in higher education mirror those in the
business world in many ways, data suggest that women secure CIO roles at academic
institutions at much higher rates than they do in industry. Since 2004, nationwide surveys of
higher education institutions conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
(ECAR) and the Center for Higher Education Chief Information Officer Studies, Inc. (CHECS)
© 2012 EDUCAUSE and Elizabeth Clark.
CC by-nc-nd.
1
5
have shown that women hold the CIO position between 21.4% and 26% of the time. While still
not proportional, these data raise the question of why such a difference exists between higher
education and the corporate sector. If the normative cultures of corporations, higher education,
and the IT profession have all been white and male, why and how have women achieved more
IT leadership success in higher education? What are the cultural differences in higher
education IT that have created a wider pathway for women to the CIO office? With ECAR
workforce data reporting that three out of four higher education CIOs come from within the
6
academic network (consistent since 2004), this is an intriguing question to explore.
A mixed-methods study commencing in the fall of 2012 will investigate what is happening in
higher education IT at the organizational level that has encouraged better proportionality for
women as IT executives. This study will collect data through a survey and interviews. First, an
online survey will be distributed to a sample of higher education CIOs. The survey aims to
identify and define specific cultural aspects of higher education IT and assess whether any
significant differences exist between women’s and men’s experiences of those cultural factors.
Second, interviews with women CIOs will help explain their perspective on the survey findings.
Highlights
Framing the Study: The Literature
Very little research has been conducted on the culture of higher education IT and how its
environment affects women’s and men’s presence in the profession. A scholarly framework for
such a study requires inquiry into several areas of literature: the history of IT; organizational
culture, women, and leadership; and the glass ceiling—or what hinders and helps women’s
attainment of executive positions. An historical overview of modern computing lays the
foundation for the investigation, while an understanding of culture and gendered organizational
norms illustrates the strength of the historical core. These set the stage for understanding
women’s experiences inside IT organizations, as well as what helps them attain (or keeps them
out of) executive roles.
Business scholarship was utilized in a referential way for two distinct reasons. First, IT as a
profession initially developed in corporations, and the literature on IT culture and women’s
experiences in the profession are well documented. Second, where scholarship on higher
education IT organizations is scant—and on women’s experiences inside those organizations
even more inadequate—contextual scholarly reference points were necessary.
IT History
Information technology as a formal profession can trace its roots back to the historical
developments of modern computing, which began in the early 19th century. Up until 1945,
much work that we relegate to machines today was painstakingly carried out by humans for
tasks such as building nautical tables, calculating ballistic trajectories, and reconciling financial
accounts. These individuals were called computers, or as the Oxford English Dictionary used to
define them “…one who computes; a calculator, reckoner; specifically, a person employed to
7
make calculations in an observatory, in surveying, etc.” Prior to that time, there were men
working to figure out ways to automate the tediousness of computing. Charles Babbage, a
Cambridge University–educated mathematician born in 1791, produced designs for machines
that would calculate and store data for nautical tables. Though he was never fully able to
2
actualize his designs, his conceptual models inspired others decades later who engineered the
world’s first machine-based computers. Later in the 19th century, another historical personality
figured prominently in the development of modern computers: Herman Hollerith. A young
engineer from New York, Hollerith attended Columbia University, where he worked with a
professor who was an advisor to the Bureau of Census in Washington, D.C. This academic
connection gave Hollerith insight into the process behind the census, and he ended up
designing a revolutionary punch-card system that was to dramatically change the census of
1890. What Hollerith started grew into IBM and sparked a storm of machine-based
8
developments that evolved into today’s computer industry.
While the history of modern computing is filled with rich detail, this particular groundwork is laid
because it informs two important points about the IT profession. First, from its very early stages,
computing and information technology have pivoted around men and their machines. Second,
women’s place in the field was secondary to men’s from the start. Because women were not
allowed into either the educational or work spaces allocated for men, they had no place
alongside them to build computing creations. When women were finally let into the workforce,
their jobs were prescribed for them. They were only given supporting responsibilities, a fact that
was heavily tied to their socially ascribed roles as caretakers in the 19th and early 20th
centuries. Thus, much like other professions that developed during that time period (such as
law and medicine), as IT matured, the evolving cultural discourse for the profession was
distinctly masculine. By the time organizations imagined the need for a chief information officer,
which was not until around 1980, the masculine nature of information technology was firmly
entrenched in the profession’s culture.
Organizational Culture
An organization’s culture is its pattern of formulated, shared assumptions and beliefs that
influence the ways that individuals within that organization think about and interact with their
9
world. The organizational culture literature points out two basic characteristics of culture. One
10
is its resistance to change; the other, its natural tendency to create “insiders” and “outsiders.”
Because culture defines and creates structural norms around organizations’ operations in
ritualistic ways over time, shifting those norms can cause people great anxiety. Scholars note,
in fact, that cultural change will not normally occur without a crisis or other motivational reason
behind it. Cultures become entrenched.
While the history of modern computing and information technology illustrates that the
profession was androcentric from the start, characteristics of organizational culture help explain
why disparities between men and women have persisted. Without motivation to change, IT
organizations have remained resistant to efforts toward gender proportionality, even as
women’s presence in the workforce has grown. According to the 2010 Bureau of Labor
Statistics, women now compose 47.2% of the entire workforce, and NCWIT reported that
between 2000 and 2009, women made up between 55% and 58% of the professional
11
workforce. Despite these changes, women persist as outsiders in the IT profession, remaining
vastly underrepresented throughout the profession, but especially at the top.
Glass Ceiling: What Hinders, What Helps
Women’s difficulties in attaining executive roles have never been confined to IT, or even to
male-dominated professions. The experience, in fact, was so common that it earned the label
3
“the glass ceiling” in 1986. Coined in a Wall Street Journal article, it was described as an
invisible barrier women reached as they strived for executive office. This barrier took the shape
of both policies and practices that deliberately discriminated against women when it came to
senior positions.
Pipelines and Pathways
Scholars have examined those practices over the years, in order to identify what type of
obstacles hinder or help women’s advancement. The glass ceiling literature starts with the
“pipeline,” a term used to describe the number of people—women, specifically—who are
available to participate in the IT workforce. The IT pipeline has been investigated all the way
back to childhood, where scholars have explored the different ways that boys and girls are
socialized with computers and technology. What research has found is that the strong
androcentric culture of IT heavily influences environments that discourage girls at very young
ages; the early bias has a devastating effect on their participation in technology disciplines and
12
ultimately on women’s presence in the IT profession.
Women who do pursue technology careers and aspire to top management need to understand
what pathways might lead them there. Scholars who have looked at corporate practices that
create barriers to obtaining senior positions often focus on ways in which men and women are
segregated as they enter organizations. In particular, workers who aspire to top management
slots need “line” experience—knowledge and skills related to the day-to-day operations of the
13
organization. “Staff” positions, on the other hand, serve the organization more indirectly, as
they support the line functions. Those who have analyzed line and staff positions in
corporations along gender lines have found that they are, in fact, highly gendered, with more
14
men occupying line positions and women more often placed in staff positions. IT’s
professional correlates to “line” and “staff” positions are “technical” and “support” ones. As
might be expected, those who have researched IT organizations have noted that as with
corporate organizations, roles are often divided along gender lines, with women dominating the
15
support functions. These divisions of labor lead to gender segregation in leadership, as the
most powerful executive positions require line or technical experience. Thus, a pathway issue,
where women are hired into areas with less potential for achieving the most powerful positions,
creates a pipeline issue by diverting women from the paths that might lead to the top.
Masculine Work Environments
In addition to pipeline and pathway issues that women face within the IT profession, scholars of
the glass ceiling have identified several areas of organizational practices that hinder women’s
aspirations: masculine work environments, hiring and promotion biases, and a lack of role
models and mentors. Masculine work environments have been a particularly thorny issue for
high-achieving women because the environments often operate on outdated notions around
home and family responsibilities. Though women have been participating in the labor force for
many years, their entry into the world of work did not force a sudden shift in societal views
around what role they played at home, nor did organizations automatically (or rapidly) change
their practices to accommodate women’s presence.
Socially ascribed assumptions around housework and childcare have had implications for
women’s careers. For high-achieving women, their career clocks and biological clocks are often
16
in conflict: prime work years conflict with prime child-rearing ones. Just as they are hitting their
4
stride career-wise, the question around children frequently comes up. Social assumptions in
place, the burden is then on women to figure out how to manage their desires for both. When
children first come into the picture, some women decide to keep working; others take time off.
Some men do as well, but it is far more common for women to struggle with whether they
17
should keep their jobs when they enter those conflict-ridden years.
Hiring and Promotion Practices
Scholars have also looked at gender bias and discrimination in hiring and promotion practices
as a way to explain the scarcity of women in executive roles. Not only do women have a harder
time than men in obtaining substantial assignments that will raise their profile within an
organization, they are also often evaluated more harshly than men. Researchers note that
gendered perceptions affect the work women are given and the rates at which they are
18
promoted. Where leadership is defined in masculine terms—as bold, assertive, or
aggressive—there is a predisposition against women that precludes recognition of their
competence. This undervaluing of women’s performance is then linked directly to differences in
19
hiring and promotion rates between men and women.
Role Models and Mentors
Yet another obstacle examined in the literature that is strongly associated with women’s trouble
navigating masculine organizational cultures is the absence of female role models and
mentors. Role models are important, as we all need to see others like ourselves in positions we
covet so that we believe we can attain them. When particular groups are conspicuously absent
from jobs, disciplines, or professions, it makes it harder to imagine that those groups belong
20
there. As women are seldom present in senior roles like the CIO, it is difficult for others who
might aspire to such positions to imagine that they can play that role. Mentors are important, as
they play an active role in ensuring that the individuals they mentor have the skills and
knowledge to succeed. By working closely with mentees, mentors help to build a next
generation of leaders. Unfortunately, numerous scholars who study the glass ceiling have
21
noted that a lack of role models and mentors in organizations deters women’s participation. It
is often the case that role models and mentors do not exist in organizations with inhospitable
22
cultures for women. The 2011 ECAR workforce study reported that only 36% of CIO aspirants
23
had a mentor, a statistic that was consistent across both Carnegie Class and gender. The
absence of this important resource helps preserve the very cultural elements that keep women
out and that have been associated with women’s participation rates in IT declining since
24
1991.
Breaking Through: Helpful Organizational Practices
Given these organizational barriers, what types of solutions have researchers identified that
help women achieve their goals? Flexible work, reforms in recruitment and evaluation, and
mentoring have all been noted as ways to increase women’s presence in executive roles.
Flexible work takes direct aim at the androcentric cultural values present in many organizations
and offers women (and men) opportunities to reshape how they balance work and home
responsibilities. Flexible scheduling allows employees some versatility beyond the standard,
rigid, 9-to-5 working day. It can mean many things, from working different hours on different
days to working a full-time schedule in four days rather than five. Many permutations are
possible, but these options offer working women concrete strategies for managing the work that
5
they do in the office with their work at home; other options include job-sharing or reduced-hour,
25
part-time jobs. Closely related to these strategies, and one that is more and more common in
26
today’s technology-driven environments, is telecommuting, or working from home. All of these
strategies provide women with ways to manage the variety of stressors that go along with the
often-overlapping career and family obligations and aspirations.
Another organizational area that researchers have identified as important to address if more
gender-balanced institutions and leadership are desired is that of recruitment and evaluation
practices. Numerous scholars have noted that these practices need to be assessed and
adjusted in order to counteract the unconscious stereotypes that influence our ideas about who
27
ought to be hired and promoted. Descriptive and prescriptive biases have consequences for
women in organizations—they tend not to be hired into certain positions, and their work is
undervalued. The more they are seen in stereotypical terms, the more common it is for women
to be treated this way. Organizations can contribute to and actively facilitate these biases when
they have ambiguous hiring and promotion procedures but can counter them with practices that
carefully and explicitly account for gender.
Finally, scholars have looked at the process of mentoring in positive terms, as something that
contributes to both women’s retention and their ability to attain top executive jobs. Mentors can
teach protégés about organizations or professions and help them get good assignments. The
best mentors offer both professional and personal support to those they identify as having
leadership potential, and numerous scholars note that mentoring is a helpful strategy for
28
developing top management. In the IT profession, it has been pointed out that women with
one or more mentors had better job success; in higher education, both the 2008 and 2011
ECAR IT workforce studies identified mentors as important for CIO aspirants, indicating the
29
value of being groomed for the CIO role.
Though mentoring gets a good deal of positive press for its success as a strategy for retaining
and advancing women, some caution that mentoring can be a negative experience, too. A
mentor can be too controlling, may not understand the protégé’s strengths, or may manipulate
mentees for self-serving political goals. They suggest that organizations develop formal
programs and implement them with care. Internal women’s networks and/or support groups are
also suggested as a positive source of mentoring, offering women opportunities to
30
communicate with one another in a safe setting. Positive mentoring is encouraged and can
nurture productive growth; negative experiences can be devastating.
What It Means to Higher Education
Though the glass ceiling literature identifies factors that keep women out of executive positions,
as well as ones that help them achieve their career aspirations, no research has been identified
that brings together all of the variables identified in the literature to assess their relative strength
in explaining women’s presence in the CIO role. Furthermore, very little data on women CIOs in
higher education exist, and no studies have examined what factors contribute to their ability to
attain CIO positions at better rates than women in corporate environments. Thus, the
forthcoming study aims to understand cultural elements, policies, and practices in higher
education IT that are contributing to this phenomenon. Until we know more about women’s
involvement in higher education IT as CIOs, as well as their experiences in and perceptions of
6
the organizations in which they work, we will not be able to define why women are making
better strides in the higher education IT workforce in getting to the top.
All of that said, why is gender equity in IT important to higher education? Why do women’s
experiences in the profession matter? To be certain, the issue of gender equity in IT has been a
popular topic to study in the business world. It has also caught the attention of those in higher
education: The December 2011 issue of Campus Technology was dedicated to women in
higher education IT. Why do so many care? Perhaps it is because IT is, in a time of high
unemployment, a field that expects to see better growth than other areas of the economy. With
this growth comes opportunity, of course. Yet if IT remains a gender-biased industry, not all will
have equal access to those possibilities.
Perhaps more importantly, however, is an issue that underlies the ubiquity of technology in our
lives. If we presume that we are all now consumers of technology in one way, shape, or form,
then is it not fair to express some doubt about whether a homogeneous group of individuals
can create and implement technologies that serve us all? This is true in general and certainly in
higher education, where student bodies are becoming ever more diverse. Thus, if higher
education does a superior job of recruiting and maintaining more gender-balanced IT workers
and leaders, ought we not at least wonder why that is the case? I argue that we do, in fact,
need to know more, so that we can urge these organizations that affect us so greatly to take
more of us into consideration.
Finally, research of this kind is significant to the practice of higher education IT administration
and to the IT profession in general. Knowing the predictive power of select factors that help
women achieve top leadership roles in androcentric environments can help organizations
choose and implement more effective policies and practices aimed at gender equity. This is
31
especially important as a first wave of CIOs in higher education prepare to retire. A more
gender-balanced next generation of CIOs is within our grasp.
Key Questions to Ask
The key research questions that will be addressed by this study are as follows:

What individual and organizational factors describe higher education CIOs and their work
environments, and how do they differ for women and men?

What specific cultural factors identified throughout the glass ceiling literature exist in higher
education IT, and how do women’s and men’s experiences within the culture differ?

How do women CIOs in higher education IT explain the organizational factors that have
contributed to their ability to attain the CIO position?
IT organizations may ask themselves the following questions:

What is the organization’s culture and its impact on gender proportionality, especially in
leadership roles?

What are the institutional barriers (gender-segregated pathways, masculine work
environments, the design of hiring and promotion practices, a lack of role models and
mentors for women/executives) that negatively impact our ability to recruit and maintain
women executives?
7

What are the institutional practices that have had a positive impact on our ability to build
and maintain a gender-proportional workforce, and are those practices available at all
levels of the organizational hierarchy?
Where to Learn More
The endnotes provide a more thorough list of resources for those interested in this topic. Key
resources are highlighted here. A full list of references attached to the study can be obtained by
contacting the author. A follow-up research bulletin with the results of the study will be
published in the spring of 2013.
CIOs in Higher Education

Arroway, Pam, Jerrold M. Grochow, Judith A. Pirani, and Carrie E. Regenstein. The
Higher Education CIO: Portrait of Today, Landscape of Tomorrow (Research Study).
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2011, available from
http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Brown, Wayne A. Study of the Higher Education Chief Information Officer Roles and
Effectiveness. Albany: Center for Higher Education Chief Information Officer Studies,
2011.
Glass Ceiling

Eagly, Alice, and Linda Carli. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women
Become Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Carolyn Buck Luce, Peggy Shiller, and Sandra Southwell. The
Hidden Brain Drain: Off-Ramps and On-Ramps in Women’s Careers. Cambridge:
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2005.
History of IT

Campbell-Kelly, Martin, and William Aspray. Computer: A History of the Information
Machine, Second Edition. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004.
Organizational Culture

Schein, Edgar. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Publishers, 2010.
About the Author
Elizabeth Clark (elizabeth.clark.3@bc.edu) is the Director of Instructional Design and
eTeaching Services and a doctoral candidate in the Lynch School of Education at Boston
College.
Citation for This Work
Clark, Elizabeth. “Women CIOs in Higher Education.” (Research Bulletin). Louisville, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, October 16, 2012, available from
http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
8
Notes
1.
Catherine Ashcraft and Sarah Blithe, Women in IT: The Facts, National Center for Women & Information
Technology, 2010, http://ncwit.org/pdf/NCWIT_TheFacts_rev2010.pdf.
2.
TelicityGroup. “Harvey Nash CIO Survey 2012,” Harvey Nash, last modified: May 2012,
http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/.
3.
Ashcraft and Blithe, Women in IT.
4.
Kyle Stock, “The Best Technology Jobs Outside Tech Companies,” FINS.com, June 21, 2011, http://itjobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130633935414018881/The-Best-Technology-Jobs-Outside-Tech-Companies.
5.
Pam Arroway, Jerrold M. Grochow, Judith A. Pirani, and Carrie E. Regenstein, The Higher Education CIO: Portrait
of Today, Landscape of Tomorrow (Research Study) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research,
2011), 1–35, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar; Wayne A. Brown, Study of the Higher Education Chief
Information Officer Roles and Effectiveness (Albany, NY: Center for Higher Education Chief Information Officer
Studies, 2011), 1–67; Richard N. Katz, Robert B. Kvavik, James I. Penrod, Judith A. Pirani, Mark R. Nelson, and
Gail Salaway, Information Technology Leadership in Higher Education: The Condition of the Community.
(Research Study, Volume 1) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008), 37, available from
http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
6.
Arroway et al., The Higher Education CIO.
7.
Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, Second Edition
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004), 3.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 2010).
10. Terry Deal and Allan A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1982); Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2010.
11. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race,
and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity,” 2010, http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn201001.pdf; National Center for
Women & Information Technology,
http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/scorecard2010_printversion_web.pdf, 2011.
12. Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2003).
13. Alice Eagly and Linda Carli, Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders (Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press, 2007).
14. Jodi S. Goodman, Dail L. Fields, and Terry C. Blum, “Cracks in the Glass Ceiling: In What Kind of Organizations
Do Women Make It to the Top?” Group & Organization Management 28, no. 4 (December 2003): 475–501;
Constance E. Helfat, Dawn Harris, and Paul J. Wolfson, “The Pipeline to the Top: Women and Men in the Top
Executive Ranks of U.S. Corporations,” Academy of Management Perspectives, (November, 2003): 42–65; Judith
G. Oakley, “Gender-Based Barriers to Senior Management positions: Understanding the Scarcity of Female
CEOs,” Journal of Business Ethics, 27: 321–334.
15. Kathryn M. Bartol and William Aspray, “The Transition of Women from the Academic World to the IT Workplace: A
Review of the Relevant Research,” in Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation, ed.
Joanne McGrath Cohoon and William Aspray, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2006), 377–419.
16. Eagly and Carli, Through the Labyrinth.
17. Ibid.; Sylvia A. Hewlett, Carol B. Luce, Peggy Shiller, and Sandra Southwell, “The Hidden Brain Drain: Off-Ramps
and On-Ramps in Women’s Careers,” Harvard Business Review Research Report, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Publishing Corporation, 2005); Gary N. Powell and Laura M. Graves, Women and Men in
Management, Third Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2003).
18. Bartol and Aspray, “The Transition of Women”; Marilyn Drury, “Women Technology Leaders: Gender Issues in
Higher Education Information Technology,” NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 4, no. 1 (2011):
96–123.
19. Madeline E. Heilman, “Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the
Organizational Ladder,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 657–674.
20. Bartol and Aspray, “The Transition of Women,” 377–419.
21. Manju K. Ahuja, “Women in the Information Technology Profession: A Literature Review, Synthesis and Research
Agenda,” European Journal of Information Systems, no. 11 (2002): 20–34; Drury, “Women Technology Leaders,”
9
96–123; Judith Glazer-Raymo, Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1999); Goodman, Fields, and Blum, “Cracks in the Glass Ceiling,” 475–501.
22. Kathryn E. Jandeska and Maria L. Kraimer, “Women’s Perceptions of Organizational Culture, Work Attitudes, and
Role-Modeling Behavior,” Journal of Managerial Issues 17, no. 4 (2005): 461–478.
23. Arroway et al., The Higher Education CIO.
24. Ashcraft and Blithe, Women in IT: The Facts; Jandeska and Kraimer, “Women’s Perceptions of Organizational
Culture, Work Attitudes, and Role-Modeling Behavior,” 461–478.
25. George F. Dreher, “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: The Effects of Sex Ratios and Work-Life Programs on Female
Leadership at the Top,” Human Relations 56, no. 5 (2003): 541–562; Eagly and Carli, Through the Labyrinth,
2007; Helfat, Harris, and Wolfson, “The Pipeline to the Top,” 2003, 42–65; Hewlett et al., “The Hidden Brain
Drain”; Eileen M. Trauth, Jeria L. Quesenberry, and Haiyan Huang, “Retaining Women in the U.S. IT Workforce:
Theorizing the Influence of Organizational Factors,” European Journal of Information Systems 18, no. 5 (2009):
476–497.
26. Dreher, “Breaking the Glass Ceiling,” 541–562.
27. Eagly and Carli, Through the Labyrinth; Heilman, “Description and Prescription,” 657–674; Powell and Graves,
Women and Men in Management.
28. Eagly and Carli, Through the Labyrinth; Helfat et al., “The Pipeline to the Top,” 42–65; Maggie Locher, “Women at
the Top,” CIO, May 15, 2006, http://www.cio.com/article/20902/C_level_Jobs_Women_at_the_Top.
29. Arroway et al., The Higher Education CIO; Goldstein, Leading the IT Workforce in Higher Education.
30. Helfat et al., “The Pipeline to the Top,” 42–65; Trauth et al., “Retaining Women,” 476–497.
31. Arroway et al., The Higher Education CIO.
10