Student number 620027228
PSYM204
Essay
Leadership gender stereotypes: positive consequences of negative stereotyping.
“Is there some reason that my coffee isn't here? Has she died or something?” (The Devil
Wears Prada, 2006). The typical “ice queen” leader gender stereotype is depicted in the character of
Miranda Priestly, the Runway magazine editor. She acts as a “good” leader, and she seems to act
more masculine than feminine, and in the others’ eyes she does not look as a “proper woman” (the
female leader masculinity stereotype); single, which conforms another female leader stereotype.
Glick & Fiske (1999) suggest that characteristics, associated with leaders, mostly seem to be masculine,
e.g. authority and dominance. There is always a double standard, so female leaders get into a lose-lose
situation: when they are acting as a leader (hence, more masculine), they are thought to be acting
not as proper women, and if female leaders act more feminine, they may be thought to be not good
leaders (Ryan & Haslam, 2007). Furthermore, entrepreneurial behaviours may be seen as
inappropriate for women, as they are expected to be not self-serving (Eagly & Carli, 2007); males
“take charge”, females “take care” (Catalyst, 2005). Leadership stereotypes limit managements’
ability to take best of their employees’ skills and abilities, hinder productivity, and may also lead to
unequal pay, sexual harassment, personal frustration or discrimination (e.g. Ryan & Haslam, 2007).
Stereotypes are objective, hence are difficult to eliminate. The aim of this essay is to identify
positive consequences of negative gender stereotypes, which can be a possible option when
stereotypes are impossible to eliminate, as changes in people’s perceptions are difficult to achieve.
Leadership gender stereotypes and their positive consequences
Gender stereotypes are objective generalizations about one’s personality, character, skills, or
activities based on their biological sex. According to the role congruity theory proposed by Eagly &
Karau (2002), incongruity between leadership roles and gender roles, leads to prejudice in
judgments and attitude. Current gender stereotypes show men as “agentic” or “taking charge”,
achievement oriented; and women are seen as “communal”, “taking care”, being helpful,
relationship-oriented. Moreover, general associations with leader attributes (such as problem
solving, self-confidence, assertiveness, risk taking), and with manager attributes (such leadership
potential, being active and initiative) are stereotypically seen as typically masculine behaviour
(Heilman, 2001); “think manager- think male” (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Sczesny, 2003), “think
crisis-think female” (Haslam & Ryan, 2007). Haslam & Ryan (2008) suggest that there is a “glass
ceiling” which does not allow women to gain access to higher positions, leadership positions, and
moreover, they are more likely to be hired on positions with greater risk of failure. “The only time
to run a woman is when things look so bad that your only chance is to do something dramatic”
(cited in Burrell, 1993; 123). One of the reasons why the “glass cliff” phenomenon exists is that it is
believed that females, having such traits as tact, intuition and understanding, are seen as most
valuable and suitable for organizations in crisis (Madden, 2011). Perhaps, one of possible positive
consequences of this phenomenon is that female leaders who succeed in solving problems and
“saving” companies in crisis are on high demand in other companies: they have a status of
managers who succeeded in problem solving (which is an important quality in one’s profile), they,
in fact, are achievement oriented. In example, my mother has never been looking for a job by
herself – head hunters usually offer her worthy vacancies, as they consider her to be an experienced
manager, because in each company she succeeds in problem solving and saving the company from
crisis. However, there is a negative consequence as well: employers may hire such female leaders
only on those positions which expect problem solving and saving a company from crisis.
Based on Psychological research, Catalyst (2005) gives a list of qualities which are
commonly seen as typically women’s and men’s traits. Women’s traits, such as affectionate,
pleasant, sympathetic, mild, sentimental, warm, friendly and emotional, which conform feminine
stereotype, are less related to leadership. The researchers also state that women are more likely to
have position power in organisations, which relates to how leaders use their positions in
organisations for motivation of others. In fact, position power is usually associated with rewarding,
supporting, and mentoring. Whereas men’s traits are dominance, aggressiveness, achievement
orientation, being ambitious, tough, rational, unemotional and active. Catalyst (2005) suggests that
men are more likely to have interpersonal power, which is associated with team-building, inspiring,
and problem-solving, and relates to leader’s expertise and charisma, inspiration of others to achieve
common goals. Women are seen as lacking such kind of interpersonal power, and, consequently,
there is a general tendency of doubt in women’s problem-solving competence (which counters the
“glass cliff” phenomenon, where it is one of the main reasons why women get hired on high
positions). Warm and kind women may be seen as lacking authority and weak. Eagly (1992)
suggests that when a male manager acts in a forceful way, he is thought to be a good leader,
whereas a female leader would be considered unacceptably pushy.
