CHAP 7:
1. Compare the earlier LMX studies, which described in-groups and out-groups to the
leadership-making studies in which there are three phases. How is it more helpful to
describe LMX in three phases instead of categorizing in- and out-groups?
Ans: Earlier Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) studies primarily focused on the dichotomy
of in-groups and out-groups within an organization. In this framework, in-groups consist of
members who have high-quality relationships with their leaders, characterized by mutual
trust, respect, and obligation. These members often receive more information, influence,
confidence, and concern from their leaders. Conversely, out-groups are composed of
members who have low-quality relationships with their leaders, marked by limited
interactions, formal communication, and a lack of mutual trust and respect. Members of outgroups typically receive fewer opportunities and resources, leading to less involvement and
lower job satisfaction.
2. LMX theory assumes that improved exchanges between leaders and followers are
desirable. When might a follower not want “improved career-oriented social exchanges”
with a leader?
Ans: When they are planning on leaving the job. If they do not respect the leader and do
not want a relationship with them.
LMX theory indeed assumes that improved exchanges between leaders and followers are
generally desirable. However, there are several situations where a follower might not
want "improved career-oriented social exchanges" with a leader. Here are some
scenarios:
Planning to Leave the Job: If a follower is considering leaving the organization, they
might not see the value in investing time and effort into building a stronger relationship
with their leader. They may prefer to maintain a professional distance and focus on their
transition out of the company.
Lack of Respect for the Leader: If a follower does not respect their leader due to
perceived incompetence, unethical behavior, or conflicting values, they may not desire a
closer relationship. In such cases, the follower might prefer to keep interactions strictly
professional and minimal.
Personal Work Preferences: Some followers may prefer a clear separation between
their work and personal lives. They might value their independence and autonomy and
may not seek closer social exchanges with their leader, preferring instead to focus on
their tasks without additional relational obligations.
Past Negative Experiences: A follower who has had negative experiences with leaders
in the past might be wary of forming close relationships with current leaders. This
apprehension can stem from fear of favoritism, being taken advantage of, or previous
betrayals of trust.
Workload and Time Constraints: Followers who are already overwhelmed with their
current workload may not have the time or energy to invest in developing a closer
relationship with their leader. They might prioritize completing their tasks over engaging
in additional social exchanges.
Different Career Goals: If a follower's career goals do not align with the opportunities
provided by their current leader or organization, they may not see the benefit of fostering
a closer relationship. For instance, if they are planning a career change or seeking
opportunities in a different field, building a closer relationship with their current leader
might not be relevant to their future plans.
Fear of Unwanted Expectations: Some followers might fear that closer relationships
with leaders could lead to increased expectations or demands that they are not willing or
able to meet. They might worry about additional responsibilities, longer hours, or greater
scrutiny.
Perceived Inequity or Favoritism: If followers perceive that improved exchanges lead
to favoritism or inequitable treatment within the team, they might avoid pursuing such
relationships to maintain a sense of fairness and avoid potential conflicts with their peers.
3. LMX theory has been studied from various perspectives over the past 40 years.
Briefly describe the three major stages of LMX theory development.
Ans: Stage 1: vertical dyad linkage theory and identified in-groups and out-groups based
on relational role exchanges. Stage 2: LMX was applied to organizational effectiveness,
such as employee performance. Stage 3: leadership making, which studies how leadermember relations develop over time from the stranger phase to the mature phase.
4. What are the advantages of studying leadership from a dyadic perspective?
Ans: Emphasizes importance of communication in leadership. Emphasizes unique
relationship with each follower. Effective leadership is contingent on effective leader-member
exchanges.
Studying leadership from a dyadic perspective offers several significant advantages, which
highlight the importance of individual interactions and personalized leadership approaches.
Here are the key benefits:
Emphasizes the Importance of Communication:The dyadic perspective underscores the
critical role of communication in leadership. It focuses on the quality and frequency of
interactions between leaders and followers, demonstrating how effective communication
fosters trust, understanding, and collaboration.
Highlights Unique Relationships with Each Follower:This approach recognizes that each
leader-follower relationship is unique. It allows leaders to tailor their interactions based on
the specific needs, strengths, and development areas of each follower, leading to more
personalized and effective leadership.
Focuses on Individualized Attention:By examining leadership at the dyadic level, leaders
can provide individualized attention and support. This can lead to higher levels of
engagement, motivation, and job satisfaction among followers, as their specific concerns and
aspirations are addressed.
Promotes Mutual Influence and Development:This approach acknowledges that leadership
is a two-way street, where both leaders and followers influence each other. It encourages a
more collaborative and developmental relationship, where both parties can learn and grow
through their interactions.
Improves Organizational Outcomes: High-quality leader-member exchanges (LMX) are
associated with various positive organizational outcomes, such as increased productivity,
better job performance, reduced turnover, and enhanced organizational commitment.
Studying leadership dyadically can help leaders create the conditions for these outcomes to
emerge.
Encourages Flexibility and Adaptability:Leaders who adopt a dyadic approach are more
likely to be flexible and adaptable in their leadership style. They can adjust their approach
based on the evolving needs and circumstances of each follower, leading to more responsive
and adaptive leadership.
5. What is the benefit to the leader of having a high-quality relationship with
employees?
