Exercising positional power to advance and support women in leadership – conversations with men in higher education

Introduction and Background

The imbalance in numbers of women in comparison to men in leadership, continues in the 21st century. Though women empowerment has been recognised as “integral for sustaining economies and ultimately improving the quality of life for men and women, their families, communities and society at large” (Jansen van Rensburg, 2021, p. 1), women continue to occupy fewer leadership positions than men, in all societal sectors. In the South African Higher Education (HE) sector, only six of the current 26 public university vice chancellors (hereafter referred to as VCs) are women. Research has pointed to various challenges that contribute to the status, inclusive of patriarchy, and the manner in which women are institutionalised, and traditional societal expectations and demands. Given the constant fluctuating state of the South African HE environment (shutdowns which at times take on a violent form of protests actions around student organisation demands) (Booysen, 2016; Habib, 2019; Jansen, 2017), would it be any wonder if there was a reluctance to take up the cudgels of HE leadership? The burden for women is thus not only within the patriarchal setting of both institutions and broader society, but also the highly pressured nature which has come to characterise the HE milieu. Challenges are increasingly almost insurmountable, including the COVID-19 international pandemic (WHO, 2020), which led to many countries, including South Africa, declaring a National State of Disaster (15 March 2020) (TimesLive, 2020). In South Africa this declaration was followed by an initial 21-day lockdown, which then extended into levels one to five of lockdown periods, to try and contain the COVID-19 pandemic. This has had massive implications on a scale of great and vast magnitude on a multiplicity of fronts, notwithstanding on individuals and businesses. The demands on leadership within various sectors of society, including the HE sector was immense.

Considering the context as outlined, it may be disingenuous to assume that any person would want to voluntarily assume the role of leadership. However, leadership should not only consider a context of crisis, as this is not necessarily the interminable context. Aside of these crisis periods, literature reflects that amid the various barriers to women's advancement to leadership, are the structural and cultural institutional barriers, presented mainly from women's perspectives. There is a gap in literature focusing on men in leadership within this milieu and whether they are cognisant of women's lived experiences or exercise their agency in addressing these challenges. The fact that there remains a majority of men in leadership, and that men carry co-responsibility with women in advancing transformation, compelled the researcher to probe the views of men. The research focuses on men in HE leadership and their perceptions of the impact of organisational culture on women's lived experiences in the advancement toward, or occupation of leadership positions. It further focuses on their agency and advocacy roles in this context.

Analytical framework

Recognising the injustices of the South African Apartheid past and the continuous cycle of inequalities within both the broader societal and the higher education context, the analytical framework is positioned within Rawls (1971) framework of social justice. As a multi-faceted term, interpreted variously according to a range of perspectives, the paper adopts an ‘ethical framework’ approach with a focus on equality of access and fairness in opportunities (Neier, 2015, 47 as cited in Moodly, 2021a). This framework compels a consideration of equality in opportunities for, and representation of, both men and women.

Further the study is also contextualised within Bhaskar's critical realism (1989) and Archer's social realism (1995, 2000, 2013). Bhaskar (as cited in Newman 2020, p.442) distinguishes between “closely related ontological layers” the “empirical” (experienced) events, the “actual” (events that may or may not be experienced), and the “real” (underlying causal mechanisms that may or may not be realized in events). Newman (2020, p. 438-439) further cites Archer who has written extensively on the morphogenetic/morphostatic approach (M/M) to critical realism, as a means of understanding “how structure, agency and culture interact over time”. Archer (1982; 2000, p. 60) explicates that M/M respectively are, morphogenetic “processes … (which) tend to elaborate or change a system's form, structure or state”, and “morphostatis… processes … that preserve”). Archer (1989) as cited by Newman (2020, p. 444), states that “structure and culture… predate the action(s) which transform them”, with “cultural and structural elaboration” following thereafter. Central to this, according to Archer (in Newman 2020, p. 444) is “human agency”, a “reflexive process…an internal conversation” which though it has “transformative capacity” (Archer, 1982, p. 465), does not necessarily imply transformation.

