Legally, women and men are one and the same, which has led to the demise of explicit discrimination towards women, or “blatant antipathy, beliefs that [members of stereotyped groups] are inherently inferior, [and] endorsement of pejorative stereotypes” (Cortina, 2008, p. 59). But implicit discrimination persists, and it leads to consequences similar to those of explicit discrimina- tion (Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2016). For example, benevolent sexism (the belief that women should be protected) can result in female man- agers receiving less-challenging developmental experiences and more positive (or unsubstantial) feedback, as compared to male counterparts (King et al., 2012). Likewise, letters of recommendation written about women tend to use more communal and less agentic adjectives as compared to those writ- ten about men, which results in a disadvantage for female applicants, because
communal characteristics are negatively related to hiring decisions (Madera, Hebl, & Martin, 2009). Add to this the basic assumption that white men are more competent than other groups (for example, Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), and it creates a difficult position for women.
Implicit discrimination towards women in the workplace can be partially explained by role congruity theory (Eagly et al., 2000), which suggests that gender roles shape the expectation that men should be agentic (for example, influential, assertive, self-confident), whereas women should be communal (for example, nurturing, empathetic, sensitive) (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Leadership roles are related to agentic attributes, triggering an auto- matic process of associating men with leadership positions to a greater degree than are women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that men are more likely to emerge as leaders than are women (Eagly &
Karau, 1991). Further, as a result of traditional gender stereotypes created by a long-established societal norm that powerful positions are reserved for men, women continue to face implicit biases regarding their leadership abilities and, as described by Hollander (1992, p. 72), “begin with an initial hurdle to attaining legitimacy.”
Women also face implicit discrimination, leading women to occupy only lower levels of leadership position, because if they adopt or display more mas- culine traits (that is, those typically identified with a leadership role), they can be penalized. When women display masculine traits, such as by adopting a direct leadership style, they are perceived more negatively (Eagly, Makhijani,
& Klonsky, 1992) than men demonstrating the same behavior. For example, when evaluating real people (confederates) as partners for a game, or watch- ing videos of interviews with targets, participants in a study rated women who self-promoted as less desirable teammates or candidates for a job (Rudman, 1998). Furthermore, when women speak in a direct, task-oriented manner, men see them as less likeable and less influential (Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995). Women need to both fit the leadership prototype and maintain feminine characteristics: a double bind (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Negative reactions toward female leaders are particularly strong for women in top leadership roles, which tend to be the most masculine (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Martell, Parker, Emrich, & Crawford, 1998). In fact, women in these very top roles are seen as particularly negative, reflecting the stereotype of successful women as interpersonally cold, harsh, and belligerent (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Johnson, Sitzmann, & Nguyen, 2014). For example, Democratic presi- dential candidate Hilary Clinton was described as having “scrubbed out the femininity, vulnerability, and heart,” and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer was described as “unwilling to listen” (Chou, 2015). This characterization of high-profile female leaders as cold, harsh, and hostile (Dishman, 2012) can be described as “counter-communal” by gender-role theory (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Johnson et al., 2014).
To avoid being characterized as counter-communal, women need to dem- onstrate agentic behavior, yet still maintain a certain level of communal traits.
For example, in a series of four studies (a qualitative study, an experiment, a sur- vey, and a field study, comprising 405 participants), Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, and Reichard (2008) found that both leader prototypes and gender stereotypes impact the evaluation of female leaders in conflicting ways. To meet both of these cognitive expectations, female leaders must fulfill the leader role by dem- onstrating high levels of masculine leadership qualities (that is, strength), while concurrently fulfilling their gender role by displaying feminine qualities (that is, sensitivity). In comparison, male leaders need only to demonstrate strength to be seen as effective. Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick, (2007) considered how factors signaling warmth alter subsequent judgments made in light of this first lens.
Subsequent information can have an important effect. For example, when pro- fessional women, who are initially perceived as cold, talk about motherhood, it increases impressions of warmth (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004).
Moving Forward: Solutions and Future Research
The previous section discussed and debunked several myths associated with the study of gender and leadership. Discerning the falsification of these myths is an initial step toward achieving equality within leadership (and the workplace), but, in addition to acknowledgment, other steps must be taken. In this section, we present a discussion of ways in which we can address these issues, categorized into research- and practice-based solutions.
Theoretical and Research-oriented Solutions
Create Gender-neutral Theories of Leadership
With a plethora of existing leadership theories (see Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio,
& Eagly, 2017, for a review) aligned with a multitude of empirical and meta- analytic evidence suggesting their utility (for example, Judge & Piccolo, 2004;
Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004), it is easy to conclude that leadership effectiveness is, for the most part, understood. However, if we scrutinize the most prevalent leadership theories, not only do we see much overlap between the underly- ing concepts, from both a conceptual and methodological standpoint (Shaffer, DeGeest, & Li, 2016), but also a reliance on male-centric theories. Because of this, we argue that our current database of leadership theories – largely based on theories created by men about men – are inadequate. Specifically, current theories fail to adequately address women and, in essence, represent only male leadership theory. We have seen, in this chapter, that the extant research shows that there are few gender differences in the leadership styles of men and women – but does that mean that theories of leadership are gender-balanced? In a word, no.
If our theories of leadership are written about men by men, what might we be missing? Two recent reviews of the leadership literature (Lord et al., 2017; Meuser et al., 2016) highlight the most influential theories in leadership.
Considering only those beyond trait, behavioral, and skills theory, the dominant theories include charismatic, transformational, strategic, leader–member exchange (LMX), implicit leadership theories, and diversity theories. Charismatic leader- ship theory, predominantly advanced by Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo (1994), focuses on how leaders create high levels of dedication in their followers by demonstrating behaviors that build trust and identification. James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2007), as well as Warren Bennis and Burton Nanus (1985), discuss charismatic leadership. The second major theory of our times is transformational leadership theory, championed by James McGregor Burns (2003), as well as by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (1993). These theories focus on how leader behavior can transform follower identities. Next, there is strategic leadership, which focuses on leaders’ ability to think strategically and to initiate change, as studied by Robert Ireland and Michael Hitt (2005), as well as Mathias Arrfelt, Robert Wiseman, and G. Thomas Hult (2013). All of these authors are men.
More diverse theories of leadership (in terms of primary theoreticians) include LMX theory and implicit leadership theory. Leader–member exchange had its roots in vertical dyad linkages, advanced by Fred Dansereau, George Graen, and William Haga (1975). However, the theory took a shift to focus more on the relationships between leaders and followers with the work of George Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien (1995). Similarly, early work on implicit leadership theories by Dov Eden and Uri Leviatan (1975) focused on four factors of leadership: sup- port, work facilitation, interaction facilitation, and goal emphasis. This work continued under Robert Lord, Roseanne Foti, and Christy De Vader (1984), and the range of leader prototypes expanded greatly. Further work by Lynn Offermann, John Kennedy, and Philip Wirtz (1994), as well as Olga Epitropaki and Robin Martin (2005), also brought to light leader prototypes such as sen- sitivity. In these theories, there is more of a focus on communal leadership attributes – and there are more women authors.
In contrast, theory on diversity and leadership has primarily been led by women, such as Alice Eagly and Steven Karau (2002), and Alice Eagly and Linda Carli (2003), as well as Ashleigh Rosette and Robert Livingston (2012), and Ashleigh Rosette and Leigh Tost (2010). This raises the question of how leadership theories might be different if theories were to be created by women.
Consider too the fact that many theories of leadership are based on the examina- tion of, and interviews with, current leaders, such as the work of James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2007), as well as of Warren Bennis and Burton Nanus (1985), on charismatic leadership. In these studies, the authors interviewed mostly male leaders and inferred how to be an excellent leader from that research. Similarly, Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman’s (1982) book In Search of Excellence looks at how the best companies are run (based mostly on male leaders), as does Jim
Collins’ (2001) book Good to Great. If our theories of leadership are written by men about men, is it possible we are missing something? Perhaps this mismatch is keeping women out of leadership roles, and future leadership researchers should address this concern by developing more inclusive leadership theories.
More scholarship is needed by women about both male and female leaders if we are to fully understand leadership in a gender-neutral way.
Change the Stereotype; Change Female Self-views
According to implicit leadership theory, individuals hold certain prototypes, or schemas, which they believe are indicative of leadership, and they evalu- ate others’ leadership by comparing their leader prototypes to the behaviors demonstrated by others (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Schemas are activated automatically and subconsciously, and they serve as a filter by which informa- tion is processed, stored, and recalled. When information is consistent with one’s schema for a certain group, it is more likely to be enacted and remem- bered. Within the leadership domain, it is argued that a common schema or prototype for a leader is that of a dominant, assertive, intelligent, and masculine individual (for example, Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). The prominence of this leadership schema not only affects our evaluations of others’ leadership qualities, but it can also shape our own identity (that is, internal self-concept). In general, identities are important because they directly influence the cognitions, behaviors, and attitudes of others (for example, Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Individuals align their behaviors with the values and attitudes of their identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and they behave in such a way as to elicit confirmation from others that secures their identities (Stryker & Burke, 2000).
Thus an important part of being a leader is identifying with this role.
Not only do gender stereotypes color perceptions of female leaders (that is, by reducing the likelihood that others will look to a feminine individual as a leader), but also they can taint female leaders’ perceptions of themselves and the degree to which they adopt a leader identity. Because the leadership role has traditionally been thought of as one that embodies stereotypical masculine characteristics (for example, aggression, power), a woman may not identify as a leader to the same extent as may a man because the woman has been social- ized not to perceive herself as portraying these qualities. Thus her schema of the leadership role (which is influenced by gender stereotypes) may not align with her own tendencies, thereby reducing the onset of her leader identity. In support of this, Hoyt, Johnson, Murphy, and Skinnell (2010) conducted multi- ple laboratory experiments and found that, when gender stereotypes are salient to female leaders, women’s confidence in their leadership abilities diminishes because fears that they will confirm a negative female stereotype are heightened.
Together, the potential negative evaluations of female leaders resulting from gender stereotypes, coupled with the fear of confirming a derogatory stereotype,
can greatly diminish the onset of the leader identity within women. Having confidence in one’s ability to develop and enact leadership is a prerequisite to seeing oneself as a leader and to engaging in a leadership role. As such, it is crucial that, as we progress with the study and practice of leadership, we begin to break down gender stereotypes related to this role to increase the chance that women will see themselves as leaders.
Practice-oriented Solutions
Hire Female Leaders
Similar to Nike Corporation’s signature trademark, “Just Do It,” we suggest that a critical and practical way of addressing the gender leadership gap is simple:
Hire more female leaders. Companies perform similarly (Zhang & Qu, 2016) – if not better (for example, Davis, Babakus, Englis, & Pett, 2010; Khan & Vieito, 2013) – with women on the board, and we see the benefits of diversity really peak when women represent at least 25 percent of the executive team (Labaye, 2012; Roberson & Park, 2007). By introducing women to leadership positions, not only do benefits accumulate because of heightened diversity, but also, by having women represented in high-status positions, organizations can better serve their low-level female employees and increase the likelihood that they will also break the “glass ceiling,” by providing them with female role models.
Avery, McKay, and Wilson (2008) found that companies with gender-balanced work groups – that is, groups that contain less than 65 percent male members, gender-unbalanced groups having 65 percent male members or more – had significantly lower levels of perceived sex discrimination because when employ- ees have colleagues with demographic similarities, they tend to report greater levels of support, trust, and inclusion. Specifically, in gender-balanced work groups, 5.1 percent of women perceived sex discrimination, whereas in unbal- anced workgroups, 23.5 percent of women reported having experienced sex discrimination. Research also provides evidence for a role-model effect when it comes to female leadership. For example, in a randomized natural experi- ment conducted in India, Beaman, Duflo, Pande, and Topalova (2012) found that adolescent girls’ career aspirations and educational attainment, as well as their parents’ aspirations for them, increased in villages with leadership positions designated for women.
By increasing the number of female leaders (and therefore the number of examples that run counter to traditional stereotypes), the novelty of a woman in a position of power wears off, and biases can be eliminated. In fact, because seeing can mean believing, simply providing more examples of female lead- ers to an audience can make a difference. Iris Bohnet, director of the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-chair of its Behavioral Insights Group, explained in an interview that a small change within
Kennedy School included adding portraits of female leaders to building walls that previously contained portraits of only male leaders (Morse, 2016). In sum, the call is simple: Hire more female leaders.