Ans: Group members are viewed as dependable and more committed. Group members
may take on tasks beyond their job descriptions. Group members may perform better and
have less turnover.
Having high-quality relationships with employees offers several benefits to leaders,
enhancing overall team performance and organizational effectiveness. Here are the key
advantages:
Improved Performance:High-quality leader-member exchanges are associated with better
job performance. Employees who have positive relationships with their leaders are typically
more motivated, engaged, and aligned with organizational goals. This results in higher
productivity, better quality of work, and more innovative contributions.
Reduced Turnover:Employees who enjoy a strong, supportive relationship with their leaders
are less likely to leave the organization. Lower turnover means that leaders can retain
experienced and skilled employees, reducing the costs and disruptions associated with
recruiting and training new staff.
Enhanced Communication:High-quality relationships facilitate open and effective
communication. Employees are more likely to share ideas, provide feedback, and
communicate concerns, enabling leaders to address issues proactively and make informed
decisions.
Increased Job Satisfaction:When employees feel supported and appreciated by their leaders,
their job satisfaction tends to increase. Satisfied employees are generally more positive,
cooperative, and willing to put in extra effort, contributing to a more harmonious and
productive work environment.
Better Collaboration and Team Cohesion:Strong leader-member relationships can enhance
overall team cohesion. Employees are more likely to work well together, support each other,
and collaborate effectively when they see their leader fostering a positive and inclusive
environment.
Higher Levels of Trust and Loyalty:Trust is a critical component of high-quality
relationships. When leaders build trust with their employees, it fosters loyalty and a sense of
mutual respect. Loyal employees are more likely to stay committed during challenging times
and support their leaders' initiatives.
Personal and Professional Development:Leaders can benefit from the diverse perspectives
and talents of their employees. High-quality relationships encourage a two-way exchange of
knowledge and skills, allowing leaders to learn and grow alongside their team members.
6. What is the relationship between LMX and employee empowerment?
Ans: In Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar (2009) empowerment moderates the impact of
LMX on job outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, turnover, job performance, and
organizational citizenship behaviors). They found that empowerment and leader-member
exchange quality had a slight synergistic effect on job outcomes. The quality of LMX
mattered most for employees who felt little empowerment. For these employees, highquality leader-member exchange appeared to compensate for the drawbacks of not being
empowered.
CHAP 8
1. Explain the relationship between transformational, transactional, and charismatic
leadership.
Ans: Transactional leadership involves exchanges between leaders and followers
Transformational leadership may take place alongside transactional leadership but focuses
instead on elevating the motivation and morality of both the leader and follower
Transformational and charismatic leadership share the characteristics of strong moral values
and strong desire to influence others Charisma alone does not account for transformational
leadership. (Here the student could compare the five behaviors of charismatic leadership with
the four factors of transformational leadership.)
2. Explain why some researchers have predicted that transformational leadership may
be less effective with Millennials. Do you agree with those predictions? Explain.
Ans: Some assume that Millennials may be less willing to collaborate with others to achieve
common goals. Relatedly, today’s transformational leaders communicate in a way to encourage
followers to prioritize organizational and task needs and goals over individual interests
(Anderson et al., 2017). However, it is predicted that this will be met with resistance as
Millennials have expressed a greater desire for work-life balance and want to “work to live”
rather than “live to work,” (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Finally, it has been suggested that
because Millennials expect frequent promotions and value extrinsic rewards (transactional
factors), two of the fundamental components of transformational leadership--idealized
influence and inspirational motivation--may be ineffective (Anderson et al. 2017). Students
may then provide support for their arguments to support or to refute these predictions.
3. Identify at least five effects that charismatic leadership can have on followers. Under
what conditions are these effects likely to occur? What cautions might you offer to
followers of a charismatic leader?
Ans: Trust in leader's ideology; belief similarity between leader and follower; unquestioning
acceptance; affection toward leader; obedience; identification with leader; emotional
involvement; heightened goals; increased confidence. Remain aware of how you are being
influenced and in what directions you are being asked to go.
Charismatic leadership can profoundly impact followers in various ways. Here are five notable
effects:
Trust in Leader's Ideology: Followers tend to have a strong belief in the leader's vision and
values. This trust is rooted in the leader's ability to articulate a compelling and inspiring vision
that resonates deeply with the followers' own values and aspirations.
Belief in Similarity Between Leader and Follower: Followers often perceive a shared
identity or values with the charismatic leader, fostering a sense of connection and alignment.
This perceived similarity can enhance loyalty and dedication to the leader's cause.
Unquestioning Acceptance: Charismatic leaders can elicit a high degree of acceptance from
their followers, where followers may accept the leader's directives and ideas without critical
examination. This acceptance stems from the leader's persuasive communication and the
emotional bonds formed.
Affection Toward Leader: Followers often develop strong emotional attachments and
affection toward charismatic leaders. This bond is typically reinforced by the leader's personal
charm, confidence, and empathetic communication.
Heightened Goals and Increased Confidence: Charismatic leaders inspire followers to set
higher goals and believe in their capabilities. The leader's confidence and enthusiasm can be
contagious, leading followers to pursue ambitious objectives with increased motivation and
self-assurance.
These effects are more likely to occur under the following conditions:





