Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Bias Against Female Leaders: A Review

  • Chapter
Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women

Part of the book series: International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life ((IHQL))

Abstract

Substantial empirical evidence supports the existence of bias against female leaders. However, a closer examination reveals that much greater bias is exhibited in studies where hypothetical or laboratory-created leaders are studied, and little or no bias is exhibited against women who actually hold leadership positions. The present review examines the theoretical explanations for the bias against female leaders, the conditions when bias is most likely to occur, who is likely to show the most bias, strategies to eliminate bias, and suggestions for future research in this area.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact of firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 137–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1497–1540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaman, L., Duflo, E., & Pande, R. (2012). Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India. Science, 335, 582–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, G. W., Worthy, N. B., & Greyson, S. A. (1965). Problems in review: Are women executives people? Harvard Business Review, 43, 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2010). Occupations hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21, 1640–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckmüller, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., & Whitten, D. (2006). What men think about executive women. Harvard Business Review, 84, 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (1997). 1997 catalyst census of women board directors of the fortune 500. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/1997-catalyst-census-women-board-directors-fortune-500

  • Catalyst. (2007). The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/publication/83/the-double-bind-dilemma-for-women-in-leadership-damned-if-you-do-doomed-if-you-dont

  • Catalyst. (2012a). 2012 catalyst census: Fortune 500 research project. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500

  • Catalyst. (2012b). 2012 catalyst census: Fortune 500 women board members. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-board-directors

  • Catalyst. (2012c). Women in law in the U.S. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-us

  • Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social Problems, 57, 371–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, N. (2010, January 28). Getting women into boardrooms, by law. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com

  • Cooper, V. (1997). Homophily or the queen bee syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership. Small Group Research, 28, 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, J. J., & Stevenson, M. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: Plus ça change …. Sex Roles, 38, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Paola, M., Scoppa, V., & Lombardo, R. (2010). Can gender quotas break down negative stereotypes? Evidence from changes in electoral rules. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 344–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., & Sherman, D. A. (1997). Stereotypes and tacit inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 459–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N. (1993). Sociale identiteit en sekse: Het dilemma van succesvolle vrouwen. Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies, 14, 322–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. (2012). Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsesser, K. M., & Lever, J. (2011). Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64, 1555–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 357–414). Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D., Enstrom, E., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2007). Think leader, think male and female: Sex vs. seating arrangement as leadership cues. Sex Roles, 57, 713–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J., & Hoon, T. H. (1993). Rhetorical vision of men and women managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 46, 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyness, K., & Judiesch, M. K. (1999). Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 158–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martell, R. F. (1991). Sex bias at work: The effects of attentional and memory demands on performance ratings of men and women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1939–1960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations, 26, 483–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande, R., & Ford, D. (2011). Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. In Background paper, world development report: Gender equality and development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A. (2013, January 3). Day of records and firsts as 113th congress opens. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com

  • Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prothro, E., & Melikian, L. (1955). Studies in stereotypes: Familiarity and the kernel of truth hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schieman, S., & McMullen, T. (2008). Relational demography in the workplace and health: An analysis of gender and the subordinate-superordinate role-set. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49, 286–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. D., & Moore, K. K. (1985). Executive women–20 years later. Harvard Business Review, 85, 42–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Census Bureau. (2003). Occupations: 2000. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-25.pdf

  • Warning, R., & Buchanan, F. R. (2009). An exploration of unspoken bias: Women who work for women. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24, 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions. Social Problems, 39, 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Study of Women, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Kim M. Elsesser

Authors
  1. Kim M. Elsesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim M. Elsesser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management College of Business Administration, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, USA

    Mary L. Connerley

  2. Department of Management and Marketing School of Management, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

    Jiyun Wu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Elsesser, K.M. (2016). Gender Bias Against Female Leaders: A Review. In: Connerley, M., Wu, J. (eds) Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women. International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9897-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9897-6_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9896-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9897-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation