\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Differential Psycho-Social Factors as Predictors of Female Academics' Career Growth and Leadership Positions in Universities in South-West Nigeria},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2013-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2013)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2013-01-15}
\title{Differential Psycho-Social Factors as Predictors of Female Academics' Career Growth and Leadership Positions in Universities in South-West Nigeria}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Adepeju  Olaide}

             \affil[1]{  Lead City University, Ibadan Nigeria}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 December 2012 Accepted: 2 January 2013 Published: 15 January 2013}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Recent studies affirm that academic women are a minority, have slow career growth compared to their male colleagues and almost invisible in leadership positions, therefore excluded from power structure. These have been attributed to culture, socialisation, conditioning and self-perception of the women themselves. However, differential psycho-social factors predicting female academics? career in Nigerian Universities are yet to be examined. This study, therefore, affirmed the efficacy or otherwise of differential psycho-social predictors of female academics? career growth and leadership positions in universities in South-West Nigeria. This research adopted a descriptive survey research design of the ex-post facto type. Multistage sampling involving purposive and stratified random techniques were used to select 587 respondents from six Universities in South-West Nigeria. Five hundred and thirty eight Female Academics from Graduate Assistant to Professor, three hundred male academics, (senior lecturers) sixty members of appointment and promotion committee participated in the study. Female Academics Psychological Questionnaire (R=0.82), Social Factors Questionnaire (R=0.87), Female Academics Career Growth Questionnaire (R=0.79) and Female Academics Leadership Questionnaire (r=0.84) were used for data collection. Twelve research questions were answered. Data were analysed using multiple regression. 

\end{abstract}


\keywords{}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he advent of colonisation and the introduction of western education and western social values, brought education that was modeled predominantly towards the mental development of boys and men; this was evidenced by the number of boys' schools. There were established during this era and the enrolment figures of boys, compared to girls (Uwaezuoke and  {\ref Ezeh, 2008)} Girls' secondary schools came after serious agitations, and when it did, parents were already sceptical about sending their girls to school \hyperref[b1]{(Anugwom, 2009)}. Also, the work establishment created by these institutions, such as Civil Service, Boat Industries, Churches and Schools were almost exclusively open to men only \hyperref[b18]{(Nka, 1974;} {\ref Zuga, 1999)}.\par
Aside from psychological factors of self-esteem and self-efficacy influencing the career growth of women, \hyperref[b8]{Colletti, Mulholland, and Sonnad (2000)} found social and family issues to be (a) major concern for both male and female academic surgeons. However, both men and women report differences in the conflict between family and career responsibilities and perceptions of balancing those responsibilities for men and women. Two thirds of both men and women reported that the demands of their surgical faculty position adversely affect their relationships with spouses. Men reported a slightly higher tendency to miss family activities because of job demands, while women were significantly more likely to miss work activities because of family responsibilities.\par
In addition, women have been known to be care givers. This is why they have excelled in careers like Nursing, Secretarial profession, and teaching at lower levels. Studies have also affirmed that they give support to their spouses, children and significant others \hyperref[b2]{(Aryee, 1992;} {\ref Aremu, 1999;}\hyperref[b5]{Buckingham and Coffman, 1999;}\hyperref[b16]{James, 2002;}\hyperref[b20]{Okonweze, 2005;} Oluwole, Hammed, and Hal. Awaebe, 2010), but women themselves lack the necessary support that may be required to foster the growth they need in their different careers and life's endeavours (Biernat and Wortman, 1990; \hyperref[b7]{Chovwen, 2004;}\hyperref[b22]{Oti and Oyelude, 2006)}. \hyperref[b22]{Oti and Oyelude, (2006)} found work/home conflict to be a strong determinant of female academics' career path to leadership. They found that the career mobility of their respondents were slower during the 1 st five years of marriage; then they began to have full concentration as their children matured. \hyperref[b24]{Scott and King (1985)} found that spousal support is a predictor of whether female college students will return to school, while \hyperref[b9]{Cutrona and Suhr, (1994)}; \hyperref[b11]{Derlega, Barbee, and Winstead, (1994)} found that lack of social support is a predictor of negative outcomes, including absenteeism, burnout, depression and anxiety. Harris,  {\ref Winskowski and Enghahl (2007)} found perceived spousal support, workplace social support to predict job satisfaction, and job tenure.\par
Other studies found that apart from spousal and work place support, women have been known to also receive support from parents, teachers and significant others.  {\ref Matz's (2002)} study found that mothers were the most critical influence for developing leadership in their daughters during their upbringings. Contrary to Matz's finding, fathers, relatives, teachers, and peers were also influential for girls and young women in the development of leadership competencies  {\ref (Madsen, 2006)}.\par
Two studies by  {\ref Colleagues (2000, 2003)} examined the administrative job satisfaction at both public and private Universities. Their collective findings reported job insecurity, stress, and pressure as having a significant negative impact on overall satisfaction, while teamwork, recognition, advancement, feelings of independence, social and professional relationships with colleagues and supervisors had a significant positive impact on overall satisfaction.\par
In a study investigating the use of four-frame organisational climate leadership behaviours of department chairpersons in nursing programs and their relationships to the organisational climate as perceived by faculty, Mosser and Walls  {\ref (2002)} found that all four frame-related behaviours correlated positively with organisational climate-related items such as faculty support, social-needs satisfaction, and supervision. On the other hand, all four frames negatively correlated with disengagement or fractionalisation within the faculty.\par
Furthermore, chairpersons were perceived by faculty as emphasizing faculty support, social-needs satisfaction, and supervision at significantly higher levels than chairpersons using a single or no frame. Faculty who perceived chairpersons as using no frame reported higher levels of disengagement within the climate (department). This research in contrast, employed the three frame factors of fairness, work climate and inclusion to measure the career growth and leadership of academic women from the perception of appointments and promotions committee members.\par
Patriarchy as a climate condition in Universities: Scholars in the UK, the USA, Australia and Canada have carried out several studies on women in higher education in which they have addressed the issues of paucity of women in senior academic positions. In analysing the factors that prevent women from reaching the apex of the academic career, metaphors of "glass ceiling" (Hansard Society, 1990; \hyperref[b10]{Davidson and Cooper, 1992;}\hyperref[b14]{Hede, 1994)}, "brick wall" \hyperref[b4]{(Bacchi 1993)}, "stone floor" \hyperref[b15]{(Heward, 1994)}, "blocked pipeline (Keohane, 2003), and "maternal wall" (Williams, 2004) have been used. For instance, Luke (1998, p.36) says glass-ceiling barriers are: ?The transparent cultural, organisational, and attitudinal barriers that maintain horizontal sex segregation in organizations? [which] share certain structural features across cultural and institutional contexts such as the concentration of power and authority among male elites, concepts of merit, career, and success based on male experience and life trajectories, and social and institutional practices that reproduce culturally dominant forms of patriarchy?women\par
