Research documents a heightened need for women leaders to be perceived as both agentic and communal and to deal with the incongruity between communal gender-role expectations and agentic leader-role expectations. However, paradoxical tensions exist between agency and communion because they are associated with distinct, and at times conflictual, cognition, behavior, and motivation. How women leaders manage these tensions remains under-explored. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted an inductive study based on interviews with 64 U.S. women executives from various industries. Drawing from a paradox lens, we first identified four pairs of apparently contradictory agentic and communal tendencies that are interwoven in women leaders’ narratives: demanding and caring, authoritative and participative, self-advocating and other-serving, and distant and approachable. We also identified five mechanisms through which women leaders bring together agency and communion: situational accentuating, sequencing, overlapping, complementing, and reframing. Our findings highlight the underlying mechanisms and constructive routes through which women leaders juxtapose agency and communion to cope with role incongruity. They also offer guidance to women leaders and leadership-development practitioners in expanding mental models and behavioral repertoires to deal with the challenges stemming from tensions between agency and communion.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406.
Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214537811.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bell, E. L. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways. Boston: Harvard Business.
Bell, E. L. E., Meyerson, D., Nkomo, S. M., & Scully, M. (2003). Interpreting silence and voice in the workplace: A conversation about tempered radicalism among Black and White women researchers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(4), 381–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886303260502.
Bem, S. L., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077098.
Billing, Y. D. (2011). Are women in management victims of the phantom of the male norm? Gender, Work & Organization, 18(3), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00546.x.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc..
Carli, L. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. L. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 89–113). Greenwich: JAI.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-35126.96.36.1990.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 347–365). Los Angeles: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218403.n25.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x.
Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00405.x.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0.
Denissen, A. M. (2010). The right tools for the job: Constructing gender meanings and identities in the male-dominated building trades. Human Relations, 63(7), 1051–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349922.
Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Brighton: Harvard Business Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573.
Eagly, A., Makhijani, M., & Klonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090375.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
Ferguson, T. W. (2017). Female leadership and role congruity within the clergy: Communal leaders experience no gender differences yet agentic women continue to suffer backlash. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0803-6.
Frimer, J. A., Walker, L. J., Dunlop, W. L., Lee, B. H., & Riches, A. (2011). The integration of agency and communion in moral personality: Evidence of enlightened self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023780.
Gershenoff, A. B., & Foti, R. J. (2003). Leader emergence and gender roles in all-female groups: A contextual examination. Small Group Research, 34(2), 170–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402250429.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009.
Hackman, M. Z., Hills, M. J., Furniss, A. H., & Paterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gender-role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(1), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.19188.8.131.521.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341.
Hall, R. J., Workman, J. W., & Marchioro, C. A. (1998). Sex, task, and behavioral flexibility effects on leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2754.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.
Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: Obstacles to women’s career progress. In S. R. Thye & E. Lawler (Eds.), Social psychology of gender (pp. 47–77). Boston: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0882-6145(07)24003-2.
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(6), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.74.6.935.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(4), 237–252.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.
Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2006). ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 10(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00316.x.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-e.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.2469/dig.v43.n5.1.
Imhoff, R., & Koch, A. (2017). How orthogonal are the big two of social perception? On the curvilinear relation between agency and communion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616657334.
Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1639–1665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607075266.
Jorgenson, J. (2002). Engineering selves: Negotiating gender and identity in technical work. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 350–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318902153002.
Jurma, W. E., & Powell, M. L. (1994). Perceived gender roles of managers and effective conflict management. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 104–106. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19184.108.40.206.
Karelaia, N., & Guillén, L. (2014). Me, a woman and a leader: Positive social identity and identity conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.08.002.
Kark, R. (2004). The transformational leader: Who is (s) he? A feminist perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530593.
Kark, R. (2017). Androgyny. In V. Zeigler-Hill & K. T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–7). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1041-1.
Kark, R., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In J. Chrisler & D. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 443–468). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5_19.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 620–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.012.
Kark, R., Karazi-Presler, T., & Tubi, S. (2016a). Paradox and challenges in military leadership. In C. Peus, S. Braun, & B. Schyns (Eds.), Leadership lessons from compelling contexts (pp. 157–187). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-357120160000008031.
Kark, R., Preser, R., & Zion-Waldoks, T. (2016b). From a politics of dilemmas to a politics of paradoxes: Feminism, pedagogy, and women’s leadership for social change. Journal of Management Education, 40(3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916634375.
Kempster, S., & Parry, K. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010.
Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1335–1346. https://doi.org/10.2307/256675.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557.
Kyriakidou, O. (2011). Negotiating gendered identities through the process of identity construction: Women managers in engineering. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151211199209.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707712.
Lewis, P. (2013). The search for an authentic entrepreneurial identity: Difference and professionalism among women business owners. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(3), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00568.x.
Lipińska-Grobelny, A., & Wasiak, K. (2010). Job satisfaction and gender identity of women managers and non-managers. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 23(2), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10001-010-0015-6.
Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4), 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428079.
Loughlin, C., Arnold, K., & Crawford, J. B. (2012). Lost opportunity: Is transformational leadership accurately recognized and rewarded in all managers? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151211199218.
Marshall, J. (1995). Working at senior management and board levels: Some of the issues for women. Women in Management Review, 10(3), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649429510085071.
Martell, R. F., Parker, C., Emrich, C. G., & Crawford, M. S. (1998). Sex stereotyping in the executive suite: “Much ado about something”. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(1), 127–138.
Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207.
Mavin, S., & Grandy, G. (2012). Doing gender well and differently in management. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(4), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211244768.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2017). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594.
Moor, A., Cohen, A., & Beeri, O. (2015). In quest of excellence, not power: Women’s paths to positions of influence and leadership. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 1–11.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636.
Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/258559.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095043.
Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist, 35(10), 902–910. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.35.10.902.
Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-35220.127.116.119.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3518.104.22.1684.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00235.
Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). Engendering identity: Toward a clearer conceptualization of gender as a social identity. Sex Roles, 73(11–12), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0536-3.
Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: An analysis of women leaders’ use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008092363.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6.
Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.002.
Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787024.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330958.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196737.
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1994). “Let me put it this way, John”: Conversational strategies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90067-1.
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.
Tushman, M. L., Virany, B., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Executive succession, strategic reorientations, and organization evolution: The minicomputer industry as a case in point. Technology in Society, 7(2–3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791x(85)90031-4.
Vinkenburg, C. J., van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.003.
Vonk, R., & Ashmore, R. D. (1993). The multifaceted self: Androgyny reassessed by open-ended self-descriptions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(4), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786664.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895.
Willig, C. (2012). Qualitative interpretation and analysis in psychology. London: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00243.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.
We obtained IRB approval for our project, protocol number # H2014 - T096, from the University of Wisconsin—River Falls. We faithfully followed the IRB protocol in data collection, analyses, and protection. Informed consent was obtained before each interview.
Conflict of Interest
There is no potential conflict of interest as related to our research project.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Zheng, W., Surgevil, O. & Kark, R. Dancing on the Razor’s Edge: How Top-Level Women Leaders Manage the Paradoxical Tensions between Agency and Communion. Sex Roles 79, 633–650 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0908-6
- Gender roles