A Framework for Developing Women Leaders

Abstract

Informed by extant literature, we develop a framework of women’s leadership development that integrates the key factors affecting women’s leadership development (challenging organizational contexts, work–life integration and career/life-stage concerns) and the characteristics of women’s leadership presence. We define leadership presence as a combination of a woman’s unique voice, style of engagement, and positive contributions—composed of her self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity. We apply the framework to three composite executive coaching scenarios developed from our collective executive coaching experiences. The applications illustrate how a coach’s guiding questions, focused on appropriate combinations of key factors and leadership presence developmental needs, can effectively facilitate women’s leadership development. Practical implications for executive coaching practice as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

executive coaching women leaders leadership development framework

Introduction

As a form of leadership development, the practice of executive coaching has grown tremendously in the past decade and many organizations offer their leaders some level of coaching services (Segers, Vloeberghs, Henderickx, & Inceoglu, 2011). Executive coaching is directed toward assisting individuals in “achieving some type of change, learning, or new level of individual or organizational performance” (Smith, Van Oosten, & Boyatzis, 2009, p. 150). However, even as the practice of executive coaching has increased, there is scant empirical research on the coaching of women leaders. One primary reason for the dearth of research on executive coaching of women leaders is that women remain underrepresented in organizational leadership roles. Additionally, female leaders may not receive executive coaching to the same extent as male leaders; one fifth of over 3,000 surveyed human resource professionals in the United States stated that women do not receive equivalent amounts of coaching as men in managerial or leadership roles (Laff, 2007). Additionally, women may receive less overall feedback related to their leadership behaviors from their managers (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011).

Commonly, executive coaching is perceived as a “gender-neutral” activity, the same for women as for men. Yet while coaching approaches are generally not determined by the gender of the individual being coached, organizational and individual realities differ for women and men in leadership positions. To be effective, executive coaches of women should be cognizant of the drivers of these differences and their impact on women’s leadership advancement. Executive coaches of women must recognize the unique organizational and societal strictures that make the overall context for women in organizations more challenging (O’Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2008), as well as issues of work–life integration and life and career-stage factors that may cumulatively affect women’s careers (O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005). Therefore, “applying a ‘gender-neutral/gender-free’ strategy for developing women does not adequately address women’s specific developmental needs or take into account the gendered contexts in which women work” (O’Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2009, p. 76). It is critical for coaches to understand these dynamics as they support women in defining their leadership presence, which we characterize as a combination of unique voice, style of engagement, and positive contributions.

In this article, we first describe three key factors—challenging organizational contexts, work–life integration, and career- and life-stage issues—that affect women in, or aspiring to, leadership positions. We then discuss four key characteristics derived from the literature—self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity—that are necessary for women to establish their unique leadership presence. Next, we propose a conceptual framework for women’s leadership development based on these factors and characteristics. We then apply the framework to composite coaching scenarios derived from our executive coaching practices and provide practical strategies and recommendations for effectively developing women leaders through executive coaching. Finally, we offer recommendations for testing elements of the framework in future research. This article contributes to research and practice by extending extant knowledge about women’s leadership development and the effective executive coaching of women leaders.

Factors Affecting Women’s Leadership Development

Challenging Organizational Contexts

Although women continue to make gains in employment comprising 46.9% of the U.S. labor force and 51.5% in management or professional positions (Catalyst, 2014) they are not advancing at the executive level, with only 14.6% of Fortune 500 executive officer positions held by women in 2013, barely up from 13.9% in 2009 (Catalyst, 2013). The gendered nature of work has been well documented (cf. Acker, 1991; Teasdale, 2013), with male-defined constructions of work and career success still firmly entrenched (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000; Williams, 2000). However, overt gender discrimination has been replaced by more covert, subtle forms of inequity described as second-generation gender bias (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Ely et al., 2011; Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013). These biases often lie just below the surface rendering them invisible and difficult to articulate. However, their impact on women’s leadership development is real and lasting.

This form of gender bias results from organizational and societal norms and assumptions as well as policies, practices, and structures that have been solidified over the years, leading to a distinct disadvantage for women. According to Ibarra et al. (2013), some examples of these disadvantages are the lack of role models for women aspiring to leadership positions; gendered career paths, which may limit women’s access to opportunities in roles typically required to advance into the executive ranks; a lack of access to networks, mentors, and sponsors; and the double-bind effect, which puts women’s societal roles (e.g., be nice, nurture others, and collaborate) at odds with their organizational and leadership roles (e.g., take charge, be decisive, and be assertive).

In a classic study of senior women executives, Ragins, Townsend, and Mattis (1998) found distinct differences in how Fortune 1000 CEOs and women executives viewed women’s advancement into senior leadership positions. CEOs indicated that a lack of general management experience and a lack of women in the managerial pipeline were holding women back. However, female executives identified attitudinal and behavioral issues on the part of their male colleagues, such as stereotyping and exclusion from important networks, as major contributors to the paucity of women in the executive ranks. Such disparate perspectives mean that women’s ascent to senior management positions will continue to be challenging. A decade later, Burke, Koyuncu, and Fiksenbaum (2008, p. 279) suggested that “the biggest obstacle to career advancement for women is the attitudes, biases, perceptions and behaviors of their male colleagues.” In one study investigating male and female leaders’ demonstration of leadership competencies, there were no significant differences found between the men and the women in their 360-degree leadership competency assessments (Hopkins & Bilimoria, 2008). However, even when the male and female leaders demonstrated an equivalent level of leadership competencies, the male leaders received higher performance and potential ratings than the females. This finding suggests the presence of gender bias in these leadership evaluations.

The “double-bind” effect puts women at a distinct disadvantage in organizational life (Catalyst, 2007; Eagly & Carli, 2007). For men, their organizational roles (e.g., take charge, be assertive, and be the leader) and their gender roles (e.g., take charge, be in control, and direct and lead others) are perceived as a good fit; for women, the opposite is true. Women are too often caught between the competing needs to be competent and assertive (organizational leadership role) and to be nice and nurturing (societal gender role). If women are the former, they are often labeled as brash and aggressive; if they are the latter, they can be labeled as too soft to be leaders—for women, it is often a no-win situation.

Ely and Rhode (2010) noted that women in leadership positions face both structural and attitudinal barriers, including career paths and face-time requirements that favor men, ambivalent or often negative perceptions people hold of women leaders, as well as the perceptions that women leaders have of themselves and the tradeoffs they will have to make to ascend to the highest levels in their organizations. The cumulative effect of these factors creates a context “akin to something in the water” (Ibarra et al., 2013, p. 64) that prevents women from reaching their organizational potential. Scholars have noted that overall, women are subject to more scrutiny, held to higher performance standards, have less opportunity to develop their leadership capital throughout life, and face more challenges to their leadership and authority than men (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Fitzsimmons, Callan, & Paulsen, 2014; Ragins et al., 1998; Schein, 2007).

Work–Life Integration

Trying to balance and/or integrate work and life responsibilities has been repeatedly noted as a primary concern for women in leadership roles (Sandberg, 2013; Slaughter, 2012). Powell and Mainiero (1992) described women’s careers as “cross currents in the river of time,” calling attention to the simultaneous pull of both work and relationships that women seek to balance over their life course. Hewlett (2007) suggested that women are affected by push factors, those centered on work, and pull factors, those centered on family.

The notion of the male career—linear progress up the ladder of increasing responsibility—has been the norm by which all career progress is measured. As Sabelis and Schilling (2013, p. 127) noted,

The prevalent logic of career making is still linear and cumulative—as established at the beginning of industrialization in a male-dominated working world. It assumed a family model with a male breadwinner and a female home-worker, enabling each other full dedication to the tasks (professional or home-related) and an uninterrupted life course within one system (family or profession).

Indeed, the separation of paid work and family life and responsibilities continues to be demanded by the organizational structures, policies, and practices that have ruled organizational life for decades (Haas & Hwang, 2007; O’Neil et al., 2008; Schneer & Reitman, 2002).

In their reviews of the management and psychology literature on women’s careers, O’Neil et al. (2008) and O’Neil, Hopkins, and Bilimoria (2013) identified patterns and resultant paradoxes (inconsistencies between what is known from the literature and what actually occurs in organizational practice) that have characterized this research since 1990. The four patterns are women’s careers are embedded in women’s larger life contexts, families and careers are central to women’s lives, women’s career paths reflect a wide variety of patterns, and human and social capital are critical for women’s career development. The associated paradoxes are organizational realities demand the separation of career and life, families continue to be career liabilities, organizations predominantly promote upwardly mobile career paths, and women’s capital augmentation has not defeated the glass ceiling. The authors noted that rather than closing the gap between research and practice, recent studies are “still focused on the obstacles women face due to the compartmentalizing of work and life, the challenges of balancing work and family, the persistent male model of career success. . . ” (O’Neil et al., 2013, p. 74). Issues of work–life integration will continue to plague women as long as organizations demand the separation of work and life and women continue to take primary responsibility for managing home and family while simultaneously seeking to advance in their careers.

Life and Career Stages

Life-stage priorities and responsibilities affect women’s career choices and leadership advancement (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005; O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005). O’Neil and Bilimoria (2005) found that women’s responsibilities and priorities changed with evolving life-stage concerns across three age-related phases—idealistic achievement, pragmatic endurance, and reinventive contribution. Key concerns for women in the idealistic achievement phase were self-confidence and self-identity; they were determined to succeed in both their careers and their personal lives and were convinced they could “have it all.” On the other hand, women in the pragmatic endurance phase were living with the reality that “trying to have it all” was easier said than done. They were juggling multiple personal and professional demands on their time and were often torn between their career and life choices. Key issues for these women were self-esteem and a search for meaning. Women in the reinventive contribution phase were concerned primarily with contributing meaningfully to their organizations, families, and communities. Their key concerns were respect, integration, and authenticity.

Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) proposed a kaleidoscope career model in which women make holistic choices about their careers taking into account their relationships, constraints, and opportunities, continually seeking the best fit. They noted that authenticity, balance, and challenge are key elements that will alternate in importance depending on women’s career phase and life context. These findings concur with other studies that suggested that all women, no matter their career phase, desired success in both careers and relationships (Hopkins & O’Neil, 2007; Lirio et al., 2007).

There are also data that suggest biology may play a role in women’s career advancement. Brizendine (2008) noted that advancement into senior management roles for men usually happens when they are in their 40s. However, women in their 40s are dealing with home and parenting responsibilities as well as the (often negative) effects of perimenopause. She noted that mid-50s might be better timing for women’s career advancement when other life roles are less overwhelming. In their recent study of work–family conflict for women and men across the life stages, Allen and Finkelstein (2014) found that women experienced the greatest work interference with family when the youngest child in the home was aged 3 to 12 years, and the least amount when they were 55 years or older with no children at home.

Life- and career-stage concerns affect women throughout the course of their working lives. Women in early career stages are focused on establishing themselves and developing their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Women in mid-career years manage competing pressures from their families, organizations, and communities and try to balance them all. Women in later career stages seek opportunities to add value and to continue to learn, grow, and be productive.

Key Characteristics for Establishing Leadership Presence

Presence is defined as the “impressive manner or appearance of a person” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2014). Presence is presenting oneself with poise, ease, self-assurance, and having an impact on a person or a situation. Leadership presence has often been operationalized as “owning the room,” (Moore, 2013) which is a decidedly masculine depiction of this concept. Contrary to this operating definition, in our experience, women often seek to define and express their leadership presence through finding their unique voices, styles of engagement, and ways of positively contributing to people and organizations. We identify four essentials that contribute to the development of women’s leadership presence: self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity.

Self-Confidence and Self-Efficacy

A recent Atlantic magazine article, The Confidence Gap, proposed that women lack confidence and are less self-assured than men (Kay & Shipman, 2014b). Self-confidence has been found to be more closely associated with men than with women (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). A recent study of global executives revealed that women were less confident than men (69% to 86%) that they would reach the top of their organizations (Devillard, Sancier-Sultan, & Werner, 2014).

On the other hand, concluding that women lack confidence does not take into account the gendered nature of the workplace. Leadership roles in organizations remain male dominated, and the model of how confidence is displayed is a male model (Heilman et al., 1989). Persistent thinking among both men and women has been documented as a “think manager, think male” perspective, which associates men with leadership roles more so than women (Schein, 2007). “Continuing to herald male norms as the standards for workplace behavior continues to keep gendered organizational structures in place” (Vinnicombe, Deyton, & Walleser, 2014, p. 2). Instead of blaming a lack of confidence for women not getting ahead, examining the systems and structures that continue to undermine opportunities for women would be more useful. Women do not need to “be fixed,” organizational systems do.

Another consideration in the debate about women and confidence is that women believe they need to outperform their male counterparts and consistently exceed performance expectations in order to be successful in their careers (Ragins et al., 1998). For example, the Hewlett Packard Corporation discovered in a review of their personnel records that women employees applied for a promotion only when they felt that they met 100% of the qualifications listed for the job, whereas men applied when they felt that they met 60% (Kay & Shipman, 2014b). In their study of executive team and women employees’ perceptions of the women’s network in a global food service organization, O’Neil, Hopkins, and Sullivan (2011) found that women had a tendency to engage in what they termed “hyper-accountability,” assuming full responsibility for advancing in their careers, while ignoring the impact of organizational barriers.

In a similar vein, women have been observed as more likely to ascribe failures to something lacking in themselves rather than something lacking in the environment. In a study of women and men in a PhD program in mathematics, in a particularly tough course, the men responded to their lower grades by saying “This is a tough class” demonstrating external attribution, while the women reacted by saying “I knew I wasn’t good enough” demonstrating internal attribution (Carter & Dunning, 2008). On the flip side, women tend to attribute their successes to external factors. In an examination of high achievers, women ascribed their achievements to luck, timing, or contacts. This result was named the imposter phenomenon (Clance & Imes, 1978), and gender role socialization has been identified as a contributing factor to women experiencing this phenomenon to a greater degree than men (de Vries, 2009).

Both psychology and business research has reported that men consistently overestimate their abilities and subsequent performance, while women routinely underestimate both (Kay & Shipman, 2014a; Reuben, 2011). Studies completed in over 30 countries have shown a female humility and male hubris effect in estimates of intelligence, with men inclined to rate their overall intelligence significantly higher than do women (Furnham, Hosoe, & Tang, 2001). Gender role stereotypes may play a part in a more general “female humility and male hubris” phenomenon, since people tend to define and measure intelligence as well as leadership competence in male terms.

Leadership self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s leadership capabilities (Bandura, 1997), is a related yet distinct concept from self-confidence.

Confidence is a nondescript term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one’s agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. (Bandura, 1997, p. 382)

Leaders with high self-efficacy are typically more effective and more successful than those with lower self-efficacy (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000). Women with high leadership self-efficacy have shown more positive self-report responses than those with lower self-efficacy (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010). In traditionally male-dominated occupations such as leadership, women have been found to have lower self-efficacy expectations than men; yet this result did not prevent the women in the study from considering male roles (Clement, 1987).

In sum, women’s self-confidence and self-efficacy are crucial to both their leadership development and individual expressions of leadership presence. Self-confidence is developed as a result of leadership experiences and successes. The blanket statement that women lack self-confidence ignores the impact of the contextual factors described above. In addition, a perceived lack of women’s self-confidence may be attributable to any combination of other factors such as women’s necessity to outperform their male colleagues just to stay even, women’s tendencies to hold themselves hyper-accountable and ascribe their failures to themselves and their successes to others, as well as a male tendency toward overconfidence. Self-efficacy results from qualifications, experience, and credibility, all essential for women in leadership positions.

Influence

Leadership is often described as an influence process (Daft, 2014) as opposed to the old-style definition as a position of authority. Influence is an indispensable skill for women, since they face the double-bind effect in balancing gender-expected behaviors with role-expected behaviors. Studies comparing the use of influence between men and women have found mixed results. Some investigations discovered that men and women tended to choose similar influence tactics (e.g., Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitely, 1989). Other findings have concluded that gender differences do exist in the use of influence strategies (e.g., Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983). Usually women have been found to use indirect influence tactics, while men employ a more direct approach. DuBrin (1991) reported that men were more likely to use logic, manipulate situations and people, promise rewards, and threaten punishments, while women tended to use compliments, charm, and ingratiation. Men have also employed a broader range of influence tactics and attempted to influence more often than women (Instone et al., 1983).

Definitive gender distinctions have been identified when investigating the perceived use of influence by women and men and the subsequent differential outcomes. Gender role theory indicates that there are certain behavioral norms, which prescribe that women and men behave in gender-appropriate ways (Eagly, 1987). Relative to the use of influence, direct and more assertive influence tactics are perceived to be inappropriate for women (Barbuto, Fritz, Matkin, & Marx, 2007; Perrewe & Nelson, 2004) and result in more positive outcomes for men (Rudman, 1998). In fact, women who demonstrated counterstereotypical influence strategies were seen as less likeable (Rudman, 1998). The perceived use of indirect and more communal influence tactics have resulted in more positive outcomes for women, as these tactics were viewed as aligning with the gender-expected behavior of women (Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, Williams, & Brouer, 2011). A study of the interaction effects of gender and influence with male and female managers evaluating job applicants found that assertive influence tactics were more likely to result in the favorable hiring recommendation for the male applicants, while the use of rational influence was more likely to result in the female applicants receiving the job offer (Buttner & McEnally, 1996).

Even when both men and women remained in their gender-congruent roles, there were more favorable outcomes for men than for women. Women who used the gender-normative indirect influence tactics received more psychosocial mentoring, while men who employed more direct influence tactics received career mentoring and higher performance ratings (Tepper, Brown, & Hunt, 1993). Finally, when women and men have used the same influence tactics, they have been perceived and evaluated differently (e.g., Dreher et al., 1989). Influence tactics that resulted in higher salaries for men were ineffective when used by women. Overall, the perception of influence and its subsequent outcomes are strongly affected by gender and gender role expectations.

Authenticity

Authenticity has been noted as an important factor affecting women’s career success (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005; Ruderman & Ohlott, 2002, 2005). In their work with women leaders at the Center for Creative Leadership, Ruderman and Ohlott (2002, 2005), identified authenticity, the “feeling that daily actions are in concert with deeply held values and beliefs” (2002, p. 17), as one of five key themes that influence the way high-achieving women enact their careers and their lives. The authors identified four scenarios in which authenticity exerted a strong pull on women’s lives: when reconnecting with underdeveloped goals and dreams, when a changing context put values and behaviors at odds, when attempting to fit into a male-dominated organizational culture, and when faced with a major life event. They noted that each of these factors can cause women to question whether she is living her life authentically and with meaning or just going through the motions. Hopkins, O’Neil, Passarelli, and Bilimoria (2008) noted that it was important for women to envision themselves holistically as integral organizational partners, thereby, deepening their organizational connections and contributions.

Women have been described as having a more collaborative, relational style of leadership (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2007), which may mean they are often in conflict with the more prevalent autocratic manner of organizational leadership that exists in more traditional organizations. In addition, organizations often reward individual achievements resulting in women who express themselves in a more collaborative, relational way feeling less than authentic because their natural way of leading is undervalued in the organization (Ruderman & Ohlott, 2005). Eagly (2005) described relational authenticity as something that exists in the transactions between leaders and followers; thus followers must identify with their leaders and trust that the leader’s values are appropriate for the organization. Since women are outsiders in senior leadership roles by virtue of their limited numbers at the top of organizations, Eagly (2005) proposed that it will be more difficult for women to be accepted as credible leaders by their followers.

Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) identified a kaleidoscope career model, so named for the changing focal areas of women’s lives over time. The authors identified shifting concerns and priorities revolving around authenticity, balance, and challenge, throughout women’s careers. They found that women were more likely to focus on challenge during early career, balance during midcareer, and authenticity during later career. While all three focal areas are important throughout the course of a woman’s career, they revolve to the forefront or the background as responsibilities and life circumstances evolve. They noted that women were interested in creating careers “their way, through lateral but challenging assignments, opportunities that fit their lives, entrepreneurial activities, or flexible scheduling, rather than focusing on advancement for the sake of advancement” (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005, p. 113).

In sum, being able to act in concert with one’s values, feeling confident in one’s self, believing in one’s ability to succeed, and effectively influencing others are critical to doing one’s best work. Given the disconnect between women’s gender roles and organizational roles, male-dominated constructions of successful leadership and work–life integration and life-stage issues, developing leadership presence in an organizational setting is likely to be more challenging for women.

Implications for Practice: Application of a Framework for Women’s Leadership Development to Executive Coaching

The key factors of challenging organizational contexts, work–life integration and life and career stages, are weighty dynamics which affect women in the workplace. Whether these factors are explicitly or implicitly understood or experienced, they have a profound impact on the careers and lives of women leaders as they seek to define and express their leadership presence through the development of self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity. Thus, we propose a framework of women’s leadership development (see Figure 1), which integrates these key factors with the characteristics of leadership presence.

Figure 1.

Framework for women’s leadership development.

Coaching, an effective practice of leadership development, is focused on learning and development, opportunities for self-reflection and increased self-awareness to enhance one’s strengths. Coaching has been defined as a helping relationship, which assists an individual in achieving goals and improving performance and satisfaction (Kilburg, 1996), and a process of caring for and helping others in their personal intentional change process (Boyatzis, 2006). Coaching is not focused on “fixing” individuals but rather on helping individuals explore their vision and focus on fulfilment, meaning, and purpose. The practice of executive coaching has been acknowledged as a helpful “support mechanism” for women in their leadership development (Vinnicombe & Singh, 2003, p. 298). Ruderman and Ohlott (2005) identified certain dynamics of which coaches of women must be aware including psychological, biological, and communication differences between women and men, undervalued skills such as collaboration, and organizational systems, policies, and practices that limit women’s advancement.

Thus, in Table 1, we present focal areas and sample coaching questions targeted to the dimensions of our framework (i.e., key factors affecting women’s leadership development and key characteristics of women’s leadership presence) that an executive coach can customize to address the particular development focus and affecting factors of the woman being coached. For instance, if a coach is working with a woman who is being affected by a challenging work context and whose developmental focus is influence, possible fruitful areas for discussion may be organizational culture and politics, leadership values and philosophy, and the development of social capital and networking skills. By way of illustration in the next section, we apply our framework to composite scenarios from our executive coaching practices and provide coaching objectives, strategies, questions, and outcomes specific to the leadership development needs of the three composite women represented in the scenarios.

Table 1.

Framework for Women’s Leadership Development—Focal Areas for Coaching and Sample Coaching Questions.

Key factors affecting women’s leadership development	Key characteristics of women’s leadership presence
Key factors affecting women’s leadership development	Self-confidence and Self-efficacy—Focal Areas: accomplishments, achievements, knowledge, skills, abilities, outcome measures	Influence—Focal Areas: social capital, networks and mentors, organizational awareness, relationship management	Authenticity—Focal Areas: aspirations, values, leadership style, integration
Challenging Contexts—Focal Areas: organizational culture, organizational politics, leadership values/philosophy, leadership vision	Describe a time when you felt self-confident and in control during a difficult encounter. What characterizes the culture of your immediate work unit and/or your organization’s senior executive team? Which parts of these cultures are energizing to you? Which are less energizing to you? What political choices and consequences do you foresee in your leadership advancement? What would best enable you to navigate any challenges?	What support and information networks could you develop within and outside your organization? Who in your organization do you think has the best understanding of how work really gets done? What can you learn from her or him? What networks do you need to develop to help you navigate your current organizational system?	What values and behaviors characterize you in extremely tough situations? How do you best deal with adversity? What are nonnegotiables for you? How do you best communicate them to your manager, peers, and direct reports?
Work–Life Integration—Focal Areas: professional roles, personal roles, short- and long-term goals, obstacles/barriers	When have you felt most confident about your capacities to manage multiple life and career responsibilities? What is your ideal role in the organization going forward? What is your ideal role in your home/community life going forward? What are some ways in which you effectively integrate or balance your career and life?	What would make you more influential as a leader at work given your current life responsibilities? What support/resources do you need to make you more effective at home given your current work responsibilities? What are some obstacles you have faced in balancing work and life and what sources of support would be most helpful going forward?	What is most energizing to you about developing yourself as a person and as a professional? How can you bring your whole self to what you do both professionally and personally? Describe a time when you felt most fulfilled in your work; in your life.
Life/Career Stages—Focal Areas: role models, contributions, career/life goals, interests/passions	Who at your current life/career stage do you admire and why do they inspire you? What are some steps you can take to embody more of these characteristics? What would make you more effective as a leader in your current life/career stage?	How can you identify a mentor to help you increase your knowledge and expand your network at this stage of your career? How can you use your years of experience to further develop your influence?	What are your signature strengths as a leader at this life/career stage? At this stage of your career, what makes you feel the most energized and inspired? What would you most like to spend your time doing?

As each coaching engagement is unique, these strategies and scenarios are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but our hope is that they will be instructive for understanding and responding to contextual issues faced by women leaders as they seek to develop their leadership presence. For instance, in order to assist women in raising their levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy and in demonstrating their unique value to their organizations, executive coaches must be aware of the distinct nature of these concepts as well as the organizational norms that affect how women leaders are perceived. Additionally, executive coaches of women must be cognizant of gender perceptions and differences in influencing behaviors and outcomes to assist women leaders in enhancing their influence skills. Executive coaches must also assist women in articulating their core purpose and values, gaining clarity about their life and career choices, and in finding an authentic style that allows them to positively contribute to their organizations. Finally, executive coaches must be aware of the ways in which contextual dynamics covertly and overtly affect women as they aspire to leadership positions. Using this framework, we invite executive coaches to experiment with their diagnosis of a coaching client’s leadership development needs, and to appropriately tailor the coaching conversations to target her unique situational context and leadership presence development.

Composite Coaching Scenarios

Scenario 1: Amy

Development focus: influence, authenticity

Affecting factors: challenging organizational context, life/career stage

Amy is a young, high-achieving, high-energy manager in the idealistic achievement career stage (O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005), working in a male-dominated organization and industry. She is struggling to find the proper balance between being tough and decisive, which she feels she needs to do to be taken seriously, and being herself. She recently received feedback from her team that they did not feel they really knew her, that she did not share much of herself with them, and that they really did not know how to read her. They feel she is “all business” and would like her to spend more of her time sharing her vision with them and in developing them. She has a new manager and feels like she needs to make the right impression on him but is not quite sure how to do that. She is open to the feedback but she is not quite sure how to address it.

Coaching objectives and strategies

Amy is trying to find her authentic style and become more influential. After receiving the feedback from her team, she recognizes that she has overemphasized her decisive approach to leadership and underemphasized her own voice and being herself. In addition, she has indicated that she is uncertain about how to influence her new manager. Finally, she is a new manager who is eager to prove herself.

To coach her effectively, the coach can focus on her unique leadership vision. Questions which help her understand her ideal image of herself as a leader, her identity, and core values are appropriate for Amy’s situation. This strategy will assist her in clarifying her leadership presence. Reminding Amy of the invitation from her team to share more of herself with them is important to support her efforts in this regard.

Influencing her new manager is another issue that Amy would like to address. The coach can explore the relationship that she would like to have with her manager to help her define what she is seeking. Once this is clarified, the coach can then discuss some specific opportunities that Amy might seek to influence her manager (e.g., Are there any changes in policies, processes, or procedures that she would like to implement?) as well as influence strategies for her to employ in these particular situations.

Examples of coaching questions—Influence

What impression do you want to make with your manager? What do you need to do in order to be seen as a leader by your manager and direct reports?

What would be the ideal relationship that you would want to have with your manager?

What opportunities to try and influence your manager have you had to date? What were the circumstances? Describe the outcomes. If you have not had any opportunities to date, let us explore how you might create an opportunity to influence your manager.

Describe a time when you were effective in influencing someone at a higher level in the organization. What were the outcomes? What did you do that made you effective?

What senior leaders can you identify as possible sponsors/mentors for your continued career advancement?

Examples of coaching questions—Authenticity

If you were doing your best work as a manager/leader, what would that look like? How would you be interacting with your team, with your manager? How would you define your leadership? How would you want others to describe your leadership?

Why do you feel as though you always need to be “tough and decisive?”

Are there leaders in your organization (both men and women) who balance being “tough and decisive” with being “caring and competent?” How do you see them achieving this?

How would you describe your vision of yourself as a leader? What might be the benefits of sharing your vision with your team?

How could you describe your vision to your team members?

Coaching outcomes

Amy struggled with defining her vision of herself as a leader and finding her balance between sharing more of herself and being the authoritative leader. After a series of coaching conversations with Amy, she identified aspects of her leadership vision and shared it with her team in a team meeting. At this stage, her vision included her core leadership values and attributes. She acknowledged that this was an effective way to help her team understand her in a deeper way, although she was uncomfortable with opening herself up. Her coach acknowledged her hesitation and worked with Amy to develop strategies for her team meeting. Amy has committed to seeking ways to demonstrate her leadership vision to her team on an ongoing basis. She has also launched a visioning exercise with her team so that they can collectively define their future. Amy plans to have one-on-one meetings with her team members on a quarterly basis. Her objectives for these meetings are to get to know her team better, so she can be more effective as their coach. Finally, she has begun to have formal and informal conversations with her new manager in order to develop a more trusting relationship with him and to understand how to better demonstrate her influence.

Scenario 2: Laura

Development focus: self-efficacy, influence, authenticity

Affecting factors: challenging organizational context, work–life integration, life/career stage

Laura is a mid-career administrator who has been highly effective in her career to date. She is currently struggling with an overwhelming workload because her manager keeps adding to her already-full plate of projects. She wants to stop feeling like she has to do it all, and is concerned that she has too many balls in the air and is in danger of dropping something important. She is in the pragmatic endurance career stage (O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005). She does not want to delegate any more work to her staff because she feels like they are already working over their capacity. She does not have time to focus on strategy or vision, which is really her role in the organization. She feels like she has little leadership presence with her boss and that he treats her like a worker bee versus a member of the senior leadership team. Her solution was to ask him for more resources to which he responded, “let’s wait and see” leaving her feeling ineffective at persuading him. Laura also has a very hectic family life and is stressed with setting boundaries between work and home.

Coaching objectives and strategies

Laura is dealing with eroding self-efficacy and failed attempts to influence her boss as well as work–life integration and life-stage issues of mid-career overload. Laura has always been a high performer and admired leader in her organization. Lately, she is feeling undervalued and overwhelmed.

The coach’s immediate objective is to help Laura get beyond her current state of feeling less certain about herself and her tendency to continue to absorb all of the work. The coach can first help Laura realize her own value as a leader by focusing on her ideal self. Asking her to revisit a peak leadership experience is an effective way to help her relive a time when she had self-efficacy. By painting a clear picture of that experience, both the coach and Laura can then explore ways by which she can feel more fulfilled in her current role by focusing on what she is seeking as opposed to merely reacting to her boss’s requests. In addition, the coach must work with Laura to realize why she is feeling like she has to do it all and help her identify other possibilities or solutions in this situation.

Effectively influencing her boss is another objective that Laura has in mind. This will be essential so that Laura can get closer to her image of herself as a leader versus the “worker bee.” Discussing her relationship with her boss and how she might want that relationship to be redefined is an important first step. Laura may need to recognize her capabilities as an influencer, since she has felt unsuccessful recently in this regard. The coach can help Laura think through the core issues that she would like to change through influencing her boss. In addition, recommending some alternative influence strategies based on the core issues will be beneficial.

Examples of coaching questions—Self-efficacy

Think of an example of a time when you were at your peak as a leader. What were you doing, thinking, and feeling? What was that experience like for you? What learnings can you take forward from this experience?

Describe a time when you felt especially valued by your manager for your leadership. What were you doing, thinking, and feeling? What did your manager do or say? What learnings did you gain from this experience?

How are you balancing priorities? What is working well? What support do you have? What support do you need? How can you create that support?

What resources (human, financial, etc.) do you currently have?

Why do you believe that you have to “do it all?”

Examples of coaching questions—Influence

How would you characterize your current relationships within your 360-degree work circle—your manager, peers, and direct reports?

What impression do you want to make with your manager? What do you need to do in order to be seen as a leader by your manager?

What are the characteristics of someone who inspires you? What steps can you take to embody more of these characteristics and become more inspiring to your colleagues?

Have you ever tried to say “no” to your manager? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what do you think is preventing you from trying this approach?

What allies and networks could you develop within and outside your organization? How could you strengthen your networks and support circles?

Examples of coaching questions—Authenticity

In your roles in the past few years, describe something of which you are especially proud.

What is your ideal style of leading?

How would you like to define your role in the organization? What would be the ideal?

How would you define your priorities? What is your vision, your strategy?

How does what you are currently doing fit (not fit) the organizational vision and strategy?

Coaching outcomes

In discussions with her coach, Laura began to rediscover her ideal leadership image. She became more open to seeing the possibilities for shaping her role versus focusing on the obstacles that she faced. This took time for her, and the coaching conversations alternated between the current state and her ideal future state given her eroding sense of self-efficacy and authenticity. Throughout this time period, the coach felt as though little progress was being made since it was difficult for Laura to stay focused on the ideal future given her present situation. Yet incremental progress was made, and Laura is beginning to identify those core issues that she would like to change. Whereas, before she had almost given up on discussing these issues with her boss, she has renewed interest in influencing her boss and is actively working with her coach to script the initial discussions with him. She has also reached out to family members to enlist their help in managing day-to-day house and family issues. She acknowledged that she was taking on more than she could handle and has begun to change that dynamic by asking for the support she needs personally and professionally.

Scenario 3: Katherine

Development focus: self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, authenticity

Affecting factors: challenging organizational context, life/career stage

Katherine is a member of a leadership team in a male-dominated field in which she has worked for almost 25 years. She is in the reinventive contribution (O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005) career stage, a time in her career when she is seeking integration and respect for her years of service. Her company recently reorganized and after many productive and successful years, she is feeling a bit lost and undervalued. She feels like she knows her area of the business deeply but in the new environment, she does not always feel capable of demonstrating her expertise. She also has concerns about how she is being perceived by her new (and mainly younger) male peers on the senior leadership team. In fact, one of them recently referred to her as the “team mom” and she did not know whether to be flattered or offended. She likes taking care of people but feels like that is not the image she needs to project given the changed organizational environment. She finds herself spending a lot of time on self-doubt and second-guessing. She knows she needs to do a better job of self-promotion but does not feel good about talking about her accomplishments as she would prefer letting her work and her past success speak for her.

Coaching objectives and strategies

Katherine is struggling to sustain her prior levels of self-confidence, self-efficacy, authenticity, and influence. Given her changed work environment and younger peers, she has started to doubt her abilities and is concerned that she is coming across as too nice and less authoritative than she needs to be. She wants to find a style that will communicate her genuine concern for her fellow employees without diminishing her leadership presence. She also recognizes that she needs to work on self-promotion and convince her new peers that she is still a valuable member of the leadership team.

To begin working with Katherine the coach could assist her in identifying her ideal work and life scenario. Asking her to focus on when she was feeling the most effective and most productive can assist her in identifying behaviors that have contributed to her success to date. Getting back in touch with those successful behaviors may help rejuvenate Katherine and remind her that she has leadership expertise that is needed at her organization. The coach may also recommend that Katherine engage in a promotional campaign, where she communicates the team’s unique accomplishments and contributions to her peers rather than letting the work speak for itself. Helping her identify ways in which she is comfortable doing this rather than feeling like she is bragging or self-aggrandizing will be important. Some possibilities are to recommend that she focus more broadly on her team’s accomplishments that she utilize sponsors or mentors who can speak for her and her team, and that she share successes through e-mails and informal conversations with her peers and managers.

The coach should also help Katherine explore her mixed feelings about being called the “team mom” and what that meant for how she interacted with her peers. One suggestion would be to have her reframe the perception of her as “mom” to one of her as “leader,” and to redefine her care for others as relational competence (cf. Fletcher, 1998).

Examples of coaching questions—Self-confidence and self-efficacy

Describe a time when you felt particularly valued for your contributions. What were the circumstances? With whom were you working? What were you doing specifically?

What are your signature strengths? How can you imagine best using them given the current reorganization and your new peer group?

What do you think you have to offer to the current leadership team? In what ways can you envision sharing your expertise and years of experience?

What work situations are the most personally fulfilling to you?

Examples of coaching questions—Influence

What would increase your influence in the organization? How might you go about influencing others?

Who might you consider a champion for your team? How can you enlist their help in promoting the work that you and your team are doing?

What is your leadership vision for the next 3 to 5 years? How can it best be communicated to your team and the organization?

Who are the mentors you rely on and how can you build more allies and connections?

How might you be a role model and a mentor to others in the organization?

Examples of coaching questions—Authenticity

What would be your ideal life scenario at this point in your career? What are you doing? With whom are you interacting? What are your accomplishments or contributions?

What is your preferred leadership style? Do you have role models who effectively demonstrate a similar style?

What words would you use to describe you at your best? What brings out your best?

What values underlie your leadership? Describe a time when your values were put to the test, and what you learned from this experience.

Coaching outcomes

With the help of her coach, Katherine made progress in thinking strategically about how she wanted to be spending her time at this point in her career. She determined that she had been too successful to date to start doubting her abilities now, and that the change in organizational structure and her new younger peer group did not mean that she should take a back seat. She was determined to leverage one of her signature strengths, networking, and began to build one-on-one relationships with her peers through lunch meetings and project work and was feeling more capable of controlling her image. She was determined to use the lunch meetings as an opportunity to change her “team mom” perception by communicating her expertise to her peers and talking about her team’s successes. She also scheduled a meeting with her manager to let him know that she was setting a new strategic direction for her team in line with the company’s renewed vision. She was hopeful that taking a proactive stance toward these issues would help her feel more in control of her current circumstances.

Conclusion

In this article, we offered a framework for women’s leadership development, which can inform the practice of women’s executive coaching. We presented an overview of the organizational realities facing women, including challenging contexts, work–life integration concerns as well as the relevance of women’s career and life stages. Given these three core factors, women have distinct developmental needs as they seek to establish their leadership presence composed of self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity. We illustrated how executive coaching can assist women in addressing their developmental needs in the context of their specific circumstances by providing examples of focal areas and coaching questions and applying our framework to three composite coaching scenarios. Below, we summarize the practical implications of the framework for executive coaching practice and provide guidance for future research.

Coaches of women need to understand the nuances in women’s careers and lives in order to effectively help them realize their ideal vision of themselves as leaders. By focusing on configurations of the key contextual factors and the characteristics of leadership presence, coaches are better able to guide the development of a woman leader’s unique voice, her styles of engagement, and her positive contributions to the organization and others in line with her vision of herself as a leader. The focal areas and coaching questions presented here may assist coaches in their leadership development practices.

Of course, it is important to underscore that while many women in leadership positions may face these organizational, integration and life-stage issues as they seek to establish their leadership presence, coaching is a helping relationship tailored to the individual person and not a one size fits all endeavor. Hence we encourage customization of the leadership development framework to best fit each woman leader’s situation and needs. Additionally, while the framework was developed specifically for women’s leadership development, it is worth noting that macro societal factors are producing similar influences on men’s careers. The framework may be useful in coaching men as well.

Our conceptual framework provides the opportunity for measuring and testing the variables and relationships proposed for women’s leadership development. We encourage future research to investigate combinations of the model’s elements in determining how women can develop leadership and advance in organizational hierarchies. For example, how would the strategies to develop various leadership presence components (e.g., influence) differ for women facing different leadership-affecting factors (e.g., more or less challenging organizational contexts)? What coaching tools and resources would best facilitate the development of self-confidence for women at early- versus middle-career stages? Under what conditions (e.g., organizational contexts) are women more likely to develop authentic leadership presence? How can executive coaching enable women to recognize and develop their leadership presence?

These and similar questions testing the elements of the framework can be measured in a variety of ways. For instance, a study examining the impact of executive coaching for women as one component of a leadership development program may be instructive for determining the extent to which coaching can assist women in managing their work contexts, work–life integration, and life/career-stage issues. One way to examine this would be to conduct an experiment in which one group of women in a leadership development program receives coaching and another group does not. In addition, precoaching and postcoaching measures of self-efficacy, self-confidence, influence, and authenticity could also provide insights into the targeted effectiveness of coaching to develop these key leadership presence characteristics. We hope that such efforts may further inform extant women’s coaching and other leadership development endeavors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their encouraging and constructive comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acker

(1991). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. In Lorber

Farrell

S. A.

(Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 162-79). London, England: Sage.

Allen

T. D.

Finkelstein

L. M.

(2014). Work-family conflict among members of full-time dual earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender and age. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 376-384.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Barbuto

J. E.

Fritz

Matkin

G. S.

Marx

D. B.

(2007). Effects of gender, education, and age upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, 56, 71-83.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25, 607-623.

Brizendine

(2008). One reason women don’t make it to the C-suite. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 36.

Burke

R. J.

Koyuncu

Fiksenbaum

(2008). Still a man’s world: Implications for managerial and professional women in a Turkish bank. Gender in Management, 23, 278-290.

Buttner

E. H.

McEnally

(1996). The interactive effect of influence tactic, applicant gender, and type of job on hiring recommendations. Sex Roles, 34, 581-591.

Carter

T. J.

Dunning

(2008). Faulty self-assessment: Why evaluating one’s own competence is an intrinsically difficult task. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 346-360.

10.

Catalyst. (2007). The double bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/The_Double_Bind_Dilemma_for_Women_in_Leadership_Damned_if_You_Do_Doomed_if_You_Dont.pdf

11.

Catalyst. (2013). 2013 Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women executive officers and top earners. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2013-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-executive-officers-and-top-earners

12.

Catalyst. (2014). Quick take: Statistical overview of women in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace

13.

Chemers

M. M.

Watson

C. B.

May

(2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277.

14.

Clance

P. R.

Imes

(1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice, 15(3), 1-8.

15.

Clement

(1987). The self-efficacy expectations and occupational preferences of females and males. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 60, 257-265.

16.

Daft

R. L.

(2014). The leadership experience (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

17.

de Vries

M. F. R. K.

(2009, September). The dangers of feeling like a fake. Harvard Business Review, 108-116. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2005/09/the-dangers-of-feeling-like-a-fake

18.

Devillard

Sancier-Sultan

Werner

(2014). Why gender diversity at the top remains a challenge. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 1-3.

19.

Dreher

G. F.

Dougherty

T. W.

Whitely

(1989). Influence tactics and salary attainment: A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 535-550.

20.

DuBrin

A. J.

(1991). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological Reports, 68, 635-646.

21.

Eagly

(2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459-474.

22.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 63-71.