[therefore] look up the occupational ladder and get a clear vision of the top rungs but they can't always clearly see where they will encounter invisible obstacles. (p. 36) \hyperref[b17]{Luke (2001;} {\ref p. 6)} further observes that despite years of affirmative action and the passing of statutes outlawing sexual discrimination (USA and UK in 1972; Australia in 1984), "the rate at which women have ascended academic career ladders in these countries is maddeningly slow". Women in the United Kingdom constitute 7-8 percent of the professoriate, in Ireland just over 5 percent, in the United States 16 percent of those with full professorial status and in Finland 18 percent (O'Connor 2000). Luke (2001; p. 10) thus refers to universities as "a hotbed of both vertical and horizontal sex segregation."\par
In a study, \hyperref[b13]{Forster (2001)} reports on the views that female academics have about their career prospects, growth, equal opportunities and the conflicts they experience between their work and personal lives in one UK University. The university in question has formal equal opportunities policies, and gender monitoring systems in place. However, very few women have progressed into senior academic roles. They continue to be handicapped by well-ingrained structural and cultural barriers and by promotion systems that still largely rely on the publication records of candidates for appointments and promotions. Some of the women interviewed reported that they had opted to put their careers on hold because of domestic and family responsibilities. A few have resigned themselves to never achieving senior positions because of these commitments. The study observes that the trend may have a negative impact on recruiting women graduates into careers in higher education in the future. 
\section[{a) Statement of the Problem}]{a) Statement of the Problem}\par
This study explored the predictive nature of psychological variables (self-esteem and self-efficacy) and social variables (spousal and academic men collegial support, academic men attitude towards women and parental influence); on female academics' career growth and leadership position. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Research Question 2}]{Research Question 2}\par
What is the composite effect of psychological variables: self-esteem and self-efficacy on female academics leadership position? 
\section[{Research Question 3}]{Research Question 3}\par
What is the relative contribution of self-esteem and self-efficacy to female academics' career growth?\par
Research  {\ref Question 4} What is the relative contribution of psychological factors: self-esteem and self-efficacy on female academics' leadership position? 
\section[{Research Question 5}]{Research Question 5}\par
To what extent would psychological variables of self-esteem and self-efficacy predict female academics' career growth?\par
Research  {\ref Question 6} To what extent would psychological variables of selfesteem and self-efficacy predict female academics' leadership position? 
\section[{Research Question 7}]{Research Question 7}\par
What is the composite effect of the social variables: parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and attitudes towards women on female academics' career growth?\par
Research  {\ref Question 8} What is the composite effect of the social factors: parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women to female academics' leadership position?\par
Research  {\ref Question 9} What are the relative contributions of parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women on female academics' career growth? 
\section[{Research Question 10}]{Research Question 10}\par
What are the relative contributions of the social factors: parental influence, spousal and collegial support and attitudes towards women on female academics' leadership position?\par
Research  {\ref Question 11} To what extent would social variables of parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women predict female academics' career growth? 
\section[{Research Question 12}]{Research Question 12}\par
To what extent would social variables parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women predict female academics' leadership position?\par
III. 
\section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par
This study adopted a descriptive research design of the ex-post facto type. This was considered appropriate for the study because the researcher did not manipulate any of the variables in the study. Closeended questionnaires were constructed to elicit responses from female academics, male academics as well as members of Appointments and Promotions Committees in each university.\par
The population of study included female academics from graduate assistants to professors in six universities from South-western Nigeria, senior academic men and members of appointments and promotions committees.\par
A multi stage sampling technique was employed for the study. The first stage involved the listing of all approved universities in Nigeria. The second stage was the extraction and stratification of Universities in South-Western part of the country. Purposive technique was employed in the selection of six oldest universities in each State of the South-western Nigeria. This was under the assumption that they will have adequate number of academic women needed for the sample. Incidentally, the oldest Universities in the region are four federal and two state universities out of five federal and nine state universities in the southwest as at the time of data collection, this represents 45 per cent of the University population. Purposive sampling was used to select academic women; being the major focus of the study. However, in each of the Universities, stratified random technique was employed in the selection of respondents. List of names of academic staff, their faculties and departments were obtained from the registrars' offices. The names of those qualified to be involved in the study were extracted and wrapped in ballot papers, then the ballots selected at random, giving equal opportunity to everyone to be selected. Those whose names were picked participated in the study.\par
Five hundred and eighty seven samples (587) were selected. However, five hundred and eleven (511) questionnaires were returned and analysed for the female academics. Three hundred male academics from senior lecturer to professor were disproportionately selected (fifty from each university) under the assumption that they are colleagues of academic women. Ten members of the Appointment and Promotion Committee from each university were purposively selected, because appointment and promotion are key determinants of career growth. 
\section[{IV.}]{IV.} 
\section[{Research Instruments}]{Research Instruments}\par
Four research instruments with 149 questions were used to collect data for the study. They were: In-depth Interview Guide was developed by the researcher after reading literature on ethnographic and qualitative studies on women's career and leadership experience (Alele-Williams, 1993; Chesterman, 2003; \hyperref[b7]{Chovwen, 2004;} {\ref Madsen, 2006)}. These comprise Section A, fifteen demographic information, Section B, thirty (30) open-ended statements which were administered on female professors. Items covered and elicited responses on key variables of the study: psychological, and social Items. should be social items that were originally constructed were forty (40), after it went through face, content and construct validity, all ambiguity were removed.\par
Responses were obtained through verbal interviews with each selected subject. All interviews were recorded with the use of digital audio tape, which were later transcribed. Demographic information was analysed using descriptive statistics. All interview phrases and statements were grouped thematically and numeric values were allocated to primary themes that emerged from the classifications. These values were then merged and scored by simple percentages and frequency counts. Statements that were considered as key and significant to the findings were quoted verbatim. Reliability Coefficient was obtained using Cronbach alpha. Psychological (R=0.82), Social (R=0.87), Career Growth (R=0.79) and Academic Leadership Questionnaires (r=0.84). Data were analysed using multiple regression. These were complemented with indepth interviews with 27 Female Professors; qualitative data were analysed using quasi-statistics. These are further explained under Data Analysis below.\par
V. 
\section[{Data Analysis}]{Data Analysis}\par
Quantitative data were analysed using multiple regression. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Result}]{Result} 
\section[{Research Question 1}]{Research Question 1}\par
What is the composite effect of psychological variables: self-esteem and self-efficacy to female academics' career growth? shows that female academics' selfesteem has a relationship which is negative, very weak but not significant with their career growth (r= -.022; p>.05). However, self-efficacy of women academics has a positive, weak and significant relationship with their career growth (r=.300; p<.05). From this, while self-esteem could increase without a corresponding improvement in career growth, an improvement in selfefficacy could enhance career growth of female academics. Further, Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2} deals with the composite effect of the two factors on career growth.   \hyperref[tab_3]{3} shows that the R value of .301 is significant (F=25.389; P<.05). Hence, the observed composite effect of the two psychological factors: selfesteem and self-efficacy on career growth did not occur by mere chance. 
\section[{Research Question 2}]{Research Question 2}\par
What is the composite effect of psychological variables: self-esteem and self-efficacy on female academics leadership position?  They also explained the variations in female academics' leadership position to the tune of 9.7 per cent (R square = .097). Hence, the remaining 90.3 per cent is due to other factors and residuals. This composite effect is tested for significance on Table \hyperref[tab_6]{6}.  
\section[{Research Question 3}]{Research Question 3}\par
What is the relative contribution of self-esteem and selfefficacy to female academics' career growth?   
\section[{Research Question 5}]{Research Question 5}\par
To what extent would psychological variables of self-esteem and self-efficacy predict female academics' career growth?\par
Table \hyperref[tab_7]{7} shows that only self-efficacy could not predict female academics' career growth (B=.432; p< .05). Self-esteem could not predict the dependent variable (B=-3.05E-02; p> .05). 
\section[{Research Question 6}]{Research Question 6}\par
To what extent would psychological variables of self-esteem and self-efficacy predict female academics' leadership position?\par
From Table \hyperref[tab_9]{8}, both psychological factors: selfesteem (B=.186; p<.05) and self-efficacy (3=.408; p<.05) could predict female academics' leadership positions. To complement the quantitative results, are findings and statements salient to the variables of the study 
\section[{Research Question 7}]{Research Question 7}\par
What is the composite effect of the social variables: parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and attitudes towards women on female academics' career growth?  Table \hyperref[tab_11]{10} shows that the four social factors: parental influence, spousal support, academic men collegial support, and academic men attitudes towards women jointly correlate positively with career growth (R=.260). The R square value of .068 also shows that 6.8 per cent of the variance in career growth is due to the four social factors leaving the remaining 93.2 per cent to other factors and residuals. The significance of the R-value is determined using Table \hyperref[tab_11]{10}.  \hyperref[tab_12]{11} shows that the composite effect of the social factors as indicated by the R-value of .260 is significant (F=9.208, P<.05). Hence, the R value is not due to chance. 
\section[{Research Question 8}]{Research Question 8}\par
What is the composite effect of the social factors: parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women to female academics' leadership position? As shown in Table \hyperref[tab_13]{12}, parental influence has a negative, weak, significant relationship with female academics' leadership position (r=-.376; p<.05) spousal support has a weak, positive relationship which is also significant (r= .217; p<.05); academic men collegial support has a negative, weak and not significant relationship (r=-.072;p>.05) and academic men attitude towards women has a positive, weak and not significant relationship with women's leadership position (r=.018; p>.05). The composite effect is presented in Table \hyperref[tab_14]{13}. Table \hyperref[tab_14]{13} shows that the four social factors: parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women have positive multiple relationship with female academics' leadership position (R = .480). Also, the R square value of .230 indicates that they could explain 23.0 per cent of the variance in leadership positions. The remaining 77.0 per cent is due to other factors and residuals. This composite effect is tested for significance on Table \hyperref[tab_15]{14}. From Table \hyperref[tab_14]{13}, the R-value of .480 obtained is significant. Hence, the social factors have significant composite effect on female academics leadership positions. 
\section[{Research Question 9}]{Research Question 9}\par
What are the relative contributions of parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women on female academics' career growth?  \hyperref[tab_16]{15} shows that parental influence made the greatest contribution to female academics' career growth (?=.197; P<.05). This is a significant contribution. Spousal support is next with a decreasing magnitude (?=.183; P<.05). This is also a significant contribution. The third on the list is the contribution of academic men attitudes towards women (?=.078; p>.05) while the lowest contribution is that made by academic men collegial support (?=.016; p>.05).\par
Evidently, the last two factors made no significant contributions to female academics' career growth. 
\section[{Research Question 10}]{Research Question 10}\par
What are the relative contributions of the social factors: parental influence, spousal and collegial support and attitudes towards women on female academics' leadership position?  
\section[{Research Question 12}]{Research Question 12}\par
To what extent would social variables parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial support and academic men attitudes towards women predict female academics' leadership position?\par
Table \hyperref[tab_17]{16} shows that all the four social factors could independently predict female academics' leadership position. These are: academic men attitude towards women (B=.947; t=3.755; P<.05), academic men collegial support (B= -1.080; t =-3.648; P<.05), parental influence (B= -.220; t= -9.050; p<.05) and spousal support (B=.191; t=6.343; p<.05). 
\section[{VII.}]{VII.} 
\section[{Discussion, Implications and Recommendations}]{Discussion, Implications and Recommendations}\par
The result of the findings on the research questions 1 to 6 academics' self-esteem is not as important to their career growth (r= -.022; p>.05) as self-efficacy (r=.300; p<.05) is. This is because while self-esteem could increase without a corresponding improvement in career growth, an improvement in selfefficacy could enhance career growth of female academics. While this present study has found selfesteem to have a negative relationship with academic women's career growth, self-efficacy has a positive significant relationship with both their career growth and leadership position. Other studies, while using subjects other than female academics found self-esteem to influence job tenure  {\ref (Hackett, 1983)}, job satisfaction  {\ref (Bandura, 1997;} {\ref Lewin, 2006)}, work experience (Matsui, Ikeda, \& Ohnishi, 1989; Madsen, 2006), career choice and aspiration, especially in male dominated careers. None of the studies examined the influence of selfesteem and self-efficacy on academic women's career growth.\par
Further, self-esteem and self-efficacy correlate positively with women academics' career growth (R=.301). This means these factors could explain career growth to a meaningful extent. Also, the R square value of .091 indicated that 9.1 per cent of the total variance in the women academics' career growth is accounted for by these two psychological factors while the remaining 90.9 per cent is due to other factors and residuals. This finding of both variables correlating with academic women's career growth is in agreement with the findings of  {\ref (Hackett, 1985;} {\ref Erinosho, 2005)}, who found selfefficacy to correlate with performance, achievement and gender in mathematical cognition. Also, Oyèyemí (2001) and Irikefe-Onoriode (1998) found self-efficacy to correlate with career success of migrations of physical therapists professionals, who move from developing to developed countries.\par
The results obtained show that female academics' self-esteem (r=156; p<.05) and selfefficacy (r= .272; p<.05) have positive, and significant relationship with female academics leadership position.\par
To this end, the two variables have the tendency to contribute to the improvement of female academic's leadership positions. They also explained the variations in female academics' leadership position to the tune of 9.7 per cent (R square = .097). Hence, the remaining 90.3 per cent is due to other factors and residuals. This finding is consistent with those of \hyperref[b7]{Chovwen (2004)} and Boatwright, Egidio and Kalamazoo (2003) who found both variables to correlate with leadership aspiration of women, though their subjects were female executives in the industries and college students.\par
Moreover, the finding of this study is in agreement with the theory of Kanter (1977), reiterated the effect of absolute numbers, where a particular race or gender is the dominant number. The minority may exhibit negative self-evaluation and low self-esteem. Here, male academics are the absolute numbers and female academics the minority, though Kanter's theory was tested in a mono-racial setting; results have proven to be consistent.\par
Research Questions 3 and 4 show that selfefficacy made a greater contribution (?=.301; P<.05) than self-esteem (?= 0.26; P>.05) to career growth. While the contribution of self-efficacy is significant, that of self-esteem is not. Self-efficacy also made a greater contribution to female academics' leadership position (?=.270; P<.05) than self-esteem (?=.152; p<.05), however, both variables made significant relative contributions to leadership position. This reveals that academic women need high self-efficacy to grow in their career and attain leadership position; they also require high self-esteem to attain leadership positions. Previous studies did not examine the contributory effects the independent variables have on female academics career growth and leadership position. Rather, Wheeler (1983) asserted that although self-efficacy beliefs contribute more heavily to occupational preferences than beliefs about the benefits attainable by different pursuits, women base their occupational preferences more heavily on their perceived efficacy than on the potential benefits that the vocations yield. The above findings is related to those of  {\ref (Tobias, 1978;}\hyperref[b13]{1990;} {\ref Ware, Steckler, and Leserman, 1985;} {\ref Peltz, 1990)} which concluded that lack of self-confidence, self doubts, fear of failure, and mathematics anxiety, all coupled with an unfriendly masculine culture, contribute to women's lack of success and perceived impaired career growth.\par
Research Questions 5 and 6 reveal that only self-efficacy predicted female academics' career growth (B=.432; p< .05). Self-esteem did not (B=-3.05E-02; p.05). However, both self-esteem (B=.186; p<.05) and self-efficacy (3=.408; p<.05) predicted female academics' leadership positions. This is a slight departure from the findings of \hyperref[b7]{Chovwen (2004)} who found both variables to predict women's career growth, although her subjects were female executives in industries.\par
Research questions 8 to 12, showed that parental influence has a negative, weak, relationship which is significant with career growth (r= -.175; p < .05). Spousal support has a positive, weak but significant relationship with the dependant measure (r= .162; p<.05). This finding is consistent with the findings of (Biernat and Wortman, 1990; \hyperref[b7]{Chovwen, 2004;}\hyperref[b22]{Oti and Oyelude, 2006)} who reiterated that work/home conflict is a major challenge faced by career women aspiring to leadership.\par
Moreover, both academic men collegial support (r= .028; p>.05) and academic men attitude towards women (r= .054; p>.05) have very weak positive relationship which are not significant to career growth. This finding is contrary to the submissions of earlier that found collegial support to be significant with career satisfaction, retention and tenure of women (Grant, Kennelly and Ward, 2000; O'Laughlin and Bischoff, 2005; Young and Wright, 2001). The four social factors: parental influence, spousal support, academic men collegial support, and academic men attitudes towards women jointly correlate positively with female academics' career growth (R=.260). Parental influence has a negative, weak, significant relationship with female academics' leadership position (r=-.376; p<.05), this result corroborate that of  {\ref Madsen, 2006}. Spousal support has a weak, positive relationship which is also significant (r= .217; p<.05); academic men collegial support has a negative, weak and not significant relationship (r=-.072; p>.05).\par
which was complimented by the qualitative part of this study. Some of the women agreed that a woman who does not have the support of her husband is being given a choice between the home and her career. Academic men attitude towards women has a positive, weak and not significant relationship with women's leadership position (r=.018; p>.05). The composite effect shows that the four mentioned social factors have positive multiple relationship with female academics' leadership position (R = .480).\par
Research question 9 and 10 show that parental influence made the greatest contribution to female academics' career growth (?=.197; P<.05). This is a significant contribution. Spousal support is next with a decreasing magnitude (?=.183; P<.05). This is also a significant contribution. The third on the list is the contribution of academic men attitudes towards women (?=.078; p>.05) while the lowest contribution is that made by academic men collegial support (?=.016; p>.05). Although past studies found collegial support mentoring and career shadowing to be rewarding, and determinants of job satisfaction and leadership especially for junior female academics, (Eliason, Berggren and Bondestam, 2000; \hyperref[b22]{Oti and Oyelude, 2006)} this study is a departure from earlier findings. This may be due to the fact that collegial support in this study is narrowed down to male academics alone.\par
Academic men attitude towards women made the greatest contribution to leadership position (?=.428; p>.05) though not significant, findings from qualitative aspect confirms this contribution. The women pointed out that the attitudes of male colleagues and even some senior female colleagues are not encouraging and detrimental to their attainment of leadership, this is corroborated by the work of Hammond et, al.  {\ref (1993)} It is pertinent to note that though academic men attitude towards women and academic men collegial support did not predict female academics' leadership position, the qualitative discussion is to the contrary as the women reiterated the importance of having the support of the male counterparts to get to elective positions. Looking at the quantitative result from another angle, these two variables (academic men attitude towards women and academic men collegial support) were not significant because with or without the support or egalitarian attitude of male colleagues; women could still grow to attain leadership as long as it is not an elective position.\par
Global conventions, research, and changing cultures have affirmed the importance of women in nation-building. The participation of women as academic staff of Nigerian universities (especially in the south west, which is known for educational advancement in Nigeria) shows that there is positive change in culture and socialization which had repressed and denied women western education and white collar careers outside the home for decades.\par
The following recommendations were arrived at based on the findings of the study: 1. Positive self-concept is an important factor for career growth of women, especially women in academics. Notably, out of the two self-concept factors that were reviewed in this study, self-efficacy is a more important predictor of the career and leadership experience of women. Therefore, career women and those aspiring have to do everything possible to build their efficacy in the areas of their individual careers. In academics, women have to build capacity in the following areas: a) Mastery of research; b) Mastery of publications and where to publish for acceptability by assessors. c) How to write scholarly papers; d) Emotional intelligence-positive relationship with colleagues, superiors and subordinates. It is not enough to just write papers, human and social capital must be built among colleagues. 2. It is important and imperative for women to attend workshops and seminars that can boost their personal and career efficacy, so as to be better positioned for responsibilities. 3. Also, women must overcome personal limitations, have some degree of social support and have a determination to overcome cultural and institutional climate barriers. 4. The university system can help women come out of the web of low self-efficacy by organising gender specific seminars for women in academic leadership and aspiring just as it is done in universities in Australia, United Kingdom and South Africa, this is with the background knowledge that the socialisation of women is not consistent with the demands of academics which encourages competition, assertiveness and arguments. Women have been socialised to be passive, not to argue and not to compete for things or positions. This will help to re-orientate them and position them better for the challenges of academics. 5. The career and leadership seminars can be extended to include secondary school students and female undergraduates, in order to refocus them early and harness their potentials for the benefit of the university and society as a whole. 6. It is important for academic women to get the support of their husbands if they must make unhindered progress and attain leadership positions in their careers. 7. It has become imperative for husbands of career women to lend support to their wives, whether emotional, empathic, physical, financial or otherwise, considering the many roles women play in the home and society in general. Women who do not have this support have been found to spend longer time in career mobility, lack concentration or end their marriage in order to grow and reach the apex of their careers. Men should realise that whatever progress a woman makes should be a thing of pride to them; after all Nigerian women answer to their husbands' last names. 8. Parents should pay attention to the development of their children, especially girls, this is because their influence is far reaching. It spans beyond their formative years, right through their career-making decisions, career choice and influencing their work ethics. 9. The values parents put in their children have been found to be very influential in their adult years, values such as honesty, punctuality, hard work, discipline and trust. 10. It was found that many of the respondents were grateful that in spite of all odds, their parents could send them to school even at the time that it was not fashionable to invest in the education of girls. It is recommended that parents invest not only in the education of their girls but also show them love and, acceptance. They should endeavour to complement their effort when necessary. These are very important for developing positive self-esteem that female academics require to cope and adjust with working in a male dominated environment. 11. The implication of this study is that career academic women still have obstacles confronting growth and advancement to their career. Positive self-esteem and self-efficacy are germane to academic women career behaviour and intelligence. Furthermore, if career academic women do not have the support of their husbands, they may grow in their career, but may not occupy leadership position. Parents who do not assert their children, especially the girl-child are not likely to turn out girls with positive selfesteem. Although attitude towards women is not a factor in promotion, but it is a major factor I a woman is seeking elective position.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.14957081545064377\textwidth}P{0.29914163090128754\textwidth}P{0.14957081545064377\textwidth}P{0.1240343347639485\textwidth}P{0.1276824034334764\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N=511\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Statistic\tabcellsep Variable\tabcellsep Career Growth\tabcellsep Self-esteem\tabcellsep Self-efficacy\\
Pearson\tabcellsep Career Growth\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep -.022\tabcellsep .300\\
Correlation\tabcellsep Self-esteem\tabcellsep -.022\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .014\\
\tabcellsep Self-efficacy\tabcellsep .300\tabcellsep .014\tabcellsep 1.000\\
Sig.\tabcellsep Career Growth\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .310\tabcellsep .000\\
(1-tailed)\tabcellsep Self-esteem\tabcellsep .310\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .374\\
\tabcellsep Self-efficacy\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .374\tabcellsep .\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: *Significant at P < 0.05 Table .1:]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5710122699386503\textwidth}P{0.14861963190184047\textwidth}P{0.05214723926380368\textwidth}P{0.07822085889570551\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Psychological Variables and Career Growth}\\
R\tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Adjusted\tabcellsep Std.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Error of the\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Estimate\\
.301 a\tabcellsep .091\tabcellsep .087\tabcellsep 7.6286\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{From Table .2, the two psychological factors:}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{self-esteem and self-efficacy correlate positively with}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{female academics' career growth (R=.301). This means}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{these factors could explain career growth to a}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{meaningful extent.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.23181818181818178\textwidth}P{0.27396694214876033\textwidth}P{0.06322314049586777\textwidth}P{0.16859504132231404\textwidth}P{0.049173553719008264\textwidth}P{0.06322314049586777\textwidth}}
Model\tabcellsep Sum of\tabcellsep Df\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep Squares\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Regression\tabcellsep 2954.965\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 1477.482\tabcellsep 25.389\tabcellsep .000*\\
Residual\tabcellsep 29563.004\tabcellsep 508\tabcellsep 58.195\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 32517.969\tabcellsep 510\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4931089743589744\textwidth}P{0.14166666666666666\textwidth}P{0.05040064102564102\textwidth}P{0.04495192307692308\textwidth}P{0.11987179487179486\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep improvement of female academic's leadership\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep positions.\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{with Female Academics Leadership Position}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N=511\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Statistic\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Variables Leadership}\tabcellsep Self-\tabcellsep Self-\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Position\tabcellsep esteem\tabcellsep efficacy\\
Pearson\tabcellsep Leadership\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .156\tabcellsep .272\\
Correlation\tabcellsep Position\tabcellsep .156*\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .014\\
\tabcellsep Self-\tabcellsep .272*\tabcellsep .014\tabcellsep 1.000\\
\tabcellsep esteem\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Self-\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep efficacy\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sig.\tabcellsep Leadership\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .000\\
(1-tailed)\tabcellsep Position\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .374\\
\tabcellsep Self-\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .374\tabcellsep .\\
\tabcellsep esteem\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Self-\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep efficacy\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Table 4 shows that female academics' self-}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{esteem (r=156; p<.05) and self-efficacy (r= .272;}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{p<.05) have positive, weak and significant relationship}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{with female academics leadership position. To this end,}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{the two variables have the tendency to contribute to the}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5281893004115226\textwidth}P{0.14691358024691356\textwidth}P{0.06995884773662552\textwidth}P{0.10493827160493827\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Factors on Leadership Position}\\
R\tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Adjusted R\tabcellsep Std.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep Error of the\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Estimate\\
.312 a\tabcellsep .097\tabcellsep .094\tabcellsep 8.0001\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Table .5 further shows that the two}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{psychological variables: self-esteem and self-efficacy}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{correlate positively with leadership position (R=.312).}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5536023054755043\textwidth}P{0.1739193083573487\textwidth}P{0.022046109510086453\textwidth}P{0.05878962536023055\textwidth}P{0.03184438040345821\textwidth}P{0.009798270893371756\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Factors and Leadership Positions}\tabcellsep \\
Model\tabcellsep Sum of\tabcellsep Df\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep Squares\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Regression\tabcellsep 3500.959\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 1750.479\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{27.351 .000*}\\
Residual\tabcellsep 32512.845\tabcellsep 508\tabcellsep 64.002\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 36013.804\tabcellsep 510\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{From Table 6, the composite effect of the two}\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{psychological variables: self-esteem and self-efficacy is}\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{significant on female academics' leadership positions}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{(F= 27.351; p< .05).}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.27979166666666666\textwidth}P{0.17354166666666665\textwidth}P{0.08854166666666667\textwidth}P{0.13104166666666667\textwidth}P{0.04604166666666667\textwidth}P{0.06375\textwidth}P{0.06729166666666667\textwidth}}
Psychological\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardised Coefficients}\tabcellsep Standardised\tabcellsep Rank\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Factors\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
(Constant) Self-esteem Self-efficacy\tabcellsep 25.274 -3.05E-02 .432\tabcellsep 2.536 .049 .061\tabcellsep .026 .301\tabcellsep 2 nd 1 st\tabcellsep 9.965 -.620 7.107\tabcellsep .000 .535 .000*\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6895104895104894\textwidth}P{0.011888111888111888\textwidth}P{0.017832167832167834\textwidth}P{0.04755244755244755\textwidth}P{0.07132867132867134\textwidth}P{0.011888111888111888\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Research Question 4}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
What\tabcellsep is\tabcellsep the\tabcellsep relative\tabcellsep contribution\tabcellsep of\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{psychological factors: self-esteem and self-efficacy to}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{female academics' leadership position?}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 7}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5623922413793103\textwidth}P{0.08060344827586206\textwidth}P{0.045797413793103446\textwidth}P{0.06778017241379311\textwidth}P{0.023814655172413792\textwidth}P{0.032974137931034486\textwidth}P{0.03663793103448276\textwidth}}
Psychological\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardised Coefficients}\tabcellsep Standardised\tabcellsep Rank\tabcellsep T\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Factors\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
(Constant) Self-esteem Self-efficacy\tabcellsep 20.335 .186 .408\tabcellsep 2.660 .052 .064\tabcellsep .152 .270\tabcellsep 2 nd 1 st\tabcellsep 7.646 3.609 6.403\tabcellsep .000 .000* .000*\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Table 8 shows that self-efficacy made a greater}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{contribution to female academics' leadership position}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{(?=.270; P<.05) than self-esteem (?=.152; p<.05).}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Both variables made significant relative contributions to}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
the dependent measure.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5505258545135846\textwidth}P{0.0394829097283085\textwidth}P{0.04171779141104295\textwidth}P{0.07598597721297107\textwidth}P{0.0394829097283085\textwidth}P{0.04991235758106923\textwidth}P{0.05289219982471516\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Career\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Parental}\tabcellsep Spousal\tabcellsep Academic\tabcellsep Academic men\\
\tabcellsep Growth\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Influence}\tabcellsep Support\tabcellsep men Collegial\tabcellsep Attitude Towards\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Support\tabcellsep Women\\
Pearson Correlation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Career Growth\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{-.175}\tabcellsep .162\tabcellsep .028\tabcellsep .054\\
Parental Influence\tabcellsep -.175*\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.000}\tabcellsep .110\tabcellsep .136\tabcellsep .050\\
Spousal Support\tabcellsep .162*\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.110}\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep -.013\tabcellsep .005\\
Academic men Collegial Support\tabcellsep .028\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.136}\tabcellsep -.013\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .936\\
Academic men Attitude Towards\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Women\tabcellsep .054\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.050}\tabcellsep .005\tabcellsep .936\tabcellsep 1.000\\
Sig.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
(1-tailed)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Career Growth\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000}\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .263\tabcellsep .111\\
Parental Influence\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .006\tabcellsep .001\tabcellsep .129\\
Spousal Support\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.006}\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .388\tabcellsep .452\\
Academic men Collegial Support\tabcellsep .263\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.001}\tabcellsep .388\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .000\\
Academic men attitude Towards\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Women\tabcellsep .111\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.129}\tabcellsep .452\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .\\
*Significant at P < .05.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{To determine the composite effect of the four social}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{From Table .9, parental influence has a negative}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{variables on career growth, Table 10 is presented.}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{and weak relationship which is significant with career}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{growth (r= -.175; p < .05). The Table also shows that}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{spousal support has a positive, weak but significant}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{relationship with the dependant measure (r= .162;}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{p<.05). However, both academic men collegial support}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{(r= .028; p>.05) and academic men attitude towards}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{women (r= .054; p>.05) have very weak positive}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{relationship which are not significant with career growth.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05059523809523809\textwidth}P{0.29345238095238096\textwidth}P{0.20238095238095236\textwidth}P{0.30357142857142855\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{and Career Growth}\tabcellsep \\
R\tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Adjusted R\tabcellsep Std.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep Error of the\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Estimate\\
.260\tabcellsep .068\tabcellsep .060\tabcellsep 7.7398\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: *Significant at P < .05]} 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3328671328671329\textwidth}P{0.23181818181818178\textwidth}P{0.0534965034965035\textwidth}P{0.14265734265734267\textwidth}P{0.03566433566433567\textwidth}P{0.0534965034965035\textwidth}}
Model\tabcellsep Sum of\tabcellsep Df\tabcellsep Mean Square\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep Squares\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Regression\tabcellsep 2206.333\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 551.583\tabcellsep 9.208\tabcellsep .000*\\
Residual\tabcellsep 30311.636\tabcellsep 506\tabcellsep 59.904\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 32517.969\tabcellsep 510\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.34117647058823525\textwidth}P{0.01764705882352941\textwidth}P{0.049999999999999996\textwidth}P{0.07941176470588235\textwidth}P{0.08235294117647059\textwidth}P{0.07794117647058824\textwidth}P{0.09852941176470588\textwidth}P{0.10294117647058823\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Career\tabcellsep Parental\tabcellsep Spousal\tabcellsep Academic\tabcellsep Academic\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Growth\tabcellsep Influence\tabcellsep Support\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep men Attitude\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Collegial\tabcellsep Towards\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Support\tabcellsep Women\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson Correlation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Leadership Position}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep -.376\tabcellsep .217\tabcellsep -.072\tabcellsep .018\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Parental Influence}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -.376*\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .110\tabcellsep .136\tabcellsep .050\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Spousal Support}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .217*\tabcellsep .110\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep -.013\tabcellsep .005\\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep Collegial\tabcellsep -.072\tabcellsep .136\tabcellsep -.013\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .936\\
Support\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep Attitude\tabcellsep .018\tabcellsep .050\tabcellsep .005\tabcellsep .936\tabcellsep 1.000\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Towards Women}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sig.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
(1-tailed)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Leadership Position}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .053\tabcellsep .339\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Parental Influence}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .006\tabcellsep .001\tabcellsep .129\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Spousal Support}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .006\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .388\tabcellsep .452\\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep Collegial\tabcellsep .053\tabcellsep .001\tabcellsep .388\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep .000\\
Support\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep Attitude\tabcellsep .339\tabcellsep .129\tabcellsep .452\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Towards Women}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 12 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{13} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3752252252252252\textwidth}P{0.0918918918918919\textwidth}P{0.15315315315315314\textwidth}P{0.22972972972972974\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{4}{l}{and Female Academic's Leadership Positions}\\
R\tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Adjusted R\tabcellsep Std.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep Error of the\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Estimate\\
.480 a\tabcellsep .230\tabcellsep .224\tabcellsep 7.4006\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_14}Table 13 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{14} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4539267015706806\textwidth}P{0.17356020942408376\textwidth}P{0.040052356020942405\textwidth}P{0.10680628272251308\textwidth}P{0.057853403141361254\textwidth}P{0.01780104712041885\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Variables and Academic Women's Leadership Position}\\
Model\tabcellsep Sum of\tabcellsep Df\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep Squares\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Regression\tabcellsep 8300.464\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 2075.116\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{37.888 .000*}\\
Residual\tabcellsep 27713.341\tabcellsep 506\tabcellsep 54.769\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 36013.804\tabcellsep 510\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*Significant at P < .05.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_15}Table 14 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{15} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2972677595628415\textwidth}P{0.0069672131147540985\textwidth}P{0.03948087431693989\textwidth}P{0.13469945355191257\textwidth}P{0.07896174863387978\textwidth}P{0.10683060109289617\textwidth}P{0.051092896174863386\textwidth}P{0.06734972677595628\textwidth}P{0.06734972677595628\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Social Factors}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardised}\tabcellsep Standardised\tabcellsep Rank\tabcellsep T\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Coefficients}\tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{(Constant) Parental Influence Spousal Support Academic men}\tabcellsep collegial\tabcellsep 31.966 -.112 .133 -3.92E-02\tabcellsep 4.774 .025 .032 .310\tabcellsep .197 .183 .016\tabcellsep 1 st 2 nd 4 th\tabcellsep 6.695 -4.402 4.216 -.127\tabcellsep .000 .000* .000* .899\\
Support\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep attitude\tabcellsep .164\tabcellsep .264\tabcellsep .078\tabcellsep 3 rd\tabcellsep .623\tabcellsep .533\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Towards Women}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_16}Table 15 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{16} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3988729508196721\textwidth}P{0.002612704918032787\textwidth}P{0.04702868852459016\textwidth}P{0.028739754098360656\textwidth}P{0.2995901639344262\textwidth}P{0.01915983606557377\textwidth}P{0.026997950819672132\textwidth}P{0.026997950819672132\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Social Factors}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardised}\tabcellsep Standardised\tabcellsep Rank\tabcellsep T\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Coefficients}\tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 42.74\tabcellsep 4.565\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{(Constant) Parental Influence Spousal Support Academic men}\tabcellsep 7 -.220 1.080 .191\tabcellsep .024 .030 .296\tabcellsep .368 .250 .419\tabcellsep 3 rd 4 th 2 nd\tabcellsep 9.364 -9.050 -3.648 6.343\tabcellsep .000 .000* .000* .000*\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Collegial Support}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Academic\tabcellsep men\tabcellsep .947\tabcellsep .252\tabcellsep .428\tabcellsep 1 st\tabcellsep 3.755\tabcellsep .000*\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Attitude Towards}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Women\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{*Significant at P < .05}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Table .16 shows that academic men attitude}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Research Question 11}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{towards women made the greatest contribution to}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{To what extent would social variables of}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{leadership position (?=.428; p>.05). This is followed by}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{parental influence, spousal and academic men collegial}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{academic men collegial support (?=.419; p<.05),}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{support and academic men attitudes towards women}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{parental influence (?=.368; P<.05) and spousal support}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{predict female academics' career growth?}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{(?=.250; p<.05) respectively. All contributions are}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{From Table 15, both parental influence (B= -}\\
equally significant.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.112; t= -4.402; p<.05) and spousal support (B=.133;}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_17}Table 16 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{Differential Psycho-Social Factors as Predictors of Female Academics' Career Growth and Leadership Positions in Universities in South-West Nigeria} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Evidence From]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Singapore Evidence From 		.  	 	 		\textit{Human Relations}  		45 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Stamford Plaza (2006)]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Adelaide Stamford Plaza 		.  		April 2006. February 6. 2007 from.  	 
\bibitem[Forster ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘A case study of women academics' views on equal opportunities’.  		 			N Forster 		.  	 	 		\textit{Report of the Hansard Society Commission on women at the top. London: Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government},  				2001. 1990. Hansard Society.  	 
\bibitem[Heward ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Academic snakes and merit ladders: reconceptualising the "glass},  		 			C Heward 		.  		1994.  	 
\bibitem[Aryee ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict among married professional women},  		 			S Aryee 		.  		1992.  	 
\bibitem[Anugwom ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Beyond Home: the cost of women engagement in full time work in Ibadan, Unpublished M’.  		 			E E Anugwom 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Research and Review}  		2009. June 5, 2011. 1999. 4 p. 69.  		 			Department of Guidance \& Counselling, University of Ibadan 		 	 	 (Retrieved) 
\bibitem[Oti and Oyelude ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Beyond the glass ceiling: work/home conflict, networking and mentoring as determinants of females' career path to academic leadership in Nigerian universities. Being paper delivered at the women's executive development conference. Change in climate? Prospects for gender equity in Universities},  		 			A Oti 		,  		 			O Oyelude 		,  		 			A 		.  		2006.  	 
\bibitem[Career prospects and world-family conflicts in a UK university. Career ceiling Gender and Education]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Career prospects and world-family conflicts in a UK university. Career ceiling’.  	 	 		\textit{Gender and Education}  		6 p. .  	 
\bibitem[William ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Colonialism, religion and the status of women. Paper presented at the symposium on the impact of colonialism on women in Nigeria},  		 			P William 		.  		1989.  	 	 (Women's) 
\bibitem[Volkwein and Parmley ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities’.  		 			J F Volkwein 		,  		 			K Parmley 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research in Higher Education}  		2000. 41 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Adanijo and Oyefeso ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Developing a self report scale of self esteem. Paper presented at the 3 rd Annual Conference of the Nigerian Psychological Association},  		 			I B Adanijo 		,  		 			I O Oyefeso 		.  		1986. Nsukka.  	 
\bibitem[Education 18]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Education 18},  		1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Scott ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Factors related to the retention of female graduate students over 30’.  		 			King Scott 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice}  		Hagedorn, L. S. (ed.)  		1985. 1999-2000. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Buckingham and Coffman ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{First, break all the rules: What the world's greatest managers do differently},  		 			M Buckingham 		,  		 			C Coffman 		.  		1999. New York: Simon \& Schuster.  	 
\bibitem[Derlega et al. (1994)]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Friendship, gender and social support’.  		 			V Derlega 		,  		 			A Barbee 		,  		 			B Winstead 		.  	 	 		\textit{Development International}  		1994. January 10, 2011. 6 p. .  	 	 (Retrieve) 
\bibitem[Luke ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Globalization and women in academia: North/west south/east},  		 			C Luke 		.  		2001. Mahwah NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  	 
\bibitem[Cutrona et al. (1994)]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Helpful, supportive and sensitive: measuring the evaluation of enacted social support in personal relationships’.  		 			C E Cutrona 		,  		 			J A Suhr 		,  		 			D J Goldsmith 		,  		 			V M Mcdermott 		,  		 			S C Alexander 		.  		 \url{http://spr.sagepub.com/content/17/3/369}  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social and Personal}  		1994. June 2000 17. April 10. 2009. 3 p. .  	 	 (Retrieved) 
\bibitem[Spencer et al. (1999)]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Implications of missionary education for women in Nigeria: a historical analysis’.  		 			S J Spencer 		,  		 			C M Steele 		,  		 			D M Quinn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Social Science Direct}  		1999. Nov. 24. 2008 from 25. 2008. November 2008. 35  (2)  p. .  	 	 (Journal of International Women's Studies) 
\bibitem[O'connor ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		 			O O'connor 		.  		\textit{Resistance in academia. Paper presented to NAWE International Conference on Women in Higher Education},  				 (New Orleans)  		2000.  	 
\bibitem[Oluwole et al. (2010)]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Patterns of stress, social support, and mental health among Nigerian women},  		 			D A Oluwole 		,  		 			A T Hammed 		,  		 			J I Awaebe 		.  		 \url{http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/awl\textunderscore wordpress/patterns-of-stress-social-support-and-mental-health-among-nigerian-women/}  		2010. September 10. 2010.  	 
\bibitem[Colletti et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Perceived obstacles to career success for women in academic surgery’.  		 			L M Colletti 		,  		 			M W Mulholland 		,  		 			S S Sonnad 		.  	 	 		\textit{Archives of Surgery}  		2000. 135 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chovwen ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Psychosocial factors predicting perceived acceptance and career growth of female executives in selected occupations. Unpublished Ph},  		 			C O Chovwen 		.  		2004. p. 183.  		 			D Thesis of the University of Ibadan. xiv 		 	 
\bibitem[Davidson and Cooper ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Shattering the glass ceiling: the woman manager},  		 			M J Davidson 		,  		 			C L Cooper 		.  		1992. London: Paul Chapman.  	 
\bibitem[Volkwein and Zhou ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction’.  		 			J F Volkwein 		,  		 			Y Zhou 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research in Higher Education}  		2003. 44 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bacchi ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘The brick wall: why so few women become senior academics’.  		 			C Bacchi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Australian Universities' Review}  		1993. 36 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hede ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{The glass ceiling metaphor: towards a theory of managerial},  		 			A Hede 		.  		1994.  	 
\bibitem[Nka ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘The Nigerian youth and vocational education’.  		 			N Nka 		.  	 	 		\textit{West African Journal}  		1974.  	 
\bibitem[Okonweze ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{The role of cultural practices on work-family conflict and psychological well-being among bank workers},  		 			N V Okonweze 		.  		2005. Ibadan, Nigeria. p. 68.  		 			Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan 		 	 	 (Unpublished MMP Thesis) 
\bibitem[James ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Women and stress},  		 			A James 		.  		2002. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
