The underrepresentation of women in board level positions is well documented. In the UK, even though women constitute 47% of the working population, just 23% of FTSE250 directors are female (UK Parliament, 2018). This is despite evidence showing the equal effectiveness of female leadership (Thompson, 2000) and the benefits of gender balancing in organisations (McKinsey, 2015a), where this could add $12trillion to the global economy (McKinsey,2015b).
Where this is a vast topic with a variety of explanations for the disparity, this paper will focus solely on the executive coaching of women as a key contributory factor, where it has been identified women do not receive as much coaching as men (Laff, 2007), nor do they receive as much feedback (Ely et al, 2011). Furthermore, "there is scant empirical research on the coaching of women leaders" (O'Neil et. al 2015, p254) This shows the significant disparity in executive coaching which may explain the gender imbalance in the boardroom.
Thus this author sees this field as a particular area of interest for management to address gender imbalances and unlock the business benefits discussed.
To investigate women's leadership development and executive coaching, the framework proposed by O'Neil et. al (2015,p.263) will be explored, drawing together the key factors impacting women's leadership presence (Fig.1). This study will then review the literature surrounding the key internal factors of: self-confidence, self-efficacy, authenticity and influence and how these relate to leadership presence, where this can be defined as "the ability to connect authentically with the thoughts and feelings of others" (Lubar and Halpern 2004, p.3). This paper will then give recommendations to management and direct future research efforts.
Figure.1 Framework for Women's Leadership Development (O'Neil et. al 2015)
The research into self-confidence suggests that women lack the confidence of men (Instone et al, 1983; Jakobsson, 2011; Hripsime & Freeman, 1994; Kirkwood, 2009) across a range of disciplines. On the surface this might suggest that women are innately less confident than men, explaining why women are underrepresented at the highest echelons of business, where it is suggested "a lack of confidence is perhaps the greatest barrier to women's progression" (Fielden et al 2003, p.162). However, on closer examination, only minor differences were found in confidence levels within small sample sizes, where this was most commonly tested on students rather than testing women in professional roles to establish a gender difference. This explanation also ignores the pro-male gendering of the workforce, where the display of confidence and 'success' in management is defined in male terms (Heilman et al, 1989; Höpfl & Matilal, 2007). Therefore, where the ability to display confidence is male-defined, the ability of women to display this trait and "connect authentically with the thoughts and feelings of others" (Lubar and Halpern 2004, p.3) in order to establish leadership presence is clearly diminished, thereby potentially explaining the gender difference in top-level management representation.
To address this therefore, academic research should first test the proposed gender confidence difference in significant sample sizes and in board-level management. In this case, the existence or lack of this relationship should not matter for executive coaching or management, who should focus on breaking down male-defined norms within organisations (i.e. confidence) to achieve equal representation and subsequent benefits. Should this relationship be established, executive coaching must target exposure of women to board-level management in order to increase confidence, where this can be coached (Fielden & Dawe, 2004).
Often entangled with self-confidence is the concept of self-efficacy. Confidence "is a nondescript term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about…self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment" (Bandura 1997, p.382). Again, research suggests that women show lower levels of self-efficacy compared to men (Wilson et al, 2007; Betz & Hackett, 1981), where managers with high levels of self-efficacy are more successful than those with lower levels (Prussia et. al, 1998; Chemers et. al, 2000) potentially explaining the board-room gender disparity. Unlike self-confidence, efficacy has a far greater hereditary component to it. The findings of Waaktaar and Torgersen (2013,p651) showed that "75% of variation in self-efficacy was due to genetic factors…non-shared environmental factors explained the remaining 25%…with no effect of common environment". This therefore removes the pro-male social culture as an explanation for the disparity and adds weight to the argument that women innately have lower levels of self-efficacy than men. Academia into self-efficacy lacks a consistent explanation of why women possess an innately lower self-efficacy however, and this should encourage further research in order to establish the relationship.
More positively, self-efficacy can be improved through coaching. Bandura (1994) proposes four main methods of improving self-efficacy, the most effective of which being through mastery experiences, similar to self-confidence coaching whereby successful exposure helps to build one's self-belief. Otherwise, Bandura (1994) suggests the provision of role models, social persuasion and encouragement, and reduced stress reactions all contribute to increased self-efficacy. Therefore, one would encourage that executive coaching targets exposing women to board-level leadership early to build an internal sense of self-efficacy, whilst further providing examples of successful board-level female leaders. This would be combined with management encouraging a pro-female culture and stress prevention training.
The concept of authenticity and authentic leadership is well established within academia, where Avolio et. al (2004, p.4) define authentic leaders are "those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and perceived by others as being aware of their own and others' values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths". This therefore helps to establish leadership presence through the ability to connect authentically with followers. Yet therein lies the problem for women. As Eagly (2005) highlights, where authenticity is a transaction and involves others perceptions, because women are underrepresented at board-level, it is harder for women to be accepted as credible, authentic leaders by followers because the female to follower relationship is much less frequently encountered than with male leaders. This therefore undermines the ability of women to be authentic, creating a negative cycle for female leaders unable to break through to top-level leadership precisely because they have not been afforded top-level leadership, where this is often termed 'the glass ceiling' (Davidson & Cooper, 1992).
Akin to authenticity, influence is a key leadership determinant as highlighted in Fig.1, where the ability to influence thoughts and feelings of others helps to connect leaders to followers and thus achieve leadership presence. The literature into gender and influence effectiveness reveals varied results (O'Neil et al, 2015), where both sexes used similar tactics Dubrin (1991) with a strong correlation between the order in which strategies were used too (White & Roufail, 1989). The crucial difference is in the perception of influence strategies however (Eagly, 1987), where male and female role expectations affected both influence strategy and effectiveness of the strategy. Barbuto et. al (2007) found that direct and assertive tactics were viewed as inappropriate for women whilst the same tactics resulted in more positi
ve outcomes for men (Rudman, 1998).