24.

Ely

R. J.

Rhode

D. L.

(2010). Women and leadership: Defining the challenge. In Nohria

Kurana

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 377-410). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

25.

Ely

R. J.

Ibarra

Kolb

D. M.

(2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 474-493.

26.

Fitzsimmons

T. W.

Callan

V. J.

Paulsen

(2014). Gender disparity in the C-suite: Do male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top? Leadership Quarterly, 25, 245-266.

27.

Fletcher

J. K.

(1998). Relational practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 163-186.

28.

Furnham

Hosoe

Tang

(2001). Male hubris and female humility? A cross-cultural study of ratings of self, parental, and sibling multiple intelligence in America, Britain, and Japan. Intelligence, 30, 101-115.

29.

Haas

L. L.

Hwang

(2007). Gender and organizational culture: Correlates of companies’ responsiveness to fathers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 21, 51-79.

30.

Heilman

M. E.

Block

C. J.

Martell

R. F.

Simon

M. C.

(1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

31.

Hewlett

S. A.

(2007). Off-ramps and on-ramps. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

32.

Hopkins

M. M.

Bilimoria

(2008). Social and emotional competencies predicting success for male and female executives. Journal of Management Development, 27, 13-35.

33.

Hopkins

M. M.

O’Neil

D. A.

(2007). Women and success: Dilemmas and opportunities. In Bilimoria

Piderit

S. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of women in business and management (pp. 132-153). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

34.

Hopkins

M. M.

O’Neil

D. A.

Passarelli

Bilimoria

(2008). Women’s leadership development: Strategic practices for women and organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal, 60, 348-365.

35.

Hoyt

C. L.

Blascovich

(2010). The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership domain. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 89-103.

36.

Ibarra

Ely

R. J.

Kolb

D. M.

(2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 60-67.

37.

Instone

Major

Bunker

B. B.

(1983). Gender, self-confidence, and social influence strategies: An organizational simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 322-333.

38.

Kay

Shipman

(2014a). The confidence code: The science and art of self-assurance—What women should know. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

39.

Kay

Shipman

(2014b, May). The confidence gap. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/

40.

Kilburg

R. R.

(1996). Towards a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48, 134-144.

41.

Laff

(2007, January). Women receive less coaching. Training and Development, 61, 18.

42.

Lirio

Lituchy

T. R.

Monserrat

S. I.

Oliva-Lugan

M. R.

Duffy

Fox

. . .Santos

(2007). Exploring career-life success and family social support of successful women in Canada, Argentina and Mexico. Career Development International, 12, 28-50.

43.

Maccoby

E. M.

Jacklin

C. N.

(1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

44.

Mainiero

L. A.

Sullivan

S. E.

(2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation for the opt-out revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 106-123.

45.

Meyerson

D. E.

Fletcher

(2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126-136.

46.

Moore

(2013, May 10). Owning the room: Establishing your leadership presence. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2013/05/10/pump-up-the-volume-establishing-your-leadership-presence

47.

O’Neil

D. A.

Bilimoria

(2005). Women’s career development phases: Idealism, endurance, and reinvention. Career Development International, 10, 168-189.

48.

O’Neil

D. A.

Hopkins

M. M.

Bilimoria

(2008). Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 727-743.

49.

O’Neil

D. A.

Hopkins

M. M.

Bilimoria

(2009). Developing women athletes: Insights from business and management. Annual Review of High Performance Coaching and Consulting, 73-96.

50.

O’Neil

D. A.

Hopkins

M. M.

Bilimoria

(2013). Patterns and paradoxes in women’s careers. In Patton

(Ed.), Conceptualising women’s working lives: Moving the boundaries of our discourse (pp. 63-79). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

51.

O’Neil

D. A.

Hopkins

M. M.

Sullivan

S. E.

(2011). Do women’s networks help advance women’s careers? Differences in perceptions of female workers and top leadership. Career Development International, 16, 733-754.

52.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/presence

53.

Perrewe

P. L.

Nelson

D. L.

(2004). Gender and career success: The facilitative role of political skill. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 366-378.

54.

Powell

G. N.

Mainiero

L. A.

(1992). Cross-currents in the river of time: Conceptualizing the complexities of women’s careers. Journal of Management, 18, 215-237.

55.

Ragins

B. R.

Townsend

Mattis

(1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12, 28-42.

56.

Reuben

(2011). Confidence game. New York, NY: Columbia University Business School.

57.

Ruderman

M. N.

Ohlott

P. J.

(2002). Standing at the crossroads. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58.

Ruderman

M. N.

Ohlott

P. J.

(2005). Leading roles: What coaches of women need to know. Leadership in Action, 25, 3-9.

59.

Rudman

L. A.

(1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.

60.

Sabelis

Schilling

(2013). Editorial: Frayed careers: Exploring rhythms of working lives. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 127-132.

61.

Sandberg

(2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. New York, NY: Knopf.

62.

Schein

V. E.

(2007) Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management Review, 22(1), 6-18.

63.

Schneer

J. A.

Reitman

(2002). Managerial life without a wife: Family structure and managerial career success. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 25-38.

64.

Segers

Vloeberghs

Henderickx

Inceoglu

(2011). Structuring and understanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 204-221.

65.

Shaughnessy

B. A.

Treadway

D. C.

Breland

J. A.

Williams

L. V.

Brouer

R. L.

(2011). Influence and promotability: The importance of political skill. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 584-603.

66.

Slaughter

(2012, June 13). Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

67.

Smith

M. L.

Van Oosten

E. B.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(2009). Coaching for sustained desired change. In Woodman

R. W.

Pasmore

W. A.

Shani

A. B.

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 17, pp. 145-173). Bingley, England: Emerald.

68.

Teasdale

(2013). Fragmented sisters? The implications of flexible working policies for professional women’s working relationships. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 397-412.

69.

Tepper

B. J.

Brown

S. J.

Hunt

M. D.

(1993). Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1903-1919.

70.

Vinnicombe

Singh

(2003). Women-only management training: An essential part of women’s leadership development. Journal of Change Management, 3, 294-306.

71.

Vinnicombe

Deyton

Walleser

(2014). Confidence gap? Not so fast. Boston, MA: Simmons Center for Gender in Organizations.

72.

Williams

(2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.