Advertisement

Gender-Fair Language in the Context of Recruiting and Evaluating Leaders

  • Lisa K. HorvathEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In many languages, masculine forms are still used as generics to address both women and men, although a variety of gender-fair forms (e.g., feminine-masculine word pairs) are available. The following chapter first gives a short introduction to the field of gender-fair language. This is followed by an overview on empirical findings revealing which chances gender-fair language provides for achieving more gender-equality in the leadership context. The ramifications can be found on several levels: For instance, when leadership positions are advertised with gender-fair forms (instead of masculine forms), both female and male individuals are more willing to apply, they are equally likely to be hired, and organizations are perceived more positively with regard to gender-equality. Moreover, implications for society are discussed and some brief recommendations how to use gender-fair language in German are provided.

References

  1. 1.
    AG Feministisches Sprachhandeln der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2014). Was tun? Sprachhandeln—aber wie? W_ortungen statt Tatenlosigkeit! http://feministisch-sprachhandeln.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/onlineversion_sprachleitfaden_hu-berlin_2014_ag-feministisch-sprachhandeln.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Bem, S., & Bem, D. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bojarska, K. (2011). Wpływ androcentrycznych i inkluzywnych płciowo konstrukcji językowych na skojarzenia z płcią. Studia Psychologiczne, 49(2), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2002). Das generische Maskulinum und die Alternativen: Empirische Studien zur Wirkung generischer Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen. Germanistische Linguistik, 167/168, 77–87.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2005). Cognitive effects of masculine generics in German: An overview of empirical findings. Communications, 30, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundesministerium für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst (2009). Geschlechtergerechte Stellenausschreibungen. Unabhängiger Bericht der Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft iS § 3 Abs 5 GBK/GAW-Gesetz. Wien. http://www.bundesregierung.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34384.
  7. 7.
    Chancellerie fédérale (2000). Guide de formulation non sexiste. http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04908/05037/index.html?lang=En-US.
  8. 8.
    Chatard, A., Guimont, S., & Martinot, D. (2005). Impact de la féminisation lexicale des professions sur l’auto-efficacité des élèves: Une remise en cause de l’universalisme masculin? L’année psychologique, 2, 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(5), 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deutsches Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (2006). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/BJNR189710006.html.
  11. 11.
    Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Europäisches Parlament (2009). Geschlechtergerechter Sprachgebrauch im Europäischen Parlament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2009/0001/P6_PUB(2009)0001_DE.pdf.
  13. 13.
    European Parliament (2008). El lenguaje no sexista en el Parlamento Europeo. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2009/0001/P6_PUB%282009%290001_ES.pdf.
  14. 14.
    Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., Sarrasin, O., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Au pairs are rarely male: Norms on the gender perception of role names across English, French, and German. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23(11/12), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19(11/12), 785–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2009). The global gender gap 2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heise, E. (2000). Sind Frauen mitgemeint? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verständnis des generischen Maskulinums und seiner Alternativen. Sprache und Kognition - Zeitschrift für Sprach- & Kognitionspsychologie und ihre Grenzgebiete, 19(1/2), 3–13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hellinger, M., & Busmann, H. (2001, 2002, 2003). Gender across languages, Vols. 1, 2, 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hodel, L., Formanowicz, M., Sczesny, S., Valdrova, J., & von Stockhausen, L. (2014). Gender references in job advertisements—relations to job status and gender equality. Amsterdam: Paper presented at the 17th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2013). Attracting women (and men) to leadership positions through gender-fair language. EAWOP Small Group Meeting “Gender Equality in Organizations: The Impact of Stereotypical Perceptions and Gender Differences”, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2015). Reducing the lack of fit for women with leadership: Effects of the wording of job advertisements? Manuscript accepted for publication in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horvath, L., Heilman, M. E., & Sczesny, S. (2015). Deserved credit with linguistic visibility: The impact of gender-fair language on female leaders evaluation. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Irmen, L., & Rossberg, N. (2004). Gender markedness of language: The impact of grammatical and nonlinguistic information on the mental representation of person information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 272–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kompetansesenter for likestilling og Norsk Språkråd (1997). Kjønn, språk, likestilling. http://www.sprakrad.no/Sprakhjelp/Raad/Kjoenn/.
  27. 27.
    Ministerium für Justiz, Frauen, Jugend und Familie des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (2000). Mehr Frauen in die Sprache. Leitfaden zur geschlechtergerechten Formulierung. https://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-frauen/sprache.pdf?start&ts=1188881015&file=sprache.pdf.
  28. 28.
    Mucchi-Faina, A. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social Science Information, 44, 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Pauwels, A. (1998). Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile. Linguistik online, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., Caswell, T. A., & Laakso, E. K. (2012). The gendering of language: A comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender and genderless languages. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sczesny, S., Moser, F., & Wood, W. (2015). Beyond sexist beliefs: How do people decide to use gender-inclusive language? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(7), 943–954.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social Communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 37(6), 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    UNESCO (1999). Guidelines for gender-neutral language. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf.
  38. 38.
    Vervecken, D., & Hannover, B. (2012). Ambassadors of gender equality? How use of pair forms versus masculines as generics impacts perception of the speaker. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(6), 754–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professur für Forschungs- und WissenschaftsmanagementTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations