Sex Roles

, Volume 33, Issue 9–10, pp 669–686 | Cite as

Preferential selection and stereotypes: Effects on evaluation of female leader performance, subordinate goal commitment, and task performance

  • Kay E. McGlashan
  • Patrick M. Wright
  • Blaine McCormick
Article

Abstract

In a laboratory setting, 135 undergraduate students (69 male, 66 female; approximately 98% white) completed a mock class scheduling task led by a female confederate who was chosen either preferentially or by merit. Results indicated that (1) subordinate evaluations of female leader performance were not affected by preferential selection, but were significantly related to degree of non-traditional views held toward female managers; (2) commitment to the goal assigned by the female leader was not lessened by preferential selection, but also was significantly related to degree of non-traditional views toward female managers; and (3) subordinate performance on the scheduling task was significantly related to commitment to the leader-assigned goal.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84 191–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.American Psychologist, 37 122–147.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Farrell, J. L., L'Heureux-Barrett, T. J., & Conway, J. M. (1991). Impact of gender-related job features on the accurate evaluation of performance information.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48 23–25.Google Scholar
  4. Beere, C. A. (1990).Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chacko, T. I (1982). Women and equal employment opportunity: Some unintended effects.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 119–123.Google Scholar
  6. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 80–85.Google Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 111 3–22.Google Scholar
  8. Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36 378–390.Google Scholar
  9. Garland, H., & Price, K. H. (1977). Attitudes toward women in management and attributions for their success and failure in a managerial position.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 29–33.Google Scholar
  10. Heilman, M. E. (1984). Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33 174–186.Google Scholar
  11. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 935–942.Google Scholar
  12. Heilman, M. E., & Herlihy, J. M. (1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33 204–213.Google Scholar
  13. Heilman, M. E., Kaplow, S. R., Amato, M. A. G., & Stathatos, P. (1993). When similarity is a liability: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 917–927.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46 202–216.Google Scholar
  15. Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 99–105.Google Scholar
  16. Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 62–68.Google Scholar
  17. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 212–220.Google Scholar
  18. Hollenbeck, J., Klein, H., O'Leary, A., & Wright, P. (1989). An investigation of the construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 951–956.Google Scholar
  19. Hollenbeck, J., Williams, C., & Klein, H. (1989). An empirical examination of antecedents of commitment to difficult goals.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 18–23.Google Scholar
  20. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions.Research in Organizational Behavior, 1 341–423.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W. (1977). Women as leaders: Performance evaluation as a function of method of leader selection.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20 149–157.Google Scholar
  22. Lenney, E. (1981). What's fine for the gander isn't always good for the goose: Sex differences in self-confidence as a function of ability area and comparison with others.Sex Roles, 7 905–924.Google Scholar
  23. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980.Psychological Bulletin, 90 125–152.Google Scholar
  24. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 821–831.Google Scholar
  25. McMahan, I. D. (1982). Expectancy of success on sex-linked tasks.Sex Roles, 8 949–958.Google Scholar
  26. Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness? The dynamics of preferential treatment and minority interest.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8 177–191.Google Scholar
  27. Nieva, B., & Gutek, V. (1981).Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Read, P. B. (1974). Source of authority and the legitimation of leadership in small groups.Sociometry, 37 189–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 95–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 340–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Singer, M. E., & Singer, A. E. (1991). Justice in preferential hiring.Journal of Business Ethics, 10 797–803Google Scholar
  32. Stoppard, J. M., & Kalin, R. (1983). Gender typing and social desirability of personality in person evaluation.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7 209–218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kay E. McGlashan
    • 1
  • Patrick M. Wright
    • 1
  • Blaine McCormick
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations