PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2006, 59, 815–846
MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE
STEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?
EMILY E. DUEHR and JOYCE E. BONO
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
As the number of women in management roles increases and organizations place a greater emphasis on diversity, a subsequent change in
perceptions of women as leader-like is expected. To test this notion,
we examined gender and management stereotypes of male and female
managers and students. Results reveal considerable change in male managers’ views of women over the past 30 years, as evidenced by greater
congruence between their perceptions of women and successful managers and stronger endorsement of agentic and task-oriented leadership
characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed
less, remaining strikingly similar to stereotypes held by male managers
15 years ago. Across samples, there was general agreement in the characteristics of managers but less agreement about the characteristics of
women. We also found men somewhat less likely than women to attribute successful manager characteristics to women. Respondents with
positive past experiences with female managers tended to rate women
higher on management characteristics.
In the United States, the number of women in the managerial and professional ranks has steadily increased. According to Catalyst, a research
and advisory organization committed to advancing women in business,
women now hold 51% of managerial and professional specialty positions
(Welle, 2004). Women also hold 51% of bachelor’s degrees and 45% of
all advanced degrees (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although these numbers are
larger today than ever before, the progression of women into executive
positions continues to be slow. For example, among the Fortune 500 companies, only 16% of corporate officers, 14% of board directors, 5% of top
earners, and just over 1% of CEOs are women (Welle, 2004).
Much research has focused on explaining the slow managerial advancement of women (e.g., Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005;
Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992), ruling out reasons such as lesser skills, education, and time out of the workforce. One plausible explanation that has
not been ruled out is that women face subtle barriers in the corporate climb.
In a recent survey of 120 CEOs and 705 female executives drawn from the
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Emily E. Duehr, 75
East River Road, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
55455; dueh0005@umn.edu.
C 2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.
COPYRIGHT 815
816
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Fortune 1,000 companies (Wellington, Kropf, & Gerkovich, 2003), 72% of
CEOs and 51% of female executives perceived stereotypes about women’s
roles and abilities to be an important barrier to their advancement.
Clearly, gender stereotypes are salient in organizations as a potential
barrier to advancement; however, the degree to which stereotypes persist
in the 21st century is unclear. Thirty years have passed since issues of
gender inequality in management and leadership reached the public eye
(e.g., Kanter, 1977), and in that time women have become more common
in the boardroom. As the gender balance in management changes, parallel
changes in hiring practices, mentor availability, and eventually gender role
stereotypes should follow (Kanter, 1977).
Over the course of the past several decades, there have also been
changes on the management front. Contemporary books and articles on
management describe management work in “qualities traditionally defined
as feminine” (Fondas, 1997, p. 257), such as helping and developing others, and building networks of relationships. In the academic literature, a
new genre of leadership (i.e., charismatic and transformational leadership;
Bass, 1985, 1998) has dominated recent research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
There is also ongoing debate about whether women now hold a leadership
advantage (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Vecchio, 2002, 2003).
Given the changes in both women’s work roles and models of leadership effectiveness, the aim of our research is to assess current perceptions
of men, women, and successful managers. Specifically, the purpose of our
study is to assess management and gender stereotypes today, comparing
them with those that existed in the 1970s and 1980s (Brenner, Tomkiewicz,
& Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973,
1975).
Gender Stereotypes: Time for Change?
Gender stereotypes are categorical beliefs regarding the traits and behavioral characteristics ascribed to individuals on the basis of their gender.
They serve as expectations about the attributes and behaviors of individual
group members (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000) and are considered one of the direct antecedents of discrimination at work (Dovidio &
Hebl, 2005). Typically, women are stereotyped as more communal and
men as more agentic. Communal characteristics are primarily concerned
with the welfare of other people, including attributes such as compassionate, kind, sentimental, helpful, and generous. Agentic characteristics
describe a more assertive, dominant, and confident tendency, including
attributes such as aggressive, ambitious, independent, and self-confident.
Agentic characteristics have traditionally been aligned with leadership
roles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002).
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
817
Gender stereotypes have been documented for decades. Although some
research suggests that stereotypes are not quick to change, even in the wake
of changing social influences (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow,
2001), it is clear that the social environment with respect to women has
been changing. The past several decades have included changes in the
legal environment (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action) and
associated changes in the extent to which organizations focus on equal
opportunity employment practices, both as a function of legal guidelines
and as a movement toward fostering diversity as a business goal (Rynes &
Rosen, 1995). Changes in attitudes toward women have also been documented (Twenge, 1997a). These environmental changes suggest two possible reasons why gender stereotypes may be changing, especially for
women in management. The first possibility is that a gradual change in
gender stereotypes may be occurring due to changing social roles (e.g.,
more women at work and in management and executive positions). The
second possibility is change due to organizational interventions, such as
diversity training aimed at decreasing gender stereotypes and other prejudiced attitudes. Both possibilities are discussed in the next section.
According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), agentic and communal
characteristics are differentially attributed to men and women because unequal distribution into occupations and families fosters such expectations
(Diekman & Eagly, 2000). As the distribution of men and women into
social roles shifts, perceptions of the characteristics of men and women
(i.e., stereotypes) should also change; however, change cannot be expected
to occur quickly (Lueptow et al., 2001). Recently, Diekman and Eagly
(2000) found evidence of changing conceptions of women, reporting that
stereotypes of women have shifted toward more masculine or agentic characteristics. In a meta-analysis, Twenge (1997b) reported that women’s
self-reported masculinity scores were rising over time and proposed that
this increase resulted from the changing social climate for women. Contrary to Twenge (1997b), Lueptow et al.’s (2001) review—which examines gender stereotypes based largely on self-report personality and direct
comparisons of men and women—suggested that gender stereotypes have
remained stable over time with a possible increase in the perceived femininity of females. Although neither of these streams of research focuses on
gender and management, they do suggest that whether or not stereotypes
are changing is an unsettled issue.
A decidedly different reason to expect changing gender stereotypes is
due to the increased focus on diversity in organizations, including specific interventions (e.g., diversity training) designed to foster this goal. It
is now estimated that organizations spend $8 billion annually on diversity training, and in a recent survey of Fortune 1,000 companies, 88%
reported providing diversity training on gender (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).
818
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Diversity training can be aimed at increasing awareness and appreciation
of differences between individuals or decreasing stereotypes held by organizational members. When focused on gender, the aim is typically to
identify stereotypes and promote inclusion, rather than highlighting differences between men and women (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Research
on schema change shows that once schemas are established, they are very
resistant to change, even in the face of disconfirming evidence (Epitropaki
& Martin, 2004; Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000). Epitropaki and Martin
(2004) stated that “unless specific interventions and conscious efforts by
management for schema change happen in an organization, organizational
members’ schemas are likely to remain stable” (p. 295). We suggest that
diversity training is precisely the type of intervention and conscious effort
needed to promote changes in gender stereotypes.
A recent study by Rudman, Ashmore, and Gary (2001) examined the
impact of diversity education on stereotypes and prejudices, and found
that training can reduce these biases at multiple levels. Not only did diversity education lead to a decrease in directly reported, explicit stereotypes,
but such education also reduced implicit stereotypes, which occur on an
automatic, unconscious level (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit stereotypes are thought to be more stable and enduring associations because they
have been learned through years of environmental influences (Kawakami
& Dovidio, 2001). If such associations can be unlearned through diversity
training, and diversity training is common in today’s work organizations,
then it is possible that gender stereotypes may be changing as a result
of direct interventions. If diversity training is a key factor influencing
stereotype change, we would expect to see greater change among those
individuals with more time and experience in the workplace, due to their
increased participation in such training.
