PERCEPTIONS OF THE
FEMALE LEADER
CREATED BY LAUREN M. BACH
RESEARCH TOPIC
• Does a prejudice exist towards female leaders?
• Role Congruity Theory
• Is there a top-level leadership advantage for
female leaders?
• Double Standards
ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY
• Eagly and Karau (2002)
• Agentic traits & communal traits
• Gender consistent roles vs. gender inconsistent roles
• Incongruity between female gender roles and
leadership traits
• = Prejudice towards female leaders
JOHNSON ET AL. (2008)
• Subjects: 101 community members
• Are agentic female leaders evaluated more
likeable and effective than agentic male leaders?
• Task: Read vignette about a CEO
JOHNSON ET AL. (2008)
• Four conditions:
Female
Gender
(Joan
Davenport)
Male
(John
Davenport)
IV
Agentic
(Strength)
Leadership Trait
Communal
(Sensitivity)
JOHNSON ET AL. (2008)
• Post questionnaire
• Ratings on a 7 point Likert Scale
Leader
Effectiveness
DV
Leader
Likeability
JOHNSON ET AL. (2008)
JOHNSON ET AL. (2008)
PEACHEY AND BURTON (2011)
• Subjects: 112 Athletic Directors
• Read leadership vignette
Female
Gender
Male
IV
Transactional
(Agentic)
Leadership Style
Transformational
(Communal)
PEACHEY AND BURTON (2011)
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
• 5-point Likert type scale
Leader
Effectiveness
DV
Leader Effort
Satisfaction
with Leader
PEACHEY AND BURTON (2011)
Mean Effectiveness
Mean Effectiveness Ratings of Leadership
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
Male
Female
Transformational
Transactional
Leadership Style
Error Bars: +/- 1 SD
DOUBLE STANDARDS
FOSCHI ET AL. (1994)
Top-Level Leadership Position
= No Prejudice (Advantage)
--------------------“Glass Ceiling” --------------------
Lower-level Leadership Positions
= Prejudice
ROSETTE AND TOST (2010)
• Subjects: 106 graduate & undergraduate students
• Given job description and
performance summary
Female
Gender
Male
IV
Senior Executive
Vice President
Leadership
Position
Division
Manager
ROSETTE AND TOST (2010)
• Post questionnaire
• 7-point Likert Scale
Agentic Traits
DV
Communal Traits
Leader Effectiveness
Double Standards
Feminine Management Style
Masculine Management Style
ROSETTE AND TOST (2010)
Mean Scores
Effect of Leader Gender and Position on Leader
Perceptions
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Female Top Leader
Male Top Leader
Double Standards
Leader
Effectiveness
Dependent Variables
Error Bars: +/- 1 SD
* Significant p<.05
Female Middle
Manager
Male Middle Manager
MY HYPOTHESIS
• Female Senior Executive Vice Presidents will be
evaluated as both more agentic and communal,
likable, and effective than lower level female
Division Managers and male Senior Executive Vice
Presidents.
METHOD
• Subjects: MSU Mankato PSYC 211 and other
students
• N = 52 (33F, 19M)
• Materials:
•
•
•
•
•
Consent Form
Articles
Questionnaires
Debriefing Form
Pens
PROCEDURE
• 4 Article Conditions:
• All included job description and performance summary.
Percent Earnings Change
Figure 1: Percent Earnings Increase
Over the Past Six Months
100
80
60
40
Series 1
20
0
1
2
3
4
The Month
5
6
PROCEDURE
• Manipulations:
Female
(Samantha)
Gender
Male
(Sam)
IV
Senior Executive
Vice President
Leadership
Position
Division Manager
PROCEDURE
DV
Agentic Traits
Communal Traits
Leader Effectiveness
Leader Likeability
PROCEDURE
• Given a Post Questionnaire
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly
Agree
Johnson may be liked by other staff members.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Johnson may be a bold employee leader.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Johnson may be compassionate to staff concerns.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Johnson may be effective.
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
RESULTS: AGENTIC TRAITS
(NOT SIGNIFICANT) (F(3, 48) = .601, P = .618)
RESULTS: COMMUNAL TRAITS
(NOT SIGNIFICANT) (F(3, 48) = 1.366, P = .264)
RESULTS: EFFECTIVENESS
(NOT SIGNIFICANT) (F(3, 48) = 1.609, P = .200)
RESULTS: LIKEABILITY
(NOT SIGNIFICANT) (F(3, 48) = 1.881, P = .145)
DISCUSSION
• Results did not support my hypothesis.
• Top Female leaders not evaluated more:
•
•
•
•
Communal
Agentic
Effective
Likeable
DISCUSSION
• Results not support:
• Role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002)
• Johnson et al. (2008)
• Results support:
• Peachey and Burton (2011)
• Results not support:
• Double Standards (Foschi et al.,1994)
• Rosette and Tost (2010)
LIMITATIONS
• Small Sample Size
• Not Enough Information in Manipulated Articles
• Participants Able to Predict Research Topic
FUTURE STUDIES
• Obtain larger sample size
• Modify articles with more information
• Further disguise study’s purpose
• Eliminate convenience sampling
• Procure a diverse sample
THE IMPORTANCE
Researching prejudice and advantages
=
More Females in Top Leadership Positions
REFERENCES
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward
female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573
Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the
assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326339. Retrieved from <http://spq.sagepub.com>.
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, F. J. (2008). The strong,
sensitive, type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership
prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders.
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 106, 39-60.
doi:1016/j.obhdp.207.12.002
Peachey, J. W., & Burton, L. J. (2011). Male of female athletic director?
Exploring perceptions of leader effectiveness and a (potential) female
leadership advantage with intercollegiate athletic directors. Springer
Science + Business Media, 64, 416-425. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9915-y
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal
leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women
leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 221-235.
doi:10.1037/a0018204
THANK YOU!
ANY QUESTIONS?