In this third EFMD volume, my fellow editors and I sought to shine a spotlight on women (and sometimes the absence of them) in their varied roles within business schools, as well as their contributions and impact across multiple spheres within and beyond their schools. We wanted to share perspectives on gender equity and determine what hinders and accelerates progress in creating gender-diverse and inclusive schools. To do so, we sought the voices of both women and men from a variety of viewpoints and geographical contexts. We aspired to attract contributions that would provide readers with both quantitative evidence of the appointment and progress of women in business schools, as well as rich narratives that would deepen insights into the lived experiences of women contributing both to and beyond business schools. Contributions are grouped into three themes: analysing gender in business schools, exploring institutional issues, and celebrating women’s broader impact across sectors. We sincerely hope you enjoy the series and its contribution to the debate.

---

Introduction

Motivations underlying organisational efforts to build diverse, equitable and inclusive (DEI) workplaces that foster belonging and contribute positively to social equity vary. Some argue instrumentally that DEI leads to benefits such as increased employee retention, reduced reputational risk, legal compliance and enhanced organisational performance. Others believe that business has an important contribution to make in solving wider societal problems and needs to play its part in addressing deep-seated issues of social inequality. Whilst bases for exclusion are many, varied and often intersectional, gender inequality has been singled out as an important area of focus by the United Nations as the fifth goal of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Given their important role in shaping current and future business practices, business schools need to go beyond contributing to building environments in which women can thrive and progress. They have a responsibility to extend their reach through research, teaching and broader engagement. Despite this quadruple rationale for promoting sustainable gender equity, the presence, voices and lived experiences of women in business schools differs relative to male counterparts across geographies, student populations, faculty, professional staff and leaders in schools of business. Although there are some encouraging signs of change (Miotto et al., 2019), gender inequality in business schools has been termed “the elephant in the room” (Flynn et al., 2015, p. 26) and calls have been made to “clean our houses” (Verbos and Kennedy, 2017, p. 81). Not only are women under-represented in the professoriate and leadership of business schools (Gooty et al., 2023; Leckrone, 2024), but when they do make progress in these hallowed halls, those courageous enough to narrate their experiences render accounts of bias and patriarchy (Galizzi et al., 2024; Grandy and Mavin, 2023; Prothero, 2023). Despite these severe headwinds, there are magnificent stories of women succeeding and making a major impact in and beyond their business schools that deserve celebration and attention.

In this third EFMD volume, my fellow editors and I sought to shine a spotlight on women (and sometimes the absence of them) in their varied roles within business schools, as well as their contributions and impact across multiple spheres within and beyond their schools. We wanted to share perspectives on gender equity, and to determine what hinders and accelerates progress in creating gender diverse and inclusive schools. To do so, we sought the voices of both women and men from a variety of viewpoints and geographical contexts. We aspired to attract contributions that would provide readers with both quantitative evidence of the appointment and progress of women in business schools, as well as rich narratives that would deepen insights into the lived experiences of women contributing both to and beyond business schools.

Although none of the editors are scholarly experts in gender studies, we all shared a commitment to gather material that would enable us and our readers to learn, reflect, and contribute within our spheres of influence to promoting gender equality, equity, and inclusion. We invited contributions from three constituencies: gender scholars, women who have made a significant contribution to and beyond university leadership, and men who have spoken and acted in support of gender equality.

Author contributions are grouped into three themes. The first considers the landscape of gender and gender quality in business schools from faculty. We share inputs from scholars and leaders across multiple geographies including contributions from Africa, the Americas, Europe and the United Kingdom. The second explores gender issues within business schools and universities and raises thought-provoking perspectives, provocations and experiences from and of faculty, deans and institutional leaders in higher education about the leadership, structures, culture, policies and practices that diminish and support gender equity. The final section focuses on the experiences and impact of women deans and scholars beyond business schools and spans ecosystems ranging from business to government and civil society. In many cases, the contributions of the chapters transcend the sections to which they have been ascribed. Collectively, they present a rich tapestry of the business school landscape as well as the lived reality and potential aspirations for business schools and all their citizens.

The landscape of gender and gender equality across business schools

Reflections on trajectories and shifts regarding the landscape of ‘gender and gender equality’ tend to focus on the representation of women in populations including students, graduates, faculty and deans. Whilst balanced numbers of men and women as students, employees and leaders in business schools is not indicative of gender equality, it is a useful starting point. A review of chapters submitted that focused on Latin America (Gaby Alvarado), the United Kingdom (Fiona Wilson, Sue Vinnicombe and Lina Seidiltz) and Europe (Mike Page and Hanneke Takkenberg), suggest that across the regions reviewed, more women are being appointed to faculty positions than 10 years ago, but that this is nowhere near parity. Although there are areas in business schools like support roles, where women may be over-represented, and a hopeful trend towards parity in student registrations in some regions, women in tenured positions and the professoriate and at the helm of business schools are still conspicuous by their absence. In a chapter in the second section, Rachel Ashworth aptly describes the “leaking pipeline in full flow until we reached the inevitable chasm when looking at our professoriate.” Representation of women also varies by discipline. A chapter by Emma Jeanes and Rajani Naidoo on schools of economics states that in 2022/2023 only 30% of academic faculty in UK departments of economics were women. They stress the importance of tackling student pipelines to drive change in the composition of business school faculty.

Mike Page and Hanneke Takkenberg’s review of remuneration at eight leading European business schools that resulted in a finding of equitable pay for women in only 25% of cases is concerning. Their findings about female representation in research in European business schools are consistent with the picture that Fiona Wilson and her colleagues paint around the lower research productivity of women in UK business schools. Their investigation shows that the cause is certainly not that women are less capable than their male counterparts, but that they face a gendered system of academic publishing. Given this perspective, this team’s finding that the gender imbalances at the professorial level appear to be exaggerated at elite, research-intensive universities (the Russell Group universities in the United Kingdom) and becomes even more exacerbated when considering the progression of women who identify as black and ethnic minority comes (sadly) as no surprise.

Just as women are under-represented in the senior professoriate, so too is their absence felt in business school dean roles. In 2024, the AACSB reports that of 368 business schools in the USA, 30% are run by women deans (Hymnowitz, 2024). The suggestion that this improving representation might extend to deanships across the world as suggested by Ethier (2024) is debatable when one considers that AACSB schools are more representative in countries with higher female leaders than global averages (Holoniq.com. 2024). When it comes to leading schools, the problem worsens. In a study of deans of Triple Crown Accredited Schools discussed in the second section of this volume the authors identified only 25 women deans out of more than 125 schools in 2023. Mike Page and Hanneke Takkenberg calculate that of the 34 European business schools ranked in the 2024 Financial Times top 100 International MBAs, only three have female deans!

Another important aspect of the gendered business school landscape is the composition of student populations. Although women participation in under-graduate management education programmes has shown increases whether in the United Kingdom or Mexico, Joy Jones notes that according to GMAC¹, the applications of women in graduate management programmes has hovered at around 40% for the last decade (in stark contrast to medical and law schools that have performed far better in closing the gender gap in applications). She emphasises the need for improved engagement with young women earlier in their careers, a call echoed by Emma Jeanes and Rajani Naidoo who stress the importance of school outreach work in partnership with others to encourage women into (the male-dominated field of) economics. Jones also calls on schools to develop programmes that cater to the relatively larger aspirations of women to make a positive difference to society, the development of transferable skills that promote career advancement and transitions, and the need to develop flexible programmes that build pathways across life stages.

The under-representation of women in business schools extends to the outputs of business schools. In a chapter included in the second section of the volume, Sharon Mavin and Gina Grandy cite research on the lack of focus on gender issues and perspectives in module and course descriptions in UK universities and also describe male-tilted imbalances in business school curricula, research theories taught and teaching material.

An internal focus on women is necessary but insufficient for business schools that seek to have impact in their communities. Joy Jones argues that schools need to consider how they can shape their business landscapes including increasing the presence and participation of women in industries like finance and technology and on boards. Gaby Alvarado and Sherif Kamel (in his chapter published in the final section) provide contextual information on the concerning lack of participation of women on boards in Mexico and Egypt and share the roles that their respective schools (IPADE and the American University of Cairo) are playing to develop women to prepare and support them to adopt board leadership positions.

In their chapter which provides valuable insights on European business schools, Mike Page and Hanneke Takkenberg reference the Gender Equality in Academic and Research: Gear Tool to differentiate between gender equality which focuses on equality of rights, responsibilities and opportunities, and gender equity which is concerned with the provision of fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2024). Gender representation in business and business schools is a useful starting point in reflecting a narrow, demographically oriented view of gender equality within and beyond business schools but gives little insight into lived experiences of fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities in business schools, the focus of the second part of the volume.

Gender issues in business schools and universities

This section concentrates on the context and lived experience of women in business schools as well as their reflections following their (rare) ascent to senior university leadership roles. These chapters provide rich descriptions of women working and leading in business schools and universities and include recommendations on the steps that business schools can take to promote gender equity. The section also includes a contribution from a man’s perspective.

Many of the authors discuss personal accounts during their journeys that reflect incidents ranging from what Rachel Ashworth describes as “the tedium of everyday sexism” to examples of aggressive displays of patriarchy described by Sharon Mavin and Gina Grandy. As a woman who has spent the last twenty-five years in business schools in roles ranging from a junior academic to a dean, I could empathise with so many accounts ranging from a greater focus on my dress than my contribution, ‘mansplaining’, harassment and being asked to perform countless more service-related tasks than my male colleagues. Anne Tsui’s account (in the third section) of being called ‘girly’ for pursuing a sustainability agenda would be funny if it were not tragic (and thankfully advice she chose to reject). Enase Okonedo describes the impact of social and cultural norms about women on her decisions to take up roles as a dean and later a vice-chancellor of her school and shares her learnings for university leaders to focus on painting a compelling vision, co-creating a strategic plan, and building trust as a leader.

In a chapter focused on the leadership experiences of women deans in business schools with multiple accreditations, my co-authors, Caren Scheepers and Heather Cairns-Lee, and I used clean interviewing techniques to elicit deans’ descriptions of leading on good days and bad days. ‘Bad days’ were associated with high levels of emotional labour and reduced energy, but these downsides only paint part of a story. Respondent deans reported feelings of happiness, energy, trust, a sense of moving forward and deep fulfilment on ‘good days’. These accounts contribute to Rachel Ashworth’s calls to debunk the myth that business school leadership positions are a “miserable career option.” Heather McLaughlin’s descriptions in the third section of the volume about how learning to depersonalize situations led to her becoming a “happier, and a better leader” also tally with these findings.

Sharon Mavin and Gina Grandy ascribe the exclusion and segregation of women in business schools to ingrained patriarchal systems that result in privileges for men and disadvantages for women. They discuss the pernicious effects of competition within business schools and how this gendered discourse punishes women whether through lowered citations, allocating increased service work to women and limiting opportunities for promotion. In her discussions with Howard Thomas, Rajani Naidoo also discusses the negative consequences on teaching, research and contributing to the global good that fetishising hyper-competition in the higher education sector brings.

Naidoo also discusses how her personal experiences growing up as a girl of colour in South Africa influenced her research and publications on the importance of contextualising academic merit in unequal societies. The theme of public value is a key focus in the reflections of Rachel Ashworth who describes how male academics tend to value research as a key priority relative to their female counterparts who rate teaching, research, academic leadership and citizenship as equally important. She goes on to make the case that if schools are to embrace equality, they need to value “rounded academics” by challenging a “publish at all costs” mindset and recognising contributions across all spheres.

Whilst scrutinising our schools to diagnose the systems perpetuating gender equality is essential, solutions are likely to require multiple interventions. In opposition to developing programmes and perspectives that focus on “fixing women” Sharon Mavin and Gina Grandy call for “courageous men” to work collaboratively with their communities to disrupt patriarchy. The first step they argue, is to build a deeper understanding of what is at play in business schools by reflexively questioning assumptions, observing, conducting field research and finding others who share a motivation for change to plan next steps. Emma Jeanes and Rajani Naidoo also reinforce the need for allyship by advantaged groups to commit collectively to change and drive challenging conversations and critical self-reflection. Rachel Ashworth comments on the need for schools to avoid citing parent university constraints and embrace agency at the business school level to drive innovations that generate public value. Rajani Naidoo echoes this theme (albeit at the university level) and emphasises the role of universities in disrupting social reproduction.

Mike Page and Hanneke Takkenberg’s observations about the dearth of gender equity plans in business schools underscores the need for schools to not only collectively confront their realities, but to collectively envisage and document how they will shift them. The need for schools to gather data to inform their plans and track their progress is underscored in many chapters in this volume. Examples of information that support planning and monitoring of gender equality include a detailed review of faculty appointment, workload models and allocations, and promotion decisions as well as analysing policies, curricula and research outputs to identify evidence and sources of gender bias.

Anita Bosch discusses organisational mechanisms that schools can leverage to promote gender equality with a focus on the relatively rare practice in business schools of establishing research chairs and centres which focus on women in the workplace. She argues that beyond the impact of programmes focusing on women development, chairs can make a valuable contribution to research and attract much-needed funding, but also alludes to the risks of business school leaders abdicating internal development responsibilities to the incumbents of chairs.

Whilst managing data and exercising structural options are needed, they are insufficient. Developing social equity in schools must extend to replacing inequitable stereotypes of what it takes to belong and succeed with supportive colleagues and leaders. One theme that is frequently raised by authors including Rajani Naidoo, Rachel Ashworth, Enase Okonedo as well as Rita Gunther McGrath and Heather McLaughlin (in the third section) as key to their journeys is the positive role played by colleagues, mentors (many of them men) and role models in inspiring and scaffolding their success.

In a chapter focused on his journey into higher education leadership and allyship of equity, diversity, inclusion and respect (EDIR), Nic Beech describes his journey of learning about, teaching and championing EDI within and beyond universities and highlights the importance of ‘using power for good’ through positive discourse, narrative and adopting a systems perspective.

In addition to making changes within our schools and universities, there are broader changes that need to be made within the larger systems of the academy. Rachel Ashworth and Rajani Naidoo emphasise the imperative for universities to work across broader ecosystems to solve global problems. This starts with making change in organisations that operate symbiotically with universities. Nic Beech’s descriptions of how he made EDIR the ‘central plank’ of his activities as Chair and then President of the British Academy of Management (BAM) is one example of driving positive change, but there is much more to be done. Rachel Ashworth argues that we need to collectively increase the value placed on (currently marginalised) publications that address mainstreaming equality. She also calls for accreditation bodies to support alternative approaches linked to rounded academics.

Impact beyond business schools via the eco-system

If schools ultimately exist to serve and strengthen the communities in which they operate then an examination of women in business schools would not be complete without considering their impact beyond business schools. Rachel Ashworth’s description in the previous section of Cardiff Business School’s adoption of a public value strategy to create value for the common good through research, teaching, and engagements with local, regional, national and international actors is one case of a business school’s strategic drive to create value beyond its immediate stakeholders. Sherif Kamel’s is another. As one of the much-needed allies in the battle against gender equality, he describes how the American University of Cairo has enhanced gender equality internally and the many societal interventions it has made. One of these, the Egypt Women-On-Boards Observatory, which is in its tenth year of operation, has created an eco-system that has played a key role in significantly shifting the number of women on boards in Egypt by focusing on multiple activities including working to cultivate inclusive cultures, building and communicating a pipeline of potential women board members and monitoring and publishing results across sectors.

Engagement with practice is something that leading scholar Laura Empson was advised against at the start of her academic career. Thankfully she ignored this counsel and has influenced tens of thousands of practitioners not to mention leaders of professional organisations through multi-media engagements. Refreshingly, she argues that if business schools are to truly reconcile theoretically informed research and practitioner-oriented impact, they need to pursue relational agendas with practice in recognition that ivory towers of academia are “built on practitioners’ land.” Although she advises women academics to “think carefully before pursing an impact agenda” she also acknowledges how, as a woman, being seen as ‘other’ by male power brokers in her field led to pursing her own distinctive path.

Rita Gunther McGrath is another example of an academic trailblazer who has been celebrated by academics and is recognised by practitioners as a management guru. Her story, told by Howard Thomas demonstrates how a coupling of deep intellect with entrepreneurial flair and focus on practice has formed the basis of her inspirational journey as a thought leader in strategic management who has made a significant impact on both scholarship and practice.

The value of focusing on reconciling the academy and practice is also highlighted in Heather McLaughlin’s description of a virtuous circle from practice to scholarship to academic leadership (as both a dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor). Her account illustrates how she built her scholarly identity whilst making a vibrant contribution to practice in the maritime industry. Her commentary on how she built a ‘non-academic’ profile to strengthen an academic profile is an example of the rounded academics (not to mention leaders) described by Rachel Ashworth in the previous section.

Whilst Empson and McGrath’s journeys appear to be founded on clear objectives and directions, McLaughlin’s chapter describes her journey to academic leadership as “managed serendipity.” There are parallels to be drawn with Anne Tsui’s humble descriptions of her journey as “the science of muddling through.” In this chapter, Howard Thomas describes Tsui’s beginnings in Hong Kong as a prelude to her transition to an award-winning academic. She played a significant role in taking her learnings back to Hong Kong where she made a major contribution in and beyond Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) before becoming the founder of the Responsible Research in Management (RRBM) community. Tsui’s impact on the business school community and beyond is immense and Thomas’ descriptions of her success in driving a global movement on responsible research across thousands of business schools provide valuable lessons in the importance of courage, perseverance and belief in the contribution that business schools can make to society.

Concluding thoughts

In part, this volume is a celebration of the immense contribution that women make both in and beyond business schools. The breadth and depth of contributions made by women as leaders, scholars and practitioners reflected in this volume is inspiring on many fronts. At the same time, the volume serves as a sobering reminder that as business schools, we have a long way to go before we can argue that our schools are exemplars in attracting diverse talents in all their forms and creating inclusive, equitable environments that role model the ideals that we advocate for business and society.

In editing the book, we were struck by the willingness of contributing authors many of whom are in senior leadership positions, to dedicate time and effort to the volume. At the same time, we observed a reticence on the part of many women authors to narrate their stories about their successes and the barriers that they had personally faced along the way. On many occasions we would ask contributors to write a little more about themselves and their personal journeys only to be told that they “didn’t want the spotlight on them.” We believe that witnessing these stories of perseverance and success, whilst at the same time facing some of the uncomfortable truths about women in and beyond business schools is needed to advance the conviction that we all have an important role to play in advancing gender equity and creating inclusive cultures in and beyond our business schools.

---

References

Ethier, M. (2024) https://poetsandquants.com/2024/03/13/deans-at-the-worlds-top-business-schools-are-overwhelmingly-male-white-old-but-thats-changing/

European Institute for Gender Equality, (2024). Gender Equality in Academic and Research: Gear Tool, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/terms-and-definitions?language_content_entity=en, accessed 10 October, 2024.

Flynn, P. M., Cavanagh, K. V., & Bilimoria, D. (2017). Gender equality in business schools: The elephant in the room. In Integrating gender equality into business and management education (pp. 26-54). Abingdon: Routledge.

Galizzi, G., McBride, K. and Siboni, B. (2024). Patriarchy persists: experiences of barriers to women’s career progression in Italian accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99, p.102625.

Gooty, J., Ruggs, E.N., Aguinis, H., Bergeron, D.M., Eby, L.T., van Knippenberg, D., Post, C., Rupp, D.E., Thatcher, S.M., Tonidandel, S. and Yammarino, F.J. (2023). Stronger together: A call for gender-inclusive leadership in business schools. Journal of Management, 49(8),
pp.2531-2540.

Grandy, G., Mavin, S., & Gagnon, E. (2023). Dressing to Be (come) a Business School Dean: Autoethnographic Accounts. In The Emerald Handbook of Appearance in the Workplace (pp. 155-168). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Holoniq.com. (2024). Global state of women’s leadership. https://www.holoniq.com/notes/the-2024-global-state-of-womens-leadership accessed 16th October, 2024.

Leckrone, B. (2023). Number of Women Deans at Business Schools on the Rise. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/women-business-school-deans-increasing/ accessed 14 October 2024.

Miotto, G., Polo López, M., & Rom Rodriguez, J. (2019). Gender equality and UN sustainable development goals: Priorities and correlations in the top business schools’ communication and legitimation strategies. Sustainability, 11(2), 302.

Prothero, A. (2023). Me, the patriarchy, and the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 61(3), pp.1152-1159.

Verbos, A. K., & Kennedy, D. (2017). Cleaning our houses: Gender equity in business schools. In Integrating gender equality into business and management education (pp. 81-95). Abingdon: Routledge.