Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of the “Ideal President” (IP) and presidential candidates in the 2016 US presidential election in relation to gender stereotypes and leader prototypes.

In all, 378 business students assessed perceptions of either the IP or a particular candidate on measures of masculinity and femininity. Androgyny (balance of masculinity and femininity) and hypermasculinity (extremely high masculinity) scores were calculated from these measures.

The IP was perceived as higher in masculinity than femininity, but less similar to the male (Donald Trump) than the female (Hillary Clinton) candidate. IP perceptions were more androgynous than in the 2008 US presidential election. Respondents’ political preferences were related to their IP perceptions on hypermasculinity, which in turn were consistent with perceptions of their preferred candidate.

Trump’s high hypermasculinity scores may explain why he won the electoral college vote, whereas Clinton’s being perceived as more similar to the IP, and IP perceptions’ becoming more androgynous over time, may explain why she won the popular vote.

The study extends the literature on the linkages between gender stereotypes and leader prototypes in two respects. Contrary to the general assumption of a shared leader prototype, it demonstrates the existence of different leader prototypes according to political preference. The hypermasculinity construct, which was introduced to interpret leader prototypes in light of Trump’s candidacy and election, represents a valuable addition to the literature with potentially greater explanatory power than masculinity in some situations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine stability and change in the linkage between gender and managerial stereotypes over a five-decade period.

Samples from two populations (n = 2347) described a “good manager” on an instrument that assessed masculinity and femininity during each of the past five decades.

Good-manager descriptions exhibited a decreasing emphasis on masculinity and increasing emphasis on femininity over time, culminating in an androgynous profile, or a balance of masculine and feminine traits, for each population in the most recently collected data.

Although women face systemic barriers in the managerial ranks of organizations, a change in managerial stereotypes to an androgynous rather than masculine profile would represent one less barrier for them to overcome.

If managers come to be held to an androgynous standard in their behavior regardless of their gender, there would be a more level playing field for candidates for open managerial positions, rather than one tilted in favor of men.

The analysis of data from samples of the same population types using the same measures systematically over five decades, and the provocative finding of an androgynous profile of a good manager in the most recently collected data, are original contributions to the literature.

The purpose of this study is to examine linkages of gender and gender-related variables to aspirations to top management over a period spanning five decades.

During each of the past five decades, samples from two early-career populations (n = 2131), undergraduate business students and part-time (evening) MBAs, completed an aspirations to top management measure and described themselves on an instrument that assessed self-ascribed masculinity and femininity.

Aspirations to top management were predicted by respondent gender for undergraduates, with women’s aspirations lower than those of men, and by masculinity for both populations. Suggesting a shifting role of gender, undergraduate women’s aspirations to top management declined during the 21st century, whereas undergraduate men’s aspirations did not.

Any decline in early-career women’s aspirations to top management over a sustained period may contribute in the long run to perpetuating the under-representation of women in top management.

The finding of a striking decline in women’s aspirations to top management during the 21st century in an early-career population is an original contribution to the gender in management literature.

The purpose of this study was to explore issues of gender and diversity raised by the 2020 US presidential election.

Samples from two populations (n = 667) described either an ideal president or one of the major-party candidates for president (Donald Trump and Joe Biden) or vice president (Mike Pence and Kamala Harris) on an instrument that assessed self-ascribed masculinity and femininity. Androgyny was calculated as the difference between masculinity and femininity; the closer the score to zero, the more androgynous the candidate.

The ideal president was viewed as androgynous (i.e. balanced in masculine and feminine traits) rather than masculine as in previous studies of presidential leadership. Compared to the White male candidates, Harris, a woman of color, displayed the most androgynous profile. The Democratic ticket represented a “balanced” team, with one candidate (Biden) higher on femininity and the other (Harris) higher on masculinity; in essence, an androgynous ticket. In contrast, the Republican ticket (Trump and Pence) represented a decidedly masculine ticket. Ideal president profiles differed according to respondents’ gender and preferred president.

The Democrats winning the election with an androgynous ticket suggests that a more level playing field for female vis-à-vis male candidates for political leader roles may be arriving.

The finding of an ideal president as androgynous rather than masculine is an original contribution to the literature on presidential leadership.

This study aims to examine factors that may explain the status of women in management by exploring the linkages between leader anti-prototypes and prototypes to gender stereotypes.

Samples from two populations described either a “bad manager” (representing leader anti-prototypes) or a “good manager” (representing leader prototypes) on two instruments that assessed masculinity and femininity.

On each instrument, masculinity was endorsed more than femininity in both leader prototypes and anti-prototypes. Both masculinity and femininity were endorsed more in leader prototypes than leader anti-prototypes but only when the purpose of the instrument was disguised rather than transparent.

Limitations of a single data collection method, the nature of the samples and a newly designed scale for purposes of the study are acknowledged. Further attention to the linkages of leader anti-prototypes and prototypes to gender stereotypes and the outcomes of these linkages is recommended.

Individuals who make managerial selection and promotion decisions may devote more attention to the presence or absence of masculine traits in candidates than to the presence or absence of feminine traits, thereby leading to female candidates being passed over and male candidates receiving greater scrutiny in determining who gets ahead.

The study suggests cognitive mechanisms that may influence the status of women in management.

The study incorporates leader anti-prototypes and leader prototypes to explain the low status of women in management.

Data gathered by the authors from undergraduate and part‐time graduate business students in 1976‐1977 suggested that men were more likely than women to aspire to top management and that, consistent with traditional stereotypes of males and managers, a gender identity consisting of high masculinity and low femininity was associated with aspirations to top management. As a result of gender‐related social changes, we expected the gender difference in aspirations to top management but not the importance of gender identity to have decreased over time. We collected data in 1999 from the same two populations to test these notions. In newly collected data, high masculinity (but not low femininity) was still associated with such aspirations, and men still aspired to top management positions more than women. However, the gender difference in aspirations to top management did not decrease over time.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of psychological androgyny, a construct that represents a combination of masculinity and femininity, in explaining changes in descriptions of a good manager over time.

Samples of the same two populations were surveyed at four different points in time spanning four decades (N = 1,818).

Good-manager descriptions became increasingly similar in masculinity and femininity over time, or increasingly androgynous according to the balance conceptualization of androgyny. However, both good-manager masculinity and good-manager femininity declined over time, with masculinity declining to a greater extent, which accounted for the greater similarity in these scores. As a result, according to the high masculinity/high femininity conceptualization of androgyny, good-manager descriptions actually became decreasingly androgynous and more “undifferentiated”. Overall, the trend in leader prototypes over time was toward less emphasis on traits associated with members of either sex.

Limitations of two alternative methods of analyses and the survey instrument are acknowledged. What constituted a good manager may have depended on the context. Further scholarly attention to the concept of an undifferentiated leadership style is recommended.

People may be moving beyond leader prototypes based on the simple application of gender stereotypes. Changes in leader prototypes over the past four decades may contribute to enhancements in women’s societal status.

Leader prototypes may disadvantage women less than in the past.

Results suggest that the role of androgyny in leader prototypes is declining according to the high masculinity/high femininity conceptualization.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of the “Ideal President” and candidates in the 2008 US presidential election in relation to gender and leader prototypes.

A total of 768 undergraduate business students rated either the ideal President or a presidential candidate on Bem Sex‐Role Inventory and Implicit Leadership Theory scales.

The ideal President was seen as more similar to male candidates as a group than female candidates as a group (i.e. “think president – think male”). The ideal President was seen as higher in masculinity than femininity (i.e. “think president – think masculine”).

Additional factors beyond gender and leader prototypes may affect perceptions of presidential candidates and the ideal President. Respondents came exclusively from northeastern USA; hence, results may not be generalizable to other populations. Replication of this study in nations that have elected a female leader is recommended. Future theory and research should link perceptions of male and female leaders in different nations to dimensions of national culture such as gender egalitarianism.

The results suggest the continued presence of sex‐related biases in leader evaluations in the political context. Such biases influence whether specific groups are excluded from political leadership because of their personal characteristics (e.g. women), which would dilute the talent of the pool of available candidates.

The results increase knowledge of the linkages among sex, gender, and political leadership by incorporating both gender and leader prototypes.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the current status of women in management and explanations offered for this status in light of a rare empirical field study of the “glass ceiling” phenomenon the authors conducted about 20 years ago.

The authors review the study’s key arguments, unexpected results, and implications for organizational effectiveness (which have been largely ignored). The authors then review what has transpired and what has been learned about the glass ceiling phenomenon since.

The nature of glass ceilings has remained essentially stable over a 20-year period, although further explanations for them have flourished.

More scholarly examinations of ways to shatter glass ceilings and thereby enhance organizational effectiveness are recommended.

Organizations, human resources directors, and internal decision makers need to adopt practices that foster “debiasing” of decisions about promotions to top management.

Societies need to encourage organizations to adopt ways to shatter glass ceilings that continue to disadvantage women.

A systematic review and analysis of the present-day implications of an early study of the glass ceiling phenomenon has not previously been conducted.

The purpose of this study is to examine sex effects in evaluations of transformational and transactional leaders.

A total of 459 part‐time (evening) MBA students, most of whom worked full‐time, read a vignette of either a male or female leader who exhibited either a transformational or transactional leadership style and then evaluated the leader's behavior.

Female‐transformational leaders received more favorable evaluations than male‐transformational leaders, especially from female evaluators. However, evaluations of transactional leaders did not differ according to leader sex, and male evaluators did not evaluate male and female leaders of either style differently.

Evaluators were enrolled in a part‐time graduate program in management; hence, results may not be generalizable to other populations. In addition, the study focused on evaluation of hypothetical rather than actual leaders. The results suggest a female advantage in evaluations of transformational leaders, especially when women are the evaluators. Extension of theories of gender and leadership to account for such results and testing of the extended theories is recommended.

The results suggest the continued presence of sex‐related biases in leader evaluations, although in a different direction than in prior research. Organizations need to take steps to discourage expression of such biases.

Contrary to prior research, the results suggest that sex effects in leader evaluations now favor female leaders more than male leaders.