Why, then, are folks struggling with this agenda? As previously mentioned, science suggests that gender stereotypes are still at play. When evaluating and hiring a leader, it is likely that people rely on the representativeness heuristic, a process by which an individual evaluates the probability of “A” based on the degree to which it emulates (or is stereotypical of) “B” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In other words, when the representativeness heuristic is employed, ste- reotypes are leveraged; thus men become more attractive leadership candidates because they are presumed to exhibit more leader-like qualities (for example, agentic behaviors such as dominance and assertiveness) (Eagly & Johannesen- Schmidt, 2001). In response, scientists and practitioners have begun to identify strategies that mitigate these biases, including increasing the number of women in hiring pools (Johnson, Hekman, & Chan, 2016) and using blind-hiring pro- cesses (Goldin & Rouse, 2000). We recommend the use of such strategies in the hope that they will lead to more female leaders being hired, and the underutili- zation of some 47 percent of the workforce will come to a halt.
Flip the Script and Hire the Best Person
Because of the lack of women in leadership roles, when women do make it to the top, they are seen as having achieved their positions because of their sex, rather than despite it. But what if we were to flip the script on leadership and talk about the affirmative action program for male leaders? For male-dominated jobs, there is in-group favoritism toward men (Tajfel, 1970) – sometimes spoken of as the
“old (White) boys’ network,” or “the patriarchy” (for example, Marshall, 1984;
Strober, 1984) – leading to homophily, or the tendency to promote individuals who are demographically similar to incumbents (Kanter, 1977). When women are hired, groups are harsher on female leaders whom they believe to have been selected based on their gender. In one study, researchers appointed the leader of a group based on one of three factors: gender, chance, or merit (Jacobson &
Koch, 1977). After completing a task, these leaders and the other group members were given either positive or negative feedback; the other group members then evaluated the female leader. When the other group members received positive feedback, they did not attribute the success to the leader if she was selected based on gender; however, when receiving negative feedback, the other group members attributed their failure to the female leader if she was selected based on gender.
Affirmative action programs can also hurt one’s own self-views (Heilman, Simon,
& Pepper, 1987). Implementing affirmative action policies may unfairly stigmatize women employees as “less competent,” so, when framing an affirmative action program, it is beneficial to state that the most qualified candidate is being chosen.
Implement Plural Leadership Structures
A recent trend within organizations is the implementation of nontraditional leadership structures and teams, including flat hierarchies and self-managed teams (Kaplan et al., 2016). In comparison to traditional teams, self-managed teams do not have a formally designated leader at the beginning of the team’s performance cycle; rather, an individual team member adopts (or multiple team members may adopt) the leadership role organically and over time (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). This team structure breeds shared leadership, or lead- ership in the plural (Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012), which is distributed and dynamic leadership. Because of this, the team might be more inclined to select and be influenced by individuals possessing qualities that are reflective of effective leadership and related to the task at hand, rather than to exhibit a bias associated with typical gender roles (for example, Bergman, Small, Bergman, & Bowling, 2014). In other words, the probability of a female leader emerging within this context may be higher than if an individual from outside of the team were to appoint a team leader (as is the case in more traditional team contexts).
Conclusion
At present, what is wrong with current leadership scholarship and practice is that it is too male-centric and not gender-neutral. The data used to derive most leadership theories and recommendations was collected by male researchers from male leaders, and it was analyzed and interpreted by mostly male scientists.
Although Schein’s (1973) early conclusion “think manager, think male” seems archaic, this claim continues to permeate leadership practice and theory, regard- less of the fact that it is unethical, immoral, undesirable, and ineffective. Men seem to fit the bill of a leader to a greater degree than women only because constituents are blinded by antiquated gender stereotypes (“he is assertive, over- bearing, and dominant, and therefore will make for a good leader”). Within this chapter, we have discussed such stereotypes and reviewed scientific evidence that debunks several myths associated with gender and leadership, providing conclusions that:
1. women and men lead similarly, 2. women are motivated to lead, and 3. biases against women still exist.
Acknowledging these conclusions represents an initial step towards gender parity in leadership; a second step is to implement several strategies that will assist with this goal. As such, we also identify several strategies, in the hope that readers will leverage these ideas for future research and practice.