Progress towards gender equity has been rapid in South African universities. However, disaggregated data reveal that, in general, women are clustered mainly within the lower ranks of higher education institutions (HEIs). Research by Moodly and Toni (2017) confirmed that in spite of progressive policies regarding gender equity in the South African higher education (HE) system, women are still not breaking the glass ceiling when it comes to accessing senior leadership positions. Bawa¹ concurs by stating that ‘it would be fair to say that the upper echelons of HE leadership are still very male-centred’ (Naidu, 2018). Furthermore, it is concerning that in spite of the 2017 and 2018 appointments of women at two South African institutions (Nelson Mandela University and the University of Cape Town) in vice chancellor positions, women still constitute only about 19% of vice chancellors in South Africa (Toni & Moodly, 2019). In addition, only 27.5% of the professors (from a total of 2218) are women (Naidu, 2018). Thus, women’s underrepresentation at the higher academic ranks is in contrast to their visibility in larger numbers in the lower ranks of the academy (Toni & Moodly, 2019). It is thus clear that universities continue to be gendered institutions (Acker, 2010; Kele & Pieterson, 2015; Moodly & Toni, 2017; Morley, 2013; Shepherd, 2017; Toni & Moodly, 2019) and as stated by Kele and Pieterson (2015, p. 14) still ‘unconsciously gender biased’. Research by Burkinshaw and White (2017) confirmed that one of the main reasons for women’s underrepresentation is the gendered power relations dynamics in universities that persistently preserve these entrenched inequalities. As a result, women find themselves in a gendered institutional culture with few senior women as role models (Howe-Walsh & Sarah Turnbull, 2016). These patterns of greater gender disparity at senior levels are reflective of those in other parts of the world, including universities in developed countries (Burkinshaw & White, 2017; Howe-Walsh & Turnbull, 2016; Manfredi, 2017; Shepherd, 2017; Winchester & Browning, 2015) as well as the corporate sector (World Economic Forum [WEF], 2017). From both an organisational and social justice perspective, the current state of affairs is problematic.

From the above discussion, it is clear that there may be gender-specific barriers to achieve equity in universities, which needs to be understood (Devar, 2017; Kele & Pieterson, 2015; Moodly & Toni, 2015; Moodly & Toni, 2017; Morley, 2013). Various reasons for women’s continued underrepresentation at senior leadership levels in HE are mentioned in the literature (Moodly & Toni, 2017). One of the most significant reasons cited is the lack of fit between stereotype-based characteristics deemed necessary for effective leadership and women’s distinctive characteristics and qualities (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016). As a result, the entrenched masculine practices of universities are alienating women academics, as they favour masculine behaviours and values (Burkinshaw & White, 2017; Moodly & Toni, 2017). Research by Kele and Pieterson (2015) provided evidence that gender stereotypes and misconceptions about women’s leadership ability act as barriers to the performance of senior women in HEIs. These biases towards women’s abilities to lead are confirmed by Ragins, Townsend and Mattis (1998), who describe organisational cultures as inhospitable and exclusionary. This culture of exclusion manifests as male dominance, silencing of women’s voices and male patterns of networking (Toni & Moodly, 2019). These perceptual errors also result in women having less access to high-status colleagues with whom to network, which serves as an additional barrier for women’s advancement (Stainback, Kleiner, & Skaggs, 2016; Toni & Moodly, 2019). These hostile cultures even cause some women to opt out of senior management as a self-preservation strategy – an attempt to avoid the ‘cruel optimism’ of aspiring for something, which they believe is a statistical improbability (Morley, 2014, p. 120). This belief that their senior leadership aspirations will most likely not realise has some empirical foundation (Business Women Association of South Africa, 2017; Kele & Pieterson, 2015; Manfredi, Grisoni, Handley, Nestor, & Cooke, 2014; Moodly & Toni, 2017; Shepherd, 2017). Therefore, as stated by Burkinshaw and White (2017), a ‘fixing the women’ approach is unlikely to be efficient in redressing the current gender imbalance within university executive management teams.

Another reason for the under\representation of women in senior levels frequently cited in the literature is the relationship between self-confidence and effective leadership (Bear, Cushenbery, London, & Sherman, 2017; Kay & Shipman, 2014; McCormick, 2001). The author acknowledges the multiplicity of factors that contribute to the slow advancement of women to senior leadership positions in HEIs. However, institutional cultures that are biased against women contribute to the perceived lack of confidence and the phenomenon of leadership deficit that the article attempts to address. As stated by Martin and Philips (2017), confidence drives the attainment of power and status, and signals competence. A lack of confidence therefore has definite implications for goal achievement and career success (Anderson & Brion, 2010; Kay & Shipman, 2014). As stated by Acker (2010), strategic agency is required if individuals are to prosper in the academia. Therefore, as mentioned by Kay and Shipman (2014), the reduction of the confidence gap is a prerequisite to eliminate the current gender inequality in senior levels. This article investigates the preconceived notion of women’s missing agency – characterised by a lack of confidence – as an explanation for their continued underrepresentation. The article presents the findings of a 360-degree assessment intervention amongst 88 academic managers in a HEI in South Africa. These managers were rated by a total of 699 raters, which included their line managers, peers and subordinates.

Although both men and women demonstrated low self-awareness (therefore exhibited low self-perception accuracy), the direction of the discrepancy in self-other ratings differed. The findings of this study confirm findings from previous studies (Moshavi et al., 2003; Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007; Pulford & Colman, 1997; Visser et al., 2008) that men in general tend to overestimate themselves as opposed to women who tend to either accurately estimate or underestimate their abilities (Betswood, 1999; Beyer, 1999). This is in line with earlier research studies (Taylor & Hood, 2011; Wohlers & London, 1989) that showed that women have a greater tendency to underrate their skills or performance in not taking credit for success and by attributing their success more to external sources than to ability. The finding by Taylor and Hood (2011, p. 640) that ‘women were clearly not undervaluing themselves when they self-rated any more than men’, a finding confirmed by other studies (Sturm, Taylor, Atwater, & Braddy, 2014; Van Velsor et al., 1993), is therefore contradicted by the findings of this study.

The finding that women significantly underestimated themselves in three of the four clusters confirms the view by Chen and Moons (2015) that the perception that women lack interpersonal power in senior leadership roles might be one of the reasons why women are underrepresented in the senior management level. A possible explanation for their underrating in these clusters might be as a result of women often being told to tone down interpersonal behaviour. In addition, fear of receiving negative comments about their personality, if they behave assertively or come across as too powerful, might be a contributing factor (Rudman et al., 2012; Snyder, 2014). This tendency of women to underrate and underestimate themselves may perpetuate the current cycle of men being favoured for leadership positions and maintain the status quo regarding gender disparity in senior management levels.

Another possible explanation for women deflating their self-ratings is that it might be a function of social-desirability or political factors (Braton, Dodd, & Brown, 2011). That is, in an institution with a culture that discourages self-promotion amongst women (as women are still the minority in management positions in this university), it would be reasonable to expect that women managers would be more likely to distort their self-ratings in a downward direction. However, as emphasised by Atwater and Yammarino (1997), further research is needed to explore the reasons for gender differences in self-awareness.

Given the social sanctions that women experience for being assertive at work, training and development programmes to improve their self-confidence in this regard would not be sufficient. This confirms the view by Eagly (2005) that relying on training to address the gender gap defies simple prescriptions inherent in programmes such as assertiveness training. Leadership development interventions for women should rather focus on exploring the legitimacy deficit that women face when taking up a leadership role that are non-traditional for members of their group. Furthermore, the issue of effectively projecting the authority that comes with one’s role should be addressed in development. This will enable women to ‘lean in’, take more risks and have more confidence in their own abilities to ultimately take action (Kay & Shipman, 2014; Sandberg, 2013). For women, this might require unlearning some feminine behaviours moderating the women-stereotypical repertoire. This unlearning should be tempered with a clear understanding of the likely resistance to prominent displays of typical masculine behaviours. In this regard, Eagly (2005, p. 470) stated that ‘adopting an identifiable masculine behavioural style may yield dislike’. The challenge therefore for women is to not only tone down their feminine style but also not to emulate male leaders. Furthermore, Beyer (1999) made an intriguing practical recommendation that women should be taught to be inaccurate – in essence, to overestimate themselves. She bases this view on various research studies (cited in Beyer 1999) that provide evidence for the link between self-enhancing biases (overestimation) and psychological health. This may result in improved motivation, task persistence and confidence in their future success.

However, women’s missing agency is not in itself an adequate explanation for their continued underrepresentation in senior and executive positions in HEIs (Burkinshaw & White, 2017). Instead, as stated by Shepherd (2017), capable and ambitious women may be disadvantaged by a number of structural or social factors, for example, the recruitment and selection process for senior posts, paternalism, hostile cultures, stereotypes and homo-sociability or what Gallant (2014, p. 204) referred to as ‘similarity attraction’, leading to the appointment of ‘more of the same’ (Shephard, 2017, p. 86). This implies that efforts to ‘fix’ women, for example, women-only development programmes, such as the Higher Education Resource Services-South Africa (HERS-SA),³ Academy are unlikely to be sufficient to achieve gender equality. As stated by Fox (2013), this deficit or remedial approach to women’s behaviour has helped to entrench rather than address the barriers women face and leaves many women perplexed, angry and demotivated. In this line, Ely et al. (2011) concurred and stated that this perspective on gender and leadership necessitates a new developmental approach to women in and aspiring to senior leadership positions.

Conversely, in line with the recommendation by Burkinshaw and White (2017), a mix of change interventions may be required that also seek to ‘fix’ universities, that is, in terms of systemic and procedural changes. More importantly, perhaps, the micro-politics, stereotypes, mindsets and cultural assumptions that underpin these practices and procedures (e.g. selection processes) also need to be acknowledged and addressed. In this regard, Martin and Phillips (2017) found that ‘gender blindness’ is a more adaptive strategy for increasing women’s workplace confidence than gender-awareness and highlights the potential for downplaying differences, instead of emphasising them, to combat the confidence gap. However, Manfredi (2017) disagrees and recommends that claims of ‘gender blindness’ universities use to demonstrate their commitment to equality should be replaced with ‘gender consciousness’. The shift from ‘blindness’ to ‘consciousness’ will take candidates’ identity into account in selection and development processes. This would imply that instead of appointing candidates who look like the ‘familiar type’ of leader in a male-dominated culture, the appointment of more women in executive positions would establish a ‘virtuous circle’ by creating a critical mass of women leaders for change. As eluded to by Howe-Walsh and Turnbull (2016), these women role models would encourage other women to aspire to senior-level positions. Appelbaum, Audet and Joanne (2003) echoed the opinion that the current evaluative norms that reward masculinity will only change once a significant number of women move into senior and executive management. As stated by White et al. (2011), it takes courage and resilience for a woman to apply for a senior management position in a masculine organisational culture. The women that formed part of this study were already in middle and senior academic management positions and may thus not be typical of the wider women in the academia cohort.

The results of the study need to be considered within the context of possible limitations. The relatively small sample size precludes generalisability of the findings, and the author suggests that future research incorporates a larger scale and more diverse samples inclusive of other universities nationally and internationally to confirm the findings of the current study. In addition, further investigation is required to explore the most effective strategy to enhance the self-confidence of women.

This article set out to extend understanding of the barriers that challenge women in reaching senior positions within HEIs. Previous sources (Bear et al., 2017; Kay & Shipman, 2014; Manfredi et al., 2014) have cited lack of self-confidenceas an explanation for women’s continued underrepresentation in senior leadership positions. Solving the gender gap is a complex multi-faceted issue requiring an equally multi-faceted approach. However, the study has added empirical evidence that women, in comparison to men, still underestimate themselves in spite of being perceived as equally effective leaders. This reveals the importance of emboldening women to back themselves more and doubt themselves less. There is no quick fix for building self-confidence or permanently eradicating self-doubt in women. The author agrees with Martin and Phillips (2017) who cautioned against adopting universal strategies for approaching diversity and advocated for more tailored solutions to address the context and needs of each social group. However, as mentioned by various authors (Burkinshaw & White, 2017; Kayi, 2013; Ragins et al., 1998; Toni & Moodly, 2019), the key underlying factor behind the effective implementation of all other interventions (e.g. diversity training, cross-gender mentoring, inclusion of gender and diversity issues in executive education, flexible work place policies) is top management commitment. In this regard, they state that raising the consciousness of the chief executive officer (in the case of universities the vice chancellor) and senior management to be an active voice for institutional change at the highest level is the need of the hour.