Leadership Determinants of
Trust
Sim Sitkin
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University
In collaboration with
Allan Lind, Morela Hernandez,
and Chris Long
1
What Influences Trust?
Various influences have been identified
Competence, benevolence, reliability, honesty, etc (e.g., Dirks &
Ferrin, Avoilio and colleagues)
Influences are generally consistent with the kinds of
things leaders “should” do
But the links between specific leadership behaviors
and trust has remained largely unexamined
Often asserted, rarely tested
Conceptualization is often vague and atheoretical, or very broad
Goal is to clarify the potentially important insights for
both literatures
Present newly developed leadership approach
Make the leadership-to-trust links explicit and specific
Present preliminary results of an early test
Discuss some implications
2
The “Leadership Challenge”
There is a substantial body of work on
leadership, but there is not really a clear
picture of what leadership is and how one
can teach people to be better leaders.
Some scholars (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, &
Dukerich) have even contended that
leadership is not an important factor in
organizational performance, that it is
simply a “romanticized explanation” of
more complex management and
environmental factors.
3
How to Address the
Challenge
Consider whether there is indeed
something in the concept of leadership
to theorize about, study, and teach
Organize our understanding of leadership
and related phenomena so that we can
systematically examine how leadership
evolves as organizations change
4
Contemporary research and
theory on leadership
Huge quantity and variety
Variable in focus and quality
Empirically rigorous, but more usually managerial than
leadership-focused
Atheoretical and/or vague
Practitioner-oriented, but not very systematic or testable
Narrow, focusing on only one or two aspects of leadership
Theoretical, but are not very generative for rigorous
scholarship or practical enough for managerial application
Some examples
Transformational leadership, Charismatic leadership, Symbolic
leadership, Attribution theories of leadership, Relational
leadership
5
A preview of approach
Working with my colleagues Allan Lind and Chris Long
(and additional colleagues, and including recent
PhD students Jim Emery, Morela Hernandez, and
Drew Carton), we have worked to organize and
integrate this topic with an eye to empirical
testing and implementation.
We have found ourselves incorporating & extending
many elements used by other theories, but we
have been most influenced by relational views of
leadership and trust. Thus, today’s focus . . .
Before I begin presenting our theory and early results
on the impact of leadership on trust, let me define
it and give you a brief picture of our leadership
framework.
6
Definition of Leadership
A leader is:
A person who influences others
A person who exhibits specific leadership behaviors
A person who accepts a leadership role and identity
Leadership is:
A set of behaviors and their effects
A social role
A perspective or identity
Leadership is not:
Formal authority or position
Only positive (effective leaders can pursue evil)
A set of traits that cannot be developed or modified or
learned (“you can’t teach height” but you can teach
leadership)
7
Leadership versus Management
Not about leaders vs. managers, not different
people
Most individual roles involve elements of both leadership
and management
But both good leadership and good management are
necessary for optimal organization performance
Leadership is not just about top organizational
heroes
Includes leading up, down and laterally
Applies to a variety of life roles – leading peers, family
members, community, leading oneself
8
How is the Approach Distinctive?
Focus on Behavior:
Leadership is what you do, not just who you are.
Change what you do and you can change your
leadership style. Thus, the approach is testable and
actionable.
Focus on Effects:
Each dimension is keyed to theorized effects of
leadership behaviors.
Focus on Breadth and Integration:
Most leadership approaches focus on just a few
aspects of leadership – ours tries to integrate the
range of leadership dimensions – and effects.
9
Leadership domains
ETHICAL
INSPIRATIONAL
PERSONAL
SUPPORTIVE
RELATIONAL
CONTEXTUAL
10
Core focus of the domains
Accepting
responsibility
Raising
optimism
& enthusiasm
Preparing
and projecting
who you are
Providing
resources,
feedback, and
protection
Showing
concern and
understanding
Clarifying
who we are
and how we
work together
11
Consequences of effective leadership
STEWARDSHIP
HIGH
ASPIRATION
CREDIBILITY
INITIATIVE
TRUST
COMMUNITY
12
Leadership domains and effects
STEWARDSHIP
ETHICAL
HIGH
ASPIRATION
INITIATIVE
INSPIRATIONAL
PERSONAL
CREDIBILITY
SUPPORTIVE
RELATIONAL
TRUST
CONTEXTUAL
COMMUNITY
13
Our Focus Today
TRUST
14
Definition of Trust
Trust is a psychological state
comprising the intention to accept
vulnerability based on positive
expectations of the intentions or
behavior of another (Rousseau et al.,
1998)
15
Foundation of the Model
Personal: Leadership emerges from the
projection of your personal values, concerns,
passions and world view.
