This review article posits that the scarcity of women at the upper levels of organizations is a consequence of gender bias in evaluations. It is proposed that gender stereotypes and the expectations they produce about both what women are like (descriptive) and how they should behave (prescriptive) can result in devaluation of their performance, denial of credit to them for their successes, or their penalization for being competent. The processes giving rise to these outcomes are explored, and the procedures that are likely to encourage them are identified. Because of gender bias and the way in which it influences evaluations in work settings, it is argued that being competent does not ensure that a woman will advance to the same organizational level as an equivalently performing man.

Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder.

This article reviews research on the evaluation of women and men who occupy leadership roles. In these experiments, the characteristics of leaders other than their sex were field constant, and the sex of the leader was varied. These experiments thus investigated whether people are biased against female leaders and managers. Although this research showed only a small overall tendency for subjects to evaluate female leaders less favorably than male leaders, this tendency was more pronounced under certain circumstances

Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.

Journalists and authors of trade books increasingly assert a female advantage in leadership, whereby women are more likely than men to lead in a style that is effective under contemporary conditions. Contrasting our analysis of these claims with Vecchio's [Leadersh. Q. 13 (2002) 643] analysis, we show that women have some advantages in typical leadership style but suffer some disadvantages from prejudicial evaluations of their competence as leaders, especially in masculine organizational contexts. Nonetheless, more women are rising into leadership roles at all levels, including elite executive roles. We suggest reasons for this rise and argue that organizations can capture the symbols of progressive social change and modernity by appointments of women in key positions.

/pdf/the-female-leadership-advantage-an-evaluation-of-the-si5vz81mq0.pdf

The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence

A total of 242 subjects participated in 3 experimental studies investigating reactions to a woman's success in a male gender-typed job. Results strongly supported the authors' hypotheses, indicating that (a) when women are acknowledged to have been successful, they are less liked and more personally derogated than equivalently successful men (Studies 1 and 2); (b) these negative reactions occur only when the success is in an arena that is distinctly male in character (Study 2); and (c) being disliked can have career-affecting outcomes, both for overall evaluation and for recommendations concerning organizational reward allocation (Study 3). These results were taken to support the idea that gender stereotypes can prompt bias in evaluative judgments of women even when these women have proved themselves to be successful and demonstrated their competence. The distinction between prescriptive and descriptive aspects of gender stereotypes is considered, as well as the implications of prescriptive gender norms for women in work settings.

Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks.

There has been much research and conjecture concerning the barriers women face in trying to climb the corporate ladder, with evidence suggesting that they typically confront a ‘glass ceiling’ while men are more likely to benefit from a ‘glass escalator’. But what happens when women do achieve leadership roles? And what sorts of positions are they given? This paper argues that while women are now achieving more high profile positions, they are more likely than men to find themselves on a ‘glass cliff’, such that their positions are risky or precarious. This hypothesis was investigated in an archival study examining the performance of FTSE 100 companies before and after the appointment of a male or female board member. The study revealed that during a period of overall stock-market decline those companies who appointed women to their boards were more likely to have experienced consistently bad performance in the preceding five months than those who appointed men. These results expose an additional, largely invisible, hurdle that women need to overcome in the workplace. Implications for the evaluation of women leaders are discussed and directions for future research are outlined.

The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over‐Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions

This study investigated the extent to which sex role stereotypes influence the evaluation of leadership behavior. Male and female business students were administered one of two versions of a questionnaire containing four stories, each depicting a leadership style based on one of the following leadership dimensions: initiating structure, consideration, production emphasis, and tolerance for freedom. Managers' names were altered in the two versions to indicate males or females. Answers to eight evaluative questions for each of the leadership styles confirmed the hypothesis that sex has an effect on evaluations of managerial behavior, although the effect varied for different leadership styles. Female managers received more positive scores than male managers on the consideration style. Initiating structure behavior was valued more highly when engaged in by male managers. Manager sex had no significant influence on evaluations of the production emphasis and tolerance for freedom styles. Sex of subject effects also were noted on all but the consideration style. While the low representation of women in managerial ranks has been gaining increasing attention, few studies have focused on the managerial effectiveness of women. Almost all of what is known about managerial effectiveness is based on research using males as subjects. At the same time, evidence suggests that women are not perceived as having the potential to manage. This is particularly true among male managers who would be in a position to promote women to managerial positions. For example, in a Bowman, Worthy, and Greyser (1965) study that sought managerial opinions about women executives, 51% of the male respondents agreed that women are "temperamentally unfit for management." Gilmer (1961) found that over 65% of the male managers in his study felt that women would be inferior to men in supervisory positions.

D A Butterfield

Papers

Sex effects in evaluating leaders.