Read question and peer response, Need a review of the response with references
Question : The Background of the Problem section identifies the gap or need based on prior research that informs the topic and problem statement for the research study. Post a draft (minimum 1 page) of your Background to the Problem section of your study. (Note: This will be used in the Topic 7 assignment.) What challenges did you encounter in creating this section? Explain. What additional information do you need to improve this section?
Gender bias’s prevalence impacts women’s ability to assume and maintain leadership roles in business, government, and academia. Too often, women are overlooked for leadership positions arbitrarily when female candidates possess skill sets exceeding minimum required qualifications. The arbitrary, often times subconscious, exclusion of female candidates by employers adversely impacts organizations by denying organizations access to qualified candidates. With females occupying only 26 percent of American college presidents’ positions, academia remains a quintessential example of gender disparate employment (Gender gap, 2015). The alarming law number of female college leaders is even more shocking considering women comprise 57 percent of undergraduate student bodies (Gender gap, 2015).
Although varied facets contribute to prejudices against female leaders, a major factor includes the attribution of negative leadership behaviors to female managers (Morley, 2104). Misconceptions regarding negative leadership and women leaders may contribute to the disproportionate selection of women as administrators in junior colleges. In “Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and Broken Followers? An Empirical Examination of Contextual Influences on Follower Perceptions and Reactions to Aversive Leadership,” Thoroughgood, Hunter, and Sawyer (2011) studied the relationship between leader gender and employees’ perceptions of aversive leadership. Thoroughgood et al. (2011) found subordinates disproportionately viewed female leaders’ behaviors as aversive as opposed to male counterparts. Although Thorougood et al. (2011) examined personnel’s interpretation of leader behavior in relation to leader gender, Thoroughgood et al. (2011) failed to delineate employee impressions of leader behavior among categories of employees.
Colleges are generally comprised of instructional staff, or faculty, and support staff. These employees differ substantially in relation to demographic factors such as education level and socio-economic background. The demographic variations between staff and faculty may influence employee interpretation of leader behavior as positive or negative, as it relates to leader gender. Knowing the effect employee status has on interpretations of leader behavior would aid colleges in identifying gender bias triggers and avoid organizational climates conducive to arbitrarily excluding female leadership candidates.