Relational: Leadership is rooted in projecting
concern for and understanding of others in
interpersonal and inter-organizational
relationships.
Contextual: Leadership simplifies and focuses
by clarifying contexts.
16
Personal Leadership
 Demonstrate that you have the
insight and knowledge to lead to
success.
 Be real; let your values and
personality show in your actions.
 Make your dedication to the team-and your courage in pursuing its
goals--evident to all.
17
Effective personal
leadership yields
CREDIBILITY
18
Relational Leadership
 Attend to your leader-follower
relationship with each
person you seek to lead:
 Show concern, understanding,
and respect for others.
 Be seen as fair.
19
Effective relational
leadership yields
TRUST
20
Contextual Leadership
 Create a sense of identity (pride and
belonging).
 Focus and simplify to build a sense of
coherence.
Enhance clarity of roles and functions.
21
Effective contextual
leadership yields
a sense of
COMMUNITY
22
But our focus today is on
leadership determinants of trust
TRUST
What is the prediction from the
literature about what influences trust?
23
So how might these
three dimensions relate
to trust?
24
Arguments Extrapolated from Trust Literature
Personal Leadership Affects Trust
Competence, shared values, personal interests are predictive of trust (Sitkin
& Roth; Mayer et al)
Attribution of leadership – passion, insight (Calder)
Relational Leadership Affects Trust
Leadership as forms of relationship (Weber; Lewin; Kouzes & Posner)
Benevolence, caring, respect, fairness & understanding of the other (Bies;
Lind & Tyler; Sitkin & Roth)
Contextual Leadership Affects Trust
Increased contextual control undermines trust in other party (Shapiro,
Zucker)
Symbolic leadership and the importance of congruent symbols (Pfeffer;
Sitkin & Stickel)
Without formal protection, risk of opportunistic exploitation is too high
(Sitkin; Lewicki & Bunker; Bijlmsma-Frankema & Costa; Long & Sitkin)
25
Implicit Theoretical Model
Personal
Relational
Contextual
Trust
26
ETHICAL
INSPIRATIONAL
PERSONAL
SUPPORTIVE
RELATIONAL
CONTEXTUAL
27
Key theoretical assumption:
interdependence of leadership domains
Third-Order
ETHICAL
Second-Order
INSPIRATIONAL
SUPPORTIVE
Foundation
PERSONAL
More personal
RELATIONAL
CONTEXTUAL
More structural
28
Leadership Framework Extends Argument
to Make It More Directly Testable



Dimensions of Leadership are Mutually Facilitative
Personal & Contextual Leadership Affects Trust, but
only through their link to Relational Leadership
Direct Links of Personal and Relational to Trust
implied in the literature may be spurious, as
indirect routes of influence never tested
29
Theoretical Model
Personal
Relational
Contextual
Trust
30
Hypotheses
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated
with greater Trust in the leader (H1).
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will
be significantly associated with Trust.
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will
be significantly associated with Relational
Leadership.
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B)
Leadership on Trust will be mediated by
Relational Leadership.
31
Sample and Procedure
Participants completed the 360-degree survey online as part of
executive leadership courses (n=129)
Weekend EMBA (n=55)
Cross Continent EMBA (n=52)
Open Enrollment (n=22)
Ratings supplied by supervisors, peers and direct reports (n=
700+)
Permission to use data for research requested, nearly all
consented
Survey distributed & completed online (approx. 20 minutes to
complete survey)
Participants received feedback as part of a course
Raters assured anonymity; ratings aggregated to preserve
confidentiality of individual raters
32
Web-based Leadership Instrument
33
MDLI Feedback
34
MDLI results (graphics)
35
6 domains, multiple rater groups
36
MDLI results (Personal Leadership table)
37
Some Preliminary Findings
Today’s analysis based on data collected in July,
August, September of 2003.
Able to clean data and create appropriate scales
Analyzed using structural equation models
(AMOS)
Still consider findings to be tentative - newly
redesigned variables & results in but not yet
analyzed.
But results seem quite robust, so optimistic
38
Scale Reliabilities
“The locus of leadership . . . involves behaviors . . . produced by leaders as these
elements are interpreted by followers.” (Lord & Maher, 1993; p.11)
IV Scales created from “follower” perceptions of leader behaviors
DV Scales created from “follower” ratings of leader effects across three rater
groups
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)
ICC useful for determining the extent to which variance of individual responses are attributed
to group membership
ICC assesses reliable differentiation between groups (Bliese et al., 2002; Castro, 2002)
ICC especially useful if between group variability is potentially theoretically important and
requires detailed examination
Supervisors + Peers + Direct Reports:
Peers + Direct Reports:
ICC = .862
ICC = .723
39
Independent Variables
Personal Leadership Behavior (α = .80)
Authenticity
Vision
- Creativity
- Passion & Courage
Expertise
Relational Leadership Behavior (α = .81)
Concern
Respect
Reliability
Contextual Leadership Behavior (α = .77)
Coherence
Coordination
Identity
40
Personal Leadership Behavior (α = .80)
Authenticity
Lets you know what he/she is really like.
Lives his/her values.
They are who they appear to be.
Vision
Provides a clear vision for the organization or unit.
Formulates clear goals.
Articulates where the organization/unit is going.
Expertise
Really understands our work.
Is smart about what we do.
Has deep expertise.
Creativity
Finds innovative solutions to business problems.
Is open to exploring new ideas.
Thinks outside the box.
Passion and Courage
Is passionate about the work we do.
Displays courage in the face of uncertainty.
Is not afraid to show his/her feelings.
Is not afraid of being wrong.
Is committed to doing what he/she thinks is right.
41
Relational Leadership Behavior (α = .81)
Concern
Displays concern for me.
Is sensitive to my needs.
Cares about my priorities and interests.
Is interested in understanding me.
Shows compassion.
Respect
Shows respect for people regardless of their level in the organization.
Makes an effort to seek out others' opinions on important issues.
Takes the time to explain decisions.
Is a good listener.
42
Contextual Leadership Behavior (α = .77)
Coherence
Makes sure his/her employees understand business issues.
Promotes a shared understanding about complex issues.
Cuts through complex or ambiguous problems to make them
easier to understand.
Explains why things are being done a particular way.
Coordination
Helps coordinate actions of unit or organization.
Resolves conflicts constructively.
Creates processes that facilitate the work.
Ensures that we take the needs of others into account as we do
our work.
Makes clear how responsibilities are being divided.
43
Dependent Variables: Leadership
Effects
Personal Leadership: LOYALTY
(α = .86 )
I feel loyal to ____.
____ can depend on me.
I would go out of my way to help ____ if he/she asked me to.
Relational Leadership: TRUST
(α = .80 )
I trust ____ to be fair.
____ deals fairly with me.
____ is unbiased in his/her decisions.
Contextual Leadership: COMMUNITY
(α = .87 )
We are like family.
People here are concerned with the success of the whole organization.
I feel like I’m really part of the team around here.
In this organization, we know we can depend on each other.
Being a good organizational citizen is part of our organization culture.
44
Hypotheses
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated
with greater Trust in the leader (H1).
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will
be significantly associated with Trust.
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will
be significantly associated with Relational
leadership.
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B)
Leadership on Trust will be mediated by
Relational leadership.
45
Theoretical Model
Personal
Relational
Contextual
Trust
46
Statistical Methods
Structural Equation Model Analyses (AMOS 5.0 in
conjunction with SPSS 11.5)
4 models are presented
Standardized Regression Weights are shown
Details (error terms etc) are not shown on
models to simplify display for readability
Model Fit Indices TLI and CFI were considered
This is still very much a work in progress
47
Model
e1
e2
Vision
e3
Creativity
Expertise
e10
e4
Passion
e5
e6
Authenticity
e7
Respect
Concern
e11
e9
Coordination Coherence
e12
Relational
Ldrshp
Personal
Ldrshp
e8
Contextual
Ldrshp
e13
TRUST
48
Direct Effects Test of Trust Literature
Personal
Ldrshp
Relational
Ldrshp
.45***
.34**
Contextual
Ldrshp
.26*
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .54; CFI = .66
49
Direct Effects Test of Trust Literature
Personal
Ldrshp
Relational
Ldrshp
.45***
Contextual
Ldrshp
.26*
.34**
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .54; CFI = .66
•Significance consistent with trust literature (H1, H2A & H2B)
•Fit of model based on literature is quite low.
50
Test of Hypothesized Mediated Model
r = .87
Personal
Ldrshp
.35**
ns
Relational
Ldrshp
.78*
.62***
Contextual
Ldrshp
ns
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .91; CFI = .94
51
Test of Hypothesized Mediated Model
r = .87
Personal
Ldrshp
.35**
ns
Model Fit: TLI = .91; CFI = .94
Relational
Ldrshp
.78*
.62***
Contextual
Ldrshp
ns
TRUST
•Personal & Contextual Leadership significantly associated with
Relational Leadership (H3A & H3B)
•Direct effects predicted by trust literature mediated, as predicted
(H4A & H4B)
•Fit of model substantially improved & quite high.
52
Results of Hypothesis Tests
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with
greater Trust in the leader (H1).
SUPPORTED
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be
significantly associated with Trust.
SUPPORTED WHEN EXAMINED IN ISOLATION;
REJECTED WHEN MODELLED MORE COMPLETELY
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be
significantly associated with Relational Leadership.
SUPPORTED
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership
on Trust will be mediated by Relational leadership.
H4A. SUPPORTED
H4B.
SUPPORTED
53
Implications of Hypothesis
Tests
H1 and H2: All three foundational dimensions
appear to be determinants of trust if examined
independently.
Personal and Contextual Leadership were found to
be significantly associated with Relational
Leadership (H3A and H3B)
Relational Leadership is a key determinant of Trust.
As a direct determinant of Trust (H1)
Personal and Contextual Leadership effects on Trust are
mediated (H4A and H4B) by Relational Leadership.
54
Including Self Ratings
“The locus of leadership is not solely in a leader or solely
in follower. Instead, it involves behaviors . . . produced by
leaders as these elements are interpreted by followers.”
(Lord & Maher, 1993; p.11)
Although our theoretical focus was based on
“follower” reactions to leadership behavior (focusing
on effects, not just leader attributes), we wanted to
examine whether self ratings of leaders matched
the ratings of “followers” and whether leader self
perceptions predicted “follower” trust in the leader.
55
Examining Trust Predictions with Self Ratings
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
.12**
Model Fit: TLI = .30; CFI = .58
TRUST
56
Examining Trust Predictions with Self Ratings
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
.12**
•Self ratings of leadership
behavior are distinct from
others’ rating, are less
predictive of trust, & have
terrible model fit.
Model Fit: TLI = .30; CFI = .58
TRUST
•Could they have effects
through others’ perceptions
of
57
leadership?
Do Self Ratings Have an Indirect Effect on Trust?
r = .88
r = .78
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
.21**
r = .69
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
ns
.18*
ns
Personal
Ldrshp (Others)
Relational
Ldrshp (Others)
.54***
ns
Model Fit: TLI = .75 ; CFI = .81
Contextual
Ldrshp (Others)
.67***
.66**
TRUST
ns
58
Do Self Ratings Have an Indirect Effect on Trust?
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
.21**
.18*
Personal
Ldrshp (Others)
Relational
Ldrshp (Others)
.54***
Contextual
Ldrshp (Others)
.67***
.66**
•Results are consistent with an
indirect effect, but . . .
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .75 ; CFI = .81
Why the striking relational
leadership gap?
59
Self and Other Perceptions of
Relational Leadership Behavior
Familiar social psychology finding of a gap between
self perception of how fair, concerned,
understanding, etc we are compared with how others
see us (e.g., Messick et al, “Why we are fairer than others”
JESP, 1985 )
Why observe in this situation?
Possible that relational leadership behaviors are harder to
discern
Possible that we are not as relationally positive as we think
Possible that we are but are lousy at projecting our concern
or our efforts
But could self perceived relational leadership
behavior still have an indirect effect on trust via
other self perceptions?
60
Full Model
e1
e2
Visio
n
e3
Creativity
e4
Expertise
e5
Passion
e6
Authenticit
y
e7
Respect
Concern
e8
e9
Coordinatio
n
Coherence
e10
Personal
Ldrshp (self)
e11
e12
Visio
n
e13
Creativity
Expertise
e20
Relational
Ldrshp (self)
e14
Passion
e15
e16
Authenticit
y
Contextual
Ldrshp (self)
e17
Respect
e18
Concern
e21
e19
Coordinatio
n
Coherence
e22
Personal
Ldrshp
Relational
Ldrshp
Contextual
Ldrshp
(other)
(other)
(other)
e23
TRUST
61
.94***
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
.22**
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
.85***
ns
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
ns
.18*
ns
Personal
Ldrshp (Others)
.56***
ns
Relational
Ldrshp (Others)
.65**
Contextual
Ldrshp (Others)
.69***
ns
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .73; CFI = .80
62
Personal
Ldrshp (Self)
.94***
Relational
Ldrshp (Self)
.85***
.22**
Personal
Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual
Ldrshp (Self)
.18*
.56***
Relational
Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual
Ldrshp (Others)
.69***
.65**
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .73; CFI = .80
63
Results of Hypothesis Tests
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with greater Trust
in the leader (H1).
SUPPORTED
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be significantly
associated with Trust.
SUPPORTED WHEN
EXAMINED IN ISOLATION; REJECTED WHEN MODELLED
MORE COMPLETELY
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be significantly
associated with Relational Leadership. SUPPORTED
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership on
Trust will be mediated by Relational leadership.
H4A. SUPPORTED
H4B.
SUPPORTED
64
Implications of Exploration of Self versus
Others’ Perception of Leadership
Leader self perceptions do not directly affect trust –
but seem to have an indirect effect (sometimes
very indirect) via others’ perceptions of leader
behaviors
Followers’ perceptions of personal and contextual
leadership behaviors appear to affect trust
through followers’ perceptions of relational
leadership behavior
Perceived relational leadership is the key to
influences on trust in leaders
The relationship between self perceptions of
leadership behavior and follower perceptions is
not uniform – gap seems to be in the relational
leadership dimension.
65
Builds on existing theory
Consistent with trust, justice and leadership
literatures
Provides more systematic theoretical
framework for linking leadership to trust
through specific influencing actions
Competence and other personal attributes
Relational features of fair treatment,
consideration, respect, benevolence
Structural features can enable but only through
their relational effects
66
Additional Implications/Future Directions
Leadership behavior can be systematically broken
down and its effects on trust tested.
Leadership behavior does appear to be a significant
influence on trust.
Examine what does not affect trust, as well as what
does
Does contextual leadership behavior really not affect trust if
relational features are controlled?
Test more complex, embedded models of how trust
arises and is influenced by leaders
Specific behaviors, not just broader dimensions
Different organizational and cultural conditions
Different leader attributes
Test other effects in the leadership model
67
Conclusion and Next Steps
Book under development
Have tightened measures & tests, coupling with
experimental studies
Will examine rest of model
Articles on specific tests and applications
AMR piece in development on theory
Under development on domain effects, crisis, organizational
founding, and co-leadership, etc
Case studies and instructional materials
Practitioner pieces & cases
Improve measurement instruments
Longitudinal field & lab data collection on perceived
behavior – plus “hard” performance and behavior
measures
68
Duke Leadership Research Program:
Additional Studies In Progress
Sim Sitkin, Allan Lind, and Colleagues
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University
Winter, 2006
69
Leadership Behaviors as
Determinants of Specific and
Distinct Follower Responses
Sim Sitkin & Allan Lind
70
Leadership domains and effects
STEWARDSHIP
ETHICAL
HIGH
ASPIRATION
INITIATIVE
INSPIRATIONAL
PERSONAL
CREDIBILITY
SUPPORTIVE
RELATIONAL
TRUST
CONTEXTUAL
COMMUNITY
71
Leadership Determinants
of Raised Aspirations
Sim Sitkin, Jim Emery, Drew Carton, & Allan Lind
72
Initial Model for Aspirations
PERSONAL
Inspirational
Aspirations
Elements of Inspirational Leadership
High standards, enthusiasm, confidence
Initial Results
Supported, but fit could be improved
Path coefficient = .781, p<.001*
RMSEA .107, CLI = .83
* 263 observations of 61 leaders, SEM results adjusted for non-independence of observations using
Cluster option in MPlus Version 3.13
73
Additional Work on Aspirations
INSPIRATIONAL
Aspirations
PERSONAL

RELATIONAL
Initial Results


Individually, all 3 dimensions have positive and significant path
coefficients predicting Aspirations, but
Only Inspirational remains positive and significant when all three
dimensions are included in the SEM model
74
Gender and Leadership: The Effect
of Mental Models at Different
Hierarchical Levels
Ashleigh Rosette, Leigh Tost,
Morela Hernandez, & Sim Sitkin
75
Gender Differences in Leadership
Research Goals:
Examine the ways that women top leaders may express gender
biases toward their same-sex colleagues;
Understand that potential rivalries may exist among elite women;
Advance this area of inquiry beyond the search for general trends in
gender-based biases that persist across actors
Hypotheses:
At the lower and middle levels of organizational hierarchy, women
demonstrate an ingroup bias by favoring their women peers in their
evaluations.
However, at the top levels of organizational hierarchy, women
demonstrate a bias against their female peers because the
tokenism situations that are present in the highest levels of most
organizations lead women to focus on perceived threat when
considering peer women senior executives.
76
Study 1: Sample and Procedure
Participants completed the 360-degree survey online as part of
2005-2006 executive leadership courses (N=61)
40 men; 21 women
36 were identified as top leaders and 24 were identified as middle
managers
Ratings supplied by 227 work peers (156 men; 71 women)
Consent obtained from nearly all students
Survey distributed & completed online; approx. 20 min.
Participants received feedback as part of a course
Raters assured anonymity; ratings aggregated to preserve
confidentiality of individual raters
The study consisted of a 2 (leader gender: male, female) x 2
(organizational level: top leader, middle manager) x 2 (rater
gender: male, female) between-subjects factorial design
77
Study 1: Variables
IV’s
Organizational level:
The raters’ position or rank within the company was coded
into a dichotomous variable: Top managers and Middle
managers
DV’s
Leadership Effectiveness: Relationship-oriented and
task-oriented behaviors, relational and personal
leadership, respectively.
Relational leadership behaviors ( = .86).
Concern, Respect, and Fairness
Personal leadership behaviors ( = .85).
Vision, Competence, and Creativity.
78
Personal Leadership
4.5
4
Top leader
Middle manager
3.5
3
Figure 1.
Mean ratings of
leader effectiveness
(personal leadership
and relational
leadership)
by organizational
level, leader gender,
and rater gender.
Male rater- Male raterFemale
Male leader
leader
Female
rater-Male
leader
Female
raterFemale
leader
Relational Leadership
4.5
4
Top leader
Middle manager
3.5
3
Male rater- Male raterFemale
Male leader
leader
Female
rater-Male
leader
Female
raterFemale
leader
79
Gender Differences in Leadership
Results, confirmed predictions:
Compared with women middle managers, women top
leaders evaluated their work peers more negatively.
This difference in evaluations was not observed between
men top leaders and men middle managers.
Negative evaluations only occurred when competition
amongst the women top leaders was perceived to be high
(as in Study 1) or when it was explicitly manipulated as
high (as in Study 2).
Implication: Managers and executives should be
aware of how tokenism may negatively influence
women leaders and how it may cause their
perspectives to differ substantially from that of
their male colleagues.
80