Week 7: Gender and Leadership

Prejudice and resistance are more complicated than a glass ceiling they
form a labyrinth
Role congruity theory the double bind of women in leadership positions
Leader stereotypes are predominantly masculine though their masculine
construal tends to decrease
Womens career problems dont end with overcoming the glass ceiling
glass cliffs
Qualified female leadership advantage the double bind may really be a
double
opportunity, under certain conditions

adership over-emergence in self-managing teams countervailing bias can

Eagly &
Carli
(2007)

Eagly
&
Karau
(2002)
Koenig
et al.
(2011)
Ryan &
Haslam
(2007)
Rosette
& Tost
(2010)
Lanaj &
Hollenbe
ck(2015)

General Questions
In light of last weeks discussion, would you say that when we talk about gender in
the leadership literature, we talk about gender traits or gender behaviors, or both?
The papers we read for this week seem to measure behaviors but consider them
relatively stable as traits
Correlational studies and experiments appear to dominate gender research. Why
arent we seeing more longitudinal studies in field settings?
Double standards (Expectancy violation theory) or incongruent roles (Gender role
theory) which theoretical framework seems more plausible to you in explaining
attitudes towards female leaders and their leadership emergence likelihood? Do we
even have to choose one over the other?
At least two papers pointed to the need to engage in more intersectional [nonelite
(i.e. minority) groups (Ryan & Haslam, 2007)] research in the future; are you ready to
take it on?
Do you think its time to broaden the analysis beyond the realm of clear-cut gender
roles and look not just at leadership (Schein, 1993; 1995) but also at leaders and
followers themselves as possibly combining both masculine and feminine traits and
behaviors, not always conforming to their biological sex?

Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L.

(2007)
Possible ways out:
Raise awareness of ingrained bias
Change long-hours norm
Reduce subjectivity of performance
evaluation
Use open-recruitment tools
Ensure critical mass of women
executives
Secure social capital
Bring more women into line
management
Establish family-friendly HR practices
Give moms more time to excel
Walls of the labyrinth:
Vestiges of prejudice
Welcome women back
Resistance to womens leadership
Encourage male participation in
Demands of family life: 60% of family-friendly
female law firmbenefits
partners had no children
despite mens contribution, mothers provide more child care than before
Underinvestment in social capital less time for networking; social activities still
largely masculine

Quesitons:
?

Do you think that correlational studies and experiments are the

optimal research designs for exploring biases and resistance against
women in the workplace? How about Simons call for research closer
to the phenomena of interest in behavioral theory, e.g. ethnographic
?
studies?
Affectionate
Do you agree that [l]eadership is not synonymous with socializing?
Helpful

Aggressive
Ambitious
Dominant
Does a distinct female leadership style exist? Are you convinced by Friendly
Self Kind
the difference between female vs. male leadership styles the authors
confident
Sympathetic
talk about?
Forceful
Interpersonally
Can you think of other possible sources of bias against women, apart
Self-reliant
sensitive
from communal vs. agentic associations?
Individualisti
Gentle
What would a possible explanation of the fluctuation in the
c
Soft-spoken
percentage of managers who are women (a sharp upward trend in
the 1970s and 1980s, followed by a slowing and flattening in recent
years) look like, using the development in a) leadership research, or
b) feminism?

Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002)

Role congruity theory - descriptive vs. injunctive norms in gender roles: In thinking
about female leaders, people would combine their largely divergent expectations about
leaders and women, whereas in thinking about male leaders, people would combine highly
redundant expectations.
Women who are effective leaders tend to violate standards for their gender when they
manifest male-stereotypical, agentic attributes and fail to manifest female-stereotypical,
communal attributes, so they may be unfavorably evaluated for their gender role violation,
at least by those who endorse traditional gender roles
Descriptive norms lead to less favorable evaluation of womens (than mens) potential for
leadership because leadership ability is more stereotypical of men than women, and
injunctive norms cause less favorable evaluation of the actual leadership behavior of
women than men because such behavior is perceived as less desirable in women than men.
(a) lesser access of women than men to leadership roles and (b) more obstacles for
women to overcome in becoming successful in these roles.
Sex discrimination with regard to lower wages and slower promotion for women is less in
the public sector.
Physical attractiveness, feminine clothing, and token status illustrate variables that may
disadvantage women because they cause perceivers to weight the female gender role more
heavily when judging women leaders.
Men often showed stronger prejudice than women when data were separated by sex of
participant.

Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002), continued

Less favorable reactions directed toward womens assertive, leaderlike behavior can
be mitigated to some extent by the addition of interpersonally facilitative behaviors
consistent with the female gender role.
It is generally less likely that women, compared with men, emerge as leaders in
groups, especially if the groups task is not particularly demanding of interpersonal
skill or is otherwise relatively masculine.
Meta-analysis (1995): Overall, no difference in the relative effectiveness of male and
female leaders (mean d = -0.02, indicating nonsignificantly greater female
effectiveness), due to competing predictions.
People attribute womens failures, more than mens failures, to the stable cause of
lack of ability and mens failures to the unstable causes of low effort and bad luck.
The opposite logic is true for success.
In a simulation study, Martell, Lane, and Emrich (1996) demonstrated that a small
bias against women of 1% of the variance in initial performance ratings produced
senior management levels with only 35% women, and a 5% initial bias produced only
29% senior women.
Paradox: relative constancy of perceivers descriptive beliefs about men and women,
in the face of decreasing approval of traditional gender differentiation are leader
roles evolving? Becoming more androgynous?

Questions
Goldberg-paradigm experiments: best practice in gender research?
Aside from Kasofs (1993) naming bias and possible self-representational pressures, can you
think of other possible sources of contamination in the experiments described in the paper?
Do you think the experimental framework described in the paper is equally well-suited for the
examination of hiring practices and for assessing leader effectiveness? The latter is often
conducted via vignettes and scenarios presenting much more limited information compared
to real-life work settings. Can you think of an alternative experimental design evaluating, for
instance, promotion practices and intraorganizational attitudes towards women leaders?
In Eagly et al.s (1992) meta-analysis, prejudice against women basketball coaches was
shown to be extremely severe, and yet in Eagly & Carli (2007) we read about the story of
coach Krzyzewski whose success and effectiveness were attributed to his coaching the way
a woman would. How would you explain this paradox?
Can the incongruency theory explanations in this paper be reconciled with with the
stereotype content model which suggests that there are circumstances under which
individuals may be perceived as simultaneously agentic and communal (Eckes, 2002; Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002)?

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H.,

Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011)
Women who manage to be successful in very high-status roles
may be perceived as highly competent, because people assume
a double standard whereby such women had to overcome
especially difficult challenges (Rosette & Tost, 2010) a
violation or a special case of Role Congruity Theory?
Men fit cultural construals of leadership better than women and
thus have better access to leader roles and face fewer
challenges in becoming successful in them.
Despite some overall change toward more androgynous beliefs
about leadership, stereotyping continues to contribute to the
labyrinthine challenges that women encounter in attaining
roles that yield substantial power and authority.

think managerthink male (Schein,

1973)

agencycommunion paradigm (Powell

& Butterfield, 1979)

masculinityfemininity paradigm
(Shinar, 1975)

Direct test of similarity of leader

stereotypes to male/female
stereotypes

Test of gender-stereotypical content

of the leader stereotype

Test of m vs. f content of occupational

stereotypes (leader roles are a
minority)

Mean ratings of leaders correlated

with mean ratings of men and mean
ratings of women ~ stereotype
similarity

Leader categories rates on separate

agentic (m) and communal (f) gender
stereotyping scales

Each leader role rated on a single

bipolar m vs. f rating scale m vs. f
not allowed to vary independently
less popular

Think manager-think male effect

occurs when men and leaders are
similar and women and leaders are
not.

Comparison of mean ratings on the

two gender scales determines if
leader stereotype is more m or f.

Are mean ratings of most categories

of leader on the m or f end of the
scale?

Apriori moderators: Year of

publication; % male participants; No
domain moderator variable tested;
Leader status: high/moderate

Year of publication; % male

participants;
Managerial/political/educational;
Leader status: high/moderate;

Year of publication; % male

participants;
Business/education/politics/judicial/ar
ts/otherLeader status: high/moderate;

Exploratory moderators:
participant age, % male authors;
Stereotype measure Schein
Descriptive index;
published/unpublished

participant age, % male authors;

Stereotype measure Bem Sex Role
Inventory; published/unpublished

participant age, % male authors;

Stereotype measure m-f 7-point
scale ; published/unpublished

Men-leaders similarity was large and

the women-leaders similarity was
small

overall effect was strongly in the

masculine direction

overall effect is strongly in the

masculine direction

Little publication bias - would only

slightly increase the women-leaders
similarity

Publication bias not trivial

No unpublished studies, so no
comparison possible

weaker women-leaders similarity:

earlier years, male participants,
Eastern nationalities (marginal), % m
authors;

Larger agency communion

differences: earlier years, % m
participants, managerial & political
domains, originators research group

Stronger masculinity: earlier

publication year, % male participants,
other & judicial leader roles, highstatus leaders; smaller % women

Questions
What do you think of the differences among the three paradigms? Does this meta-analysis
use triangulation effectively? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a
single vs. multiple paradigms?
What prompted the authors to measure 2 instead of 3 levels of leadership/management
status (low, middle, top), as in Eagly & Karau (2002)? What difference does this decision
make in terms of research breadth?
How would you explain that older participant age is associated with a stronger womenleaders similarity, when earlier publication date is related to the opposite effect, i.e. the
overall cultural climate was more masculinist? Does this mean young participants are hold
stronger gender stereotypes? How can we address this problem in educational settings?
Women leaders would be well advised to retain elements of a masculine leadership style
to avoid a mismatch with leader roles, even if they now have greater flexibility to
incorporate elements of a feminine leadership style. Does this suggestion signify a
change from the rather cautious statements in Eagly & Karau (2002)? From a female
leadership model to androgynous leadership?
Can you think of more implicit measures to assess gender stereotypes, as the authors
recommend?

Ryan, M. K. & Haslam, S. A.

(2007)
Feminine traits associated with managerial in Scheins original studies (1993, 1995)
that can be useful in times of crisis: being understanding, intuitive, and creative.
Appointment of a woman director not associated with a subsequent drop in company
performance - companies that appointed a woman actually experienced a marked
increase in share price.
Women more likely than men to be placed in positions already associated with poor
company performance. Their positions of leadership were more risky and precarious
(i.e., at greater risk of being associated with failure) than those in which men found
themselves.
Since women are more likely than men to find themselves in high-risk positions, they
are in greater danger of being targets of unfair blame, censure, and even of being
hounded out of office (male CEOs in the U.S. hold jobs twice as long as their female
counterparts - 8.2 versus 4.8 years /Blanton, 2005/).
Appointing women to precarious leadership positions can be due to: sexism (seeing
women as expendable), ingroup favoritism and group dynamics (cushy jobs
reserved for ingroup members), and implicit leadership theories (women have less
to lose, or wanting to signal an embrace of change).

Questions
Do you agree with the authors explanation of the factors contributing to
endorsing more pernicious explanations of glass cliffs?
Do you think that if we change our research perspective from gender-based to
status-based differences in leadership, as the authors propose, gender traits
and/or behaviors would prove to be more socially constructed than essential (p.
565)?
Do you agree with the authors that, while certain forms of discrimination are
lent stability through history and practice, they are not psychological or social
givens but can be changed (p. 565), and do you think that we as researchers
can play a role in such a change?
The research designs used to evaluate the glass cliff phenomenon thus far
seem rather subjective can a study relying primarily on secondary data
provide more objectivity while still retaining the ability of experimental designs
to trace participants biases and prejudice?

Rosette, A. S. & Tost, L. P. (2010)

Study 1
Hypothesis 1: Women top leaders would be evaluated as more agentic than male top leaders but only when success
was clearly attributed to the leader [i.e. internal attribution]. (Supported)
Hypothesis 2: Women top leaders would be evaluated as more communal than male top leaders but only when
success was clearly attributed to the leader. (Supported)

Study 2
Hypothesis 3: When successful organizational performances were attributed to internal causes,
women top leaders would be evaluated as more agentic than their male peers and more agentic
than women middle managers. Women middle managers would not be rated as more agentic
than men middle managers. (Supported)
Hypothesis 4a: Women top leaders would be perceived as having experienced greater
challenges from double standards than men top leaders and women middle managers.
(Supported)
Hypothesis 4b: These perceptions of double standards of competence would mediate the
effect of leader gender on agentic evaluations. (Supported)
Hypothesis 5: Women middle managers would not be rated as more communal than men
middle managers. (Supported)
Hypothesis 6a: Women top leaders would be expected to engage in greater levels of feminized
management tactics than would men top leaders or women middle managers. (Supported)
Hypothesis 6b: These expectations of feminized management tactics would mediate the effect
of leader gender on communal evaluations. (Supported, but only for top leaders)
Hypothesis 7: Women middle managers would not be rated more favorably on overall leader
effectiveness than men middle managers. (Supported)
Hypothesis 8: Differences in perceptions of overall leadership effectiveness for women top
leaders versus men top leaders and women middle managers would be mediated both by
perceptions of double standards, (Supported) and

Questions
Do you think Eagly would agree that within role congruity theory,
gender stereotypes remain undisputed by performance evidence
and are thus allowed to define the work pertinent attributes of the
leader? Is there a way to allow for more stereotype flexibility and
dynamism in her theory?
Do you think the authors have offered an exhaustive list of the
conditions under which there is a female leadership advantage?
Are you satisfied with their explanation of why perceptions of double
standards are stronger at the top leadership level than at the
middle?
What would you consider a suitable research design to examine
How do [women] transition from one level to another, and how
does the transition impact their behavior?

Lanaj, K. & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2015)

Hypothesis 1. Men over-emerge as leaders to a larger extent relative
to women in self-managing teams. (Supported)
Hypothesis 2. Women who engage in task-related behaviors overemerge as leaders to a larger extent relative to men who engage in
task-related behaviors. (Supported)
Hypothesis 3. Women who engage in boundary spanning behaviors
over-emerge as leaders to a larger extent relative to men who engage
in boundary spanning behaviors. (Supported)
Hypothesis 4. Men who engage in social behaviors over-emerge as
leaders to a larger extent relative to women who engage in social
behaviors. (Not supported no support for the gender neutrality
principle of EVT, but led to an interesting finding under-emergence):
Under-emergence occurs when a team member effectively influences
team performance but does not stand out or attain high status as a
team leader to a commensurate extent.

Questions
Does the study represent a sound synthesis of Gender Role Theory
and Expectancy Violation Theory?
What could be a more direct measure of leadership over- and
under-emergence than effect differences that gender and leader
behaviors have on leadership emergence vs. effectiveness?
Using Koenig et al.s (2011) methodology of examining the effect of
participants gender on leadership evaluations, how would you
explain the results of this study, knowing that each team had at
least one, but likely not much more than one, woman?