Academic women: A study on the queen bee phenomenon

Gomes Neto, Manoel B.; Grangeiro, Rebeca R.; Esnard, Catherine

doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG220211.en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Human and Social Management • RAM, Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 23 (2) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG220211.en copy

Academic women: A study on the queen bee phenomenon

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Purpose:

In masculine and extremely competitive organizational contexts, women who succeed in their careers exhibit behaviors that hinder, rather than help, other women to develop professionally. This phenomenon is called queen bee. In this article, we aim to identify whether the queen bee phenomenon is present in higher education institutions (HEI) in Brazil.

Originality/value:

Although the queen bee phenomenon as a gender inequality metaphor is not a recent topic in scientific literature, its analysis in Brazilian HEI reveals the original character of the study.

Design/methodology/approach:

The quantitative study has a sample of 495 women who work in HEI. The MANOVAs test was used to verify the hypotheses.

Findings:

The results show that the knowledge domain impacts more on the queen bee phenomenon than the variables of the organizational context. In addition, women in leadership positions are more engaged at work, have more masculine traits, identify themselves with women at the top of the hierarchy, deny gender discrimination and tend to be more adept at meritocratic discourse than women who are not in leadership positions, confirming that women who hold leadership positions in Brazilian HEI present queen bee traits.

Keywords:
gender; higher education institutions; queen bee phenomenon; women in charge of responsibility; women in male scientific fields

	Scale	No. of items	Cronbach’s alpha	Variance	KMO	Bartlett’s sphericity
Organizational context	Well-being	2	0.83	84.90%	0.5	X² = 489.44, 1 gl, p < 0.000
Organizational context	Perceived organizational support	2	0.66	75.51%	0.5	X² = 197.15, 1 gl, p < 0.000
Male self-description	Career engagement	6	0.77	46.46%	0.78	X² = 1071.38, 15 gl, p < 0.000
	Male self-description	4	0.58	43.37%	0.64	X² = 284.79, 6 gl, p < 0.000
	Horizontal engagement	6	0.86	60.07%	0.86	X² = 1321.99, 15 gl, p < 0.000
	Horizontal male self-description	4	0.78	61.60%	0.75	X² = 584.22, 6 gl, p < 0.000
	Descending engagement	6	0.91	71.29%	0.89	X² = 2125.18, 15 gl, p < 0.000
	Descending male self-description	4	0.83	67.27%	0.73	X² = 843.13, 6 gl, p < 0.000
Identification	Identification with different subgroups	4	0.5	38.65%	0.55	X² = 292.51, 6 gl, p < 0.000
Legitimization	Discrimination denial	2	0.84	83.64%	0.5	X² = 525.92, 1 gl, p < 0.000
	Quota support	3	0.89	83.16%	0.69	X² = 1485.55, 3 gl, p < 0.000
	Adherence to meritocratic principles	5	0.68	46.38%	0.71	X² = 597.62, 10 gl, p < 0.000

Women (n = 495)
Personal variables
Age		Education
From 20 to 25	1.40%	Higher education complete	1.60%
From 26 to 30	6.00%	Graduate studies	97.40%
From 31 to 35	16.20%	Did not answer	1.00%
From 36 to 40	19.80%	State
From 41 to 45	20.50%	Goiás	19.40%
From 46 to 50	12.60%	Minas Gerais	18.80%
From 51 to 55	11.80%	Ceará	15.20%
From 56 to 60	5.90%	Santa Catarina	9.30%
Over 60	4.40%	São Paulo	5.70%
Did not answer	1.40%	Paraná	5.70%
Marital status		Rio Grande do Norte	5.30%
Single	27.50%	Rio de Janeiro	5.10%
Married/stable union	60.20%	Rio Grande do Sul	4.40%
Women (n = 495)
Personal variables
Marital status		State
Divorced	11.70%	Bahia	2.60%
Widow	0.60%	Espírito Santo	1.80%
Children		Alagoas	1.40%
Yes	55.20%	Others (n = 11)	5.10%
No	44.80%	Did not answer	0.20%
Income
Up to 2 minimum wages	1.20%	From 8 to 12 minimum wages	40.60%
From 2 to 4 minimum wages	6.90%	From 12 to 15 minimum wages	20.20%
From 4 to 8 minimum wages	22.00%	Over 15 minimum wages	9.10%
Occupation variables
Position		Time of activity
Professor	88.90%	Up to 3 years	24.60%
Administrative/technical professional	5.70%	From 4 to 6 years	19.30%
Did not answer	5.50%	From 7 to 9 years	12.10%
University		From 10 to 12 years	20.40%
UFG	12.50%	From 13 to 15 years	5.80%
Ufca	8.10%	From 16 to 18 years	3.60%
Udesc	7.90%	From 19 to 21 years	2.80%
UFV	5.70%	From 22 to 24 years	2.20%
Ufersa	4.20%	From 25 to 27 years	4.00%
UFFS	3.60%	From 28 to 30 years	1.80%
UFMG	3.40%	Over 30 years	2.20%
UFJ	2.60%	Did not answer	1.20%
UFU	2.40%	Field of activity
Ufcat	2.40%	Agricultural Sciences	5.90%
Women (n = 495)
Occupation variables
University		Field of activity
UFSJ	2.40%	Biological Sciences	6.30%
Unila	2.20%	Health Sciences	16.50%
Unileão	2.00%	Exact and Earth Sciences	10.90%
UFABC	2,00%	Human Sciences	16.00%
UFRJ	2.00%	Applied Social Sciences	19.70%
UFES	1.60%	Engineering	7.90%
Unilab	1.40%	Linguistics, Literature and Arts	5.70%
UFSB	1.40%	Did not answer	11.10%
Unirio	1.20%	Working hours per week
Unifei	1.20%	Up to 20 hours	3.60%
Ufla	1.20%	From 21 to 44 hours	44.80%
Others (n = 67)	21.30%	From 45 to 55 hours	36.60%
Did not answer	6.10%	More than 55 hours	14.90%
Do you hold a commissioned or management position currently?
Yes	26.10%	No	73.90%

	Organizational context						Field of activity						Management position
	Unfavorable	Intermediate	Favorable	Degree of freedom = 2.492			Male	Mixed	Female	Degree of freedom = 2.437			Leadership position	Without	Degree of freedom = 1.493
	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	F	p	n²	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	F	p	n²	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	F	p	n²
Self-evaluation - commitment	5.63 (0.82)	5.58 (0.82)	5.87 (0.60)	4.068	0.018^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.016	5.67 (0.70)	5.58 (0.79	5.64 (0.82)	0.339	0.713	0.002	5.67 (0.77)	5.63 (0.80)	0.223	0.637	0
Self-evaluation - masculinity	5.78 (0.67)	5.79 (0.67)	6.13 (0.46)	9.82	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.038	5.81 (0.71)	5.84 (0.64)	5.88 (0.71)	0.463	0.63	0.002	6.06 (0.54)	5.77 (0.67)	18.73	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.037
Assessment of horizontal commitment	5.41 (0.88)	5.33 (0.87)	5.61 (0.87)	3.141	0.044^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.013	5.34 (0.78)	5.34 (0.88)	5.47 (092)	1.076	0.342	0.005	5.48 (0.82)	5.37 (0.37)	1.43	0.231	0.003
Assessment of horizontal masculinity	5.38 (1.02)	5.40 (0.87)	5.83 (0.74)	7.849	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.031	5.38 (0.85)	5.41 (1.03)	5.52 (0.88)	1.096	0.335	0.005	5.64 (0.86)	5.40 (0.92)	6.63	0.010^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.013
Assessment of descending commitment	5.30 (1.07)	5.33 (1.03)	5.57 (0.93)	1.967	0.141	0.008	5.32 (0.89)	5.31 (1.09)	5.41 (0.72)	0.431	0.65	0.002	5.43 (0.94)	5.34 (1.05)	0.85	0.357	0.002
Assessment of descending masculinity	5.12 (1.04)	5.21 (1.00)	5.48 (0.77)	3.463	0.032^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.014	5.16 (0.96)	5.19 (1.09)	5.28 (0.95)	0.702	0.496	0.003	5.30 (1.00)	5.21 (0.98)	0.851	0.357	0.002
Identification with women at the top of the hierarchy	5.42 (1.06)	5.50 (0.96)	6.04 (0.73)	12.308	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.48	5.53 (0.87)	5.30 (1.19)	5.67 (0.96)	4.776	0.009^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.021	5.76 (0.96)	5.5 (0.98)	6.82	0.009^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.014
Identification with women at the bottom of the hierarchy	4.37 (1.15)	4.41 (1.06)	4.83 (1.02)	5.578	0.004^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.022	4.45 (1.06)	4.53 (0.99)	4.47 (1.18)	0.13	0.878	0.001	4.56 (1.25)	4.43 (1.03)	2.7	0.242	0.003
Discrimination denial	2.74 (1.66)	2.73 (1.56)	3.64 (1.90)	10.257	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.04	3.31 (1.81)	2.38 (1.45)	2.83 (1.69)	8.325	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.037	2.80 (1.69)	2.91 (1.68)	0.439	0.508	0.001
Meritocracy	5.61 (0.91)	5.47 (0.91)	5.71 (0.85)	2.668	0.070^ marginally significant values p < 0.07.	0.011	5.71 (0.72)	5.56 (0.87)	5.46 (0.95)	2.983	0.050^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.013	5.69 (0.83)	5.50 (0.92)	3.45	0.041^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.008
Quota support	4.58 (1.71)	4.60 (1.68)	4.24 (1.89)	1.47	0.231	0.006	3.98 (1.75)	4.69 (1.65)	4.75 (1.70)	8.602	0.000^* * Significant values p < 0.05;	0.038	4.79 (1.61)	4.45 (1.76)	3.61	0.058^ marginally significant values p < 0.07.	0.007

Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Author notes

Manoel B. Gomes Neto is now a master’s student at the Postgraduate Program in Administration of Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas); Rebeca R. Grangeiro is now an adjunct professor at the Center for Applied Social Sciences (CCSA) of Federal University of Cariri (Ufca); Catherine Esnard is now a professor (maître de conférences) of Accreditation to Supervise Research (Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches - HDR) at the Center for Research on Cognition and Learning (Cerca) of University of Poitiers.