Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 40 No. 1 (2021): Advancing Women in Leadership

Women in Computer Science and Engineering: A Transformational Leadership Approach to Gender Equity

June 24, 2019


The underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is a phenomenon that needs to be addressed from an educational perspective. Within the domains of computer science and engineering (CS&E) the gender imbalance is even more acute as the underrepresentation of women not only persists but has increased over the past few decades (Corbett & Hill, 2015; Master et al., 2016). In this paper a discussion of the current situation of women’s underrepresentation across broad CS&E domains is presented. This will be demonstrated through a review of research into the historical factors and institutional practices that have been ongoing barriers to the inclusion of women in CS&E. Then, a discussion of how transformational leadership theory can serve as a tool for change to help scholars better understand the present situation, and then guide practitioners in overcoming it, is presented. To this end, the paper concludes with a discussion of how diversity and inclusion ideas, based on a transformational leadership approach, can improve gender equity in CS&E.

Keywords: underrepresented, women, gender, transformational, leadership


  1. Abdulai, M., Youngsun, K., & Junghoon, M. (2012). Intellectual capital and firm performance: An empirical study of software firms in West Africa. African Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 1-30.
  2. Agarwal, S., Mittal, N., Katyal, R., Sureka, A., & Correa, D. (2016). Women in computer science research: What is the bibliography data telling us? ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 46(1), 7-19.
  3. Aguinis, H., Ji, Y. H., & Joo, H. (2018). Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication.
  4. Ahuja, M. (2002). Women in the information technology profession: A literature review, synthesis, and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20-34.
  5. Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427-459.
  6. American Association of University Women. (2009). Separated by sex: Title IX and single-sex education (position paper). Washington, DC: AAUW Public Policy and Government Relations Department. Retrieved from Accessed on 2 June 2016.
  7. Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformational and charismatic leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 256-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
  8. Athalye, R. (2009). Transformational leadership through role models: How B-schools can teach new paradigms of leadership. SIES Journal of Management, 6(2), 1-10.
  9. Balyer, A. (2012). Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: A qualitative research based on teachers' perceptions. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 581-591.
  10. Bangari, R. S. (2014). Establishing a framework of transformational grassroots military leadership: Lessons from high-intensity, high-risk operational environments. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 39(3), 13-34.
  11. Barker, L. (2009). Student and faculty perceptions of undergraduate research experience in computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(1), 5.
  12. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
  13. Blair, E. E., Miller, R. B., Ong, M., & Zastavker, Y. V. (2017). Undergraduate STEM instructors' teacher identities and discourses on student gender expression and equity. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 14-43. doi:10.1002/jee.20157
  14. Bottia, M., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R., Moller, S., & Valentino, L. (2015). Growing the roots of STEM majors: Female math and science high school faculty and the participation of students in STEM. Economics of Education Review, 45(2015), 14-27.
  15. Boyle-Baise, M., Bridgwaters, B., & Brinson, L. (2007). Improving the human condition: Leadership for justice-oriented service-learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 113-122. doi:10.1080/10665680601152808
  16. Brock, S. E. (2010). Gender equality for learning leadership in undergraduate business schools. Advancing Women in Leadership, 30(9), 1-13.
  17. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). College enrollment and work activity of 2014 High School graduates [Press release]. Retrieved from
  18. Burns (2010). Leadership. New York, NY, Harper Perennial Political Classics.
  19. Buxton, C. A. (2010). Social problem solving through science: An approach to critical, place-based, science teaching and learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 120-133. doi:10.1080/10665680903408932
  20. Cardador, M. T. (2017). Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women's representation in managerial roles in engineering. Organization Science, 28(4), 597-617. doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1132
  21. Carter, M. Z., Self, D. R., Bandow, D. F., Wheatley, R. L., Thompson, W. F., Wright, D. N., & Junting, L. (2014). Unit-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership: The role of middle leaders in the midst of incremental organizational change. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 15(5), 44-53.
  22. Cavero, J. M., Vela, B., Cáceres, P., Cuesta, C., & Sierra-Alonso, A. (2015). The evolution of female authorship in computing research. Scientometrics, 103(1), 85-100.
  23. Cerf, V. G., & Johnson, M. (2016). Enrollments explode! But diversity students are leaving. Communications of the ACM, 59(4), 7. doi:10.1145/2898431
  24. Charyton, C., Elliott, J. O., Rahman, M. A., Woodward, J. L., & De Dios, S. (2011). Gender and Science: Women Nobel laureates. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 203-214.
  25. Chism, B., & Pang, V. O. (2014). Transforming education and supporting equity through opportunity to learn standards. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 27(1/2), 19-30.
  26. Cohoon, J. M., Nigai, S., & Kaye, J. J. (2011). Gender and computing conference papers. Communications of the ACM, 54(8), 72-80.
  27. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women's success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC:: AAUW.
  28. Debebe, G. (2010). Creating a safe environment for women's leadership transformation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54501114
  29. Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers' self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (33), 93-112.
  30. Denner, J., Werner, L., O'Connor, L., & Glassman, J. (2014). Community college men and women: A test of three widely held beliefs about who pursues computer science. Community College Review, 42(4), 342-362.
  31. D­az, E. R. (2018). Leadership self-efficacy: A study of male and female MBA students in Mexico. Advancing Women in Leadership, 38, 27-34.
  32. Dimitriadi, A. (2013). Young women in science and technology: The importance of choice. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(5).
  33. Dockterman, E. (2014). Cracking the girl code. Time, 184(6), 44-46.
  34. Domingue, A. D. (2015). 'Our leaders are just we ourself": Black women college student leaders' experiences with oppression and sources of nourishment on a predominantly White college campus. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 454-472.
  35. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
  36. Espinosa, L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209-240.
  37. Fatourou, P., Papageorgiou, Y., & Petousi, V. (2019). Women are needed in STEM: European policies and incentives. Communications of the ACM, 62(4), 52-57.
  38. Fortenberry, N. L., & Cady, E. (2009, July). Working directly with engineering departments to increase diversity. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, pp. 6-8.
  39. Gailliard, B., & Batmanian, N. (2016). The marginalization experiences of women in STEM. Proceedings from Rutgers Scholarship on Diversity and Inclusion: Current Findings and Future Considerations. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
  40. Gandolfi, F. (2012). A conceptual discussion of transformational leadership and intercultural competence. Review of International Comparative Management / Revista de Management Comparat International, 13(4), 522-534.
  41. González, O. T., & Pau, B. (2011). "Techo de cristal" y "suelo pegajoso". La situación de la mujer en los sistemas alemán y español de ciencia y tecnolog­a. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Sociedad, 6(18), 1-23.
  42. Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, math, and gender. Science, 321(5888)1164-1165.
  43. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women.
  44. Hughes, R., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students' STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979-2007.
  45. Hyde, J., Lindberg, S., Linn, M., Ellis, A., & Williams, C. (2008). Diversity, gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495.
  46. Jesse, J. K. (2006). The poverty of the pipeline metaphor: The AAAS/CPST study on nontraditional pathways in IT/CS education and the workforce. In Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation, J. M. Cohoon and W. Aspray, Eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  47. Jogulu, U. D., & Wood, G. J. (2006). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of women in management. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 236-250. doi:
  48. Kim, K., Fann, A., & Misa-Escalante, K. (2011). Engaging women in computer science and engineering: Promising practices for promoting gender equity in undergraduate research experience. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 1-19.
  49. Kotnour, T., Hoekstra, R., Reilly, C., Knight, R., & Selter, J. (2013). Infusing leadership education in the undergraduate engineering experience: A framework from UCF's eli2. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 48-57. doi:10.1002/jls.21310
  50. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How extraordinary things happen in organizations. (Fifth edition). San Francisco, CA, Leadership Challenge.
  51. Lagesen, V. (2008). A cyberfeminist utop­a? Perceptions of gender and computer science among Malaysian women computer science students and faculty. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(1), 005-027.
  52. Lewis, K. (2018). Gender-gaps, gender-based social norms, and conditioning from the vantage point of leadership theories. International Forum of Teaching & Studies, 14(1), 17-25.
  53. Little, A. J., & León de la Barra, B. A. (2009). Attracting girls to science, engineering and technology: An Australian perspective. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(5), 439-445. doi:10.1080/03043790903137585
  54. MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range leadership development: A controlled study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(2), 118-137. doi:10.1037/cpb0000005
  55. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  56. Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls' interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424-437. doi:10.1037/edu0000061
  57. McKinney, V., Wilson, D., Brooks, N., O'Leary-Kelly, A., & Hardgrave, B. (2008). Women and men in the IT profession. Communications of the ACM, 51(2), 81-84.
  58. McInnes, K. (2009). Student paper: The evolution of leadership and mentorship from 1975 - Present. Integral Leadership Review, 9(4), 1-23.
  59. Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Streets, V. N., Litano, M. L., & Myers, D. P. (2015). Using embeddedness theory to understand and promote persistence in STEM majors. Career Development Quarterly, 63(4), 348-362. doi:10.1002/cdq.12033
  60. Ng, E., & Sears, G. (2012). CEO leadership styles and the implementation of organizational diversity practices: Moderating effects of social values and age. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 41-52. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0933-7
  61. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed.). New York: Sage.
  62. Okcu, V. (2014). Relation between secondary school administrators' transformational and transactional leadership style and skills to diversity management in the school. Educational sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 2162-2174. doi:10.12738/estp.2014.6.2128
  63. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double blind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-208.
  64. Pawley, A. L., Schimpf, C., & Nelson, L. (2016). Gender in engineering education research: A content analysis of research in JEE, 1998-2012. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(3), 508-528. doi:10.1002/jee.20128
  65. Psychogios, A. G. (2007). Towards the transformational leader: Addressing women's leadership style in modern business management. Journal of Business & Society, 20(1/2), 169-180.
  66. Ranger, S. (2014, June 18). Women in tech: Underrepresented and paid less. Tech Republic. Retrieved from
  67. Rapa, L. J., Diemer, M. A., & Banaies, J. (2018). Critical action as a pathway to social mobility among marginalized youth. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 127-137. doi:10.1037/dev0000414
  68. Reidsema, C., Hadgraft, R., Cameron, I., & King, R. (2013). Change strategies for educational transformation. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 19(2), 101-108. doi:10.7158/D12-008.2013.19.2
  69. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, 111(12), 4403-4408.
  70. Riley, T. A. (2014). Boys are like puppies, girls aim to please: How teachers' gender stereotypes may influence student placement decisions and classroom teaching. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-21.
  71. Rosch, D., Collier, D., & Zehr, S. (2014). Self-vs.-Teammate assessment of leadership competence: The effects of gender, leadership self-efficacy, and motivation to lead. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(2), 96-124. doi:10.12806/V13/I2/R5
  72. Saint-Michel, S. E. (2018). Leader gender stereotypes and transformational leadership: Does leader sex make the difference? M@n@gement, 21(3), 944-966.
  73. Sax, L. J., Zimmerman, H. B., Blaney, J. M., Toven-Lindsey, B., & Lehman, K. J. (2017). Diversifying undergraduate computer science: The role of department chairs in promoting gender and racial diversity. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 23(2).
  74. Self, T. B., Matuszek, T., Self, D. R., & Schraeder, M. (2014). The weaver's loom: A conceptual framework for facilitating transformational human resource management through the strategic integration of knowledge management and continuous improvement. Journal of Business & Management, 20(1), 87-104.
  75. Sekaquaptewa, D. (2011). Discounting their own success: A case for the role of implicit stereotypic attribution bias in women's STEM outcomes. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 291-295. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.624979
  76. Selzer, R., Howton, A., & Wallace, F. (2017). Rethinking women's leadership development: Voices from the trenches. Administrative Sciences (2076-3387), 7(2), 1-20. doi:10.3390/admsci7020018
  77. Shapiro, M., Grossman, D., Carter, S., Martin, K., Deyton, P., & Hammer, D. (2015). Middle school girls and the "leaky pipeline" to leadership. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 3-13.
  78. Spielhagen, F. R. (2008). Having it our way: Students speak out on single-sex classes. In F. R. Spielhagen (Ed.), Debating single-sex education: Separate and equal (pp. 32-46). Baltimore, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
  79. Stappenbelt, B. (2010). The influence of action learning on student perception and performance. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 16(1), 1-11.
  80. Stevens, C. W. (2011). Using transformational leadership to guide an organization's success. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 37(4), 37-44. doi:10.1002/ert.20319
  81. Szelényi, K., Denson, N., & Inkelas, K. (2013). Women in STEM majors and professional outcome expectations: The role of living-learning programs and other college environments. Research in Higher Education, 54(8), 851-873.
  82. Tajlili, M. H. (2014). A framework for promoting women's career intentionality and work-life integration. Career Development Quarterly, 62(3), 254-267. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00083.x
  83. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  84. Vela, B., Cáceres, P., & Cavero, J. M. (2012). Participation of women in software engineering publications. Scientometrics, 93(3), 661-679.
  85. Wang, M. & Degol, J. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119-140. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
  86. Watts, M., & Corrie, S. (2013). Growing the 'I' and the 'We' in transformational leadership: The LEAD, LEARN & GROW model. Coaching Psychologist, 9(2), 86-99.
  87. Zafar, B. (2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 545-595.
  88. Zamudio, M., Rios, F., & Jaime, A. M. (2008). Thinking critically about difference: Analytical tools for the 21st Century. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(2), 215-229. doi:10.1080/10665680801957378