Crisis or Uncertainty: During times of crisis or significant uncertainty, followers are
more likely to seek strong, confident leadership. Charismatic leaders who offer clear
and compelling visions can be particularly influential in such contexts.
Strong Emotional Communication: The leader's ability to communicate with
passion, conviction, and empathy can significantly enhance their influence. Effective
use of rhetoric and storytelling can further strengthen the leader-follower bond.
Shared Values and Identity: When followers perceive that the leader shares their
values, beliefs, and identity, they are more likely to develop trust and affection
towards the leader.
Leader's Demonstrated Competence: A track record of success or demonstrated
competence can enhance the leader's credibility and the followers' confidence in the
leader's vision.
Organizational Culture and Structure: In organizations with a culture that values
innovation, risk-taking, and visionary thinking, charismatic leaders may find it easier
to inspire and influence their followers.
While charismatic leadership can be highly effective, it also carries risks. Followers should
be mindful of the following cautions:




Maintain Critical Thinking: It's essential to retain a level of critical thinking and not
accept all directives unquestioningly. Evaluate the leader's decisions and ideas
critically to ensure they align with ethical standards and long-term objectives.
Beware of Over-Reliance: Over-reliance on a charismatic leader can stifle
independent thought and innovation among followers. It's important to develop and
trust one's own judgment and capabilities.
Watch for Manipulation: Charismatic leaders can sometimes use their influence
manipulatively. Followers should be aware of any signs of coercion or undue pressure
and ensure that their actions align with their own values and principles.
Avoid Cult of Personality: Focusing too much on the leader's personality can distract
from the organizational mission and goals. Followers should prioritize the vision and
objectives over the leader's charisma.

