Abstract
Higher education is an intriguing realm within which to journey, referred to as the ivory tower as well as the potential for Dante's levels of hell. Many scholars who walk the halls of higher education institutions enjoy a journey that offers measures of the best and the worst of people. This may suggest the best of humanity as well as the more curious of colleagues in our academic midst. This work's participants reflect upon their scholarly journey, with specific attention upon their experiences and impacts associated with the Queen Bee Syndrome, wherein women may critically impact other women who are either actual or perceived subordinates in the job arena. The participants share their own stories and the stories of others that they have viewed, experienced, and shared.
TopIntroduction
Fifty years ago, in the 1970s, women were finding their way into leadership positions. The metaphoric glass ceiling was shattering, introducing many more opportunities for females to progress in their professional career paths. Well communicated by Minter (2017) is a description of the dawning of the Queen Bee Syndrome:
Researchers in the 1970s found that when a woman was promoted to board level in a business, the number of women in senior roles in that firm either dropped or stayed the same. Rather than encouraging other women, it seemed high-achieving women were determined to hang onto their special status as ‘the only woman’ and would do anything to protect it. Researchers dubbed them ‘queen bees’ – the only woman in the hive – and ‘queen bee syndrome’ was born. (para. 1)
It is worthy of note, that the Queen Bee Syndrome is still alive and well. This is especially recognized and relevant within the halls of higher education, due to the constant striving of faculty towards achievements in the realms of teaching, research, and service. This level of competition is so deeply ingrained, that academics maintain this level of competition while achieving tenure and then promotion through the faculty ranks and equally inherent as faculty move into positions of leadership management. This story is told from the perspectives of higher education faculty at different points within their career journey, different achievements, and different recognitions as regards their professional strengths and abilities that reflect each faculty member’s value within the organization. This differentiated faculty value and career progression within the higher education milieu is worthy of consideration, due to differentiated experiences with the Queen Bee Syndrome in the higher education workplace and workspace.
TopBackground: A Deeper Understanding Of The Queen Bee Syndrome
As communicated by Wajcman (1998) suggests that there is a question inherent within this discussion, namely, “whether women are becoming more like men or are ‘doing it differently’ has been popularized in discussions about whether high-flying women bring a distinctive female style of management to organizations” (p. 8). Yet she concludes with a reflection that,
On the contradictory nature of women’s relationship to power. On the one hand, management as an occupation has been opened up to women, providing fresh possibilities. On the other hand, power and authority, while taking new forms, remain gendered as male. While sex equality policies in the workplace have not been transformative in themselves, they have been crucial in contesting and making more transparent the established gender order in organizations. (Wajcman, 1998, p. 9)
Through this lens, one may understand the Queen Bee Syndrome. The term queen bee is normally referring to a school-based or group-based female who perceives that she holds a level of power and control over others within her sphere. Within academia, also a school environment, the Queen Bee Syndrome is equally noted as representing the power and control, manipulative, bullying behaviors of female adults who work within similar environments. Intriguing, a woman who is labeled as a “queen bee” may be described as more competitive with female colleagues and even evaluate females as lesser than comparative males. Why would a female evaluate another female as lower quality than a male? Why would stereotypes that have long been supported by males, be equally maintained, and proactively supported by females who progress into leadership positions of influence? Katherine Rake is quoted as stating that, “Stereotypes about what is an appropriate role for women are still very strong in people’s minds and there is still a cultural barrier to women making it into senior positions” (Dobson & Iredale, 2006, para. 15). Of intrigue is Cooper’s work (1997), suggesting that females who reject traditional sex roles offer a more level playing field and evaluate females towards a more positive reflection than do females who accept traditional sex roles, reflecting that:
Key Terms in this Chapter
Archetype: A symbol or motif that is normalized to reflect an “everyman” person or the original pattern, idea, or understanding upon which other ideas and patterns are based and understood. Parallel understandings, towards making connections between ideas so as to simplify explanations of personal attributes, experiences, understandings, patterns.
Attributes: The reflection of differentiated identifications associated with persons or objects. This may reflect style, quality, integrity, character, dispositions, and other forms of identification and labeling so as to better understand and potentially group persons or items into symbolically simplistic groups of understanding.
Collegial Engagement: The persons with whom one works may be termed or labeled as a “colleague” so as to reflect a working relationship. This term reflects interactions with workplace persons. Although the perception is a positive interactive and iterative relationship, it may not necessarily be a positive experience nor a positive result.
Disposition: The actions and behaviors of a person, that may be positive, neutral, or negative in nature and in impact.
Academic Mobbing: The teaming up of people in order to attack the more talented and successful professional within an academic environment. This may focus upon envy of another academic’s talent and success within the realms of teaching, research, or service. Research suggests that the bullies focus upon the targeted academics, based upon the weakness and insecurity of the bully or bullies. The attempt is to tear down the talented target, emotionally and professionally, with the ultimate interest being in removing the academic from the work environment and even from academia as a profession.
Bullying: An experience wherein at least one person attacks another person in order to develop a power position or control over another person’s actions within a space. This may include silencing another, taking credit for another’s work, attempting to remove a person from a position of influence, or ultimately attempting to push out a talented person from the environment so as to attain and retain power and prestige within an environment.