Emmeline de Pillis, Richard Kernochan, Ofer Meilich, Elise Prosser and Victoria Whiting
The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.
Design/methodology/approach
In total, 176 male and 187 female business undergraduates in Hawai’i and the CUS were asked to describe either a manager, a male manager, or a female manager using the 92‐item Schein Descriptive Index.
Findings
Men and women in Hawai’i, and women in the CUS, did not report a strong “think manager = think male” bias, but male participants in the CUS did: These men described hypothetical female managers as comparatively obedient, submissive, timid, reserved, fearful, uncertain, passive, and interested in their own appearance. They rated male managers as relatively more firm, independent, persistent, self‐reliant, and having a high need for achievement.
Research limitations/implications
The relative lack of a “think manager = think male” bias in Hawai’i is remarkable, since this bias is observed worldwide. Further investigation would confirm or clarify these findings.
Practical implications
Stereotypical views persist among some of our future business leaders, but are not universal. Educators and businesspeople should be aware of the strong “think manager = think male” bias still extant among male business students in the CUS.
Originality/value
Although the persistence of the “think manager = think male” stereotype is troubling, this stereotype is not universal. While past cross‐cultural investigations treat the US’ culture as homogeneous, we find significant regional differences with regard to managerial gender stereotypes.
Details
Keywords
Umesh Mukhi and Camilla Quental
The Covid-19 crisis has coerced organisations and business schools to rethink and reflect their practices about well-being and purpose individually and collectively. While this…
Abstract
The Covid-19 crisis has coerced organisations and business schools to rethink and reflect their practices about well-being and purpose individually and collectively. While this discourse was existent within academic and professional sphere, it was rather muted or isolated in the quest of pursuing traditional indicators of progress in terms of economic productivity. It is within this context we revisit our past interaction with the leader who has been advocating for responsible leadership which encompasses well-being and purpose amidst Covid-19. Arianna Huffington is the Founder and CEO of Thrive Global, which is a platform to help corporations in promoting individual and collective well-being. Formerly she was also the Co-founder and the President and Editor-in-Chief of the Huffington Post Media Group. In 2014, she received the Tesla Sustainable Leadership Award, after which one of the authors had an opportunity to interview her for the Sustainable Leadership Blog.1 A staunch advocate of issues like climate change, gender equality, work-life balance and youth empowerment, Arianna exemplifies the commitment to articulate and implement purpose-led corporations, proposing the People–Planet–Profit approach to leadership . By shedding light on Arianna’s perspective this chapter suggests reflective pointers for decision-makers in management education, these are follows: (a) business schools can lead integrating sustainability in their purpose and practice; (b) relevance of the spiritual dimension and its significance in business schools and organisations; and (c) proposing a holistic view in comparison with a traditional view of business education. Finally, we also posit that her practice as role model for responsible leadership during Covid-19 reflects consistent adherence in her past and present discourse about responsible management issues. Thus, her insights can help leaders of public, private and social organisations to grapple with complex organisational issues arising due to of Covid-19.
Details
Keywords
Zachary Sheaffer, Ronit Bogler and Samuel Sarfaty
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which leadership attributes, masculinity, risk taking and decision making affect perceived crisis proneness.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which leadership attributes, masculinity, risk taking and decision making affect perceived crisis proneness.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws mainly on the literature about gender, leadership and organizational crisis to explore whether masculinity predicts crisis proneness, and the extent to which leadership attributes as well as risk‐taking and decision‐making style are efficient predictors of perceived crisis preparedness (CP). Utilizing pertinent literature and concepts, the paper evaluates a database of 231 female and male managers.
Findings
As hypothesized, masculinity is positively associated, whereas transformational leadership is inversely associated with perceived crisis proneness. Both participative decision making and passive management predict higher degree of perceived crisis proneness and so does risk taking.
Research limitations/implications
More in‐depth research as well as larger and more diverse sample is required to explore more definitively why and how masculinity is positively associated with crisis proneness.
Practical implications
The paper provides preliminary evidence regarding the merits of feminine leadership traits as facilitators of CP This finding does not, however, preclude the usefulness of masculine attributes in managing actual organizational crises. The findings appear particularly relevant given the current turbulent business environments and the increasing frequency and magnitude of corporate crises.
Originality/value
The paper synthesizes evidence on CP proneness and gender, and the evidence of feminine attributes as an important antidote to perceived crisis proneness. The paper outlines reasons for this phenomenon and implications for placement of managers in current business arenas.