Yet, you can get an effective result in both ways: warm and friendly female-dominated
group, or dominant and unemotional atmosphere in a male-dominated group. It also depends on
individual. In example, in a Ukrainian telecommunication company were both female- and maledominated groups. The female-dominated group achieved more effective results, as the male leader
in the second group appeared to be less ambitious and less goal-oriented. Forbes (2011) gives a list
of typical stereotypes about powerful women: Ice Queen, masculine, single and lonely,
tough, weak, emotional, angry, conniving. If a female leader is being emotional, she is seen as too
fragile or unstable, and if she is being professional and ambitious-she is icy and masculine. It is
believed that successful female leaders sacrifice their personal life, and spend more time on job.
Eagly & Johnson (1990) found that women leaders are more democratic than male leaders. They
also display more transformational leadership (which involves intellectual stimulation, inspiration
and motivation) than men, and most women actually succeeded in becoming leaders by adopting
the masculine style of leadership. Eagly suggests that “transformational leadership” which includes
team-building, inspiring, developing others’ skills, stimulating creativity, is the most flexible model
of leadership which is neither feminine, nor masculine.
Nevertheless, being an Ice Queen, as well as being masculine and tough, female leader is
respected and has more power, authority and opportunities. Furthermore, there is an example of
certain leader behaviour with possible consequences (on examples of famous persons who conform
the mentioned stereotypes), and female leaders may choose a management strategy. Such kind of
leadership is effective for organisations: female leaders who conform such stereotypes are problemsolving, achievement-oriented; they can cope with critical situations and maintain discipline among
employees.
Early study conducted by Schein (1973, 1975) revealed that both men and women were
more likely to choose a man as who possesses “typical” characteristics of a good leader. Other
stereotypes suggest that the female/male employee proportion, the amount of female leaders and
their masculinity/femininity depends on sector and industry. Traditionally, there are more female
managers in “typically feminine” service sectors and education (especially primary schools), while
in “typically masculine” sectors there are more male managers (Blum, Fields & Goodman, 1994).
This can be explained by gender roles in everyday and family life. Garcia-Retamero & LópezZafra’s (2006) study revealed that males were seen by the participants as masculine in a “typically
masculine” industry (i.e. auto manufacturing) and as feminine in a more feminine industry (i.e.
clothing manufacturing). Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) found that in male-dominated industries
both sexes did not differ in interpersonal leadership orientation, however in female-dominated
structures, women showed more interpersonal orientation. Another stereotype refers to the fact that
female leaders are more likely to have more authority and power in a typically female group (same
with males), as people may feel most comfortable with those who are similar to them (including
gender). According to Rhode (2000), women in traditionally male-dominated structures may remain
ignorant of professional development opportunities. In addition, same thing can be said about
women of colour: Edmondson Bell & Nkomo (2001) suggest that women may experience isolation.
A female leader in a mostly male group does not have much authority.
We can assume that the main positive consequence is that under such circumstances when it
depends on industry or sector, women are not hired on hard physical jobs. In case when in some
sectors groups are mainly of same gender, it is convenient for the employees: e.g. my male
colleague did not feel convenient on daily meetings because the female leader of our group was
giving too much unnecessary information, giving too many details and talking too much in general
while he was expecting a few necessary points and main ideas. Moreover, under such circumstances
when there is mostly a same-gender group, the positive side is that the same-gender leader may feel
more comfortable in such environment (as female and male leadership styles slightly differ), as well
as having more authority and being more respected.
Reduction of workplace gender stereotyping
Bowring (2004) suggests that avoiding bipolar attitude in research of leadership may show
more variable results: there is much more variability among women in their leadership styles, and
between men, but not just between genders (Hyde, 2005). Indeed, the perspective of comparing
female leaders separately from male leaders may show perspective of professional and leadership
development for both genders, comparison of female and male leadership styles and showing a
general universal profile of a leader.
Pittinsky, Bacon & Welle (2007) suggest that there is a difference (which leads to
incongruity between social and personal expectations) between how women think they should act,
how others expect them to act, and how women actually begin to act. The researchers propose a degendering strategy for leadership, the Great-Women approach, which considers not functions, but
styles and traits (Pittinsky et al. 2007).
UK studies have found that pre-teen girls were more likely to choose typically feminine
careers for future (e.g. nursing), as they were in doubt about their abilities and perspectives,
whereas boys were absolutely confident in their choices in industry (Bettridge, 2013). That means,
stereotypes influence kids’ perception as well. Perhaps stereotype elimination in childhood would
be one of the most important steps on the way of total change of people’s perceptions of leadership.
Rhode & Kellerman (2006) point out such individual strategies: self-awareness (women
should be clear on their values and goals); leadership styles and capabilities (to reach their goals);
models, mentors, and networks (support and guidance is needed); time management, work and family
choices (which means setting priorities); contributions and limits of self-help (useful points and limitations
of all-purpose self-help literature); women’s leadership on women’s issues. Indeed, women are personalities,
professionals, citizens, and mothers; female leadership is in their hands – they can build and challenge.
Among organisational strategies, the researchers distinguish: commitment and accountability (which stand
for ensuring equal access to leadership opportunities, responsibility for results in recruitment); measuring
and monitoring results (assessments of results, comparison, projects that ensure equal opportunities); life
quality, work/family initiatives (policies regarding childcare, leave, family issues; flexibility); mentoring and
networks (to improve employees’ skills, avoid isolation; encourage communication, sharing interests).
Indeed, such policies are necessary in each company: they ensure safety and development of employees.
If a group’s norms value equality, women can be seen as appropriate leaders for both female
and male dominated groups (Haslam & Ryan, 2007). Perhaps, establishing norms and rules in an
organisation, as well as encouraging learning more about each other would make a positive change
in elimination of stereotypes. Moreover, showing success of female leaders as an example,
especially in “masculine industries” would also make a positive change.
Remedios et al. (2011) have shown that adding negatively stereotyped information to other
negatively stereotyped information may show positive results. However, this may be inappropriate
in an organization.
It is also believed that leadership stereotypes are losing power, and a new type of leadership
– conscious leadership – is believed to be the style that blends traditional female and male traits
(Bettridge, 2013). Conscious leadership is built on respect, integrity, love, transparency, courage,
transformation, playfulness and co-creation. Indeed, hearing and understanding, accepting people
the way they are is very important for a leader. A good leader should be trustworthy and honest,
inspiring, productive and empowering, sharing true feelings, intellectually curious, have courage to
go on no matter what, express joyfulness of life.
To sum up, all of the mentioned in the essay concerns leadership management styles, but not
work in particular. In other words, it is more important how successful and effective one works,
therefore, the result is the most important. Counter-stereotyping, workplace policies, or ignoring
stereotypes is a personal decision of each manager. The author considers that each company
chooses options, styles and values which promote effectiveness of business development, and if that
means keeping a glass ceiling above female employee’s heads – that is the choice of the company.
References
The Devil Wears Prada, Dir. David Frankel. 20th Century Fox, 2006. Film
Goudreau, J. (2011). The 10 worst stereotypes about powerful women. Forbes. retrieved from
forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/10/24/worst-stereotypes-powerful-women-christine-lagardehillary-clinton
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109 – 118.
Haslam, A., Ryan, M, (2007) The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment
of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review Vol.32, No.2, 549572
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. New York: Wadsworth. 245-281
Heilman, M.E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995) Sex stereotypes: Do they influence
perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to
discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254 –263.
Mayhew, R., How to Reduce Workplace Stereotyping, Demand Media retrieved from
smallbusiness.chron.com/reduce-workplace-stereotyping-11114.html
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 78 –102.
Pittinsky, T., Bacon, L., & Welle, B. (2007) The Great Women theory of leadership: perils of
positive stereotypes and precarious pedestals. Pp. 93-125 in Women and Leadership: The State of
Play and Strategies for Change. Edited by Kellerman, B., and Rhode, D., San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998) Context and charisma: A meso level approach to the relationship
of organic structure, collectivism and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24,
643– 671.
Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999) Comparative processes in
personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 320 –338.
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005) Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:
Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 547–568.
Schein, V. E. (2001) A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675– 688.
Sczesny, S. (2003) A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager-thinkmale stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.