Balance Emotion with Rationality: While emotional involvement can be motivating,
decisions should be balanced with rational analysis and practical considerations to
avoid potential pitfalls associated with purely emotion-driven actions.
4. Compare and contrast the laissez-faire leader discussed in the transformation
approach and the delegating leader discussed in the Situational Leadership Model.
Ans: They are similar because both types of leaders are nondirective and not controlling of
subordinates. Both laissez-faire and delegative leaders allow subordinates to set their own goals
and to select their own ways of achieving them. They are dissimilar because laissez-faire
leaders abdicate responsibility, give no feedback, and make little effort to help followers satisfy
their needs, while delegative leaders make themselves available to subordinates, give feedback
when asked, and accept responsibility for the well-being and goal accomplishments of their
subordinates.
5. Describe how the transformational leadership factors in the Full Range Model of
Transformational Leadership are similar to Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of
exemplary leadership.
Ans: the similarities between the factors in the Full Range Model of Transformational
Leadership and Kouzes and Posner's five practices of exemplary leadership:
Individualized Consideration and Enabling Others to Act/Encouraging the Heart: Both
concepts emphasize the importance of supporting individual team members. Individualized
consideration involves understanding and addressing the unique needs and aspirations of each
follower, similar to enabling others to act by empowering them and encouraging their
personal and professional growth. Additionally, encouraging the heart involves recognizing
and celebrating the contributions and achievements of team members, which aligns with the
idea of considering individuals' needs and providing support.
Idealized Influence/Model the Way: Idealized influence in transformational leadership
refers to leaders serving as role models and inspiring followers through their actions and
behaviors. This is akin to Kouzes and Posner's concept of modeling the way, where leaders
demonstrate integrity, set an example, and establish clear standards of behavior. Both
emphasize the importance of leaders embodying the values and principles they espouse.
Inspirational Motivation and Inspire a Shared Vision: Both transformational leadership
and Kouzes and Posner's model highlight the significance of vision and inspiration.
Inspirational motivation involves communicating a compelling vision and inspiring
enthusiasm and commitment among followers. Similarly, inspiring a shared vision focuses on
creating a shared sense of purpose and direction, rallying people around a common goal. Both
emphasize the leader's role in articulating a vision that inspires and motivates others.
Intellectual Stimulation and Challenge the Process: Transformational leadership
emphasizes intellectual stimulation, encouraging followers to think creatively, challenge
assumptions, and explore new ideas. Similarly, challenging the process in Kouzes and
Posner's model involves questioning the status quo, seeking innovative solutions, and
fostering a culture of continuous improvement. Both concepts promote creativity, innovation,
and a willingness to challenge conventional thinking.
CHAP 12:
1. The word “leader” is not used in the textbook’s definition of followership. Why not?
Explain your thinking.
Ans: The term “leader” is not explicitly used in the definition of followership as presented in
the textbook to recognize the notion that when people are in groups, leadership can emerge
from anywhere. In this sense, a single person can be a follower in the group in one context and
in another context may step up and take a leadership role. The flexibility in the definition allows
for these leader/follower roles to be played dynamically versus viewing group members in
fixed positions.
2. Think of a workplace or organization within which you have been a follower recently.
Using one of the followership typologies from the text and its associated dimensions, name
what type of follower you are. Use examples of your behavior and a leader’s behavior to
support your claim.
Ans: “In a recent role at a nonprofit organization, I functioned as a follower under the executive
director, who served as the leader. Using Kelley’s followership typology, I identified myself as
an "Exemplary" follower. Kelley’s model evaluates followers based on two dimensions: the
level of engagement (active vs. passive) and independent critical thinking (independent vs.
dependent).
Context and Leader's Behavior
The executive director (ED) of the nonprofit was highly visionary, consistently providing
clear strategic goals and fostering an open-door policy for feedback and suggestions. The
ED's behavior was supportive and empowering, encouraging team members to take
initiative and be proactive in their roles. Regular team meetings were held to discuss
progress, address challenges, and brainstorm solutions
My Behavior as a Follower
In this environment, I demonstrated high levels of both engagement and independent
critical thinking. Some specific behaviors include:
Proactivity: I frequently took the initiative to propose new projects and improvements to
existing processes. For example, I suggested and later spearheaded a project to improve our
donor management system, which significantly enhanced our fundraising capabilities.
Critical Thinking: I regularly analyzed organizational processes and offered constructive
feedback. During strategic planning sessions, I didn't hesitate to question assumptions or
suggest alternative approaches. For instance, I advocated for a data-driven approach to
assess the impact of our programs, which led to more informed decision-making.
Supportive Leadership: I actively supported the ED’s initiatives by mobilizing the team and
ensuring alignment with the organizational vision. I often facilitated team discussions to
ensure everyone’s input was considered and consolidated feedback to present to the ED,
promoting a collaborative environment.
Analysis Using Kelley’s Typology
Active Engagement: My behavior was characterized by a high level of active engagement.
I took initiative in my role, participated actively in discussions, and was committed to the
organization's success.
Independent Critical Thinking: I consistently demonstrated independent critical thinking
by not just executing tasks but also by questioning and improving how things were done.
My proactive approach to problem-solving and willingness to voice constructive critiques
exemplified this dimension.”
3. Create your own original typology of followership. How many dimensions would it
include, and what are those dimensions? Name and describe each of the resulting types
of followers.
Ans: “Typology of Followership: The CARE Model
My original followership typology, called the CARE Model, includes two
dimensions: Engagement Level and Critical Thinking. These dimensions are chosen to
reflect how actively followers participate and how thoughtfully they contribute to the
organization.
Dimensions:
1. Engagement Level:
o High Engagement: Followers who are actively involved in organizational
activities, initiatives, and discussions.
o Low Engagement: Followers who are minimally involved, only participating
when explicitly required.
2. Critical Thinking:
o High Critical Thinking: Followers who consistently analyze, evaluate, and
provide constructive feedback on processes and decisions.
o Low Critical Thinking: Followers who primarily follow directions without
questioning or evaluating the status quo.
Follower Types:
1. Champions (High Engagement, High Critical Thinking):
o Description: Champions are the ideal followers who actively participate and
engage in organizational activities. They critically assess situations, provide
valuable insights, and suggest improvements.
o Example: A team member who not only joins every meeting but also
contributes innovative ideas and thoughtfully critiques existing strategies to
enhance efficiency.
2. Supporters (High Engagement, Low Critical Thinking):
o Description: Supporters are highly engaged in organizational activities and
are eager to help but tend to follow directions without questioning. They are
reliable and hardworking but do not often challenge the status quo.
o Example: A dedicated employee who volunteers for every project and task
but usually sticks to given instructions and rarely offers alternative solutions.
3. Critics (Low Engagement, High Critical Thinking):
o
Description: Critics are not highly engaged in day-to-day activities but when
they do participate, they offer sharp, insightful critiques and analyses. They
provide valuable feedback that can lead to significant improvements but need
motivation to increase their overall engagement.
o Example: A part-time consultant who provides thorough evaluations and
strategic advice during periodic reviews but is not involved in regular
operational tasks.
4. Participants (Low Engagement, Low Critical Thinking):
o Description: Participants engage minimally and tend to follow instructions
without questioning. They contribute to the basic functioning of the
organization but do not take initiative or provide critical feedback.
o Example: An employee who completes their assigned tasks reliably but does
not participate in meetings or contribute beyond their immediate
responsibilities.
Application of the CARE Model
Using the CARE Model in a workplace can help leaders identify and understand the different
types of followers within their organization. By recognizing these types, leaders can tailor
their management and engagement strategies to better leverage the strengths of each follower
type and address areas for improvement.




Champions: Should be empowered and given leadership opportunities to further
leverage their potential.
Supporters: Could benefit from training and development programs aimed at
enhancing their critical thinking skills.
Critics: Require encouragement and incentives to increase their overall engagement.
Participants: May need more direct supervision and motivation to boost both their
engagement and critical thinking abilities.”
4. The Leadership Co-Created Process model has four elements. Describe those elements
and describe how the elements are related.
Ans: The leadership co-created process model is really meant to describe the importance of
followers. The four elements include leading behaviors, following behaviors, leadership, and
outcomes. The model starts with following behaviors and leading behaviors in mutual or
reciprocal interaction together. Leading behaviors are attempts to influence and use various
types of power. Following behaviors involve giving power to another, complying, and/or
challenging. These leading and following behaviors have a mutual influence on each other and
leadership is what occurs as a result of that interaction. This ‘leadership’ process is then said to
produce outcomes.
5. What conditions will it take for research on followership to become as popular as
research on leadership? Consider global, cultural, or societal conditions.
Ans: Conditions for Followership Research to Gain Popularity
For research on followership to become as popular as research on leadership, several global,
cultural, and societal conditions need to align. These conditions reflect broader changes in
how organizations operate, the increasing complexity of leadership dynamics, and the
evolving role of individuals within teams and organizations.
1. Evolution of Organizational Structures
Flatter Hierarchies and Shared Leadership:

