Search results

Modern prejudice was examined as a potential predictor of overestimating proportions of minority employees in gender-typed occupations. Strength of conjunction error was considered as an indicator of distorted perceptions of these proportions. Furthermore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the association between modern prejudice and strength of conjunction error was weaker for gender-untypical than for gender-typical targets.

Modern prejudice was considered as a predictor of overestimations of black female employees in Study 1 (n=183) and black female older employees in Study 2 (n=409). Data were collected using internet-mediated questionnaires.

In Study 1, modern racism, but not modern sexism, was associated with greater strength of conjunction error when respondents were presented with gender-typical targets. In Study 2, using a sample scoring higher on modern prejudice than in Study 1, modern racism, but not modern sexism and modern ageism, was associated with greater strength of conjunction error, irrespective of target occupation. Furthermore, there was an unexpected association between lower sexism and greater strength of conjunction error for gender-typical targets, but not for gender-untypical targets.

The findings lend support to the ethnic-prominence hypothesis in that modern racism, but not modern sexism or modern ageism, was associated with greater strength of conjunction error. Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that target non-prototypicality can dilute the effect of modern prejudice on strength of conjunction error.

This is one of the rare studies examining attitudes and conjunction error in a work-relevant context, thereby bridging the gap between social cognition and applied psychology.

The paper aims to test the impact of gender‐relevant factors on professional respect for leaders.

Three determinants were analysed: gender constellation (gender match) between leaders and followers, gender‐stereotypic leadership behaviour, and followers' gender role attitudes. A field study with N₁=121 followers and their N₂=81 direct leaders from 34 German organisations was conducted. Leaders were on the lowest level of hierarchy.

The data showed that female leaders are at risk of receiving less professional respect from their followers than male leaders: male followers of female leaders had less professional respect than female followers of male leaders. Moreover, gender role discrepant female leaders (i.e. autocratic) got less respect than gender role discrepant male leaders (i.e. democratic). But no difference was found with regard to gender role congruent female (i.e. democratic) and male (i.e. autocratic) leaders. Finally, followers with traditional gender role attitudes were prone to have comparatively little professional respect for female leaders.

Future research should analyse gender‐relevant factors that influence the granting of professional respect and systematically compare these effects across branches. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see whether followers evaluate leaders from higher levels of hierarchy in the same way as our respondents did.

In order to promote women in leadership positions, followers' prejudices against female leaders should be reduced.

Field studies about the evaluation of female and male leaders explicitly considering their followers' gender role attitudes are rare. The results reflect that sexism is well and alive.

Leader‐member exchange (LMX) is positively related to outcome criteria in many studies. In most of these studies, these correlations were obtained using solely follower‐rated LMX. This paper aims to include both follower and leader ratings of LMX and to address the question of the extent to which these are related to a variety of outcomes.

The authors conducted a questionnaire study among a sample of employees and their supervisors in banks and insurances.

It was found that follower‐rated LMX is related to followers' attitudes and followers' well‐being whereas leader‐rated LMX is related to the performance of the group.

A common source bias could be assumed from the results, as only data stemming from the same source (leader versus follower) are significantly related. On the other hand, it could also be assumed that LMX is related to followers' attitudes and well‐being in a different way than it is related to performance, perhaps because the two parties involved in LMX may consider different outcomes to be important for their mutual relationship.

For followers, LMX may “need” a kind of support that leads to positive attitudes and well‐being, whereas for the leader, performance is a part of LMX. This differentiated conception can also be found in literature dealing with other dyadic leadership approaches.

The study sheds light on the different relationships that follower‐ and leader‐rated LMX has on other concepts. It is one of the few studies that comprise both follower and leader ratings of LMX.

Meta‐analytic evidence exists that the numerical dominance of one gender group among employees can affect the behaviour of female and male leaders. The purpose of this paper is to hypothesis that leaders will show more transformational behaviour when they hold a minority status. Transformational behaviour might help to mitigate discrepancies between male leaders' gender and the feminine context, as well as between female leaders' gender and the masculine leadership role.

N₁=455 team members answered questionnaires about their work satisfaction and their team leaders' transformational leadership, whilst N₂=142 team leaders answered questions regarding their teams' goal fulfillment.

Female and male leaders are rated more transformational in economic sectors and working groups where they hold a minority status. The paper finds a positive interrelation between transformational leadership and followers' work satisfaction for male leaders, but not for female leaders.

Future research should compare female and male leaders from extremely gender‐typed economic sectors and from higher levels of the organisational hierarchy. This would provide evidence whether the findings could be generalised to other samples.

The findings point to the potential advantage of being a high‐transformational male leader in female‐dominated contexts. Irrespective of the numerical dominance of one gender group, followers of low‐transformational female leaders are more satisfied than those of low‐transformational male leaders.

The paper uses sector‐level (gender‐typicality of economic sectors) as well as group‐level data (gender‐composition of working groups) to account for the numerical dominance of female and male employees.