Women's lived experiences: challenges in aspiring towards leadership

Internationally, research in academia continues to reflect the under-representation of women in positions of “leadership, power and decision-making” (Idahosa, 2019, p.2; Sueda, Mayer, Kim & Asai, 2020). This continues to span the decades as repeatedly stated by various researchers (Coetzee & Moosa, 2020; Mabokela, 2003; Mama, 2003; Mabokela & Mlambo, 2017; Moodly & Toni, 2017a, b and c; Odhiambo, 2011; Idahosa, 2019, Toni & Moodly, 2019). Exacerbating this prevailing status quo is the dominance of patriarchy in “cultural norms and the persistent nature of gender inequalities within institutions” (Idahosa, 2019, p. 1; Moodly & Toni, 2017a, b and c; Toni & Moodly, 2019; Moodly, 2021b). There remains limited research on women within positions of leadership, particularly in Africa, with a “negligible” focus on HE, and a dominance of research from the global north (Idahosa, 2019, p. 3; Coetzee & Moosa, 2020).

As argued by scholars, research in the field of women and leadership is partially driven by both socio-economic and transformation imperatives. These include the need to “transform exclusionary structures, cultures, and practices that ensure the marginalization of women in universities” (Idahosa, 2019, p. 4). Coetzee & Moosa (2020, p. 2) cite several sources, stating that including women in leadership, “stimulates and fosters creativity and innovation”, enhances “monitoring skills and low-risk preferences” and contributes to “informational and social diversity”. They further cite authors who state that “gender diverse companies are 15% more likely to outperform the national industry mean”, and that women's “wealth of experience and knowledge” are further reasons for gender diversity in leadership.

It is of concern that literature continues to reflect that women's promotion into and success within leadership positions, including within HE, continues to be inhibited by identified institutional and cultural barriers. Amongst these are work-family responsibilities, traditional socio-cultural expectations, institutional practices perpetuating gendered roles, lack of networks and mentoring as part of formal institutional and individual support programmes (Mabokela & Mawila, 2004; Mabokela & Mlambo, 2017; Mama, 2003; Sader, Odendaal & Searle, 2005; White, Bagilhole & Riordan, 2012; Mazibuko, 2006; Idahosa, 2019; Coetzee & Moosa, 2020). An international brief for higher education leaders in collaboration with Boston College by the American Council on Education (2021), confirms the challenge as perennial and global, even within the contemporary age. The brief cites various international higher education contexts spanning Asia, Africa and America, amongst others, with recurring factors of cultural and structural barriers impacting women's pathways towards and within HE leadership. In the South African context, as previously outlined, more recently women have come into HE leadership at a time of crises, also identified as the glass cliff in literature, having to “work exceptionally hard to prove their competence or succumb to the pressure of these challenges” (Coetzee & Moosa, 2020, p. 3; DeLaquil 2021). The “violent nature of student activism” has contributed to the perception that such environments are difficult for women (Idahosa, 2019, p. 8).

Men: leadership, positional power and influence in institutional culture

The role of men in attaining gender equality has gained more recognition and prominence in the 21^st century. As reflected in Fronteddu (2013), organisations such as the United Nations (2004), the Council of the European Union (2006) and the European Commission (2012) set the path in recognising and affirming the role of men in the struggle for gender equality and the fight against gender-based violence. The challenges against such practices cannot ignore the influence of leadership in decision-making (Gallagher & Morison, 2019, Shinbrot, Wilkins, Gretzel & Bowser, 2019; Jansen van Rensburg, 2021). These practices are embedded in institutional cultures which continue to be gendered and dominantly patriarchal, with men holding positional power and influencing decision-making “disproportionately” (Hendra, Fitzgerald & Seymour, 2013, p. 112). Moodly (2021b) argues that men have shared responsibility to transform these spaces, using their positional power. Men can become allies in these spaces (Adu-Yeboah, Yaa Oduro & Takyiakwaa, 2021), though they may risk being ostracised by those who perceive them as a threat. Shinbrot et al (2019) argue that men also experience power relations which impact on their ability to impact change. Despite these risks, there are changing views which affirm co-responsibility of men and boys with women, in promoting gender equality. However, there continues to be a lack of establishments in the Southern hemisphere and on the African continent in particular, promoting the voices of men in gender equality.

Problem statement

Women form the majority of the population in South Africa, as is the case in many countries. Data also reflects that women outnumber men in graduation rates and are an important component in sustainable societies (Council on Higher Education, 2019). In occupying leadership roles, women also become role models in challenging gendered spaces of society and lead the change in this regard. However, this is not only the responsibility of women, but of all who occupy positions of leadership. Currently, these positions continue to be male dominated, and the message to society is still influenced by the voices of men, who hold positional power and who have the opportunity to not only influence institutional culture, but also impact society at large. As reflected in the literature, men are critical allies and partners in the transformation of leadership and advocating for women's leadership. To be effective in this role, men need to challenge the barriers of women's lived experiences. The paper focuses on men's understanding of women's lived experiences in the context of institutional cultural barriers and their agency in the higher education milieu, with a focus on the South African context.

Methodology

Following a qualitative approach within the interpretative paradigm (Cresswell, 2012), interviews were conducted with a sample of six men in university leadership, out of a population of men in leadership in four Eastern Cape public universities. Initially vice-chancellors (all men at the time of the research) and deputy vice-chancellors at four universities in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, were identified. This was extended to deans and campus rectors. A deductive reasoning approach (Pearse, 2019) was adopted in the construction of a semi-structured questionnaire, considering the literature on women and leadership. Approximately thirteen open-ended questions were developed, which facilitated further probing, guided by the literature reviewed on challenges women experienced in and towards leadership. These were clustered around structural and cultural factors, women's micro-environments and their views on facilitation of women towards leadership. Data was analysed using a thematic approach, identifying themes that manifested within the analysis of the data.

Discourse analysis (Newman, 2020) was applied to the content and thematic analysis used to reflect areas as foregrounded in literature, but also other areas for consideration.

The research question focused on whether men in leadership recognise and comprehend the impact of organisational culture on women's lived experiences in the advancement toward, or occupation of leadership positions. Further, whether they exercise agency and advocacy in challenging the status quo.

Profiles of the sample group

In line with confidentiality and protecting the anonymity of interviewees, it is only revealed that the men were within the age ranges of 40–60+, and mostly black African. All occupied senior/executive positions within the Eastern Cape-based universities.

Limitations

The non-binary nature of gender diversity is acknowledged though not considered in this research. The research was conducted with a limited number of participants within HEIs in one province of South Africa. The findings may not lend themselves to generalisations, though they may be considered within the broader field of research on women and leadership.

Engaging with the findings

In line with considerations of anonymity and confidentiality participants were named respondents A, B, C, D, E and F respectively. Extensive verbatim quotes in singular inverted commas, are reflected so that the voices of respondents are clearly reflected and considered in the analysis.

Views of women's lived experiences in terms of occupying a senior or executive leadership positions

Respondents contextualised their understanding of women's experiences mostly in times of crises and filled with obstacles, such as bullying, being undermined, and traditional socio-cultural expectations. Respondent B alluded to the volatility of the HE milieu, that placed (women) leaders ‘at risk’. The ‘student political cultures’ that tended to ‘be abusive’ placed women leaders in particular in a ‘vulnerable’ situation due to the intensity and ‘violent character’, ‘verbal…and visual …if not physical threats’ which made it ‘difficult for female leaders’. He indicated that there had been complaints by women in leadership roles where ‘they felt abused’ by staff, as well as by ‘groups of students’ having ‘intimidated and threatened’ them, especially during the Fallist period of 2015/16 ¹ . As previously indicated and referenced, this again reflects the volatility of the South African HE milieu in recent times (Booysen 2016; Jansen 2017; Habib 2019). Respondent C was of the view that women were always having to ‘explain themselves’ and that it was ‘easy for an organisation to ignore what they say’. He reiterated this by explaining that in order for women in leadership positions ‘to be taken seriously, they have to scream, they have to shout, they have to say three times to make people understand that they are serious’. Such challenges are also reflected in literature as previously cited (Coetzee & Moosa, 2020). Respondent C also elaborated on examples where women experience ‘bullying’ by men who are their subordinates that they ‘do not take that…from a woman’. Adu-Yeboah et al (2021, p. 19) also highlight women's experiences of being “bullied and frustrated” especially by men, within the higher education milieu.

Respondent C indicated that these situations were not often reported. ‘People just sit with it, learn to live with those issues’, he stated. It was a reality in his view that it was a ‘male (institutional) culture which in every way favours men’. There were also obstacles as women ‘carry several burdens’ both in terms of work at the university, as well as within their household. The burden of household challenges, though ‘not imposed by the institution’ but ‘by society’ included the expectation that women took care of their children, ‘fetching (them) from school, …do the homework, …the cooking, …look after and manage the household.’ These and other obligations, in respondent C's view, placed ‘huge obstacles in the way of women’. Respondent C's observations are aligned with issues consistently foregrounded in literature on barriers experienced by women (Adu-Yeboah et al 2021; Azman 2021; Cheung 2021; Kuzhabekova 2021).

Respondent D, however, stated that none of the senior women he had worked with had confided in him indicating their difficulties or challenges. The women he had worked with were all ‘competent’, and could ‘stand their ground’ ‘and he ‘couldn't imagine anyone daring to victimise them’.

A view was expressed that, in order to navigate challenging patronising spaces, women tended to compromise and take on acceptable behaviour. Respondent F expressed that women had experiences of being ‘patronised’ and that men had a particular expectation of leadership style. This, he stated, often influenced women to the extent that they would ‘forego some of their best qualities’ in terms of their leadership characteristics and assume the kind of (leadership) qualities as ‘projected by men’ (‘assertive’, ‘authoritative’, ‘aggressive’) ‘as that was how leadership was constructed’. It was his view that perceptions may hold that unless women reflected these characteristics, they were ‘less of a leader’. He regarded this as ‘tragic’ as he acknowledged diversity in leadership styles. Though he reiterated the characteristics of leadership as associated with male and perceived as acceptable, as this was what was ‘understood’ and to which people responded. Further, he indicated that ‘people’ should be permitted to ‘provide their own style of leadership’ and that this should be accepted rather than ‘pretending there is one single acceptable model of leadership’. Women leaders in his view, should ‘exercise leadership in the way they see appropriate’ without feeling pressured to conform to a particular model (of male) leadership. He was supportive of leadership being exercised in a manner deemed appropriate by the respective individual rather than a conformist approach to a ‘model of leadership’. This would permit women the freedom to introduce new forms of leadership. Moodly (2021a, p. 20) argues for the reconstruction of the notions of leadership, indicating that leadership is also “contextually affected demanding the ability to read, analyze and recognize” the HE milieu at a given point in time.

Perceptions of organisational culture and the promotion of women in leadership

The university as a microcosm of the broader societal space, replicating traditional roles, was reflected in views of respondents in relation to organisational culture and the promotion of women in leadership. The responses reflected the dominance of patriarchy, with women often excluded from decision-making spaces, particularly in times of crises. The responses affirm literature which perennially accentuate both societal and institutional culture and the intersectionality thereof (Moodly 2021b; Regulska 2021). The traditional roles of both men and women were clearly transparent. Positional power and patriarchy in institutional cultures were also reflected in the ‘transactional’ relationship as described by respondent C.

Respondent A indicated that organisational culture within his institution was not necessarily reflective of an equitable environment, with men mostly making decisions. There were mostly men in the executive leadership of the institution, at the time of the interviews. He stated that as a leader, he encouraged engagement and considered everyone's views. He reflected that though this happened during times of quiet, when there were no disruptions (for example, no strikes), this was not necessarily the case at times of crises, where he tended to consult with his male colleagues within the management committee. He did this more out of consideration for women, without consultation, as crisis-management demanded availability after acceptable day hours and discussions went on into the evenings. It was accepted that these hours were difficult for women (as mothers and wives) and this was one of the reasons why Respondent A did not engage women in his leadership team in times of crises. Respondent B described his institution's culture as ‘largely Afrikaner’ and a ‘male-centred bureaucracy’ where roles were largely evolved from an era long gone by. At the same time there was a ‘policy desire towards a co-creational collegial institution’ involving all stakeholders within decision-making, resulting in a ‘curious paradox or a contradiction’. There was a deep need for re-designing the institution and its culture to address its own inequalities, and to contribute to transformation of the institution and society. Respondent B was positive about the role models working towards the promotion of women towards leadership. This was both within the middle and top tiers of leadership, in which ‘a centre’ was evolving ‘to shift the centre of gravity of the institution away from the inherited culture’. Around this centre, ‘a new core’ of ‘solidarity networks and students were increasingly participating’, creating something different’. Respondent C described the institutional culture at his organisation as ‘transactional’, with people ‘trying to get something from the institution… more money…, a higher position’. There was also a ‘lack of accountability’, extending to no accountability for ‘diversity’ to the extent that there were few women as professors. Accompanying this, was a lack of consequence when people did not ‘pull their weight’. He observed that unlike men, women could not get away with such behaviour, describing the institutional culture as ‘male dominated’. This manifested in the utterances in meetings, in the types of ‘jokes’, which reflected a patriarchal culture. Patriarchy extended to the practices of treatment of women, where he raised as an example, that ‘men in senior positions’ would have a number of ‘girlfriends’ in various sections of the institution. Respondent F too, was of the view that their institutional culture was patriarchal. The dominant ways of doing were ‘predicated on the way men do things’. He was of the view that ‘it would take a strong, assertive woman who will be able to challenge some of the dominant views’. The institution was ‘liberal’ in that people were ‘nice to each other … which is a lot of pretension’. It was this pretence that created a perception of progressiveness, but this was not the reality ‘when you scratch the surface’. At the time of interviews the institution had more men in leadership positions.

Rewarded/accepted and discouraged leadership characteristics

Responses to questions on leadership characteristics that were rewarded or discouraged reflected the trend of rewarding traditionally viewed behaviours acceptable in men, yet unacceptable in women. The categorisation of behaviours as gendered still impacts on whose voice was dominant and who had influence. In addition to this, the location of these voices in the hierarchical structure also impacted on positional power and influence as reflected in respondent A's responses. This yet again reflects the gendered nature of both society and the university spaces, as reflected also in Adu-Yeboah et al (2021).

Respondent A indicated that his institution operated in terms of a decentralised model and that it was not so much the leadership characteristics of individuals that was the focus, but whether you were a part of the central management of the university, or on the peripheral (part of managing a campus). Those within central management were in positions of influence and power as central to the university leadership. He also stated that though some would appear in meetings to be ‘quiet’, engagement on an individual level may reveal a ‘kind, outspoken, decisive’ person who had not clearly expressed their views due to ‘institutional power’. Respondent B stated that that there was much ‘fluidity’ in characteristics rewarded or discouraged. There was no visible evidence of the type of characteristics encouraged for women to ‘get ahead’. The expectation for both men and women was ‘the same’. He also stated that talking ‘too much’ was a means of character judgement, and men were mostly promoted as they were visible. At meetings women tended not to be assertive, which he associated with the ‘culture’ that discouraged women from such behaviour, with the expectations of women being ‘polite’ and ‘lady-like’. The expectations for men were that they be ‘assertive’, ‘tough’, ‘aggressive, ‘decisive’, and able to deal with problems and ‘issues’, with the expectation of women being ‘civil’, and ‘not to be assertive’. Respondent D did not think that people were generally aware that there was a ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine leadership style’, rather than a ‘feminine and masculine style’ and that women have feminine characteristics which can contribute positively to institutional leadership. He focused on the nurturing and caring nature of women, and the contribution thereof to leadership.

Views on women's leadership and management styles and views on reasons for women adopting such styles of management and leadership:

Though responses reflected a traditional view of attributes associated with women (caring, nurturing, with the ability to negotiate and persuade), these were also viewed positively, as contributing to balanced leadership qualities. Women's leadership has been associated with service, resilience, versatility and a transformative style (Cheung 2021, Regulska 2021).

Respondent A indicated women adopt a ‘mothering, caring, nurturing’ style of leadership. His view was that in times of strife and volatility and where negotiations (with the SRC, for example) were needed, women could contribute to bringing in caring attributes as men were perceived as uncaring by the student population. Respondent B's view was that there were male and female cultures of leadership, inclusive of distinctive styles which were ‘culturally manifested’. Respondent C indicated that women ‘know the job’, ‘play it safe.. and don't want to be seen to be causing any trouble, to be rocking the boat’. Women in his institution only occupied senior rather than executive levels of leadership, and did not challenge the upper levels of leadership, who at the time of the interview were all men. Respondent E made an example of his upbringing, indicating that though his father was ‘very harsh’, it was his mother who had ‘more power’ as she ‘would do certain things …and…convince my father’. He came from a context of ‘powerful women’ who had survived many challenges and he admired and respected ‘the power of negotiation’ and ‘persuasion’ that women possessed. Respondent F observed that there was a ‘new breed of leadership’, which was ‘strong’ and ‘different’ to that to which he had become accustomed. As new persons (women) joined the institutions, norms and practices were being challenged. Women coming in brought with them a different way of seeing and being, which contributed to the institution's ‘renewal’.

The need to facilitate the promotion and to support women in leadership

Responses reflected that policy was needed institutionally towards the promotion of women in leadership. This is also reiterated by DeLaquil (2021), in her summary of global matters impacting women's achieving of leadership positions. However, as DeLaquil (2021, p. 37) states, these should also be at a “national level.” Policy should go beyond facilitating the promotion of women, but address institutional cultures which were predominantly male in the replication of social structures. This is also argued by Cheung (2021). Deliberate intervention was required as it would be a misnomer that automatic self-correction was possible. Respondent F's response reflects disengagement and lack of awareness of his influential role. Though recognising that women should be supported, his view was that the onus was on women. The challenge was viewed as a problem for women to solve.

Respondent A emphasised the need to deconstruct how institutions replicate social structures of gendered inequality which constantly ‘reproduce themselves’. He argued for a policy of gender equality which focused on the systemic relationships (of men and women). Systemic challenges are also emphasised by Cheung (2021), with gendered roles (Regulska 2021) entrenched within these. Not only should policy focus on the advancement of women but also on deconstructing ‘maleness’ in institutions. Respondent A supported that women should be supported into leadership. Training was required to develop (their) leadership skills. More importantly, women had to be trusted, that given the opportunity, ‘they will deliver’. The gender imbalance in leadership, in respondent A's view, could only be corrected through ‘deliberate intervention’. There was ‘no self-regulating mechanism that would correct’ this. Respondent B stated that universities need to ‘challenge those cultural and social sources of patriarchy and gender inequality’ in society. He argued that universities are ‘microcosms’ of the larger society. Institutions needed to change fundamentally, as to impact on change within society. These views also reflect the nature of gendered roles and associated barriers for women as raised in literature (Azman 2021; Kuzhabekova 2021).

Respondent C supported facilitation and support of women to HE leadership. He stated that there was an ambivalence in the attraction of HE leadership. Though there were attractive remuneration perks, the challenges however, including protest actions were ‘rough’, leading to ‘destabilisation’, ‘shrinking resources’, and made it more difficult for any person regardless of gender, to consider leadership. He also supported leadership- coaching as part of such support systems.

Respondent D indicated that he was not certain what support would entail, but if a woman qualified for a position, she should be appointed. He also stated that women would need the support of their (male) spouses/partners both within the home, and within other spheres. Respondent E also agreed that women had to be supported to positions of leadership, and that spaces had to be created for women to interact ‘amongst themselves’, for sharing experiences and/or support systems. Women had to ‘lead themselves’, and he as a man was not comfortable in that space. He did not believe in ‘empowering people’ (he felt he could not do this). Instead he could ‘create conditions’ for persons (women in this case) ‘who have problems (as they) are the best suited …to create a solution’.

Conclusion

The article considers the ongoing challenges to the advancement of women in HE leadership, contributing to the body of knowledge, by considering men's perceptions and exercising of agency. Literature on the inequality and challenges experienced by women, mostly reflect women's lived experiences and perspectives. Yet, it is as a result of a culture of patriarchy that these inequalities and lived experiences are perpetuated. It is important that men's perspectives and voices are brought into the HE space and that they are part of the transformation thereof. This article attempts to bring their voices more actively into this space. Considering Bhaskar's closely related ontological layers, on a surface level (the empirical events), the respondents appear to understand the HE milieu and the challenges that women experience. However, the deeper embedded (real) levels of patriarchy and institutional culture and the impact on women's lived experiences are not fully appreciated. These are the structures of morphostatis as outlined by Bhaskar and Archer. This is also reflected in the context in which women's lived experiences in leadership is understood, including the ability of women to lead. Most of the respondents’ views have been limited to or influenced by times of crises, even though this is not the constant state of the HE environment. Further, it has also been influenced by an acceptance of traditional gendered roles with respondents focusing on the risks to women in times of volatility, and the view of women as responsible for self-agency towards leadership transformation. The respondents’ insights into institutional culture as patriarchal reflect that though they appreciate the challenges of such an environment, they did not necessarily engage in influencing transformation in this regard. There was no indication of engagement with persons who perpetuated such practices, nor agency in initiating any form of challenge to the status quo. The absence of identifying with and understanding the extent to which institutional culture was a barrier to advancing women to and in leadership, reflected the lack of recognition of the deep structural barriers inherent in the system. Analysing the discourse in a critical realist framework reflects an absence of engagement with the various layers as outlined by Bhaskar, as well as with behaviour which at times may appear as progressive but digging deeper, looking at the status quo, reflects a deeper level of patriarchy that has not been fully challenged. Participant E's comments on surface pretence and the deeper levels of reality, reflect the need to challenge more deeply entrenched practices that may not necessarily be immediately visible.

Advocacy and agency, though not conclusively so, can be a major game-changer in institutional culture and patriarchal practices. Patriarchy remains the dominant culture in the conspicuous absence of persons and interest groups agitating for change. The perceptions of the role of women in leadership as advocates for change is reflected in the respondents’ views, simultaneously reflecting a lack of appreciation of agency of men in leadership to co- lead change. Agency (as stated by Archer) does not automatically lead to transformation. Just because men in leadership recognise the institutional culture and structures as inhibiting to the advancement of women, does not automatically translate into their advocating for change. This is not to say that men in leadership are silent, but possibly that they have not realised their positional and influential power as agents of change. As reflected in the literature, men may also experience ostracism when advocating for change.

The notions of leadership traits are still predominantly gendered, favouring characteristics associated with men. The respondents’ experiences of women's leadership styles reflected a broad spectrum from women as docile, to women as influential, through persuasion and negotiation. From the findings, it appears that women coming from outside of institutions into leadership positions, have more of an opportunity to challenge the status quo than those who rise through the institutional ranks. This may have to be further explored. Though responses reflect recognition of, and appreciation for gender diversity positively impacting leadership, this has not culminated in transformation in leadership to the extent of gender equity, nor has it uprooted systemic institutionalised gendered cultures. Challenges of social justice continue into the century, with Rawl's theory still relevant in contemporary society.