Modern organizations are moving away from traditional top-down hierarchies to
flatter, more egalitarian structures. In these environments, leadership is often shared
or rotated, making the role of followers more prominent and integral to organizational
success. As leadership becomes more distributed, understanding followership
becomes crucial to optimizing team dynamics and performance.
Example: Tech companies like Google and startups often adopt flat organizational structures
where collaboration and team-based leadership are essential. In such settings, the behavior
and contribution of followers are as critical as those of leaders.
2. Relational Leadership Models
Emphasis on Relational Leadership:

Contemporary leadership theories, such as Transformational, Servant, Authentic, and
Adaptive Leadership, emphasize the relational aspects between leaders and followers.
These models recognize that effective leadership involves mutual influence and
collaboration, highlighting the importance of studying followership to fully
understand leadership dynamics.
3. Cultural Shifts Towards Collectivism
Globalization and Cultural Diversity:

With globalization, organizations are becoming more culturally diverse. Many
cultures emphasize collectivism and the well-being of the group over individual
achievement. In such cultures, the role of followers is inherently valued and
recognized, driving the need for more research on followership.
Example: In East Asian cultures, which often prioritize harmony, group cohesion, and
collective effort, understanding followership is critical to effective leadership and
organizational success.
4. Awareness of Toxic Leadership
Combating Toxic Leadership:

Increased awareness of toxic leadership in various domains (e.g., politics, business,
sports) has highlighted the need to understand why followers support destructive
leaders and how they can influence change. Research on followership can provide
insights into the dynamics of toxic followership and strategies for mitigating its
negative effects.
Example: High-profile corporate scandals and political upheavals often reveal patterns of
toxic leadership and followership, prompting a deeper investigation into the role of followers
in perpetuating or challenging such environments.
5. Empowerment and Advocacy
Rise of Employee Empowerment and Advocacy:

There is a growing movement towards employee empowerment and advocacy, where
followers are encouraged to take an active role in shaping organizational culture and
policies. This shift underscores the importance of understanding followership to
effectively harness and guide this empowerment.
Example: Employee-driven initiatives, such as those advocating for better workplace
diversity and inclusion, demonstrate the powerful impact of proactive and engaged
followership.
6. Leaders will always be more powerful than followers. Defend or refute.
Ans: Refuting the Statement: "Leaders Will Always Be More Powerful Than Followers"
The assertion that leaders will always be more powerful than followers can be refuted by
examining the dynamic and interdependent nature of leadership and followership. While
traditional views often place leaders in positions of greater authority and decision-making
power, modern organizational theories and historical examples highlight the significant
influence and power that followers can exert.
Power in Numbers:

Followers often outnumber leaders, which gives them considerable collective power.
The influence of a large group can surpass that of an individual leader, particularly
when followers are united in their goals and actions.
Collective Bargaining:

In labor relations, unions exemplify the power of collective followership. Workers
band together to negotiate with employers, often achieving significant changes in
working conditions, wages, and policies.

Leaders cannot achieve their goals without the active participation and commitment
of their followers.
Shared Leadership Models:

Modern leadership theories, such as Transformational and Servant Leadership,
emphasize the importance of collaboration, mutual influence, and shared decisionmaking between leaders and followers. This approach blurs the lines of traditional
hierarchical power structures.
Social Movements:

Throughout history, social movements driven by followers have brought about
significant change, often overcoming powerful opposition from established leaders.
Organizational Change:

Within organizations, change often originates from the ground up, driven by
employees (followers) who identify areas for improvement and advocate for
innovation.
Creating Leadership:

Emerging theories suggest that followers play a crucial role in creating and
legitimizing leadership. Without followers' recognition and acceptance, a leader
cannot effectively wield power or influence.
15:
1. What evidence is there for the existence of a glass ceiling?
Ans: Women are equal to men in managerial positions, yet only about 4% of them are CEOs in
Fortune 500 companies. Men and women are about 50/50 in the U.S. labor force and women
hold 57% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master’s degrees. However, given these educational
accomplishments, 80% of board seats in Fortune 500 companies are held by men. Almost 80%
of the U.S. Congress is comprised of men. These striking differences show the inequality that
still exists between women and men.
2. Explain the “pipeline” argument regarding women's advancement to leadership
positions and offer evidence to support or refute it.
Ans: An argument could be made that these represent a causal cycle because women tend to
feel more responsibility for child-rearing than men. This causes people to see women in this
role more (stereotype activation). Women are therefore perceived as nurturing, which causes
people to treat them this way. Society affirms women when they enact these roles, so women
assimilate the stereotype. Women can become psychologically adapted to these roles, so they
carry them to the workplace (and leadership styles).
3. Explain how stereotype assimilation and stereotype reactance relate to women's
leadership performance.
Ans: Stereotypes convey to stigmatized individuals a set of beliefs that aim to devalue their
group’s social identity and determine how individuals should behave. A multitude of gender
stereotypes communicate to women that they lack leadership aptitude, which unsurprisingly,
affects women’s leadership aspirations and performance. For example, reminding women that
the communal traits typically associated with women are incompatible with the agentic
characteristics necessary for holding leadership positions can negatively influence women’s
leadership performance. When faced with gender stereotypes of leadership, women often react
in one of two ways, assimilation or reactance. Women vulnerable to a particular stereotype may
react by assimilating to the stereotype. Women’s expectations about their ability to engage in a
leadership task becomes linked with gender stereotypes, and subsequently their performance
suffers. When stereotypes are subtly activated, women become either less inclined to take on a
leadership role and underperform on a leadership task. Alternatively, when women are
explicitly presented with gender stereotypes, they respond by engaging in stereotypecountering behaviors, a concept termed “stereotype reactance.” Blatant stereotype activation
results in a greater desire to take on leadership positions and disconfirm the stereotype. Gender
leadership stereotypes directly affect women’s leadership aspirations and performance.
4. Describe the social costs that women leaders experience for promoting
themselves.
Ans: Women face significant gender biases and social disincentives when they self-promote.
Research shows that self-promoting women are seen as less socially attractive and less hirable.
As a result, often women who want to pursue a leadership position may choose not to do so
because they are aware of the social costs. For example, if there was a vacancy for a college
department chairperson position, a woman faculty member within the department may decide
not to nominate herself for fear of looking less attractive to her colleagues.
5. Discuss the meaning of this statement: “Gender biases can be particularly
detrimental in the decision-making processes for selecting elite leaders, given that
the generally unstructured nature of those decisions allows biased decisions
without accountability.”
Ans: Because gender biases are so pervasive and largely affect attitudes and behavior on an
unconscious level, they can easily influence those who are in a position to select new leaders
without those individuals even realizing their biases. Elite leadership positions, due to their
extreme authority and visibility, are often perceived as more stereotypically masculine than
other leadership positions. Gender biases against women as being too communal and feminine
for the position, or not feminine enough to be attractive and likeable, can easily occur when a
woman is considered for such a position. Furthermore, elite leaders are often chosen “behind
closed doors” by a select group or by their predecessors, with little accountability to ensure that
a fair decision has been made. Without external accountability, it is easy for male selectors to
engage in homosocial reproduction and favor candidates similar to themselves. When hiring
selections are made on the basis of “personally knowing” a candidate’s ability through social
networks, women are at a significant disadvantage to men due to a widespread lack of female
mentors in leadership positions and because women often are not presented the same
socializing opportunities as their male colleagues.
6. Why should men be concerned about the labyrinth of women's leadership?
Ans: The “labyrinth” of women’s leadership comprises social and structural inequalities which
affect not only women’s opportunities for leadership success but also to a large extent those of
racial, class, or sexual minority status. For instance, a soft-spoken homosexual man might be
faced with similar advancement barriers as a woman when confronted with the stereotype of
an effective leader needing to be agentic rather than communal. Addressing the “labyrinth”
would work to promote equality for all individuals and allow for greater representation of all
social groups in positions of power. Making the leadership advancement field more equitable
would widen the pool of qualified individuals from which to select leaders, keeping the most
promising candidates from being overlooked due to implicit biases. Additionally, a lack of
diversity among organizational leaders can be a detriment; in extreme cases, similarly minded
groups members who feel pressured to conform their opinions can engage in groupthink,
wherein poor decisions are made due to a lack of dissent and discussion within the group (such
as in the case of JFK’s advisory board and the Bay of Pigs invasion). In contrast, establishing
diversity in leadership positions promotes more ethical, financially successful, innovative, and
productive organizations. In sum, women’s restriction from top leadership positions is a
detriment to all individuals as well as organizations. On a societal level, many argue that
women will only approach parity to men in elite leadership positions when domestic duties
between men and women become more equally distributed. That is, the leadership gender gap
will only be closed when the domestic gap closes.