Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 132, Issue 4, pp 737–752 | Cite as

The Synergistic Effect of Prototypicality and Authenticity in the Relation Between Leaders’ Biological Gender and Their Organizational Identification

  • Lucas MonzaniEmail author
  • Alina S. Hernandez Bark
  • Rolf van Dick
  • José María Peiró


Role congruity theory affirms that female managers face more difficulties at work because of the incongruity between female gender and leadership role expectations. Furthermore, due to this incongruity, it is harder for female managers to perceive themselves as authentic leaders. However, followers’ attributions of prototypicality could attenuate this role incongruity and have implications on a managers’ organizational identification (OID). Hence, we expect male managers to be more authentic and to identify more with their organizations, when compared to female managers who are low in prototypicality. We hypothesized that authentic leadership dimensions mediate the relation between managers’ biological gender and their OID. However, this indirect effect is conditional of these managers' team prototypicality. For testing these hypotheses, we conducted an online experiment with 149 participants (M age = 43.42 years; SD = 11.41; 43 % female) from different work sectors using a 2 (participants’ biological gender) × 2 (team prototypicality: low vs. high) between-subject design. As predicted, men scored higher on authentic leadership, and three dimensions partially mediated the effect of participants’ biological gender on OID. In the low team prototypicality condition female managers scored lower in authentic leadership and identified less with the organization, whereas in the high team prototypicality condition, no gender differences were found.


Authentic leadership Role congruity theory Team prototypicality Gender Managerial socialization Organizational identity 



This study was funded by three research grants (ECD/3628/2011 available at BOE-A-2012-680; CICYT,PSI2012-36557 and PROMETEO 2012/048) and conducted by the research Institute on Personnel Psychology, Organizational Development, and Quality of Working Life (IDOCAL) of the University of Valencia (Spain) and the Center for Leadership and Behavior in Organizations (CLBO) at Goethe University Frankfurt. The authors would like to thank Prof. Steffen Giessner, for his early comments on this study’s design.


  1. Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33; discussion 43–47. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25.
  3. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avolio, B. J., & Mhate, K. (2011). Advances in theory and research on authentic leadership. Authentic leadership: A research review. In G. M. Spreitzer and K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0059.
  6. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Exploring the dynamics of incongruent beliefs about women and leader. British Journal of Management, 22, 254–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00731.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W. (1975). Effects of work load, role ambiguity, and Type A personality on anxiety, depression, and heart rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 713–719. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catalyst. (2012). Women in Europe. Retrieved from
  15. Catalyst. (2014). U.S. women in business. Retrieved from
  16. Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243–255. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987.tb00257.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R., (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 151–192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Dawson, J. F. (2013). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology,. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.Google Scholar
  21. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1983). Components of gender stereotypes. Psychological Documents, 13, 25.Google Scholar
  22. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of women, men, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivational science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 209–226. doi: 10.1177/0022022104272902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior. A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459–474. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eagly, L. L. C. A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 796–816. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and Laissez-Faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Escartín, J., Ullrich, J., Zapf, D., Schlüter, E., & Van Dick, R. (2013). Individual and group level effects of social identification of workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 182–193. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.647407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. European Commission. (2013). Women and men in leadership positions in the European Union 2013. Retrieved from
  35. Eurostat. (2013). Tertiary educational attainment by sex, age group 30–34. Retrieved from
  36. Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 235–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01493.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.116.3.429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, 14–35. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guerrero Witt, M., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guest, D. (2004). Flexible employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee outcomes: An analysis and review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00094.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hayes, A. F. (2012, February). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.Google Scholar
  47. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269–298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  48. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 237–252.Google Scholar
  49. Hernandez Bark, A. S., Escartin, J., & van Dick, R. (2014a). Gender and leadership in Spain: A systematic review of some key aspects. Sex Roles, 70, 522–537. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0375-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hernandez Bark, A. S., Van Quaquebeke, N., & van Dick, R. (2014b). Frauen und Führung: Aktuelle Erkenntnisse der Wissenschaft [Women and leaderhip: Recent insights oft he scientific research]. In A. Cisik & J. Sauer (Eds.), Deutschland führen die Falschen. Wie sich Unternehmen ändern müssen [Germany the wrong people are in charge: How organizations have to change]. Berlin: Helios Media.Google Scholar
  51. Hernandez Bark, A. S., Escartín, J., & van Dick, R. (2014c). Who leads more and why? A serial mediation model from gender to leadership role occupancy. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  52. Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–1185. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. House, R. J., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. W. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. Applied Psychology, 50, 489–505. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi: 10.1037/a0023557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27. doi: 10.1002/job.234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management,. doi: 10.1177/0149206312457822.Google Scholar
  59. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi: 10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1530–1556. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01689.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership, Self, and Identity, 16, 547–568. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007.Google Scholar
  67. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership. In Scientific American Mind (p. 133). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  68. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rodriguez-Molina, I., Bravo, M. J., Peiró, J. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The demands-control-support model, locus of control and job dissatisfaction: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 15, 97–114. doi: 10.1080/02678370110066968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rubery, J. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: The impact of the EU employment strategy. Industrial Relations Journal, 33, 500–522. doi: 10.1111/1468-2338.00250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 732–762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager–think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17:1<33:AID-JOB778>3.3.CO;2-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schuh, S. C., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P., & van Dick, R. (2014). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 363–379. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they see my true self? Leader’s relational authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 304–332. doi: 10.1080/13594320902754040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1978). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  78. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  79. Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235–244. doi: 10.1037/a0012936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. United Nations (2010). The World’s Women 2010. Trends and statistics. New York: United Nations Division. Retrieved from
  81. Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265–283. Retrieved from
  82. Van Dick, R., & Schuh, S. C. (2010). My boss’ group is my group: Experimental evidence for the leader-follower identity transfer. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 551–563. doi: 10.1108/01437731011070032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 245–297). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  84. Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  88. Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 889–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucas Monzani
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alina S. Hernandez Bark
    • 2
  • Rolf van Dick
    • 2
  • José María Peiró
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.IDOCAL - Universidad de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and Sports Sciences and Center for Leadership and Behavior in OrganizationsGoethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.IVIE - Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones EconómicasValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations