Advertisement

Fix the Game, Not the Dame: Restoring Equity in Leadership Evaluations

Journal of Business Ethics volume 161, pages497–511(2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Female leaders continue to face bias in the workplace compared to male leaders. When employees are evaluated differently because of who they are rather than how they perform, an ethical dilemma arises for leaders and organizations. Thus, bridging role congruity and social identity leadership theories, we propose that gender biases in leadership evaluations can be overcome by manipulating diversity at the team level. Across two multiple-source, multiple-wave, and randomized field experiments, we test whether team gender composition restores gender equity in leadership evaluations. In Study 1, we find that male leaders are rated as more prototypical in male-dominated groups, an advantage that is eliminated in gender-balanced groups. In Study 2, we replicate and extend this finding by showing that leader gender and team gender composition interact to predict trust in the leader via perceptions of leader prototypicality. The results show causal support for the social identity model of organizational leadership and a boundary condition of role congruity theory. Beyond moral arguments of fairness, our findings also show how, in the case of gender, team diversity can create a more level playing field for leaders. Finally, we outline the implications of our results for leaders, organizations, business ethics, and society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    In accordance with King et al. (2013), we define a field experiment as “a method that uses random assignment to implement a manipulation relevant to working adult participants engaging in genuine tasks or with genuine outcomes in natural settings” (p. 502).

  2. 2.

    The true purpose of our study was unknown to the followers and leaders. We found similar gender compositions of leaders and teams in previous years without intervention, so we have no reason to believe that participants were aware of our study purpose or our manipulations.

  3. 3.

    Given the very subjective nature of the competition, which was organized and evaluated by a third party, we were unable to use these data as a team performance outcome.

  4. 4.

    The leaders of these teams did not closely follow the experimenters’ randomized assignments of participants to teams; as a result, these teams were also larger than the other 32 teams, F(1505) = 1640.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .77, providing additional justification to exclude them from Study 1.

References

  1. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,14, 20–39.

  2. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology,41, 63–105.

  3. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

  4. Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods,1(4), 355–373.

  5. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006.

  6. Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,56(4), 622–641.

  7. Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science,19(3), 268–275.

  8. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  9. Budig, M. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides the glass escalator? Social Problems,49, 258–277.

  10. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Current Population Survey. Retrieved from: www.bls.gov. Accessed 5 April 2018.

  11. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review,6(3), 263–296.

  12. Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology,71(2), 232–245.

  13. Castro, S. L. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlations, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly,13, 69–93.

  14. Catalyst. (2018). Women CEOs of the S&P 500. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org. Accessed 5 April 2018.

  15. Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376–399). Oxford: Blackwell.

  16. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  17. Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology,72(1), 97–106.

  18. Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches. The Leadership Quarterly,24, 798–821.

  19. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.

  20. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 611–628.

  21. Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,119(2), 265–273.

  22. Dutu, R. (2014). Women’s role in the Swiss economy. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1144, OECD Publishing.

  23. Dwertmann, D. J. G., Nishii, L. H., & van Knippenberg, D. (2016). Disentangling the fairness & discrimination and synergy perspectives on diversity climate: Moving the field forward. Journal of Management,42, 1136–1168.

  24. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

  25. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly,16, 459–474.

  26. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

  27. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Bulletin,109(3), 573–598.

  28. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,117, 125–145.

  29. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,111(1), 3–22.

  30. Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly,28, 104–129.

  31. Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011). The organizational socialization process: Review and development of a social capital model. Journal of Management,37, 127–152.

  32. Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,105(1), 14–35.

  33. Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,20, 434–451.

  34. Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Sleebos, E. (2013). Team-oriented leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology,98(4), 658–667.

  35. Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology,19, 588–607.

  36. Gloor, J. L., Li, X., Lim, S., & Feierabend, A. (2018). An inconvenient truth? Interpersonal and career consequences of “maybe baby” expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,104, 44–58.

  37. Hais, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,23(10), 383–399.

  38. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.5465/257055.

  39. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.

  40. Hernandez Bark, A. S., Escartin, J., Schuh, S. S., & van Dick, R. (2016). Who leads more and why? A mediation model from gender to leadership role occupancy. Journal of Business Ethics,139(3), 473–483.

  41. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5(3), 184–200.

  42. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

  43. Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social identity analysis. The Leadership Quarterly,17, 335–350.

  44. Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(5), 1248–1263.

  45. Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Science,59(7), 1514–1528.

  46. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  47. Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management,29(6), 801–830.

  48. Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass”? Journal of Business Ethics,118, 61–72.

  49. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal,29, 262–703.

  50. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology,82(5), 965–990.

  51. King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., Botsford Morgan, W., & Ahmad, A. S. (2013). Field experiments on sensitive organizational topics. Organizational Research Methods,16(4), 501–521.

  52. Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics,37(2), 145–164.

  53. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods,11, 815–852.

  54. Liu, Y., West, S. G., Levy, R., & Aiken, L. S. (2017). Tests of simple slopes in multiple regression models with an interaction: Comparison of four approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research,52(4), 1–20.

  55. Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2003). Identity, leadership categorization, and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 48–64). London: Sage.

  56. Monzani, L., Hernandez Bark, A. S., van Dick, R., & Peiro, J. M. (2014). The synergistic effect of prototypicality and authenticity in the relation between leaders’ biological gender and their organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics,132(4), 737–752.

  57. Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., VanVelsor, E., & the Center for Creative Leadership. (1994). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations?. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  58. Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2014). Scientific diversity interventions. Science,343, 615–616.

  59. Nekhili, M., & Gatfaoui, H. (2013). Are demographic attributes and firm characteristics drivers of gender diversity? Investigating women’s positions on French boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics,118(2), 227–249.

  60. O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics,80, 727–743.

  61. Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics,27, 321–334.

  62. OECD. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.

  63. Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual mediators. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6), 1129–1145.

  64. Perry, M. J. (2013). Stunning college degree gap: Women have earned almost 10 million more college degrees than men since 1982. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from www.aei.org. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  65. Perry, E. L., Davis-Blake, A., & Kulik, C. T. (1994). Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. The Academy of Management Review,19(4), 786–820.

  66. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569.

  67. Post, C. (2015). When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(8), 1153–1175.

  68. Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on the boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal,58(5), 1546–1571.

  69. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40, 879–891.

  70. Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102(2), 224–241.

  71. Rajan, R. G., & Wulf, J. (2006). The flattening firm: Evidence from panel data on the changing nature of corporate hierarchies. The Review of Economics and Statistics,88(4), 759–773.

  72. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  73. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(3), 629–645.

  74. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48, 165–179.

  75. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,57, 95–100.

  76. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues,57(4), 675–688.

  77. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager-think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior,17, 33–41.

  78. Sheppard, L. D., & Aquino, K. (2017). Sisters at arms: A theory of female same-sex conflict and its problematization in organizations. Journal of Management,43(3), 691–715.

  79. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods,13(3), 456–476.

  80. Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2014). 2014–2023 scenarios of higher education institutions-teaching staff. Retrieved from www.bfs.admin.ch/. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  81. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

  82. Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics,102, 299–317.

  83. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly,37(4), 549–579.

  84. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal,32(2), 402–423.

  85. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

  86. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

  87. van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,22, 1078–1091.

  88. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295.

  89. van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology,58, 515–541.

  90. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 25–37.

  91. Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., & Guenole, N. (2016). Placing job characteristics in context: Cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since 1975. Journal of Management,44, 352–386.

  92. West, T. V., Heilman, M. E., Gullett, L., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Magee, J. C. (2012). Building blocks of bias: Gender composition predicts male and female group members’ evaluations of each other and the group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48, 1209–1212.

  93. Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust and power. New York: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Steffen Giessner, Levke Henningsen, Alina Hernandez Bark, Steve Karau, Lucas Monzani, Christian Troester, Daan van Knippenberg, and Christian Voegtlin for their comments on previous versions of this manuscript, as well as our editor and three anonymous reviewers. This research was completed as part of the first author’s dissertation, which was conducted at the chair of Professor Bruno Staffelbach. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    • Jamie L. Gloor
  2. Business Administration, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
    • Jamie L. Gloor
    •  & Uschi Backes-Gellner
  3. Center for Human Resource Management, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
    • Manuela Morf
  4. College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
    • Samantha Paustian-Underdahl
Authors
  1. Search for Jamie L. Gloor in:
  2. Search for Manuela Morf in:
  3. Search for Samantha Paustian-Underdahl in:
  4. Search for Uschi Backes-Gellner in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie L. Gloor.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gloor, J.L., Morf, M., Paustian-Underdahl, S. et al. Fix the Game, Not the Dame: Restoring Equity in Leadership Evaluations. J Bus Ethics 161, 497–511 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3861-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Prototypicality
  • Trust