Research Using the Schein Descriptive Index
A crucial consideration when examining gender stereotypes in work
organizations is the extent to which these stereotypes affect perceptions
of managers. Research within the Schein paradigm focuses on the relationship between gender and management stereotypes, reflecting the extent to which men and women are viewed as leader-like. In 1973, Schein
developed the Descriptive Index to assess the extent to which men and
women were perceived to have the requisite personal characteristics expected for management positions. Using a broad list of adjectives, Schein
found that the characteristics of successful middle managers were much
more similar to the characteristics commonly ascribed to men in general and not at all like the characteristics attributed to women in general.
Schein (1975) replicated these results with a sample of female managers,
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
819
demonstrating that it was not only males who held gender stereotypes in the
workplace.
In a key extension of the Schein paradigm approximately 15 years after
the original research, Heilman et al. (1989) examined the extent to which
gender stereotypes persisted in organizations. Heilman et al. (1989) replicated Schein’s (1973) original work and found stereotypical views about
the characteristics of men in general, women in general, and successful managers at a level that closely paralleled Schein’s (1973) findings,
suggesting little change in the stereotypes of male managers over time.
Heilman also extended Schein’s research by comparing successful managers to male and female managers and to successful male and female
managers, finding considerably weaker gender stereotypes when more information was provided about the managerial success of women (e.g.,
female managers or successful female managers).
Concurrent research with female managers yielded slightly different
results. Brenner et al. (1989) replicated the original Schein studies using
both male and female management samples. They found no evidence of
changing stereotypes among male managers; however, female managers
rated both men and women as similar to successful managers. This disparity between male and female respondents was due largely to differences
in their view of women, not in their view of successful managers.
Since 1989, researchers have continued to use the Schein paradigm to
identify gender stereotypes, but nearly all of this research has used student
samples. Although some researchers have argued that college students
would be less likely to report gender stereotypes due to a more egalitarian
social context (Lueptow et al., 2001), research using the Schein paradigm
has repeatedly shown that college students hold strong gender stereotypes,
especially the male students (Schein & Mueller, 1992). Similar results
have been reported among students in Germany, Great Britain, Japan,
and China (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy,
& Liu, 1996). This pattern of findings led Schein (2001) to conclude,
“In the United States many people believed that as women moved into
management, managerial sex typing would diminish. And it did, among
women. But men have continued to see women in ways that are not complimentary vis-à-vis succeeding in positions of authority and influence”
(p. 684).
This discouraging statement on gender and management stereotypes
may not apply uniformly to all men. Results derived from student samples may not generalize to employees in work organizations, especially
managers, who experience both increased exposure to women leaders
and direct interventions such as diversity training. Key replications of
the Schein paradigm with managers took place in the late 1980s, at a
time when women were fast increasing their presence in organizations
820
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
(Heilman et al., 1989), but since that time the number of women in leadership positions has continued to grow (Welle, 2004). Therefore, after
another 15-year period, the time is ripe to examine whether gender stereotypes held by managers have changed. It is not sufficient to rely solely
on student samples to address this question. Therefore, we included both
managers and students in our research to provide a more thorough portrait
of current gender and management stereotypes.
Since the first Schein (1973) study of gender and management stereotypes, there have been many advances in the literature with respect to the
conceptualization and measurement of stereotypes, and adjective checklists, such as the Schein Descriptive Index, have been criticized. Devine
and Elliot (1995) distinguished between ratings of stereotypes and ratings of personal beliefs. According to their distinction, the Schein Index
focuses on personal beliefs, which may or may not be congruent with
either knowledge or endorsement of stereotypes (see Kunda & Spencer,
2003). However, by aggregating the personal beliefs of male and female
managers and students, as we do in this research, we can examine the
gender and management stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g.,
male managers).
Recent stereotype research has also demonstrated differences between
explicit and implicit stereotypes (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert &
Hanges, 2005). Implicit stereotypes are the “introspectively unidentified
traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members
of a social category” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 15). Additional research has focused on the difference between descriptive (i.e., consensual
expectations about what men and women actually do) and prescriptive (i.e.,
consensual expectations about what men and women should do) stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins,
2004). We recognize both the complexity of stereotypes and their measurement and the possible role that implicit and prescriptive stereotypes
may play in the advancement of women in management. However, as the
purpose of our study was to compare views of men, women, and managers over time, it was necessary for us to use an explicit measure, which
due to its reliance on adjective descriptors of men, women, and managers,
assesses descriptive gender stereotypes.
A second concern raised by Devine and Elliot (1995) was the use of outdated adjectives, which may provide a limited description of men, women,
and managers. Given the changing leadership paradigms over the past
30 years, we felt it was crucial to add adjectives reflecting a broader range of
leadership styles. In particular, adjectives describing relationship-oriented
and transformational leadership were absent from the original Descriptive Index, whereas task-oriented leadership characteristics were wellrepresented. Task-oriented leadership behaviors emphasize group output;
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
821
such as establishing objectives and goals, structuring tasks, and evaluating work quality. In contrast, relationship-oriented behaviors emphasize
supportive personal relationships, a willingness to develop employees and
demonstrations of respect and warmth (Bales, 1954; Bowers & Seashore,
1966; House & Aditya, 1997). Although task and relationship-oriented
leadership have a long history in the leadership research, recent research
has focused more on transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers with
optimism and commitment to a compelling vision. They link work goals
to worker values, challenge established practices, and attend to the individual growth needs of followers (Bass, 1985, 1998). Given that recent
meta-analyses have highlighted the positive effects of both relationship1
(Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) and transformational (Judge & Piccolo,
2004) leadership behaviors on employee attitudes and motivation, group
performance, and leader effectiveness, we added adjectives describing
these behaviors to the index.
Most past research using the Schein Index examined each of the 92 adjectives individually. In order to make comparisons over time, we deemed
it important to use the original adjectives, but we also combined the adjectives to form several scales. In order to assess broad gender stereotypes,
agentic and communal scales were formed. In addition, we combined adjectives to form scales for task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented
leadership, and transformational leadership to better link this research
to current models of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judge
et al., 2004).
Individual Differences in Beliefs About Men, Women, and Managers
Although the primary purpose of our research is to examine stereotypes
held by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers, female students), very
little is known about the characteristics of individuals who predict their
beliefs about men, women, and managers. Most existing research using
the Schein Descriptive Index has used either student or managerial samples, preventing direct comparison among these groups. Moreover, when
comparing the stereotypes of managers and students, it is not clear whether
differences in stereotypes between these groups are due to the effects of
age, years of work experience, experience with female managers, or holding a managerial role. Therefore, an additional aim of our research is to
1
The Judge et al. (2004) meta-analysis uses the label consideration instead of
relationship-oriented leadership. These categories refer to comparable and concurrent programs of research. The labels have frequently been used interchangeably in research (e.g.,
Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Sczesny et al., 2004).
822
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
tease apart the source of differences between individuals in their beliefs
about men, women, and managers by examining personal characteristics
(i.e., age, gender, education) and organizational experiences (i.e., having
a female supervisor, being satisfied with a female supervisor).
Summary of Research Questions
Given the continued movement of women into management positions and changes in dominant leadership paradigms over the past several
decades, the time is ripe to examine whether anything has changed with
respect to management and gender stereotypes. To that end, we address
five specific research questions.
(1) Research Question 1. Have management and gender stereotypes
held by male and female managers changed relative to 15 and 30
years ago?
(2) Research Question 2. Have management and gender stereotypes held
by male and female students changed, and how do they compare to
the stereotypes of male and female managers?
(3) Research Question 3. If gender stereotypes have changed, what is
driving that change? Have views of managers changed, have views
of men and women changed, or have both changed?
(4) Research Question 4. Do the broad gender stereotypic (agentic, communal) and leadership-specific (task-oriented, relationship-oriented,
transformational) characteristics attributed to men, women, and
managers differ by sample?
(5) Research Question 5. Do individual differences in education, age,
management experience, and experiences with female supervisors
predict beliefs about men, women, and managers?
Method
Participants and Procedures
We used four distinct samples in this research: male managers, female
managers, male students, and female students. Managers (n = 620) who
participated in this research were drawn from a variety of public and private
sector organizations and came from a variety of job types (e.g., accounting, human resources, law enforcement, public works, etc.). All managers
were enrolled in voluntary leadership development programs. Data were
also collected from undergraduate students (n = 688) at a large public
university. Students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses and
received credit for their participation. They represented a broad array of
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
823
TABLE 1
Sample Characteristics for This Study
Sample
Male managers
Female managers
Male students
Female students
N
333
287
221
467
Sample characteristics
Age
Education
# Direct reports
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
Age
Education
# Direct reports
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
Summary statistics
M = 48 years, SD = 8.8
81% BA or higher
x = 9, SD = 13
85.2%
3.1%
1.7%
1.7%
M = 46 years, SD = 9.2
78% BA or higher
x = 9, SD = 10
88.7%
4.0%
0%
1.3%
Age
Managerial experience
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
M = 21 years, SD = 3.8
25% had been managers
Age
Managerial experience
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
M = 20 years, SD = 3.6
15% had been managers
79.6%
5.0%
1.4%
9.5%
78.6%
2.4%
1.3%
13.3%
academic majors, including economics, journalism, business, and psychology. Demographic information regarding participants’ age, race, education, and number of direct reports (for managers) is provided in Table 1.
The age of the managers in our samples is comparable to Schein (1973,
1975) and Heilman et al. (1989).
Surveys were administered to managers as an optional component of
a survey used in leadership development programs. Surveys were distributed during orientation and completed prior to the start of any formal
program activity. The research portion of the survey was clearly identified
as distinct from the leadership assessment, which was for developmental
purposes only and not provided to the managers’ organization. Therefore,
824
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
managers were encouraged to provide honest responses throughout the
survey as the results would be used for research purposes only. The research portion of the survey was confidential and anonymous and was
returned in postage-paid envelopes to the authors. Among the managers
who completed a leadership development survey, 82% also completed a
research survey. Surveys were distributed to student samples in several
small group sessions. Student surveys were anonymous.
There were seven versions of our survey, each one representing a different target condition. The seven conditions were (a) successful middle
managers, (b) women in general, (c) men in general, (d) women managers,
(e) men managers, (f) successful women managers, and (g) successful men
managers. The first condition (successful middle managers) is the control
condition and Conditions 2 through 7 are gendered conditions that range
in level of specificity (e.g., from women in general, to women managers,
to successful women managers). Participants were randomly assigned to
one of seven conditions. All seven surveys included the same list of descriptive adjectives and instructions but differed with respect to the target
group. For example, some respondents were asked to report the extent to
which each adjective was reflective of “women in general,” whereas others were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reflective
of “successful men managers.” Therefore, each participant responded to
only one target condition. The number of participants responding to each
target condition varies by sample and is reported in Table 2.
Measures
Gender stereotypes. A revised version of the Descriptive Index
(Schein, 1973), including the original 92 items plus 26 additional new
items (described below), was used to measure gender stereotypes and
characteristics of successful middle managers. Despite widespread use of
the Descriptive Index, there is very little information published regarding
its psychometric properties. Based on the suggestion of anonymous reviewers, we collected some post hoc data to address this concern. Among
a student sample (n = 30), we found the 2-week test–retest reliability to
be .90, suggesting relatively stable ratings for a given target condition. We
also examined whether ratings would differ if the control condition was
labeled “successful manager” rather than “successful middle manager.”
Among a student sample (n = 97), we found these ratings to be highly
correlated (r = .98), indicating similar perceptions of the characteristics
of managers (more generally) and middle managers.
We added 26 new items to the Descriptive Index to address concerns
about outdated adjectives (Devine & Elliot, 1995) and to better represent current styles of leadership. We added 13 new adjectives to describe
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
825
TABLE 2
Sample Breakdown by Condition of the Descriptive Index
Sample
Condition
N
Male managers
1. Successful middle managers
2. Women in general
3. Men in general
4. Women managers
5. Men managers
6. Successful women managers
7. Successful men managers
57
50
40
39
51
38
58
Female managers
1. Successful middle managers
2. Women in general
3. Men in general
4. Women managers
5. Men managers
6. Successful women managers
7. Successful men managers
36
35
36
35
48
50
47
Male students
1. Successful middle managers
2. Women in general
3. Men in general
4. Women managers
5. Men managers
6. Successful women managers
7. Successful men managers
32
28
36
31
33
36
25
Female students
1. Successful middle managers
2. Women in general
3. Men in general
4. Women managers
5. Men managers
6. Successful women managers
7. Successful men managers
65
72
70
77
58
60
65
transformational leaders. The new items were based on the most widely
used measure of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Each author separately
reviewed the MLQ and developed a list of adjectives that were reflective
of transformational leadership, resulting in 13 items to be added to the
inventory (see Appendix A). Additional items were added to reflect management characteristics that are relationship oriented, as such adjectives
were largely unrepresented among the original 92 items of the Descriptive Index. Participants responded to all 118 items using a 5-point rating
scale ranging from 1 not characteristic to 5 characteristic. Survey instructions were modeled after Schein (1975) and asked participants to rate each
adjective according to what they think the target group is like.
826
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 3
Intercorrelations Among Gender and Leadership Scales in This Study
Scale
1. Agentic
2. Communal
3. Task
4. Relationship
5. Transformational
1
2
3
4
5
.78
.33∗∗
.69∗∗
.03
.16∗∗
.73
−.06∗
.68∗∗
.60∗∗
.80
.39∗∗
.50∗∗
.87
.89∗∗
.94
Note. Combined sample = 1,363. Scale alphas are presented on the diagonal.
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
∗
We also used the original and new Descriptive Index adjectives to
form scales. Scales were chosen a priori and a judgmental sort was
undertaken by the authors. This method was preferable to an empirical
sort (i.e., factor analysis) because specific scales were selected based on
their theoretical relevance to gender and management stereotypes (Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly
& Karau, 2002). The selection of adjectives to form each scale was guided
by previous research. More specifically, with respect to broad gender
stereotypes, we formed agentic and communal scales using adjectives
or direct synonyms described by Eagly and Karau (2002). Furthermore,
an effort was made to include agentic and communal adjectives with both
positive and negative connotations, as in Diekman and Eagly (2000). This
process identified 14 adjectives from Schein’s original 92 to reflect agentic
and communal characteristics. With respect to leadership-specific scales,
we formed task and relationship-oriented scales based on recent research
by Sczesny (2003) and Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, and Schyns (2004), who
classified attributes into highly reliable task and person-oriented scales.
Whenever possible, we matched exact adjectives or synonyms from the
Descriptive Index to form these scales; however, several new adjectives
were included in the relationship-oriented leadership scale as these items
were underrepresented among the original items of the Descriptive Index.
We used the 13 new transformational leadership items to form a transformational leadership scale.
All gender and leadership scales and associated items are listed in Appendix A. Scale alphas and intercorrelations are presented in Table 3. The
relatively high intercorrelations reported between some scales were not
surprising. Notably, the correlation between the agentic and task-oriented
scales (r = .69) is in line with the stereotypic notion of task-oriented
leadership as more masculine, and the correlation between the communal and relationship-oriented scales (r = .68) reflects the more feminine
associations with this style of leadership (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Eagly
& Johnson, 1990). A high correlation between relationship-oriented and
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
827
transformational leadership was also anticipated, although the association
between our transformational and relationship-oriented scales (r = .89) is
somewhat higher than previous meta-analytic estimates of this relationship
(Miliffe, Piccolo, & Judge, 2005). Given the strong, positive correlations
between transformational and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors,
Judge et al. (2004) called for research aimed at assessing the extent to
which they represent distinct types of leadership behavior, but to date little empirical work has fully addressed this issue (see Seltzer & Bass, 1990
for an exception). Therefore, consistent with existing leadership literature,
we treat relationship-oriented and transformational leadership behaviors
as distinct constructs.
Individual differences. To address our goal of understanding better the
individual differences in characteristics that predict individuals’ beliefs
about men, women, and managers, we asked a limited number of background items at the end of the survey. Participants were asked to report
their age, gender, and level of education on a 5-point scale corresponding
to: high school, 1 = associate’s degree 2 = BA/BS 3 = MA/MS 4 = or
PhD 5 =. Managers were also asked to indicate the number of persons who
reported directly to them. Students were asked if they had ever been a manager. A small portion (15%) of the students reported having been a manager
for an average of 1.9 years. Due to the large discrepancy in experience and
age between students and the manager sample, we retained students with
management experience in the student sample. In addition to these items,
we assessed participants’ experiences with female supervisors, via two
questions: “Have you ever had a female supervisor (yes or no)?” and “If
yes, on average how positively would you rate the experience (from 1 =
poor to 5 = excellent)?” Participants were instructed to provide an average
if they have had multiple female supervisors.
Results
In reviewing our results, it is important to keep in mind that we have four
samples and seven conditions. Thus, in some cases we will be presenting
results of 28 different comparisons for a single research question. Table 2,
which describes the four samples and seven conditions in our study, may
be a helpful guide in following our results.
Original Items of the Descriptive Index
To determine the degree of correspondence between ratings of successful middle managers and men and women, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used. ICCs were preferable to Pearson’s correlations
for these analyses because ICCs consider both the relative correspondence
and the absolute agreement between ratings. As in past research, ICCs
828
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
were computed from randomized-groups analyses of variance where the
groups, or classes, were the original 92 adjectives. The scores within each
class were the mean item ratings for each adjective, provided separately
for each target condition and sample. ICCs were computed between the
control condition (successful middle managers) and each of the gendered
conditions, which are treated as independent samples.2 This process was
repeated separately for each of the four samples used in this study. The
resulting ICCs report the similarity of participants’ ratings of successful
middle managers to each of the six gendered conditions. A high correlation reflects similar ratings for a particular set of comparison conditions
(e.g., successful middle managers and women managers). The size of the
correlation between any two conditions reflects the degree to which the
comparison group (e.g., women in general or successful male managers)
is perceived to have characteristics similar to those of successful middle managers. If the difference in the correlations between two sets of
conditions (e.g., successful managers and men in general as compared to
successful managers and women in general) exceeds .29, the difference is
statistically significant (p < .05).3
Male and female managers. In Table 4, we present correlations for our
samples, along with correlations from past research using management
samples for comparison. The row label indicates which of the gendered
conditions is being compared to successful middle managers (i.e., Row
1 compares women in general and successful middle managers) and the
column label indicates which sample the data is drawn from. Most of
the correlations were significant, indicating more than a chance level of
similarity between the six gendered conditions and successful managers;
however, the magnitude of these relationships varies widely by condition
and sample.
The most notable change in results over time is in the comparison
between perceptions of successful middle managers and women in general.
2
The current use of ICCs as a measure of correspondence is comparable to a two-way
random effects model/absolute agreement in reliability analyses where two raters rated
92 objects. In our use of the ICCs, the raters are analogous to the control and gendered
conditions while the objects are adjectives. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing
this illustration to aid in understanding our analyses.
3
In our analyses using the Descriptive Index, the sample size is the number of adjectives (92), not the number of respondents in each condition. Therefore, if the difference in
the correlations between two sets of conditions exceeds .29, the difference between these
correlations reaches statistical significance (p < .05). We note that tests of statistical significance are heavily influenced by sample size, and correlations should only be compared
if variances are equal across samples (Cudeck, 1989). Because we do not have variability
data for the Heilman et al. (1989) data and variances in our data vary somewhat by sample
and target condition, the .29 difference marking significance (p < .05) between correlations
should be used with some caution.
.97∗∗
.98∗∗
–
–
.97∗∗
.93∗∗
–
–
.74∗∗
.86∗∗
–
–
.61∗∗
.81∗∗
.72∗
–
.62∗
–
.63∗∗
.54∗∗
.58∗∗
−.24
−.01
.06
Male
managers
–
–
–
.54∗
–
.30∗
Schein
(1975)
female
managers
∗
Note. Data from this study are presented in bold, in data Columns 4, 7, 9, and 11.
p < .01. ∗∗ p < .001.
Women and
managers
Men and managers
Women managers
and managers
Men managers and
managers
Successful women
managers and
managers
Successful men
managers and
managers
Groups being
compared
Heilman
et al.
(1989)
male
managers
Brenner
et al.
(1989)
male
managers
Schein
(1973)
male
managers
–
–
–
.59∗
–
.52∗
Brenner
et al.
(1989)
female
managers
Sample
.95∗∗
.98∗∗
.61∗∗
.49∗∗
.96∗∗
.70∗∗
Female
managers
–
–
–
.70∗
–
.11
Schein
et al.
(1989)
male
students
TABLE 4
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Various Samples and
Conditions for the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
.95∗∗
.93∗∗
.68∗∗
.40∗∗
.69∗∗
.10
Male
students
–
–
–
.51∗
–
.43∗
Schein
et al.
(1989)
female
students
.95∗∗
.98∗∗
.78∗∗
.45∗∗
.91∗∗
.35∗∗
Female
students
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
829
830
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Examination of the data in the row labeled “women and managers” reveals
a striking change over time in the extent to which male managers see
women in general as similar to successful managers. For male managers,
there was no significant correlation between ratings of successful middle
managers and women in general in 1973 (ICC = .06, ns) and small negative
correlations in 1989 (ICCs = −.01 and −.24, both ns). In contrast, there
was a large, positive, and significant correlation found in our data (ICC =
.63, p < .01). Results in Table 4 also reveal a change in the extent to which
female managers’ perceptions of women in general are similar to their
perceptions of successful middle managers (ICC = .30, p < .01 in 1973,
ICC = .52, p < .01 in 1989, and ICC = .70, p < .001 in 2003). Although the
change for female managers was less dramatic than that of male managers
and may have begun earlier, change over the 30-year period was steady,
sizable, and significant.
A comparison of the correlations between successful middle managers
and women in general with the correlations between successful middle
managers and men in general suggests that the male managers who participated in our study see men and women as both possessing many of the
traits of successful middle managers (ICC = .63, p < .001 for women in
general and ICC = .61, p < .001 for men in general). This finding represents a dramatic change in the perceptions of male managers over the
past 30 years. Results for female manager respondents in our study are
similar to those of men in that they tend to view both men and women
as possessing many of the traits of successful managers (ICC = .70, p <
.001 between women and managers and ICC = .49, p < .001 for men and
managers).
Our next step was to compare ratings of successful middle managers
to the men and women manager conditions. We found that both male
and female manager respondents described target women managers and
target men managers as similar to successful middle managers, with the
women manager condition being rated slightly more similar to successful managers than the men manager condition. Both the successful men
and women manager target conditions were described as highly similar
(ICCs ≥ .95, p < .001) to the successful manager condition.
Results in Table 4, addressing our first research question, suggest that
gender stereotypes have changed compared to 15 and 30 years ago. Male
and female managers now view men and women as similar to successful
managers. Change was most dramatic among male managers.
Male and female students. Results in Table 4 also include ICCs between successful managers and the six gendered conditions for our student samples along with correlations from Schein et al.’s (1989) student
samples for comparison. In contrast to the changes we found in our manager samples, our results suggest that less change has occurred in students’
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
831
gender stereotypes since 1989. Specifically, there was no correlation between male students’ views of successful managers and women in general
(ICC = .10, ns), similar to findings in 1989 (ICC = .11, ns). Some change
was apparent, however, in male students’ views of successful managers
and men in general. Although male students still see successful managers
and men in general as similar (ICC = .40, p < .01), this value is significantly lower than findings in 1989 (ICC = .70, ns). Among female
students, almost no change was evident. As in 1989, we found a significant correlation between female students’ views of successful managers
and women in general (ICC = .35, p < .01 and ICC = .43, p < .01,
respectively, in our sample and the Schein et al. [1989] sample).
When students responded to the more specific target conditions of
men and women managers, there were no significant differences between
male and female students. There was a slight trend for female students
to view women managers as more similar to successful managers than
male students did (ICC = .91, p < .01 and ICC = .69, p < .01 for female
and male students, respectively); however, this difference did not reach
significance.
With respect to our second research question, there appear to be small
changes in the gender stereotypes of male students and no meaningful
changes among female students in the past 15 years. Specifically, male
students still exhibit some of the gender stereotypes found in past research
(viewing men and managers as more similar than women and managers);
however, the strength of the association between men and managers may
have lessened over time.
Assessing Change
Given the evidence in our data that stereotypes may be changing—
especially for male managers—it is important to ask: What has changed?
Have managers’ views of men, women, successful managers, or all three
changed in the past 30 years? To answer our third research question, we
obtained mean adjective ratings for each of the seven conditions from
Heilman et al. (1989). We then correlated ratings from Heilman et al.’s
data with the data we collected for this study.
Examination of the first column in Table 5 (intraclass correlations
between male managers in 1989 and male managers in this sample) reveals strong (ICC = .91, p < .001) agreement between male managers’
perceptions of successful middle managers in 1989 and 2003. Furthermore, there is little change in male managers’ views over the 15 years
relative to the characteristics of men (ICC = .86 for men in general, .92 for
men managers, and .95 for successful men managers). Rather, it appears
that changes in male managers’ stereotypes over time are concentrated
832
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 5
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Samples for Ratings Within Condition
on the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers correlated
with current sample of:
Condition
Successful middle
managers
Women in general
Men in general
Women managers
Men managers
Successful women
managers
Successful men
managers
Male
managers
Female
managers
Male
students
Female
students
.91
.92
.89
.92
.53
.86
.72
.92
.87
.43
.89
.60
.88
.85
.88
.88
.72
.87
.91
.74
.86
.72
.87
.90
.95
.96
.93
.94
Note. All values are significant at p < .01.
on their views of women. Although there is a significant correlation
(ICC = .53, p < .001) between our male managers’ views of women
and the views of male managers in 1989, this correlation is significantly
smaller than the correlations across time for successful managers (ICC =
.91) and men in general (ICC = .86). The smallest correlation—between
male managers’ views in 1989 and male managers’ views in this study—is
in their perceptions of the attributes of women in general (and to a lesser
extent their views of women managers), suggesting that the changes we
reported in Table 4 are due to changes in the way male managers characterize women. Because Column 1 compares the responses of similar
samples of male managers in 1989 and 2004, results can be interpreted
as differences between the two time periods in the stereotypes of male
managers.
Table 5 also presents the correlations between all current samples’
characterizations of women and those of 1989 male managers (Row 2).
Results reveal that male students’ views of women in general in our sample
are strikingly similar to those of male managers in 1989 (ICC = .88,
p < .001), indicating that male students in our sample tended to gender
stereotype women in a way that makes them incompatible with the role of
a successful manager. Considered as a whole, results in Table 5 suggest
that views of successful managers (men, women, or gender neutral) are
consistent across time and samples; however, views of women are less
stable.
Next, we compare scores on the gender and leadership scales across
samples and conditions, addressing Research Question 4. In Table 6, we
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
833
TABLE 6
Mean Ratings on Gender and Leadership Scales by Sample and Condition
Condition and scales
Heilman et al.
(1989) male
Male
Female
Male
managers managers managers students
Female
students
Successful middle managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
4.10
2.96
4.18
–
–
3.70 a
3.39 a
4.18 a
4.29 a
4.32 a
3.64 a
3.29 a
4.16 a
4.12 a,b
4.22 a,b
3.60 a
3.28 a
3.95 a
3.91 b
4.02 a,b
3.82 a
3.23 a
4.07 a
3.92 b
4.03 b
Women in general
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
2.58
3.63
2.75
–
–
3.06 a
3.62 a
3.38 a,b
3.85 a,b
3.69 a,b
3.14 a
3.71 a
3.64 a
4.04 a
3.94 a
2.66 b
3.71 a
2.89 c
3.55 b
3.45 b
2.98 a
3.77 a
3.26 b
3.86 a
3.80 a
Men in general
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.76
2.76
3.59
–
–
3.74 a
2.73 a
3.73 a
3.17 a
3.35 a
3.74 a
2.70 a
3.62 a
2.91 a
3.17 a
3.76 a
2.68 a
3.68 a
3.09 a
3.21 a
3.81 a
2.81 a
3.80 a
3.06 a
3.31 a
Women managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.52
2.99
3.54
–
–
3.51 a,b
3.46 a
3.69 a,b
3.87 a
3.83 a,b
3.74 a
3.22 a
4.04 c
3.92 a
4.05 a
3.28 b
3.40 a
3.42 a
3.72 a
3.65 b
3.71 a
3.43 a
3.84 b,c
3.91 a
3.94 a,b
Men managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.95
2.85
3.84
–
–
3.87 a
2.77 a
3.86 a,b
3.43 a
3.62 a
3.90 a
2.55 a
3.72 a
3.03 b
3.29 b
3.90 a
2.82 a
3.93 a,b
3.23 a,b
3.46 a,b
3.90 a
2.63 a
4.00 b
3.19 a,b
3.30 b
Successful women managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
4.09
3.01
4.07
–
–
3.88 a
3.23 a
4.21 a
4.16 a
4.12 a,b
3.91 a
3.32 a
4.35 a
4.26 a
4.38 a
3.90 a
3.17 a
4.19 a
3.93 a
4.10 a,b
4.01 a
3.29 a
4.16 a
3.98 a
4.08 b
Successful men managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
4.23
3.09
4.29
–
–
3.98 a
3.15 a,b
4.32 a
4.15 a
4.29 a
3.91 a
2.85 c
4.17 a
3.81 b
3.98 a,b
3.81 a
3.28 a
4.19 a
4.03 a,b
4.14 a,b
4.08 a
2.97 a,b,c
4.30 a
3.71 b
3.86 b
Note. ANOVAs were conducted on the present data only. Means in the same row that
do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the Bonferroni post hoc comparison.
834
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
present scale means for each of the five scales (agentic, communal, taskoriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational) for each of the seven
conditions. These data are presented for our four samples as well as for the
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers; however, because the relationshiporiented and transformational scales were computed from new items, these
scales could not be computed from the Heilman et al. data. In addition,
we cannot compute effect sizes (d) or conduct tests of significance for
comparisons involving the Heilman et al. data because we have only mean
levels for target condition and scale. It is highly informative, however,
to examine the mean scale ratings across samples for changing trends. In
particular, change is evident in the scale ratings for the control condition of
successful middle managers. Relative to 1989 male managers, it appears
that current managers view successful managers as less agentic and more
communal. This movement toward greater balance in the stereotypically
male (agentic) and female (communal) characteristics of successful middle
managers is in line with arguments that modern leadership paradigms are
moving toward the feminine (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Fondas, 1997).
Relative to the 1989 male managers, current samples also tend to rate
women in general higher on agentic characteristics.
A series of ANOVAs revealed the gender and leadership scales on
which our four samples vary significantly in their mean ratings (see
Table 6). ANOVAs were conducted within each target condition to identify where samples vary in their ratings. When the overall F statistic was
significant for any scale, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons4 were used
to identify which samples were significantly different. Throughout Table
6, means in the same row that do not share subscripts were significantly
different (p < .05). These findings are consistent with our earlier conclusion that male managers’ views appear to be changing, whereas male
students’ views have not. For example, when examining scale ratings for
the condition of women in general, there are no significant differences
among male and female managers for any of the five scales. In contrast,
male students rated women significantly lower on agentic characteristics
and task-oriented leadership relative to all other samples. As an important
comparison point, ANOVAs for the condition of men in general revealed
no significant differences for any scale ratings. These results provide further support for the notion that the variation in stereotypes across samples
stems from differing views of women.
Results presented in Table 6 also suggest a same-sex bias among
female respondents for the leadership scales. For example, when comparing the managerial samples, female managers rated women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership, also rating men
4
Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were used to adjust the family-wise error rate to be
at or below the value initially set (p < .05) for all comparisons.
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
835
managers significantly lower on relationship-oriented and transformational leadership. Similarly, among student samples, female students rated
women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership. This
pattern suggests that female respondents attribute more leadership behaviors to women relative to male respondents. When comparing mean scale
ratings between target conditions, female respondents often rate women
higher on leadership scales as compared to analogous ratings of men (e.g.,
female managers rated women managers higher than men managers on
task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational leadership).
In summary, results in Table 6 reveal several instances in which male
students’ ratings diverge from ratings made by other samples, particularly
for the condition of women in general. Results also suggest a same-sex
bias among female respondents for the leadership scales.
Individual Differences
In our results and in prior research (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge,
Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Schein et al., 1989), there has been clear evidence that managers and students, and men and women, hold different
gender stereotypes, diverging most in the attributes they assign to women.
Therefore, the purpose of our final analysis, addressing Research Question 5, was to examine the role of individual differences in predicting the
beliefs that our respondents hold about men, women, and managers. The
dependent variable for this analysis is a composite of the top 12 characteristics of successful managers. We combined the data across samples in
the successful manager condition to identify the 12 items rated as most
descriptive of successful middle managers. These items were combined
to form a composite of successful manager characteristics (alpha = .90;
see Appendix B).
Zero-order correlations are reported in Table 7. Due to the large sample (N = 1,271), many of the correlations reach statistical significance;
however, some correlations are noteworthy, including the relationship between age and education and having a female supervisor (r = −.50,
p < .01 for age and r = −.25, p < .01 for education). Our next step
was to regress the successful manager characteristics composite on the
demographic and experiential variables. Because our earlier results suggest that differences between samples were most frequent in the female
conditions, these conditions were the primary focus of our regression
analyses. R2 values reported in Table 8 indicate that individual differences
among respondents explain significant variance in two of the female conditions (21% for women in general, 25% for women managers) but not
for the analogous male conditions (3% for men in general, 6% for men
managers). Across these two female conditions, results indicate that men
are generally less likely than women to view women as having successful
836
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 7
Intercorrelations Among Individual Differences Characteristics and
the Successful Manager Composite
Variable
1
Gender
–
Age
.23
Education
.19
Manager status
.23
Female supervisor
−.15
Satisfaction with female supervisor −.01
Successful manager composite
−.05
2
–
.57
.75
−.50
.04
.08
3
–
.55
−.25
.05
.03
4
5
–
−.42
.06
.05
–
−.10
−.06
6
7
–
.10 –
Notes. Correlations greater than .06 are significant at p < .05 and correlations greater
than .08 are significant at p < .01. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 =
female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is
coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).
TABLE 8
Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite
Target condition
Successful
Successful
Men in
Men
men
Women in Women
women
general managers managers general managers managers
Gender
Age
Education
Manager status
Female supervisor
Satisfaction with
female supervisor
R2
−.02
.02
−.14
.10
−.10
.00
.04
−.02
−.19
−.10
−.12
−.03
.07
.17
−.11
−.10
−.02
.00
Beta
−.19∗
.14
−.02
−.10
−.25∗∗
.28∗∗
−.25∗∗
.24
.07
−.02
.09
.36∗∗
−.11
.13
.06
−.20
−.06
.12
.03
.06
.02
.21∗∗
.25∗∗
.04
Notes. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2 = male), manager is
dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).
∗
p ≤ .05. ∗∗ p ≤ .01.
manager characteristics. We also found that individuals who were satisfied
with female supervisors in the past were significantly more likely to view
women as having successful manager characteristics. Lastly, it is interesting to note that having a female supervisor was significantly and negatively
linked to the successful manager composite only for the women in general
condition. Once we controlled for the quality of the relationship with the
female supervisor (and all other individual differences variables), those
who had a female supervisor were less likely to see women in general as
having successful manager characteristics.
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
837
Discussion
The purpose of our study was to compare gender and management
stereotypes early in the 21st century to those evident 30 years ago. Given
the influx of women into organizations and management positions as well
as an increased focus on diversity, the time was ripe to reevaluate gender
stereotypes. Similar to previous work examining gender stereotypes more
broadly (e.g., Twenge, 1997b), we found changes in the characteristics
attributed to women. Our results complement existing research reporting
increases in the perceived masculinity (Twenge, 1997b) and agency (Diekman & Eagly, 2000) of women. Furthermore, our results reveal that these
changes have led managers to rate successful managers and women more
similarly today than they did 15 and 30 years ago.
Considered as a whole, our results suggest that stereotypes about
women may be changing. Male managers, in particular, seem to be characterizing women as less passive and submissive and more confident,
ambitious, analytical, and assertive. In short, male managers—the individuals who serve as the gatekeepers to most executive suites—are rating
women as more leader-like than they did 15 and 30 years ago. The news is
not wholly positive, however, as male students today hold gender stereotypes that are surprisingly similar to those of male managers 15 years ago.
Furthermore, our regression results indicate that, controlling for age, education, and management status, men generally tended to view women (in
general and women managers) as possessing fewer of the characteristics
of successful managers.
At the same time that male managers are rating the sexes more similarly with respect to management characteristics, female managers’ gender stereotypes have shifted slightly toward a same-sex bias. Our results
suggest that female managers view women as more similar than men to
successful managers. This trend was particularly evident when we examined relationship-oriented and transformational leadership characteristics,
which may have a slightly more feminine flavor than traditional command
and control leadership styles of the past. These results are in line with others who have found a same-sex bias in stereotypes among women (e.g.,
Boyce & Herd, 2003; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004).
Whereas our results suggest change in male managers’ views of women
over time, we recognize several possible interpretations of our results. The
first explanation is that our findings reflect real change; most notably, male
managers have actually changed their views of women. If the change is
real, it could be a reflection of changing social roles, the result of direct
interventions such as diversity training, or both. Social role theory posits
that the influx of women into the workforce and management positions
reflects a redistribution of social roles, which should subsequently affect
838
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
the characteristics typically attributed to women. However, given the differences we find in male managers’ and students’ stereotypes, social role
theory explanations for the changes we found would apply only if social
roles have changed more drastically in work organizations than in the educational setting and family life, which represent the majority of college
students’ experiences with women. This is plausible because, despite their
increasing presence in work and leadership roles, women still continue to
be responsible for the bulk of home and child rearing duties (Cleveland
et al., 2000). Therefore, the differences we found between young male
students and middle-aged male managers in their views of women may
reflect their differential experiences with women in social roles. It is also
possible that when prompted with the condition of “women in general,”
male students and managers both envisioned their female peers, leading
male students to think of young female college students and male managers
to think of experienced female managers. Another reason why managers’
views of women may be changing faster than students’ views is that they
are more likely than students to have been exposed to diversity training
focused on gender, which tends to identify stereotypes and promote inclusion (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Recent research (Rudman, et al., 2001)
demonstrated that such training can influence both explicit and implicit
stereotypes.
In contrast to real stereotype change, a quite different interpretation
of our results is that male managers have simply learned that they are
expected to view men and women similarly at work. Given the social
climate in modern organizations that stresses equal employment opportunities and diversity, it is possible that male managers’ responses to our
survey reflect socially desirable responding. This is a possibility that we
cannot rule out; however, all managers in our study were responding to an
anonymous survey used only for research purposes. Surveys were never
administered or viewed by anyone in the managers’ organization but were
mailed directly to the researchers. Therefore, we made every attempt to
elicit honest responses from participants.
The third plausible explanation of our results is that gender stereotyping has decreased at an explicit level but continues to exist at an implicit
level, such that participants are genuinely unaware of their gender-based
preferences and prejudices. As our main purpose was to compare gender
and management stereotypes today to those held 15 and 30 years ago,
it was crucial we use the same methodology used in past research. The
downside of this decision is that we were not able to benefit from advances
in stereotype assessment over the past 30 years. Key advances include ratio
approaches to the measurement of stereotypes (e.g., Cota, Reid, & Dion,
1991; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; Martin, 1987) and implicit techniques
that measure latent response times, such as the Implicit Association Test
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
839
(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). We have no reason to suspect
that our results would greatly differ with a diagnostic-ratio approach, as
this method asks individuals to make explicit judgments on the characteristics of men and women. Indeed, socially desirable response patterns may
be even more likely when participants are asked to make direct comparisons (in this approach, all participants rate the probability that males and
females will have a given attribute) because participants may mitigate their
ratings of group differences in an attempt to avoid appearing prejudiced
(McCauley & Stitt, 1978). The distinction between explicit and implicit
stereotypes has only recently been examined in applied psychology (e.g.,
Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). By comparing explicit
and implicit stereotypes of male managers, future research may be able to
shed light on whether our results reflect real change or socially desirable
responding. There is also a need for more research on the relationship
between both explicit and implicit gender stereotypes and selection and
promotion decisions with respect to women in management.
Recognizing that our results may have been affected by socially desirable responding, the change in reported stereotypes about women is
noteworthy. It has been hypothesized that even a superficial change in
stereotypes may affect behavior. Kawakami and Dovidio (2001) argue
that explicit stereotypes, such as those we assessed, may predict blatant
and deliberative types of bias, whereas implicit measures may be better
predictors of subtle or spontaneous expressions of bias. Explicit stereotypes may also predict behavior when socially desirable responses are
salient (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997). Thus,
male managers who report more egalitarian beliefs may also behave in
ways consistent with their espoused beliefs, at least in some situations. A
less optimistic scenario is that male managers’ “politically correct” attitudes may be masking unidentified, implicit stereotypes that lead to subtle
sexism. Recent research has demonstrated that implicit racial stereotypes
predict discriminatory behavior, particularly in conjunction with a climate
for racial bias (Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). This possibility highlights the
importance of future research examining the relationship of explicit and
implicit stereotypes to behavioral indicators of sexism, such as male–
female work relations or use of sexist language (see Swim, Mallet, &
Stangor, 2004). In considering our results, it is also important to recognize
the multitude of other factors (in addition to implicit and explicit stereotypes) that influence both discrimination against women and women’s career advancement (e.g., career interruptions, mobility, mentor availability,
prescriptive stereotypes dictating how women should be, etc.).
In applying our results to the organizational context, it is important
to recognize some limitations in the type of gender stereotype research
reported here. Vecchio (2002) suggests that the use of imaginary people
840
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
as targets may reflect gender stereotyping that occurs primarily in the absence of specific information about an individual. It follows that our data
(and past studies using this approach) may tend to over represent gender
biases that actually exist in the hiring and promotion of women. Although
the purpose of our research was not to directly address discriminatory
hiring or promotion practices with respect to women, existing research
indicates that hiring discrimination that favors men has persisted (e.g.,
Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). Our aim was to determine whether or not
stereotypes are changing over time. Whether or not the stereotypes elicited
in a survey like ours influence managers’ promotion and hiring decisions
is an empirical question, and Vecchio (2002) presented a comprehensive
agenda for gender research, which addresses such issues. A related limitation of our research is that we did not assess prescriptive stereotypes. Our
measure focused on how women are viewed but failed to capture current
views of how women should be. It is possible that male managers might
currently view women as more agentic than in the past, at the same time
retaining beliefs that women should not be agentic. If this is the case,
then women who have the characteristics of successful managers may be
evaluated more negatively in managerial roles because their behavior violates prescriptive stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman et al.,
2004).
Another limitation of our research is that our data do not allow us to
speak to the nature of the change we observed, which could be alpha (actual change in the construct), beta (change due to stretching or shrinking
of the measurement scale), or gamma (participants completely redefine
the construct; Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976). We interpret
our results as alpha change, as we have no reason to suspect that beta or
gamma changes are present when comparing the Descriptive Index over
time. Recalibration of the instrument (beta change) does not seem likely
as we find change only in ratings for certain, specific target conditions
and samples (e.g., women in general as rated by male managers). Because
there is no change in most conditions, it does not seem likely that the
instrument has been broadly recalibrated. The assessment of gamma
change is considerably more complicated because there is no a priori
factor structure intended in the Descriptive Index. Furthermore, even with
access to original data, we would have to compare the factor structure of
the index within target conditions, which would not be possible due to
relatively small samples within target condition. Because we found more
agreement than disagreement in scale-level ratings for each target condition, we posit alpha change as the most likely explanation of our results.
A strength of our research was the consideration of gender stereotypes relative to new leadership paradigms (i.e., transformational leadership behaviors). Given our central purpose—comparing stereotypes of
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
841
men, women, and successful managers—it is important to reflect current
views of successful management. A second strength of our study was comparison of raw data from our samples to data collected by Heilman et al.
(1989). By comparing male managers in 1989 and 2004, we are able to
examine change in overall gender and management stereotypes as well
as change in the content of these stereotypes. A third key strength of our
study was the examination of individual differences. In past research, it
was not possible to examine why student and manager samples held different gender stereotypes. Our individual differences analysis leads to the
conclusion that it is not management position, per se, that affects gender
stereotypes. Rather, factors such as the respondent’s age, gender, and experiences with female supervisors influence stereotypes about women. These
results contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that influence
gender stereotypes. We found it interesting that it was not experience with
female supervision that affected stereotypes, but satisfaction with female
supervision. Rudman et al. (2001) similarly found that affective variables
were related to decreased prejudice and implicit stereotypes after diversity training. Our results highlight the importance of management training
for women, aimed at increasing their likelihood of success in managerial
positions.
With respect to the samples used in our research, we note both strengths
and limitations. One strength was the use of multiple samples, including
managers in a variety of industries and hierarchical levels and students.
We collected data from over 1,300 individuals. Nonetheless, when participants are split by gender and sample across seven target conditions,
the average sample size within condition is not large (mean = 47). This
raises some concerns over the generalizability of the findings and the possibility that sampling error influenced our results. We note, however, that
the high correlations we found across time in the ratings of successful
managers (both male and female) do lend some confidence to the validity
of our results, as sampling error would lead to instability in results across
time and samples. A second limitation of our sample is that most of our
participants were Caucasian and all were based in the upper Midwest region of the United States. Thus, it is important to replicate our results with
geographically, culturally, and ethnically diverse samples.
Overall, this study makes an important contribution to our knowledge
of management and gender stereotypes in the 21st century. Our results
suggest that gender stereotypes about women are changing in a way that
supports their advancement into management and leadership positions.
Male managers, who have been and continue to be the gatekeepers into
higher levels of management, rate women and successful managers as
more similar than they did 15 and 30 years ago. Despite these changes,
some individual differences in characteristics (e.g., male, young) are linked
842
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
to the persistence of gender stereotypes. In addition, our results document
the emergence of new stereotypes held by women about women. An important contribution of this research is its provision of up-to-date empirical
data regarding explicit management and gender stereotypes, which can be
used to substantiate, repudiate, or understand claims of female advantage,
gender inequality, and stereotypes in management and leadership. Our focus on explicit stereotypes also highlights the need for additional research
examining implicit stereotypes, as well as linking both implicit and explicit stereotypes to discriminatory behavior toward women at work.
REFERENCES
Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical
report. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
Bales RF. (1954). In conference. Harvard Business Review, 32, 44–50.
Bass BM. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass BM. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bowers DG, Seashore SE. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor
theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238–263.
Boyce LA, Herd AM. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite
military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49, 365–378.
Brenner OC, Tomkiewicz J, Schein VE. (1989). The relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669.
Cann A, Siegfried WD. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leader
behavior. Sex Roles, 23, 413–419.
Cleveland JN, Stockdale M, Murphy KR. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex
and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cleveland JN, Vescio TK, Barnes-Farrell JL. (2005). Gender discrimination in organizations. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp. 149–176).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cota AA, Reid A, Dion KL. (1991). Construct validity of a diagnostic ratio measure of
gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 25, 225–235.
Cudeck R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317–327.
Devine PG, Elliot AJ. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy
revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.
Diekman AB, Eagly AH. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the
past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 1171–1188.
Dodge KA, Gilroy FD, Fenzel LM. (1995). Requisite management characteristics revisited: Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 253–
264.
Dovidio J, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A. (1997). On the nature of
prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540.
Dovidio JF, Hebl MR. (2005). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and
affective factors. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp.
11–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
843
Eagly AH. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly AH, Carli LL. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.
Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Eagly AH, Johnson BT. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 223–256.
Eagly AH, Karau SJ. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Epitropaki O, Martin R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 293–310.
Fondas N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282.
Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S. (1976). Measuring change persistency in human
affairs: Types of changes generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Sciences, 12, 133–157.
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 4–27.
Greenwald AG, McGhee D, Schwartz JLK. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC. (1989). Has anything changed? Current
characterizations of men, women, and managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 935–942.
Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to
women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 416–427.
House RJ, Aditya RN. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal
of Management, 23, 409–473.
Jackson LM, Esses VM, Burris CT. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination:
The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 48–61.
Jayne M, Dipboye R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43, 409–424.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–
768.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 36–51.
Kanter RM. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kawakami K, Dovidio JF. (2001). The reliability of implicit stereotyping. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 212–225.
Kunda Z, Spencer SJ. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color
judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522–544.
Labianca G, Gray B, Brass DJ. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change
during empowerment. Organization Science, 11, 235–257.
844
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow MB. (2001). Social change and the persistence
of sex typing: 1974–1997. Social Forces, 80, 1–35.
Martell RF, DeSmet AL. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs about the
leadership abilities of male and female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 1223–1231.
Martin CL. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 489–499.
McCauley C, Stitt DL. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929–940.
Miliffe K, Piccolo RF, Judge TA. (2005, April). Consideration, initiating structure, and
transformational leadership. Poster presentation at the 21st Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. (2001). “Unlearning” automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 856–868.
Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why
do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 494–509.
Rynes S, Rosen B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived
success of diversity training. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 247–270.
Schein VE. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein VE. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
340–344.
Schein VE. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. The Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.
Schein VE, Mueller R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447.
Schein VE, Mueller R, Jacobson C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes
and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20,
103–110.
Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T, Liu J. (1996). Think manager—Think male: A global
phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.
Sczesny S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager—
think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.
Sczesny S, Bosak J, Neff D, Schyns B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of
leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631–645.
Seltzer J, Bass BM. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693–703.
Stroh LK, Brett JM, Reilly AH. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male
managers’ career progression. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251–260.
Swim JK, Mallet R, Stangor C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of
sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117–128.
Twenge JM. (1997a). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.
Twenge JM. (1997b). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis.
Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.
Vecchio RP. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643–
671.
Vecchio RP. (2003). In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835–850.
EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO
845
Welle B. (2004, April). What’s holding women back? Barriers to women’s advancement as
perceived by top executives. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Wellington S, Kropf MB, Gerkovich PR. (2003). What’s holding women back? Harvard
Business Review, 81, 18–19.
Ziegert JC, Hanges PJ. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes,
motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
553–562.
APPENDIX A
Items in Various Scales
Agentic Characteristics
Aggressive
Ambitious
Analytical Ability
Assertive
Dominant
Forceful
Self-confident
Communal Characteristics
Aware of the feelings of others
Creative
Helpful
Kind
Passive
Submissive
Sympathetic
Task-Oriented Leadership
Competent
Competitive
Decisive
Independent
Industrious
Intelligent
Logical
Objective
Skilled in business matters
Speedy recovery from emotional disturbances
∗
Relationship-Oriented Leadership
∗
Compassionate
∗
Cooperative
∗
Fair
∗
Good listener
∗
Inclusive
Intuitive
∗
Shows appreciation
Sociable
Tactful
Understanding
Transformational Leadership
∗
Attends to the needs of others
∗
Considerate
∗
Considers others’ ideas
∗
Encouraging
∗
Energetic
∗
Enthusiastic
∗
Inspiring
∗
Open-minded
∗
Optimistic
∗
Sense of purpose
∗
Sincere
∗
Supportive
∗
Trustworthy
Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.
846
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
APPENDIX B
Items Rated Most Characteristic of Successful Middle Managers
Attribute
Leadership ability
Competent
∗
Knowledgeable
Consistent
Self-confident
∗
Trustworthy
Self-controlled
Well-informed
Intelligent
∗
Fair
∗
Sense of purpose
Skilled in business matters
Mean rating
4.61
4.58
4.49
4.48
4.43
4.37
4.35
4.35
4.34
4.33
4.33
4.33
Note. These items were selected from the total 118 adjectives as those most highly
endorsed in the successful middle manager condition. N = 215 list-wise.
∗
Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.