Advertisement

Gender Bias Against Female Leaders: A Review

  • Kim M. ElsesserEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (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.

Keywords

Female leaders Gender Leadership Bias Discrimination Management Stereotypes Queen bee Quotas Glass cliff 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., & Whitten, D. (2006). What men think about executive women. Harvard Business Review, 84, 28–29.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Catalyst. (2012a). 2012 catalyst census: Fortune 500 research project. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500
  13. Catalyst. (2012b). 2012 catalyst census: Fortune 500 women board members. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-board-directors
  14. Catalyst. (2012c). Women in law in the U.S. Retrieved from www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-us
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, N. (2010, January 28). Getting women into boardrooms, by law. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com
  17. Cooper, V. (1997). Homophily or the queen bee syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership. Small Group Research, 28, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deal, J. J., & Stevenson, M. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: Plus ça change …. Sex Roles, 38, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunning, D., & Sherman, D. A. (1997). Stereotypes and tacit inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ellemers, N. (1993). Sociale identiteit en sekse: Het dilemma van succesvolle vrouwen. Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies, 14, 322–336.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, S. J., & Hoon, T. H. (1993). Rhetorical vision of men and women managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 46, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Parker, A. (2013, January 3). Day of records and firsts as 113th congress opens. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989).Google Scholar
  48. Prothro, E., & Melikian, L. (1955). Studies in stereotypes: Familiarity and the kernel of truth hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager – Think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55–60.Google Scholar
  59. Sutton, C. D., & Moore, K. K. (1985). Executive women–20 years later. Harvard Business Review, 85, 42–66.Google Scholar
  60. United States Census Bureau. (2003). Occupations: 2000. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-25.pdf
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions. Social Problems, 39, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Study of WomenUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations